Thanks to Matthew Barganier at the antiwar.com blog for calling attention to this gem from Rand:

“Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn’t left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression-in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won’t fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.

In Soviet Russia, there aren’t very many innocent ones-and they’re mainly in concentration camps.”

So I guess the Iraqis who died because of the US invasion had it coming since they just didn’t get up and leave! Rand also believed that the US had a moral right to invade “slave pens” like Cuba and the Soviet Union. I am unaware if the immorality of turning our country into a slave pen as a result of the crusade against evil ever crossed her mind.

Mr. Barganier is also collecting nominations for the title of the most obnoxious liberventionist.

For me, it is a tie between Virginia “I’m better than Sadam, therefore I am without sin” Postrel and Rush Limbaugh wannabe and PATRIOT Act apologist Neal Boortz. Boortz will be a feautred speaker at this year’s Libertarian Party convention, even though he advocates federal spying on, and harassment of, anti-war demonstrators, a group which includes a good number of LP members — and the GOP thinks they have a Big Tent!