But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?

Buchanan.org ^ | May 18th, 2007 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Remember_Salamis]

But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9/11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous – the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

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.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9/11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles – after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse – but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

May 18, 2007

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire.

[Revenge of Sith]

“do not let muslims into the U.S.”

Of course, the same libertarians who oppose US policy in the Middle East also advocate open borders.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, it’s the other way around. The strongest supporters of U.S. policy in the Middle East are typically big-government globalists who see the eradication of borders as part of their globalist agenda.

[Revenge of Sith]

“The strongest supporters of U.S. policy in the Middle East are typically big-government globalists who see the eradication of borders as part of their globalist agenda.”

I don’t see the globalist Democratic Party supporting Israel and the war in Iraq.

[Alberta's Child]

What do you think the Clinton administration was all about?

[Revenge of Sith]

Clinton’s half assed responses to terrorist attacks and Iraqi ceasefire violations made America look weak and emboldened bin Laden. Also, Palestinians gained more concessions from Israel under Clinton than any other US president.

[Alberta's Child]

Clinton promised to have U.S. troops out of Bosnia by sometime in the late 1990s. They're still there to this day, and there are plenty of NATO troops added to that group after the Kosovo/Serbia military campaign of 1999 -- which was a globalist, empire-building war from start to finish.

I've long suspected that if George H. W. Bush had won in 1992 and/or Bob Dole had won in 1996, nothing would have been any different with regard to U.S. foreign policy during that time.

[Revenge of Sith]

“a globalist, empire-building war from start to finish.”

And it was not an action that Ron Paul blamed for 9-11.

[Steel Wolf]

So saying that resentment of American influences generally, or even US government actions specifically, motivated 911 is a different proposition from excusing 911, ...

Different, perhaps, but equally incorrect.

While al-Qa'ida latched on to widespread discontent in the Muslim world about Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Isreal, they did that with the intent to manipulate and to exploit. It's not genuine, insofar as AQ and company aren't going to stop once those problems are solved.

Because if you say that "Al-Qa'ida is a world wide grievance absorption machine," what do you think the Democratic Party is?

I wouldn't seriously compare the two, but if you look broadly at any political party, you'll find coalitions of special interests under a larger umbrella organization. Al Qaida is a political movement more than a religious one, anyway. Like our political parties, their intra-group ties to each other may be loose, and some may be only marginally compatible.

Groups without grievances don't vote. Or kill, for that matter. But those that do, will.

[fortheDeclaration]

If I were in Ron Paul's position, I would have made the following statement: "The United States has been involved in a major military campaign in the Middle East over the last 17 years, ostensibly to accomplish the following goals: 1) to restore an Islamic royal family to the throne in Kuwait; 2) to protect an Islamic royal family (one of the world's biggest and most notorious supporters of radical Islam around the globe) in Saudi Arabia; and 3) to establish a nation in Iraq in which Islam is enshrined as the official state religion. If this bizarre chain of events makes sense to anyone, then please fill me in on what the hell is going on here." "And if you think 9/11 -- along with all of the other various acts of terrorism that we've dealt with (and/or prevented) over the last decade -- has had nothing to do with any of this, then you're delusional."

The United States has been involved in the Middle East to 1. To protect the one true democracy in the region and our ally, Israel.

2. To keep the region free from any enemy that may shut off the flow of oil.

3.9/11 was a result of our weakness in responding to Islamic terrorism, not our 'interference' in the region.

If you think that our actions are the reason for 9/11 then it is you who is delusional.

All one has to do to see how delustional is look at the other nations that Al Quada has hit as well as us.

Militant Islam needs to reason to hate us, as Rep Tancendo stated, it is part of their religion!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Because if you say that "Al-Qa'ida is a world wide grievance absorption machine," what do you think the Democratic Party is?

I wouldn't seriously compare the two, but if you look broadly at any political party, you'll find coalitions of special interests under a larger umbrella organization. Al Qaida is a political movement more than a religious one, anyway. Like our political parties, their intra-group ties to each other may be loose, and some may be only marginally compatible.

