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.
Surrender monkey? I'm a vet.
Seems odd, I'm telling you what's up in my opinion, being honest, attempting to communicate and you respond with political quips? Come on John...
I support no one who's been party to foreign policy national suicide, and or aids and abets elimination of our sovereignty, or intentionally, knowingly aids anyone, who endeavors to undermine or compromise our borders/sovereignty.
How stupid would government/someone have to be, to subscribe to that self inflicted punishment?
It can be done better...firm beliefs, honor while maintaining global respect at same time be more open/honest with people. Brutally honest if need be. You're supposed to the best, the baddest, smartest, and most honorable, yet...We're the laughing stock, bozo punching bag and center of mock, for the planet?
It's like the joker's in charge. BTW, none of this suddenly appeared in the past 3 years or so. This political song and dance, punitive treatment of legitimate citizens with mismanaged out of control government, while being over-run by people entering illegally is nothing new.....When does it stop? Never?
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 31, 2001
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. NETHERCUTT, and Mr. DREIER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Recognizing the important relationship between the United States and Mexico.
Whereas the United States and Mexico share a special bilateral friendship matched by few other countries in the world;
Whereas the United States and Mexico are partners joined by geography as well as by a series of government-to-government and private relationships which are of critical importance to both countries;
Whereas the United States and Mexico share concern on a wide range of issues, including trade and immigration, environmental quality, economic development, and regional security and stability; and
Whereas the special relationship between the United States and Mexico is critically important in its own right as well as serving as a linchpin in the relationship between the United States and every nation in Central and South America: Now, therefore, be it
It is always interesting to observe Ron Paul supporters. I have come to the conclusion is good these folks are being exposed to the conservative side of things regardless of why they are supporting Ron Paul. Where would they be and who would they be supporting? They are being exposed to truths that they might not pick up otherwise.
Paul has only been consistent one issue.
Just one.
And it’s not End the Fed.
Tell that to the thousands of victims from 911.
Whoa, I did not know that! Good grief.
The fact is that Ron Paul is right, not naive. It's the neocons like this author that are turning out to be stubbornly naive.
You might want to read this thread, prior to commenting, Mr. die fast.
Ron Paul and his freakish cult can KMA.
Like Pat, he’s just out there to show how smart & effective all the others are.
In fact, I don't need any of these candidates to explain to me what is happening, what the problem is, and or how to fix any of it.
In addition, wading through all their clever quips attempting to outdo each other, I have yet to see any of these candidates exhibit legitimate passion and concern regarding the state and direction of this country.
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.