A Round of Applause for Ron Paul and a Big Raspberry for Giuliani

Republican Presidential hopefuls Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani traded jabs over the war on terror in the recent GOP debate. If you based the outcome of this on the amount of applause; like they do in a TV show; then you might think that Giuliani was the winner. However, if you based the outcome on reality, then Paul is the winner by a landslide.

The following is the transcript of the Giuliani - Paul exchange:

MR. GOLER: "Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as - almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?"

REP. PAUL: "Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy - no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement - relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end."

MR. GOLER: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?"

REP. PAUL: "What changed?"

MR. GOLER: "The non-interventionist policies."

REP. PAUL: "No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. 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've been in the Middle East - I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

(Applause.)

MR. 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, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

MR. GIULIANI: "Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the
attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

(Applause.)

MR. GOLER: "Congressman?"

REP. PAUL: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were - if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"

In analysis of this exchange, one can clearly point out that Giuliani acts as if he has never heard the argument that America's policy in the Middle East is one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. If so, where has Rudy been for the past 5 years and 8 months? Nevermind that America's number 1 enemy Osama bin Laden has used this argument as justification for terrorist attacks against America and it's allies for more than a decade. Nevermind that numerous world leaders have stated the same thing. How about the fact that this was cited in the 9/11 commission report as well? Has Giuliani even read the report or does he disregard it even though the 9/11 Report was commissioned by his mentor President Bush? As someone who lived through 9/11, you would think that as the Mayor of NYC at the time, he would have some idea of; or would at least want to know; why his city was the target of the most horrific attack in America's History!

Giuliani has consistently implied that America would be in danger of another 9/11-like terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected President in 2008. He also freely states that he would protect America against terrorism best amongst all candidates; Democrat or Republican. Giuliani is simply regurgitating the Karl Rove-inspired fear tactics that caused the Republican Party to lose the majority in Congress in 2006 and will undoubtedly cause a Democrat to be elected president in 2008. Rational Americans are simply tired of this fear-rambling and the childish notion that they hate us because of our democracy and freedom. Ron Paul was right; its time we started listening to what the terrorists have been saying about why America is being targeted. We don't have to agree with their ideology; call them Islamofascists if that makes you feel better. But if we are to stand any chance of defeating terrorism, then we should probably take a shot at understanding why the terrorists really hate us.