My good friend, the psuedonym blogger TheoNorth has “blog slapped” Katie and I for our posts (mine, Katie’s) on Ron Paul’s statement at the second Republican Presidential debate. While I nurse my non-existent wounds from a faceless ghost blogger, I have a few things to say.
Theo’s argument can easily be broken down into three pieces:
1. Ron Paul was blaming America’s foreign policy for 9/11, not blaming America for 9/11. Isolationism would have had less “blowback”.
2. Isolationism is the wrong response in the 21st century. (So Ron Paul is the wrong President for the 21st century because he supports isolationism?)
3. To exploit Ron Paul’s flub and Guiliani’s use of 9/11 is “aping” and “chest pounding”
(Oh and don’t forget his cheap shot on Fred Thompson at the end, classy.)
Theo:
Paul’s intention was not to blame America for 9/11 or to say that we “invited†the attacks, but simply to use the well-established theory of blowback as a support for his isolationist position.
The terrorists are killing our citizens and our troops who are attempting to help innocent Iraqis. Does it really matter whether the terrorists are attacking us because we are free Americans or because we wrongly interfered in their poltics with some past foreign policy faux pas? Regardless, Ron Paul should have come right out and said we did not invite the attacks. Our foreign policy approach stems from an attempt to promote stability and democracy, something the vast majority of the Middle Eastern non-terrorists support. Answering a “did we invite 9/11?” question with “we need to talk to our attackers (the terrorists)” is ridiculous.
The issue here is that Ron Paul appeared to be making excuses for reasons the terrorists had every right to attack us after our forces came to liberate Iraq. He presents everything in the light of an occupation (vs liberation) when he states:
They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is 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 have been asked to build these bases, the embassy and everything else in Iraq including schools, santitation stations, housing facilities, roads and other buildings. Why? Because the terrorists have been “objecting” or as most of us say “exploding” in public squares, villages and schools for way too long. The Iraqi people are tired of it and are more than happy to accept our help. Of course, terrorists don’t like it and try to respond. Terrorism, jihad and genocide against the Jews is just so much harder when American soldiers are around.
Ron Paul ignored something else, we have not had a terrorist “object” or “destroy” anything on American soil since 9/11. Why? Precisely because we are in Iraq, shoring up their government and protecting a fledgling democracy that is in dire need. Show me one positive example of a nation that “listened to those who attacked them” in the past and somehow resolved a conflict. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
As Theo stated, isolationism is the wrong approach but, he thinks our foreign policy should have been different. Regardless of the party involved, Theo is Monday morning quarterbacking our foreign policy choices, we can only deal with the circumstances now, and to suggest we talk with those who killed thousands of our citizens and soldiers is ludicris, watch some of their videos, they don’t care about about where we are or who we are, as long as we are Christians or Americans, they will hate us, attempt to kill us and “object”.
Guiliani’s indignation over Paul’s statement was justified, Paul was not interrupted, the bell had gone off and the things he said quite obviously implied a portion of the reponsibility for 9/11 belongs to the United States. Why else would we talk to the terrorists? He bumbled the question, and whether he meant to or not, implied some portion of US blame for 9/11, no amount of blowback warrants 9/11. We won’t negotiate with them, our intentions for a more free and democratic world are right out there in the open, if they don’t like our support of a free Iraq no amount of talking or isolationism will help.
Last 5 posts by Brandon- The Graphic Effect of High Taxes and Spending, Move on out! - June 16th, 2010
- Live from the 2010 Wisconsin GOP Convention - May 22nd, 2010
- Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention 2010 - May 21st, 2010
- Charts: Artificial American Recovery? - April 15th, 2010
- Liberal Professor to Teach FUELMilwaukee "Government 101" - April 14th, 2010
Brandon, don’t you agree that our foreign policy that armed bin Laden in the first place in the name of fighting Communism was probably misguided? I can’t say anything about the rest of it, but that always has bothered me.
I think from our current prospective it definitely was but, at the time we chose the lesser of what we thought were two evils. Regardless of whether our approach at the time was misguided, it certainly doesn’t justify the killing of American soldiers or citizens nor should it be stated that it “invited” it.
