Posted on 09/15/2011 10:03:56 AM PDT by smoothsailing
by Raymond Ibrahim
Among other qualities, a good presidential candidate must be knowledgeable and able to think outside the box; equally important, he must not be naive or gullible — certainly not swallow everything the enemy says hook, line, and sinker.
During the recent Republican candidate debate, Congressman Ron Paul exhibited his ignorance and gullibility when the panel was asked: “Do you plan to decrease Defense spending, to balance spending, or do you believe high spending is essential to security?”
After Paul explained how he was “tired of all the militarism that we are involved in,” and his plan on cutting back, he said, “But we’re under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. … The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us … but we’re there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves.”
This is, of course, an old and well known narrative.
By questioning Paul, however, Rick Santorum exposed the latter’s naivety when it comes to the goals and motives of al-Qaeda:
On your [Paul’s] Web site on 9/11, you had a blog post that basically blamed the United States for 9/11. On your Web site, yesterday, you said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11. Now, Congressman Paul, that is irresponsible. The president of the United States — someone who is running for the president of the United States in the Republican Party should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11. We should have — we are not being attacked and we were not attacked because of our actions. We were attacked, as Newt [Gingrich] talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists [full transcript here].
After rejecting Santorum’s thesis, Paul made his fatal blunder:
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing — [audience booing] I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing.
This exchange clearly revealed Paul’s lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the enemy. After all, it’s one thing for some Americans to believe that the source of all conflict is the United State’s presence in some countries, it’s quite another — it’s dangerous — for a potential president to think, and speak, this way.
Ironically, Paul even contradicted himself: minutes earlier, when discussing the need to cut back on the military, he complained that we had a military presence in 130 countries — bringing to mind the question: why haven’t these countries lashed out?
But what’s worse is Paul’s naivety — that he would actually swallow and regurgitate verbatim the propaganda al-Qaeda has been dishing for years: thus “Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said”; and “I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing.”
Did it never occur to the congressman that al-Qaeda could be, um, lying? Had he bothered to juxtapose al-Qaeda’s propaganda to the West — which indeed does amount to blaming U.S. foreign policy for their terrorism — with the other things “they wrote and said,” he would have learned their ultimate motives.
For example, for all his talk that U.S. “occupation” is the heart of the problem, shortly after the 9/11 strikes, Osama bin Laden wrote to fellow Muslims:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
This medieval threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the ultimate source of conflict, not U.S foreign policy (see also “Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation,” which compares al-Qaeda’s messages to the West with its internal messages to Muslims, documenting all the contradictions).
The good news is that, if Paul is ignorant and naive regarding al-Qaeda and its motives, based on all the loud booing he received, increasing numbers of Americans are not.
If the American people were as cowardly and ignorant as Ron Paul and his supporters we would have, as Osama expected, retreated from our involvement in the world rather than toppling the government that supported Osama, and occupying it militarily giving us the reach to take him out in Pakistan.
Luckily for the world the rest of the USA isn't as ignorant and cowardly as Ron Paul supporters.
“Even if Paul is wrong on foreign policy, his philosophy makes a lot more sense than the neo-cons and liberals. The last 10 years should be proof enough for anyone.”
This is called a logical fallacy. Refer to Logic 101, freshman college level.
“Paulsen had a lot more going for him, at least he was funny.”
Pat Paulsen also had the best campaign slogan evah!
“WE CAN’T STAND PAT”
Ron Paul is not just wrong.
He’s certifiable.
100 percent Grad A loony bin.
It was so bad, Bush's so called Homeland Security Chief Chertoff, had people wandering around the inside of his private residence, who entered the country illegally...All during wartime, while our own borders became a national security time bomb, with millions flooding into the U.S. illegally....during wartime. This is a farce.
We'll put you down for continuing these country killing, politically correct foreign policies.
Good luck taking out Osama Bin Lauden when he is sheltered and protected by the Taliban and we have no military assets in theater.
According to the Paultard delusion all we need to “take out” Muslim gangster terrorists is to retreat, lick our wounds, and stop supporting Israel - and then the mean mean bad guys will just go away and stop hating us!
Talk about weak willed fuzzy thinking politically correct cycle of violence idiocy!
