Thursday, May 17, 2007


Quite a few hardcore Bush conservatives are gleefully slapping each other silly in the twilight of the last debate, over Rudy Giuliani's heated remarks towards Ron Paul on the matter of 9/11.

My initial feeling is that Bush supporters are afraid of Paul, because he's rather skilled at offering solutions to problems that the Republicans have failed to solve. Giuliani supporters don't like him because he's not liberal enough. Both groups have been praying for a moment to come for Paul to "screw up" in front of a camera, and thus clear the way for them to gain the nomination without ever having to give straight, informed answers to anything. During the debate, many thought that moment had finally come.

In case you've missed the media uproar, here's a partial transcript of the exchange:
Paul: Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. 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 think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Giuliani: Wendell, 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.

The astute observer will note that Paul did not say that we invited anyone to attack us. He asked, "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?" and then summarized the terrorists' own stated reasons.

Giuliani's chastising of Paul is seen by many as a touchdown in the arena of politics. The problem these people going to face - hopefully sooner than later - is what to do when it begins to hit the news cycle that Paul's answer was quite accurate.

From the Canada Free Press:
Equally important, it turns out that Paul's point - that the 9/11 attacks were linked to U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East - was factually correct. Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" specifically mentioned the situation in Iraq, blaming the U.S. for the impact of economic sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime. Bin Laden accused the U.S. of "aggression" against Iraq and the record shows that his anti-Americanism was motivated, at least in part, by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.

Yet, Giuliani claimed "I don't think I've heard that before," in reference to Paul's citation of some of these facts. One would think that "America's Mayor" and "Mr. 9/11" would understand the genesis of the attacks that took almost 3,000 American lives.

The blind followers of Republican dogma should stop their victory dance for a moment and consider who actually lost this exchange. Giuliani looked passionate, for sure. But in a rush to defend his image as "America's Mayor", he also looked rather uninformed on the deeper background of the terrorists' motives behind 9/11.

It's been said that if you repeat a lie long enough, and loudly enough, eventually people believe it to be the truth. Those of you that believe we were attacked because we watch Mtv, let our women wear skirts, and drink alcohol are sadly mistaken. The terrorists had their reasons to attack us; they've even gone to the trouble of writing them down for easy reference. If one wishes to understand their hatred, it would be prudent to read what they themselves offer as explanation.

The full article is here, and well worth reading. Thanks go to Radley for pointing the way.


Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is brave and has a chance at winning IF enough grassroots take over. It will be an uphill battle. I'm for Ron Paul all the way. But 9/11 was an inside job.

Tanstaafl said...

First of all, it's difficult to take anything the jihadis say out loud to the West at face value, because they are infamous for their use of disinformation and outright lies.

Second, their outrage over our presence in Arabia and Iraq was, at least in part, caused by the fact that we are infidels, or Crusaders as they prefer to call our soldiers. They see everything in terms of their faith. They are obsessed with infidels, heretics, martyrdom, holy war, and the will of Allah.

You seem convinced their hatred has nothing to do with MTV. Have you not heard of Sayyid Qutb and his disgust with even the tame culture of 1950s America?

Read the Looming Tower for a window into the jihadi mind. Hint: the story begins long before Americans ever set foot in Arabia.

thorn said...

I've no problem believing that they loathe the fact that we are infidels, and that they find our culture sadly lacking.

However, I find it more plausible to believe that they chose to *attack* Americans because of what we've done with our bombs and tanks in the past.

To compare - we haven't now gone to war with them because of dhimmi, but because they blew up some buildings.

Believe me when I say that I don't claim the terrorists are justified. But Clinton's bombing runs were a bigger contributor to 9/11 than Britney Spears.

Thanks for writing :).