Posted on 05/20/2007 6:35:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
During the recent Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul spoke the truth about U.S. Middle East policies and faced down attacks by hostile fellow presidential candidates. Ron Paul, a Republican congressman running for president, is saying what needs to be said about the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war. Clearly, his rivals and the news media can't handle the truth. At the most recent Republican debate, Paul not only repeated his opposition to the illegal and unconstitutional war, but he also identified 50 years of U.S. intervention in the Middle East as "a major contributing factor" in al-Qaeda's attacks in 2001.
"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack[ed] us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East," Paul said.
Paul thus becomes the first person in mainstream politics--he's been in Congress many years--to acknowledge that U.S. foreign policy has had bad consequences not only for people in the Middle East but for Americans at home as well. A government cannot take sides in so many deep-seated conflicts for as long as the U.S. government has without acquiring enemies and provoking retaliation.
It doesn't take much knowledge of history and human nature--not to mention the official 9/11 Commission report--to see this. It's about time it was said in such a prominent forum.
Of course, the reaction was stunningly absurd.
FOX News questioner Wendell Goler asked Paul a stunningly absurd and disingenuous follow-up question. FOX News questioner Wendell Goler said in follow-up, "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?"
Let's examine the question. To invite something is to desire the thing invited. Paul suggested no such thing. And who is "we"? Goler's question implies that Paul was saying the American people or "America" invited the attacks. But Paul was talking about American policymakers, not the American people. So the question was way off the mark and may have been an attempt to bait Paul.
He wouldn't take the bait. "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it," he said. In other words, the people who masterminded the attack did not say they did it because we Americans are rich or free or non-Muslim. Their grievances relate to systematic U.S. intervention in the region: in particular, the presence of troops near holy sites in Saudi Arabia; a 10-year bombing campaign and killer embargo on Iraq (beginning in 1991), which cost hundreds of thousands of lives; and support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Rudolph Giuliani, also running for the nomination, responded demagogically, "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 would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
"If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred," said Congressman Paul, "then we have a problem." Of course, Paul never said "we invited the attack." And he didn't back down under Giuliani's grandstanding: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about 'blowback.' When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem."
In saying "blowback," Paul was using the CIA's term for the unintended bad consequences of a government operation. He specifically mentioned Iran in 1953, when the Eisenhower administration sent the CIA to help drive an elected secular prime minister from office and return the despotic shah to power. The result was the 1979 Islamic revolution, the seizure of the American embassy, complete with hostages, and close to 30 years of hostility, with war perhaps to come.
U.S. imperialist polices in the Middle East have been good for special interests and power-loving politicians, but bad for the American people. Someone in government has finally had the courage to say so.
Thank you, Ron Paul.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of The Freeman magazine.
Democrats, leftists, and terrorists everywhere deeply appreciate your contribution to the defeat of America.
I heard this on TV the other day:
“Ron Paul for President - Because Lyndon LaRouche isn’t running”
No kidding! Whatever your feelings about libertarian domestic policy, their foreign policy is pathetic.
Those of us who support President Bush’s war against terror really need to figure out what to do.
We are being sold out on the right and the left now.
The consequence is danger in the field and at home.
We probably get involved in too many affairs that really aren't our business;but when we do go in,we ought to be sure to mobilize enough resources to do it right.
Uh...more like that our very prescence and dominance on the world scene offends and humiliates them (with some references to our failure to pay the Dhimmt owed them), and that they believe we are so decadent that we won't defend ourselves, and if we do, it won't last for long until we turn away. They are upset because we non-Muslims set foot on holy land that other Muslims asked us to, for their defense. The foreign policy that they most object to is our existence without subservience.
Please explain why the “isolationist” policy was “fine” during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century when the U.S. was encircled on all sides by major (usually hostile powers): Britain to the North, France to the West, and Spain to the South. One would think, if your theory is accurate, that isolationism would have been the worst policy under such circumstances. Actually, our policy of avoiding foreign policies and entangling alliances made sense now (when we were actully more threatened on our borders) just like it does now.
I meant to say avoiding “foreign bases”
Glad that's settled. Now, maybe we can figure out why Muslims rape women in Sweden. Oh, yeah, they say it's because the victims dress provocatively. Got it.
Oh, and why do the Mafia order hits on witnesses? Oh, yeah, they said it's because the witnesses testify against them.
Gee, with the Ron Paul method, we can get to the root of all of the world's problems. Just ask the perps what their reasons are!
Good one!
You didn’t have air flight like you have today with jumbo jets that carry lots of people that can be flown into buildings causing mass casualties.
A strange argument. Where did these jumbo jets fly from? Hint: it wasn’t from the Middle East.
We fought more damn wars than you could shake a stick at. We’ve never been isolationist for any length of time.
Ron Paul is not “isolationist”.
Ping.
There, all fixed.
Republicans need to ignore this Ron Paul nut and keep our focus and energy on someone who can actually win the White House in 2008.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.