Or even implied through an indirect answer to a question that could have been answered “No but,”.
First of all, Ron Paul is not an “isolationist”. He is a non-interventionist. Big difference there. Also, he never used the word “invited” in the debate. That was a word Fox News used to try and twist his words and make him look bad.
“Liberated”. Ha. Liberated from Saddam? Who put him there and gave him his weapons? I suppose you think we liberated Iran too? Lookup Operation Ajax which Ron Paul also mentioned. You know what else hasn’t been played enough is his reference to Reagan taking the troops out of Lebanon and how Reagan described middle east politics. Good grief. The majority of Iraqi’s want us out NOW!
“invited” was in the question, in a debate, you answer the question. It’s not some Fox News conspiracy.
The longer American troops stay in the Middle East, the more Muslims will hate us. There are two choices: get out and stop the ones that already hate us from coming into the country, or try to kill them all over there. The second will only produce more terrorists.
Can you people PLEASE go away?
You’re making this blog completely unreadable. It’s like we’re dealing with the conservative/Republican/libertarian version of Lyndon Larouche and the Larouche Youth here.
Put down the kool-aid and step away from the computer. Some fresh air might do you some good.
Wow. First learn about Ron Paul and his platform before writing something like this.
Brandon-
On you political analysis: Don’t give up your day job. Outside of your small circle of right wing friends, you are joke. Good day.
so much for civil discourse Ricky, lets here yours?
Ron Paul would work to cut the size of federal government in half, most other Republican candidates (especially the front runners) can plausibly be expected to grow the size of federal government.
Ron Paul wants Congress to formally declare war for the war on terror. All other Republican candidates are probably fine with a simple “authorizing the use of force” without goals, objectives or endgame.
Nobody would work to lower taxes more than Ron Paul.
Ron Paul’s paradigm on the Middle East resonates well with 60-70% of America, the War in Iraq paradigm for most of the other Republican candidates does not resonate well with most Americans and is the reason why Democrats control majorities in the House and Senate (and maybe partially responsible for losing 6 state governors, as well).
Nobody is more leery of the United Nations than Ron Paul.
Ron Paul wants to actually secure our borders and does not support amnesty. Many other Republicans drag their feet on immigration, support amnesty and do not commit to secured borders.
Listen to Ron Paul, in his own words, on Tuesday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....h_response
Conservatives should love Ron Paul.
When Republicans demonize Ron Paul and elevate Rudy Guiliani, big government politicians and Bush’s foreign policy then in my humble opinion, the future of conservative ideas in Washington is bleak.
Henry-
I hate to break this to you, but you can’t cast 13,548 online votes for Ron Paul in a real election (unless you’re in WI since you don’t have to show voter ID). Nor does blog spamming count as real votes either.
And yes, I have read the platform. He’d save himself a lot of money on a web designer and bandwith if he just summed it up in three words: everything is unconstitutional.
Sorry, not gonna happen. I suggest moving on now.
This post was merely to isolate this issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I would vote for Ron Paul far before I would ever vote for Guiliani. However, I don’t think that the American people are necessarily ready for Ron Paul. We’ll see, I will keep an open mind.
but you can’t cast 13,548 online votes for Ron Paul in a real election (unless you’re in WI since you don’t have to show voter ID)
Zing! They do have good coordination though.
I think you are misguided.
If you want to know why we were attacked, maybe you should read Bin Ladens Fatwah where he explained his reasoning
Maybe you should read the non-partisan 911 Commission report.
Maybe you should listen to current and ex CIA analysts.
If you did, you would see the reasons revolve around:
our involvment in the mid-east.
our support of israel over palistine
occupation of ’2 holy places’ – militairy bases in saudi and iraq.
Ron paul was simply quoting the available evidence, which it would appear you are ignorant of.
[...] Ron Paul from further Republican debates on the grounds that his views had proven to be simply too incompatible with Party principles. I sent out a notice to a few friends and other bloggers and didn’t [...]
