Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul got into it at last night’s debates. Ron Paul said:
Have you ever read about the reason they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there…We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years…I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us.
Giuliani is right that it’s absurd to link attacks on Iraq to Al Qaeda’s rage, but as I pointed out in my review of Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, there is indeed a connection between U.S. action and terrorism:
The Defense Science Board noticed a historical link between intervention and terrorism in 1997, and the Cato Institute followed with a detailed report the next year. More recently journalist Afshin Molavi pointed out that the more a regime caters to U.S. interference, the more anti-American the regime’s country becomes. Iran has one of the most pro-America populations in the Middle East.Statistical work by Robert Pape found the same trend. In “Dying to Win,” he looked at 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003. About 95 percent were linked to political objectives, and he argued that foreign occupation was terrorism’s primary cause.This shouldn’t shock anyone. A terrorist does not choose the U.S., halfway around the globe, by throwing darts at a map. American leaders know (or should) that wedging themselves into a country’s affairs is bound to create a backlash.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the costs of intervention outweigh the benefits, but it does mean that increased terrorism is a cost of intervention. Jonah Goldberg sounds a similar note in his new column:
If you send cops into a mob hangout, the cops will face blowback from criminals with guns. That hardly means the cops had it coming.
Of course, in terms of terrorism, there’s the complication that the mob hangout is in another country. Nonetheless, Goldberg argues it’s not so much military as political intervention (following D’Souza’s argument to a degree):
If you actually listen to more authentic voices than bin Laden’s — both democratic activists and Islamist bad guys — you’ll find that one of the real reasons “they hate us” is that we support their corrupt rulers and dictators (in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere).
Blog: Robert VerBruggen
Loading ...
13 users commented in " Ron Paul was (a little) right "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackPaul blew Giuliani out of the water. Paul has proven that he knows way more about foreign policy than Giuliani. Giuliani wishes he knew as much as Paul. How can he have never heard of “blowback”? Any presidential candidate that doesn’t know about it should not run for president. Giuliani is a joke.
I think Rudy kinda blew it. The effect that American intervention has had was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. While he may not agree with all the elements of the report, it is a little shortsighted not to know the report made those observations. Makes me questions his debate prep skills a bit.
When Scoop and Dump can get the biggest pop of the night through an emotional appeal completely devoid of logic, the “Party” is in trouble. Or maybe they really do hate or hawt women and our riches….. or maybe not.
Adolf, sorry, RUDOLF Giuliani made a short term gain last night. His comments will bite him in the ass, however. His big issue is being Mr. 9/11, the security guy. Pretty soon people will realize that:
A) He doesn’t understand the concept of “blowback”
B) He didn’t read the 9/11 commission’s report very carefully
As to the main point of the article, I think it would be insane to say that the blowback of 9/11 and the ever present threat of terrorism (and subsequent PATRIOT Act, Iraq war, and violation of civil liberties) was worth it.
Ron Paul was right-on with his comments, and now the Republican Party is running scared. The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party now says he plans to submit a petition to block Dr. Paul from all future debates.
Ron Paul was in error when he singled out Iraq as the cause for 9/11. But did correct himself by listing the long history of the west (the US in particular) interferring with the internal politics of the region for the last 80+ years or so for less than altruistic reasons. He’s spot on for linking selfish foreign policy acting as a catalyst for terror.
It’s unfortunate that many in the US are unable to accept the idea that there are times when the US is the bad guy on the world stage. They would rather kill the messenger.
So how was Ron Paul only “a little” right?
Are you saying he’s right, but he only has “a little” chance of winning?
Tell me, what do you get when you take the biggest issue of our day, and the biggest talking point on that issue, and totally dispel it on national tv, with logic that can only be refuted by strawman attacks? You get Ron Paul, the guy who got “beaten” by our hero Giuliani! erm something about that doesnt make sense! oh yeah… it’s called MONEY!
I think you need to change that headline to “Ron Paul Got it Right”. He showed that Mr. 911 Giuliani didn’t read the 9/11 Commission’s Report and that he is the only candidate who will go for a true debate with real topics rather than soundbites. He got my vote! Rudy owes him an apology.
Ron isn’t saying anything that other traditional conservatives weren’t saying even before the war in 2002. To name a few (look them up your self): Rep. John J. Duncan, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts - highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under Reagan, James Webb, hero in Vietnam and Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, and of course Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson. I think it was brave of Ron Paul to stand up for what he believes makes a real conservative. I don’t think Giuliani has very much credibility when he grand stands and appeals to emotion. He didn’t respond at all to Ron’s points.
Regarding the debate, the conflict of interest nobody has mentioned is that Guilianni’s law firm represents FOX!
…They also represent the Saudis !
Paul was 100% right on the causes of 9/11.
It is our arrogant, self serving dealings with the Middle East that has them angry. Who wouldn’t be just as angry if it happened to them?
He is the only candidate that has always been truthful & straight forward in both his comments and actions. If Rudy has never heard of “blowback” then I think that effectively eliminates him as a contender for President, and if he is that god awful ignorant maybe he should find a job flipping burgers or cleaning toilets.
My apologies to the burger flippers,.
You said “Giuliani is right that it’s absurd to link attacks on Iraq to Al Qaeda’s rage” WAIT A MINUTE, the Founder of Al Qaeda, one Osama bin Laden said in 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! 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. Giuliani said it is real simple, “they hate our freedom” (but only a simple mind would believe that)! Who kills themselves because the hate someone else’s freedom? –please!
Mark Matthews –
That’s true, but it’s definitely a secondary cause. Bin Laden’s primary beef was U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1147
Leave A Reply