Friday, May 18, 2007

Pat Buchanon hits the nail on the head

From Townhall.com

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 what he really meant by it."

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.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

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.

Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .

Pat Buchanan completely nails this. Dr. Ron Paul has opposed the Iraq war from day one; something Hillary Clinton cannot say. He has been steadfast in his opposition.

Now a group of Republicans is circulating a petition to remove him from all future debates. So much for free speech.

Mike Sylvester

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is a naive when he judges motivation of others based on his own experience. He should have educated himself what islamists goals and motivations are. They openly said so: concur, convert and kill. Completely irrelevant of the M/E wars. As far as Pat is concerned, I don't think he has been credible for some time, just google for it.

The inefficiency of our government and military is another matter and it is a positive outcome that their failures are exposed.

nic

Kody Tinnel said...

I watched the debate and have been following all of the coverage of it since.

Giuliani does not know what he is talking about. He acts as if he was the only one who had to deal with 9/11. That unfortunate event is the only reason he is even running for President right now. Without that he is essentially nothing. I strongly believe he is trying to take advantage of his 9/11 stance as long as he can to try to prove that he is somehow more patriotic than the other candidates.

Anyone who doesn't like Ron Paul because of his comments clearly does not understand what he was saying or why he feels that way.

I will also add that I strongly agree with his positions on foreign policy.

And I actually do agree with Giuliani's positions on abortion and gay rights, but he is not Presidential material, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Robert Enders said...

If they kick Paul out of the debates, it will only make more people want to hear what he has to say. They have every legal right to kick anyone they want out of the debate, but they will let Paul stay if they are smart. Which probably means they won't let Paul stay....

Tim Zank said...

Three words: RUN FRED RUN

Parson said...

With some of the goobers the Democats are offering me as presidential candidates, Ron Paul might be the guy to get my vote.

It's sad how a political party turns against it's own people. Just like here in town with the recent mayor primary. The 2 republicans seemed to be going after each other more then anyone else.

Tim Zank said...

Per Pat Buchanan: "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?

Well, Pat, you said "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." just two paragraphs before. So which is it?

They want us there?

Or they don't want us there?



Pompous old gas bag.

Eric Dondero said...

Question for all you Ron Paul supporters.

Do you view Al Qaeda as a threat to the United States?

Do you subscribe to the belief that 9/11 was an "inside job" and that maybe our own government was behind it?

Do you think Radical Muslims are all just fine guys who think we Americans have an overly agressive foreign policy, and if we just pulled out of their countries they'd just leave us alone?

Tim Zank said...

Eric, I'm reasonably sure Mike will disagree with you, but I think you ask some very pertinent questions.

Robert Enders said...

Eric,
I agree that Al Qaeda is a threat to the US. Ron Paul did vote for the authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He is agaist the US occupation of Iraq, but not the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

Tim Zank said...

Robert, how do you square that pesky 9-11 theory he seems fond of?