When you publish something on the Internet, that means anybody can look at it. When you open it up to comments, that means anyone can comment.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. They are different. Educate yourself please.
The GOP Leader in Michigan wants to ban Ron Paul from future debates
http://www.battlecreekenquirer...../305170009
“Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful.†–Saul Anuzis, Chairman of Michigan Republican Party
Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, said the candidate “is supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it’s a shame when people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint.â€
Forbidden ideas? Banning people from debate? It is true, before the first George Bush, traditional conservative policy certainly seemed to be more humble. If nothing else, Ron Paul is a healthy influence on every other Republican candidate and certainly should not be banned from speaking at debates.
For all this fuss, I really don’t believe Ron Paul even said or implied what many people assume he may have, based on Guiliani’s response.
brad-
I am aware of these facts, the error that I highlighted above is that they are not justification for “inviting” 9/11. They can and should be discussed but, not in the context of 9/11 justification.
Chuck-
I am going to post on that, I read it earlier today and I think it’s ridiculous. He may have bumbled his answer but he is still a conservative that deserves a voice.
“Good grief. The majority of Iraqi’s want us out NOW!”
Not true.
26% of Iraqis want us out now.
http://factcheck.org/article366.html
Also in the findings was “The rest generally prefer that US forces remain until a new Iraqi government is in place, at least, or until security is restored or until Iraqi troops can operate on their own.”
Awesome! All in all, I think this debate about the debate we are having is productive and fun.
Related note:
Ron Paul, has never said or implied America “invited” the attack on 9/11
At 2:35 in the clip
Hannity: Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9/11?
Ron Paul: No, I think that is a cop-out. When people imply that, what you are saying is that if you do not endorse my foreign policy then you are un-American.
At 3:03 in the clip
Hannity: Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of the people that would cause them to want to kill us?
Ron Paul: I think they contribute significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us and anyone who has done any research has found out…
[Hannity interrupts]
At 3:17 in the clip
Hannity: What did America do to cause the attack on 9/11?
Ron Paul: The Americans didn’t do anything to cause it but policies over many years caused and elicited hatred toward us so somebody was willing to commit suicide. For instance: the occupation with our military troops on their holy land in Saudi Arabia, bombing a Muslim country for ten years, putting on sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of people.
[Hannity interrupts]
heh, forgot the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....mp;search=
“Good grief. The majority of Iraqi’s want us out NOW!â€
Not true.
According to a BBC poll (Dateof article: 3/19/.2007) 35% want the coilition forces gone now. that is up from 2005 but it is still not anywhere close to a majority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffi.....iraq.shtml
“Asked how long coalition forces should remain in Iraq, only 35% said they should leave at once, while 63% said they should go only after security was better and the capacity of the Iraqi government and security forces had improved.”
Mr. Paul stated what was in the 9/11 commision report. To denounce Mr. Paul’s positiion without also doing do for the comission report is to be at best imcomplete and ignorant, at worst dishonest.
It is sad that our response is so simplistic in beliving that Mr. Paul was stating that America “deserved” or was “asking for” 9/11. When we realize that we can incorporate a good handiling of “Blowback” into our overall forgien policy, we can really start to secure this nation.
As for the statement about no attacks since 9/11, Clinton didn’t have any forgein terrorist attacks on US soil after the 1993 bombing of the WTC. The current administration still has a year to go before it reaches that record. It is imperative that our evaulations of our current security readiness be done in both the short and long term.
Does it really matter whether the terrorists are attacking us because we are free Americans or because we wrongly interfered in their poltics with some past foreign policy faux pas?
Seriously? It’s not that we caused 9/11, but perhaps there should be a realization that when we attack anyone perhaps they might fight back. An interesting notion, I know.
Logan,
9/11 in no way can be construed as defense. It’s sad that has to be pointed out to you.
[...] it is to listen to terrorists, according to the very “marketplace” theory he supports. As Brandon said, we simply don’t negotiate with terrorists. If we allow terrorism to be a means for a voice [...]