Ron Paul Tells The Truth About Attacks By Terrorists; Giuliani Exposed As Clueless, Unfit To Be President
REP. RON PAUL on target; Iraq war-backers are ones who are ‘insane, off the wall and out of whack.’By John Lofton, Editor
Rudy Giuliani said that what Rep. Ron Paul did was “extraordinary” and the Texas Republican should say he didn’t mean it. Jed Babbin, Editor of “Human Events,” says what Paul did was “insane.” Michigan GOP State Chairman Saul Anuzis says that because what Paul did was “off the wall and out of whack” he should be barred from future Republican Party Presidential candidate debates. And, of course, warmonger Sean Hannity was outraged by what Paul did.
Yikes! So, what did Ron Paul do? Did he moon the audience? Shoot up heroin on-stage? Recite from memory at least one Republican Party Platform promise that has been broken?
Well, no. But, Paul did do something “extraordinary,” which is to say not ordinary – he told the truth in a political debate!
Here’s some of what Ron Paul said in the GOP candidate debate on Fox News (5/3/07) re: the 9/11 attacks. He’s addressing one of the Fox News reporters:
Paul: 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’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.
Giuliani: 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.) And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)
Paul refused saying, in part: “If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”
A little later, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), sad to say, gratuitously disassociates himself from Paul saying: “And although my dear friend Ron here — I dearly love and really respect, but I’ll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not that — whether Israel existed or didn’t, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it’s a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.”
Well, now. For more than 14 centuries Koranic Islam has dictated the killing of “infidels” such as “us.” But only recently (relatively speaking) have “they” been trying to kill “us” over here. Why? Because what Ron Paul says is correct – they attack us because we’ve been over there in the Middle East.
And the fact that Rudy Giuliani rejects as “absurd” a view that might be called foreign policy physics — actions cause reactions – shows he is extraordinarily ignorant of the way the world works. The fact that he readily admits he doesn’t think he’s ever heard the kind of thing Paul said reveals him to be dangerously uninformed.
But, back to what Ron Paul said. His “extraordinary, insane, off the wall and out of whack” view is the same as that reported in a November, 2004, report issued by the prestigious Defense Science Board (DSB), a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense. Citing several polls showing widespread animosity against the U.S. in the Muslim world, this report says:
SPEAKING OF ‘EXTRAORDINARY,’ Rudy Giuliani, obviously oblivious to Deuteronomy 22-5, has, more than once, in public, as a gag — call it a drag gag — for some cause, appeared in female clothing.“Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”
The report adds, re: this hostility to America: “Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities….
“If there is one overarching goal [these hostile Muslims] share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the ‘apostate’ regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive….
“American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits [in public opinion polls] in some Arab societies….
“Yet the world of Islam — by overwhelming majorities… at this time — see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical, and American actions as deeply threatening. In other words, they do not hate us for our values, but because of our policies” (all emphases mine.)
In “The 9/11 Commission Report,” in a section titled “The Foundation Of The New Terrorism,” the question is asked: “How did Bin Ladin — with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans – win thousands of followers and some degree of approval for millions more?” Answer: “He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.” Bin Ladin’s charges, this “Report” says, “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.
In his book “A Foreign Policy For Americans” (Doubleday, 1951), the late Senator Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio) wrote:
“I have written this book to emphasize the fact that the freedom of the people of the United States is in serious danger from the foreign policy of the present Administration. I have frequently written of the danger to liberty at home from the constant increase in the activity, the spending, and the power of the Federal Government, but today the threat from foreign policy is even greater.
“We have wandered far from its true purpose to preserve the peace and liberty of the people of the United States. Even when the purpose has been correctly understood, mistakes of judgment have led us into dangerous paths. We are embarked on a voyage at this moment in which a continued failure of understanding and judgment may wreck the greatest adventure in freedom the human race has ever known….
“If we are foolish in our use of our strength, we shall not survive; and with our freedom will disappear the little that remains of freedom in the rest of the world. Power without foresight leads to disaster….
“Our international relations have been conducted with so little foresight…Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have not failed us. Our political leaders have.”
Amen! And, alas, foreign policywise, we’re in the same situation today but with no Bob Taft in the Senate. We do, however, have Ron Paul in the House and for this we should be thankful.
A footnote lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying and do not believe that we should refuse to be somewhere just because the people in or near that somewhere object and might try to kill us for being there. If our national security truly depends on our being somewhere, we should be there – period!, regardless of whether this upsets some folks.