But that wasn't enough, so the just opened our borders during wartime, to a conga-line of millions, from God knows where, just to keep that great foreign police machine well oiled.
Was the US in its right to invade Afghanistan, in your opinion?
Like I said, good thing the rest of America isn't as cowardly as a typical Ron Paul supporter - Osama was really counting on us doing exactly what Ron Paul advises - retreat and stop supporting Israel.
Do you actually think that such a display of their power over us would reduce such terrorist attacks rather than showing just how well they worked in changing US policy more to their liking?
Not that I expect a rational response, but hey, stranger things have happened. :)
Yes it was, but to stay for *years*, costing trillions is not acceptable and should never have been an option or strategy. So bad, now their leaders in Jackassistan complain the billions we gave them, and or went missing, was not enough, and bitched they wanted dams and other infrastructure built. All while the U.S. goes belly up.
Let me respond with the piece I wrote in response to similar errors in President Bush's address on the 5th anniversary of 9/11/01: 'Clueless'--The Dangerous Intellectual Confusion Of A President.
While I am not in complete agreement with Dr. Paul on all aspects of foreign policy; even where we differ, I would acknowledge that his stands are carefully thought out. But my point, here, is not about Dr. Paul. The writer has lumped together a number of issues, that need to be analyzed separately.
William Flax
Got breaking news for you, most Americans have had a belly full of compassionate wars, while spending the American treasure on foreign lands, while our own country and economy circle the GD drain.
“Yes it was, but to stay for *years*, costing trillions is not acceptable and should never have been an option or strategy.”
So, you agree with US Foreign Policy in Afghanistan, you just disagree with the details of the strategy.
Got breaking news for you champ, Ron Paul will never be the GOP nominee for President. He will never be President.
Americans are not cowards who allow terrorists a veto power over our foreign policy. Ron Paul is.
No, I thought I made that clear. The devil is in the details.
In fact, I disagree with 95 percent of the destructive U.S. foreign policies.
We keep continue with these strategies and foreign policies, this country will not only go completely broke, but will likely end in a total collapse of our entire system.
yeah, yeah, we get it...
America is bad.
NeoCons...
Int’l Bankers...
Jews...
Bilderbergs...
and Ron Paul the earmarks wonder can save us all...funny
After the dust starts settling a few days later, the ID of the perpetrators comes to light, how they got here, how they stayed here, where they came from, etc. I start thinking "Wow, this is it, my country is about to come down hard on immigration. It's about to get serious. This is a huge deal".
"We're going to seal the borders, no more third-world backwards imports, no more Muslims coming by the thousands, mass revocation of visas, triple INS, Marshals, FBI, rounding up people en masse for deportation".
And I waited, and I waited, and I waited. And I thought "this is nuts, what the hell is going on? We're not going to do a thing meaningful. We went to war with Japan and even US citizens of Japanese descent had to go detainee camps, let alone non-citizen visitors. WTF!?"
Then we invaded Afghanistan. And still I thought sanity would come. Then the TSA. Borders wide freakin' open and I'm taking off my belt and grandma's getting a shakedown. Tens of thousands more Muslims pour in. Then tens of thousands more the next year. Handing out visas, green cards, citizenship day in, day out.
Then we're ramping up for war with Iraq. Same thing. By then we were even giving refugee status to people from the countries we were at war with. I'm out of my mind about it at this point. We don't even have candidates running for office that so much as mention curtailing legal immigration from Muslim nations, let alone revocation and deportation.
Then it hit me. There's something about our foreign policy that is way more than meets the eye. Don't know what it is, but, there's something sinister that we don't see. And you'll never convince me otherwise. I got eyes, and I can see what's going on.
Anybody else who doesn't see this is a fool.
Border Security and Foreign policy are two distinct issues.
Conflating the issues doesn’t take away from the idiocy of Ron Paul.
But, but if Libertarians would have their way, they’d open up the Borders, hell they don’t even believe in borders.
Border Security and Foreign policy are two distinct issues.
Security is security. 90% of the people who read that post will get it. I'm not worried about the 10% who don't or the ones who get it and are dishonest about it.
You made a ramble, not a point...lol.
...In a weak attempt to conflate the issues. Just because they are both relevant to national security, doesn’t mean they are the same issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.