Why Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies The Republicans

Why Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies Them

by Jacob G. Hornberger

In one short answer to a moderator’s question in the South Carolina debate in which Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that U.S. foreign policy motivated the 9/11 terrorists, Paul produced an earthquake that is shaking the Republican establishment.

The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party proposed banning Paul from future debates. Besieged by adverse public reaction, however, he quickly backed down.

FoxNews commentator John Gibson and columnist Michelle Malkin somehow reached the warped conclusion that Paul was suggesting that U.S. officials had committed the 9/11 attacks. After bloggers pointed out the inherent contradiction between that claim and Paul’s point that foreign terrorists motivated by U.S. foreign policy had committed the attacks, Malkin quickly issued a retraction.

Other members of the Republican establishment suggested that Paul was “blaming America” for the 9/11 attacks. That’s because they think that the federal government is America. In actuality, as our American ancestors understood, the federal government and the country are composed of two separate and distinct groups of people – those within the federal government and those within the private sector, a point reflected in the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the country from the federal government.

What’s going on here? Why the enormous, almost panicky, overreaction to what is a rather simple point about U.S. foreign policy? Why the attempts to suppress, distort, and misrepresent? What are they so scared of?

The answer is very simple: The Republican establishment knows that if the American people conclude that Ron Paul is right, the jig is up with respect to the big-government, pro-empire, interventionist foreign policy that Republicans (and many Democrats) have supported for many years.

Paul’s point is a straightforward one: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East generated the anger that motivated the 9/11 terrorists. If he had had more time, Paul undoubtedly would have pointed out the U.S. policies in the Middle East that made people so angry: (1) the U.S. government’s ardent support of Saddam Hussein and the furnishing of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to him; (2) the more than 10 years of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; (3) UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to Sixty Minutes that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions had been “worth it”; (4) the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands, knowing the adverse impact such action would have on Muslims; (5) the “no-fly zones,” which were never authorized by either the UN or the U.S. Congress and which killed still more Iraqis, including 13-year-old Omran Harbi Jawair, whose head was shot off by a U.S. missile while he was tending his sheep in 2000; (6) and the long-time, unconditional financial and military aid provided the Israeli government.

Thus, by invading Iraq the U.S. government was simply engaging in the same course of interventionist conduct that had produced prior acts of terrorism against the United States (not only the 9/11 attacks but the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole). As Paul stated in the debate and as U.S. intelligence agencies now confirm, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has killed and maimed countless more Iraqis, has been a dream-come-true for Osama bin Laden’s recruiters.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks also generated the “war on terror,” which in turn has given us ever-increasing budgets for the military-industrial complex, out-of-control federal spending that debauches the currency, omnipotent power to the CIA, an endless stream of color-coded fear-mongering, warrantless monitoring of telephone calls and emails, torture, kidnapping and rendition, secret overseas prison camps, indefinite detention, cancellation of habeas corpus, military tribunals, “enemy combatants,” and ever-increasing infringements on civil liberty.

If the U.S. government’s foreign policy of interventionism is, in fact, the root cause of terrorism against the United States, as Congressman Paul contends, there is an obvious solution to the problem: End the U.S. government’s role as international policeman, invader, intervener, interloper, provider, and sanctioner. Foreign terrorism against Americans would disappear along with the need for a “war on terror.” Civil liberties that were suspended could be restored. A sense of balance and harmony could return to our lives.

Ending interventionism, terrorism, and the “war on terror” would also mean that the era of big government in foreign affairs could be brought to an end. No wonder the Republican establishment is so terrified of Ron Paul’s foreign-policy message.

 

They wanted to hit us. This is no fairy tale:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism.

The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

From: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/...29_kinzer.html

 

An interesting take.

Question #1: What events caused Islamic fanaticism to feel compelled to invade Israel and Judeah in 1091?

Question #2: What events caused Xerxes to invade Israel and Judeah in 484 BC?

 

What happened to the Ron Paul heads?

 

????? This current campaign of Islamic terrorism against the US is almost exclusively Sunni. Wahhabi specifically. Much easier to draw the line from the
Ikhwan in Saudi Arabia in the 20s. They fought for Ibn Saud to establish Saudi Arabia, and then revolted against him. They rejected the increasing contacts with the west(Britain) and modernity. Ibn saud drove many of them out of the country. Some fled to Egypt and established Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon, the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope". Their Ideology continues relatively unchanged today in Al qaeda. MARK

 

Damn, I thought this thread was about Ron Paul. Well not to get off topic, but I'm not sure why so many republicans/ conservatives have a problem with Ron Paul. As far as I can tell, he is pushing more of a conservative agenda than the others. I was listening to Sean Hannity and he was misconstruing the hell out of what Ron Paul said at the debate. Yeah, I know, go figure, right? He was making it sound like Paul thought that we deserved it or something. Paul wasn't justifying what was done on 9/11. He was just making the point that they had other reasons for doing it besides religion.

 

"Religion"??? Religion wasnt even as much as mentioned. "deserved it or something". The term was "invited".


REP. 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 need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL:I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,

Notice he didnt say no. MARK

 

GEEEEZE...... I'm so sorry that I put any of my own personal take on the whole situation and did not strictly abide by what was and was not said during the debate. Many republicans feel that the only reason they have a problem with us is because we are heathens and their religion commands that they wage jihad against us. I believe that Paul disagrees with this notion which might explain why religion wasn't mentioned.

You're right, he didn't say no. He didn't say yes. He simply offered another way of looking at the situation. God forbid someone offer a different point of view.

Wow, um...... ......... ........ did I have it in quotes or something? I don't get it. I was giving my impression of how Sean Hannity was portraying the situation and you think I misquoted the the debate?

 

Hah!

Just so everyone knows. I offered 1 hour of time to a Paul blogger to advocate for Dr. Paul. My comment was not accepted. I will update you if the situation changes.

Open offer to any Ron Paul supporter. …One hour of time to expound upon the virtues of Dr. Paul.

 

UPDATE: My offer was accepted. We'll be scheduling a conversation about Dr. Paul in the future. Updates to follow.

-Chin

 

I have moved all of 9/11 conspiracy material to a 9/11 conspiracy thread in the conspiracy forum. Keep it there.

Back to Ron Paul -- Chin, that's exciting news. Be sure to let us know when you guys schedule a time.

 

Who are you to say what a conspiracy is and what isn't.

You are not God, not even close. I doubt if you are even a marine.

 

Agreed KOF based on this flawwed logic i expect to fully see all official theory concerning 9-11 to be moved as well it has not been proven beyond the shadow of doubt either

and the Official story is simply a Theory in itself

 

Good Point.

 

You're right again Roker.