Of course the two are different, but if you look at the complaining professions - journalism, the plaintiff bar, unionist, race-baiting extortionist, what have you - you find serious links to the Democratic Party. Either they contribute serious money, or time, or - in the case of journalism - they actually define what "liberalism" is. One thing to say that the Democratic Party doesn't murder Americans, and another to say that the Democratic Party doesn't cause catastophes for Americans (See Iraq War, the. They voted for it, before they voted against it).

[SwordofTruth]

I would say neither are right. But Ron Paul is a lot closer to being right than the rest are.

[rmlew]

Islamist sympathiser.

In the real world, the Islamists have hated us for a long time. Back in 1949, Sayid Qutb called us decadent. He was scandalized by a church social, probably because no woman was interest in him.

Go read Milestones by Qutb, who was Al Zawahiri's mentor. You will understand wat we are dealing with.
This is man who wants thde whole world conquered for radical Islam.

[neutronsgalore]

“Good luck reasoning with the “Americans always good, Arabs always bad” crowd. IMO, The best way to get along with muslims is to disconnect - have as little to do with them as possible - do not let muslims into the U.S. and do not send U.S. troops into muslim countries like Iraq.”

I agree. There shouldn’t even be a single Muslim allowed into this country. I was sickened by the proposals to bring in thousands of Iraqi refugees. I have no doubt among them would be those that have pulled triggers on, or set off bombs against, our troops.

I’d rather see every penny of what we’re spending on Iraq pumped into the construction of coal-to-oil and thermal depolymerization facilities with the goal of wiping out all dependency on ME oil. Then we can ban it’s importation. Once there’s no strategic value left in the ME, we can leave it to rot, and Europe to pick up the entire tab of defending it if they need it’s oil.

[Remember_Salamis]

"our view is the same reason why Liberal judges let criminals go free (they are not resonsible)"

Ron Paul DID NOT make a case for direct causation. He said it is a major contributor to why they hate us. He approved the authorization to retaliate against al-Qaida -- does that mean anything to you?

Here's a good analogy. It is universally recognized that the Treaty of Versailles gave rise to the Nazis. By your reasoning, I would be "blaming America" for Nazism. See the difference?

To take your law enforcement analogy:

Nearly all conservatives believe that welfare causes crime to go up, yes? By your logic, I would be "blaming America" for that crime.

Or use the drug war. The only reason that drugs are expensive is because they are illegal, and the reason that there is drug-related gang violence is to fight over these inflated prices. By your logic, I would be "blaming America" for murder.

Or take Columbine. Many say that the killers were influenced by the movie "The Basketball Diaries" to commit their crimes, but that in NO WAY makes the basketball diaries responsible for the murders. Understand?

By pointing out contributing factors to a crime, you are in no way excusing the actions of thew perpetrator.

[Remember_Salamis]

Although your idea is plausible, the other hypothesis, espoused my most experts, has far more evidence to back it up.

Either everybody in al-Qaida is making everything up, or he is not.

And there is direct empirical evidence about his anger at the Saudis over US troops on their soil. It caused UBL's departure from Saudi in the first place.

I don't see them pursuing killing as an end in itself. That would be like saying that the Japanese invaded China to "kill Chinese People", not to conquer China.

[fortheDeclaration]

"our view is the same reason why Liberal judges let criminals go free (they are not resonsible)" Ron Paul DID NOT make a case for direct causation. He said it is a major contributor to why they hate us. He approved the authorization to retaliate against al-Qaida -- does that mean anything to you?

I did not say he made a direct causation, but it was implicit in the statement.

In other words, if we had not been bombing them for 10 years 9/11 would not have happened since they would not have hated us.

That is the subtle meaning behind the statement.

Now, if that is not true, the statement about us bombing them is irrelevant.

So either one or the other is true, you can't have it both ways.

Is our bombing them for 10 years in anyway a cause for 9/11 or not?

Here's a good analogy. It is universally recognized that the Treaty of Versailles gave rise to the Nazis. By your reasoning, I would be "blaming America" for Nazism. See the difference?

Frankly, I have never brought that argument that the Treaty of Versailles was a cause for the rise of Nazism.

That is the view of the liberal economist Keynes

I take the view of Ludwig Von Mises, who Ron Paul greatly admires, that the Treaty was not unfair or overely burdersome.

