Wheeler, who once was one of the late Rothbard's closest friends -- which he'll never admit to any more -- knows very well that Rothbard was not a founder of the Libertarian Party, and was an avowed opponent of it in the most strenuous terms when his associates and ideas were not accepted in its councils and conventions. He detested the idea of such a Party for its first five years, worked with it despite great reluctance for the next seven, and denounced it furiously for the following ten.
Rothbard was, however, a founder of the Cato Institute. He departed from that organization in a furious personal dispute with then and current head Ed Crane, and when Cato turned its applications of Rothbardian and other libertarian ideas to real-world politics, with considerably diluted (though still pointed) rhetoric.
Wheeler's generalizations about Rand vs. Rothbard (ignoring Austrian economics and other influences), about supposed support for monolithic efforts at "defending America," and about Bush's and Ashcroft's witches' brews of potential repression all fail so fully that I'm not going to waste my time on them. This is a commentator who was spurned by those in the libertarian movement who saw him pronouncing beyond his intellect's limits, who was shut out of several inner circles, and who has never forgiven them for it.
Rothbard's formidable intellectual and informed polemical achievements stand for themselves, despite Wheeler's (and other parasites') quotes out of context. Pick up For a New Liberty or his Man, Economy, and State (which even Mises praised) for a counter-dose to this screed. LewRockwell.com has an extensive bibliography with links to collections of his shorter writing, as well. Mises.org has several of Rothbard's books available for free on line.
Don't take Wheeler's bitter diatribe about such a champion of human liberty at face value.
Is Wheeler's charge true or false?