Ron Paul's Inconvenient Facts

[fishman3811]

Giuliani: Righteous, Indignant and Wrong
By ROBERT FANTINA

It is interesting, and not a little disturbing, to see how nonsense can be wrapped in an American flag, delivered to the public and found to be not only palatable, but entirely enjoyable.

During the second debate between the countless Republican presidential candidate wannabes, an interesting exchange took place between so-called top tier candidate Rudy Giuliani, and Texas Representative Ron Paul, media-determined to be one of the children of a lesser political god.

Breaking with the usual Republican mode of ignoring facts, Mr. Paul said that the attacks of September 11, 2001 on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were at least partly the result of intense hatred of America's long history of imperial aggression against Middle Eastern countries. He referred to the 9/11 Commission Report which said, in part, the following: "America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact thatAmerican actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim World." Further, the report quoted Osama bin Laden from 1998: "If the present injustice continuesit will inevitably move the battle to American Soil." Mr. Paul was simply referring to these facts.

Mr. Giuliani rose up in righteous indignation that such a statement could be uttered. Wrapping himself in the easy, jingoist solutions that have always sold so well in middle-America, he stated his understanding of the attacks. Said he: they "came here and killed us because of our freedom of religion, freedom for women, because they hate us." He pointed out that he had lived through the attack, and was horrified that anyone would think that ten years of U.N. sanctions, resulting in the deaths of an estimated one million Iraqis, most of them under the age of five, and ten years of U.S. bombing of Iraq, would cause any anger toward America. Mr. Giuliani characterized Mr. Paul's suggestions as 'absurd.'

How living through the attack provides one with special knowledge of the motives of those perpetrating it, he did not trouble himself to explain. How reading and quoting from a careful, government-sponsored report on its causes makes Mr. Paul's suggestion 'absurd,' also escaped Mr. Giuliani's rhetoric. Such facts and details are unimportant when one can grab the nearest American flag and wave it around to show one's patriotism.

The crowd, of course, went wild with Mr. Giuliani's response. It pandered to the old standby that has proven so effective for President Bush and Vice-President Cheney: America, as the world's unrivaled beacon of peace and freedom, is hated by those who seek world domination. And coupled with that is the corresponding adage that it's not wrong when the United States does it.

Mr. Paul, of course, was only looking at the facts. The sanctions imposed by the U.N., with strong U.S. support and encouragement, did little to impact Saddam Hussein; it was the Iraqi people who suffered from them. As Mr. Paul has since pointed out, it appears that Mr. Giuliani did not bother to read the 9/11 Commission Report, preferring to cast the tragedies of that day in a 'good vs. evil' context.

In the nearly six years since the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush & Co. have launched two wars, supposedly in retaliation. The first, in Afghanistan, was purportedly to overthrow the Taliban, which was alleged to be sheltering Osama bin Laden, the believed power behind Al-Qaeda. The second, in Iraq, was to prevent that country's imminent attack on America, with its weapons of mass destruction. Along with this it was both openly stated and darkly alluded that Iraq was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

Six years later, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and American soldiers are bravely and futilely trying their best in Iraq's bloody civil war. No weapons of mass destruction, no plans to obtain nuclear weapons, have been found. Yet Mr. Bush says that America must 'finish the job' in that nation, without bothering to tell anyone what that 'job' is. The Democratic Party, after sending legislation to Mr. Bush that mandated an end to the war, and which the president vetoed, has now decided to fund the war with few restrictions, and none that mandate the withdrawal of American troops. Congress, apparently, wants to 'support the troops,' and seems to agree with Mr. Bush that the best way to do this is to prolong their mortal risk by continuing an illegal and immoral war of aggression. The war in Iraq is palatable only when wrapped in a bloody American flag. The war in Afghanistan is basically ignored.

Mr. Paul did not back down, even when Mr. Giuliani, flushed with righteous, right-wing anger, demanded he retract his shocking, albeit true, statements. There was no need for the former New York City mayor to respond intelligently to Mr. Paul; he had no reason to comment on the 9/11 Commission Report, since it was unlikely that his listeners had ever read it. It is far more likely they have heard Mr. Bush's explanations of the tragic attacks of September 11, explanations that are founded in the arrogance of America's self-proclaimed moral superiority, rather than any thoughtful investigation of world politics and America's imperial role on the world stage.

Why should the public, one wonders, explore America's possible role in provoking the 9/11 attacks, when it is so much easier to view them as the work of madmen, seeking world domination and hating America for all it's glorious freedoms and prosperity? Why bother to understand religious and political beliefs far different than what is commonly known and accepted in the U.S? What possible good can come from recognizing that American presidents for generations have sought to manage the affairs of other nations, including the overthrow of democratically-elected leaders who are not willing to dance to the American puppeteer, despite vehement and often violent opposition from those nation's citizens? Why look beyond the 'good vs. evil' argument, when doing so forces the confrontation with unpleasant facts?