All one has to do is look at the peace terms the Germans put on the Russians when they quit the war to see how fair it was.

The war resulted because the Allies did not enforce the terms of the Treaty (sounds like Iraq), and allowed the Germans to rearm.

In fact, it was the U.S. taxpayers who paid the debt for Varsailles since we lent the Germans the money to pay the reparations and they never paid us back.

To take your law enforcement analogy: Nearly all conservatives believe that welfare causes crime to go up, yes? By your logic, I would be "blaming America" for that crime.

I have never heard of Conservatives blame welfare for crime.

Conservatives blame the individual for crime and that is why we hold that individual responsible and not society.

As for Ron Paul and his support on the WOT, I would be very interested in seeing a position paper that would state how he would wage it if President.

Or use the drug war. The only reason that drugs are expensive is because they are illegal, and the reason that there is drug-related gang violence is to fight over these inflated prices. By your logic, I would be "blaming America" for murder.

Now, the one who is doing the drugs is responsible for his own crime.

Your argument was the one to end Prohibtion, that if liquor wasn't illegal, the mob would have nothing to profit from.

Well, they just switched to other vices, like drugs.

A criminal always remains a criminal.

Or take Columbine. Many say that the killers were influenced by the movie "The Basketball Diaries" to commit their crimes, but that in NO WAY makes the basketball diaries responsible for the murders. Understand?

How about having access to guns?

Would a Conservative accept that as an excuse?

Islam hates us because it hates everyone who is not Muslim.

Islam by its very creed is at constant war with all non-Muslim nations since it believes it is its God (Allah) right to make the world a Muslim one.

By pointing out contributing factors to a crime, you are in no way excusing the actions of thew perpetrator

Ofcourse you are, since the only real issue is their own will to commit the crime.

Contributing factors are only introduced to deflect total guilt to the individual.

If what you is saying is true, then everyone who is exposed to the same factors would commit the same crime-and they don't.

The difference is always the will and that is where responsiblity lies.

We had good reasons to bomb them for 10 years and have now even better ones for continuing to do so until they completely pay for their crimes and are completely humbled.

As Churchill said about the German, the same can be said about the Arab, they are either at your throat or your feet.

[Remember_Salamis]

You are right; the perpetrator of a crime is the one responsible. Neither myself or Paul ever said otherwise.

[fortheDeclaration]

You are right; the perpetrator of a crime is the one responsible. Neither myself or Paul ever said otherwise.

I am glad we agree, but that is not what Paul stated.

He gave the terrorists an excuse.

As I said, I look forward to a position paper on what he would do to win the WOT.

And I have always been a strong Ron Paul supporter.

[Remember_Salamis]

He voted to fully retaliate against al-Qaida and the Taliban. He is actually very upset that we are giving billions of dollars a year to the Pakistanis, while they haven't done a thing to round up al-Qaida since the beginning of the Iraq War.

Paul believes in swift, overwhelming retaliation for any attack, which is as sound a policy as you can have. He also wants the borders sealed off so that we don't get attacked again; a terrorist could walk across the southern border tomorrow and there would be no way to stop him.

[fortheDeclaration]

It is during this time bin Laden learned to practice terror; tragically, with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn’t until 1991 during what we refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil that brought out the worst in him.

Of course, it isn’t our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war.

Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We ignore this history at our own peril.

The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated the Gulf of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating the Persian Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The attack on the USS Cole was a warning we ignored.

Furthermore, our support for secular governments in the moderate Arab countries is interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their region than they want. There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by the radicals as favoring one faction over another in the long lasting Middle East conflict add to the distrust and hatred of America.

The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed hatred is now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most part are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few. And now the innocent suffer.

I am hopeful that shedding light on the truth will be helpful in resolving this conflict in the very dangerous period that lies ahead. Without some understanding of the recent and past history of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf we cannot expect to punish the evildoers without expanding the nightmare of hatred that is now sweeping the world.

Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and security to our country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is essential. But extricating ourselves from a holy war that we don’t understand is also necessary if we expect to achieve the above-mentioned goals. Let us all hope and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the peace and tranquility we all desire.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm