The Individualist: Did We Invite 9/11?

Posted by Joe Rivett on 05.17.2007

I'll tell you why Rudy was smart, Paul was only half right, and whether or not I believe we had it coming.

The BIG story to come out of the Republican debate last night in my mind was the battle between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. I'll tell you why Rudy was smart, Paul was only half right, and whether or not I believe we had it coming. Here is what Paul stated in case you missed it or forgot:

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. (Bell rings.) 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 -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Rudy Giuliani could not let that statement go by and replied with:

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.)

That is the background and here is what I see.

From a purely political judgment, Rudy was wise to take Ron Paul on. He changed the story from him being a pro-choice baby killing enabler to a man that is going to kill every terrorist he can and doesn't care why they hate us.

From a truthfulness judgment, Rudy was misleading. Ron Paul never said we invited the attack. It was the questioner that asked if we invited it and by the way, I like how Fox News had follow-up questions. Ron Paul was stating that we need to look at how other countries view America and ask the question would we want a country doing that to America?

My fellow readers, if China had troops in Canada, would you be happy? If China decided to invade Canada, America's number one trade partner, would that upset you?
Forget Canada, what if China installed a dictator in our country for the benefit of China? Wouldn't you want a revolution? Wouldn't you hate Eastern Civilization?

This is all Ron Paul was asking. He's not blaming you and me for 9/11, he is just trying to understand why. Because it isn't that we are free as he proclaimed:

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?

It is about time a politician pointed out that they don't hate us because of our freedom. Canada has tons of freedom including bottomless dancers. I don't see Al Qaeda flying planes into Ottawa.

Where Ron Paul is wrong is why they hate us. Yes, he is right in saying Bin Laden wants America out of the Middle East. But he is wrong by not telling us that he wants us out so that he can takeover the Middle East. If terrorist groups begin to control the Middle East, it will negatively impact our economy. Ron Paul is also wrong in wanting America to stay out of Middle Eastern affairs.

Look, I don't like that America is in Iraq. But Ron Paul is over the top in thinking that in a globalized world, America can just ignore what goes on. While George Washington told us not to entangle ourselves in Europe's affairs, he stated that in the 1700s; the world is different today. The problem with Ron Paul's libertarianism is that it is based on what people thought in the 1700s when America was a fragile country and the world was not connected. Yes, the Founder were brilliant, but the world has changed and not everything they believed in should be followed today.

I don't think America invited the attack and certainly, 3000 innocent civilians should not have to die for any reason. If Bin Laden is that upset over our troops being in Saudi Arabia at the first Gulf War, then he probably will use any excuse to hate us. Thus, trying to always empathize with an irrational enemy is wrong. Ron Paul should have apologized for thinking that America can ignore what goes on in the world. Ron Paul should have apologized for trying to understand a sick demented man. Nevertheless Ron Paul should be listened to when he tells us that we have to be careful.

Let's face it. America has made many foreign policy blunders that have hurt this nation. The undeclared Korean War was a failure. The undeclared Vietnam War was a failure. The Bay of Pigs was a failure. Sending Marines into Lebanon was a failure. Somalia was a failure. Installing the Shah was a failure. Giving Saddam chemical weapons to fight Iran was a failure. Ron Paul may be a libertarian nut, but we need to learn from history and not repeat it. Otherwise, we'll do something stupid like invade a country based on false reasons and police its civil war following the invasion while trying to install a democracy with a government that is filled by people who hate each other.

The funny thing is that Sean Hannity threw a hissy fit over what Ron Paul said. Many in the Republican Party probably did not like what Ron Paul said. Many of the candidates running for president did not like what Ron Paul said. It will be interesting to see if these candidates suck up to Jerry Falwell in the coming weeks. After all, Falwell was the one that believed we invited it. Let's see if Rudy stands up to Falwell's comments?