Image Credit: house.gov accessed 2007-05-18.
Republicans are having trouble telling the country the real truth about terrorism, so what's new?
BBSNews 2007-05-18 -- In a shot heard 'round the Internet, Ron Paul decisively showed the Republican field up for their not actually reading the 9/11 Commission Report, or apparently any history at all of why Islamic fundamentalists attack Western interests. It's not because "they hate our freedom" it is largely due to decades of interventionist foreign policy that supported even the likes of Osama bin Laden himself until the US turned on him. It's a good bet that any progressive worth their weight in salt and who has Internet access has seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam back when the US wanted to make sure he prevailed against Iran and yet they would ignore the plain truth in a bid to get elected. That's not patriotism, that's selling out American security for cynical political gain.
|
|
|
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.
Image Credit: house.gov accessed 2007-05-18. |
Republicans are muchly afeared of the soft-spoken Ron Paul who has facts on his side and is not easily bought by religious right wingers and other special interests who like their GOP candidates predictable and on the same page of "God, Guns and Gays." And when faced with factual well-reasoned discourse about the root causes of terrorism, from a man of principle who voted against the Iraq war from the beginning, it positively makes them tremble behind their handlers. Which is odd given that Paul is "pro-life" and pro-gun and as a Libertarian he is not enamored with the idea of giving special rights to minorities.
During the most recent GOP debate held in South Carolina Ron Paul was talking about when Republicans used to be very concerned with following the US Constitution, they were following sound principles set forth by the Founders and non-intervention and an aversion to war were important GOP principles. When pressed on whether the attacks on September 11th should have changed Republican principles to become more interventionist (and war-like) Ron Paul said:
"No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)"
And then the Fox News debate moderator misunderstood the clear answer given by Paul and asked, "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?"
"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."
| Fox News Poll Results |
|
Mitt Romney: 29% Source: Ron Paul Campaign |
Now Rudy Giuliani is practically frothing at the mouth ready to explode and show the country that he has not learned a single thing about the root causes of the attacks and that apparently the 9/11 Commission Report was not on his reading list by jumping in and saying:
"Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)"
Either Giuliani is lying outright here or he failed to read page fifty-one of the 9/11 Commission Report that put forward just such an explanation:
"Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?" Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you."These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.
Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind."
If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."
Either Giuliani owes Ron Paul an apology for taking a cheap political shot at an applause line or he owes the American people an explanation for not reading the 9/11 Report. And right-wing bloggers who were reveling in the idea that Giuliani had scored somehow by making light of Paul's factual and reasoned response are just deluding themselves and their readers.
Although a couple of staunch conservatives did see through the ruse.
Andrew Sullivan said it first after the debate:
"Paul, in contrast, had the balls to state the classic Republican position, and to defend it in the wake of 9/11. Man, that guy has some brass cojones. He even invoked Ronald Reagan in urging withdrawal from the irrationality of Arab politics ... Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11."
And then today Patrick Buchanan who no one can accuse of being a "hippie" made a thorough and thought provoking statement that rang true instead of the usual right-wing sound bite pap put forth by those more shrill and less reasoned. In Town Hall he wrote:
"When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective."
The entire article is a must read for those who want a good overview of the true meaning of the Ron Paul - Rudy Giuliani debate moment. And he brings up another good point about crass Republican fear that the public will find out how they misled the country into war. Buchanan mentions that there is a movement afoot to keep Paul from future debates as they don't want to face "intolerable truths."
That would be Michigan Republican party chairman Saul Anuzis, who said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from other debates. It's pure stark fear on the part of the Grand Old Party to stoop so low.
The Paul campaign put out some numbers on how the debate actually scored over at Fox News (Paul beat Giuliani by 6 points) and they had this to say about the debate:
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report."Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."
Democrats should also do themselves a favor and follow this up themselves. Why hasn't Rudy Giuliani read the 9/11 Commission Report?
Comments (0)