The campaign for the presidency is in full swing nearly eighteen months before the votes will be cast. It can only be hoped that the level of discourse demonstrated during the second Republican debate was only an anomaly, and that future debates, among and between both major parties and others, will rise to a level that will provide the citizenry with at least some basic facts on which to make an intelligent decision. Unfortunately, the recent history of American political discourse does not bode well for such an environment to exist. And as long as those players who would prefer to 'Swift boat' candidates from the shadowy sidelines remain as major powerbrokers, garnering success from their duplicitous ways, all that can be reasonably expected is the continued waving of the flag, blocking out rational discussion. And America and the world will continue to suffer as a result.

fishman3811 Reviewed by fishman3811 on 05-25-2007. Ron Paul's Inconvenient Facts Giuliani: Righteous, Indignant and Wrong By ROBERT FANTINA It is interesting, and not a little disturbing, to see how nonsense can be wrapped in an American flag, delivered to the public and found to be not only palatable, but entirely enjoyable. During the second debate between the countless Republican presidential candidate wannabes, an interesting exchange took place between so-called top tier candidate Rudy Giuliani, and Texas Representative Ron Paul, media-determined to be one of Rating: 5

[fishman3811]

That is why Rudy should not be the next president he has no idea of the real reasons why America was attacked and he has no intention of learning why the country was attacked.His foreign policy will be the same as GWB and American kids will keep dying.

[Psycho4Bud]

In the nearly six years since the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush & Co. have launched two wars, supposedly in retaliation. The first, in Afghanistan, was purportedly to overthrow the Taliban, which was alleged to be sheltering Osama bin Laden, the believed power behind Al-Qaeda. The second, in Iraq, was to prevent that country's imminent attack on America, with its weapons of mass destruction. Along with this it was both openly stated and darkly alluded that Iraq was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

Where do you find this stuff? "Alleged" to be sheltering Osama.......how left wing can ya get? Even the Dems KNOW that Osama and the Taliban are heavily linked together.

Ron Paul is an idiot! Al-Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of Americans and Muslims alike. They preach of a world under Islamic Rule. If he thinks that if we pull everyone home across the world and give a big appology is going to cure the situation he's nuts!

Have a good one!:s4:

[fishman3811]

Well it cant be any worse than bombing the fuck out of muslim people and propping up dictatorships in the middle east

[mrdevious]

Where do you find this stuff? "Alleged" to be sheltering Osama.......how left wing can ya get? Even the Dems KNOW that Osama and the Taliban are heavily linked together.

Yeah, I think it's pretty cut and dry right there that the Taliban was sheltering, funding, and working with alqaeda. They are one of the most disgusting and oppressive regimes that have ever rules on this Earth, so I'm not exactly inclined to believe they just wanted peace with their infidel neighbores. Or is it insignificant that they'd kill you for not being a muslim, and beat women with sticks in public for terribles crimes.... you know, like reading, showing your face, walking unescorted, such terrible hooliganism.

Ron Paul is an idiot! Al-Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of Americans and Muslims alike. They preach of a world under Islamic Rule. If he thinks that if we pull everyone home across the world and give a big appology is going to cure the situation he's nuts!

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him an idiot, the man has some good ideas. His explanation about how we can pull out of Iraq and negotiate with everybody is just silly. I think Iran would jump in pretty quick to take over. I'm iffy about an Iraq pullout honestly, but I don't think we should let it go nearly as long as Vietnam.
I don't know if he wants to pull out of Afghanistan, but I'm 100% against that, including with my own county's involvement in that. Ugh, a lot of parties here are making noise about pulling out of Afghanistan. If there's one war worth fighting, I would think Afghanistan would be it. Yet I still remember the protesters marching in the streets against the war; apparently being directly attacked and having 3,000 civilians murdered isn't just cause.

However, keep in mind that Paul wants to legalize cannabis and end this rediculous war on drugs. I think that is a big plus that indicates some sensibility. Otherwise I need to research his policies a bit more to comment further.

Have a good one :jointsmile:

[Breukelen advocaat]

The author of the article that started this thread, Robert Fantina, is a long-time American peace activist who worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. He moved to Canada in 2004 after working for the Kerry presidential campaign. He has recently published a book about military desertion.

Fantina wonders:
Why should the public, one wonders, explore America's possible role in provoking the 9/11 attacks, when it is so much easier to view them as the work of madmen, seeking world domination and hating America for all it's glorious freedoms and prosperity?

Well, for one thing, bin Laden IS a madman seeking unlimited power, who hates America for itâ??s freedoms and success. He and his cohorts want to force the world back into the Dark Ages, with Islamic theocracy as the only government on the planet. If they cannot accomplish this goal, then they would prefer to see the world destroyed, by wars, so that Allah can start again, and put chosen people and systems in place. If this isnâ??t madness, then what is?

Robert Fantina, as his name implies, lives in a fantasy world.

[mrdevious]

Breukelen advocaat, you're not actually buying into this "they hate freedom" thing are you? I'm sure AlQaeda would rather have a suppressive Taliban state than a democracy, but please, don't tell me this whole war on America is simply because they "hate their freedom" . That's about the lamest excuse I've heard from officials, as if we're fighting the forces of Mordor who are furious that every sentient being isn't in shackles and suffering. If freedom was all that pissed them off, America would hardly be their number 1 target, there are tonnes of countries in Europe, as well as Japan, Canada, and Australia that have more freedoms and civil liberties than the states.


A jihad on Holland, a Jihad on the Aussies! lol

[RamblerGambler]

Freedom hating is not the root cause of the latest War on Nouns. Well said mrdevious. Indeed, with the Afghani government now holding negotiations with the Taliban, one wonders if much of anything has been achieved over there. Other then turning the country into one of the largerst producers of heroin in the world.

[Psycho4Bud]

Other then turning the country into one of the largerst producers of heroin in the world.

They've always had that title........to bad the war on drugs puts that money into the wrong hands.....not to mention the benifits of Opium. LOL:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

[mrdevious]

You know after reading the original post again, I find it absurd that giuliani says he "lived through the 9/11 attacks". So what, now anybody who lived in New York "lived through it"? Give me a break, unless you were actually in or around the towers, you didn't live through anything but the usual smog in the air.