Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Strikes Out on Leno It's impossible to determine whether Ron Paul was fear-mongering, blaming the victim, or proposing a program of appeasement. It's possible that a reasonable alternative meaning was obscured by poorly chosen words, but the Indepublicrat is seriously concerned about this candidate's foreign policy priorities.by The Indepublicrat
(Centrist)
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Indepublicrat caught Ron Paul on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night, which turned out to be a much better platform for him than a seat at the Fox News Republican candidate debate ever would have been. Paul didn't have to compete for screen time with the rest of the field, and the live studio audience seemed packed with rabid supporters who laughed and cheered at all the most appropriate moments.
Where a debate moderator might have tossed in a few challenging questions, Leno was almost fawning in his tone. And because Leno was the one who railed against the unfairness of Paul being excluded from the last debate before New Hampshire votes, Paul could just nod his head in agreement without seeming bitter or petty. Finally, I'm pretty sure Leno gets better ratings than the debate did, so it turned out to be a huge favor that Fox News did Ron Paul by excluding him.
The Indepublicrat had never seen this candidate in a non-debate setting, and hasn't really paid much attention to him in the campaign so far, so it was an interesting experience to see him shoehorned between "Stupid Headlines" and Shakira. Paul came off well, and probably better than Romney or Huckabee would have if they were the ones doing a consolation interview after being inexplicably excluded from a debate.
But there was one moment that the Indepublicrat found slightly disturbing.
Leno asked for Paul's side of a debate fracas in which another candidate accused him of blaming the United States for the 9/11 attacks. All Paul had to do to knock that question out of the park was to say that no, the terrorists were 100% to blame for their own actions, which is exactly what he said to thunderous applause. However, he then went one step further, analogizing the situation to a murder investigation, emphasizing the importance of looking for a motive, and providing some possible examples, such as the presence of U.S. military bases in the Middle East.
At the time of the 9/11 attacks, the American military presence was primarily based in Saudi Arabia at the request of the government there as a buffer against the ongoing threat of an expansionist Iraq. In pre-9/11 tapes and propaganda, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden did in fact refer to this presence as his primary complaint against the West, and it certainly wasn't a coincidence that the 9/11 hijackers were recruited from among his fellow Saudi nationals.
So what is the purpose for Ron Paul's diverting focus from the attacks themselves and putting it on the pre-war presence of military bases in Saudi Arabia? If this were viewed as a simple murder case as Paul suggests, is he, like a district attorney, using motive to build a stronger case against the terror organization? Or is he, like a defense attorney, trying to build an affirmative defense to get them off the hook? Is he blaming the terror victims in the same reprehensible way in which a rapist blames his victim for wearing lipstick and a short-cut dress?
Or perhaps he's pointing out that the terror attacks were especially successful for Bin Laden, since they did in fact lead to the removal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia--with their insertion into Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Is the lesson that Bin Laden could cause casualties on U.S. soil, achieve his objective of moving our army around at his whim, avoid prosecution or punishment for his actions, and still not be satisfied?
The statement was so brief and imprecise that it's impossible to determine whether Ron Paul was fear-mongering, blaming the victim, or proposing a program of appeasement. It's possible that a reasonable alternative meaning was obscured by poorly chosen words, but as it stands right now the Indepublicrat is seriously concerned about this candidate's foreign policy priorities.
Given the opportunity he had to generate mainstream appeal with his late night appearance, it's unfortunate that Ron Paul struck out on such a softball pitch.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
2008 The Indepublicrat, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of The Indepublicrat only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. The Indepublicrat is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-01-08 10:45:46
Saying that the bases were and are in Saudi Arabia primarily at the request of the government is very misleading. It makes it sound like the people of Saudi Arabia are very much behind having the U.S. presence in their country. In fact, that's not true.
There has long been a very cozy relationship between the Saudi government and the U.S. Government, much to the consternation of the people of that country. For the most part, only the ruling family like the arrangement.
You asked, "So what is the purpose for Ron Paul's diverting focus from the attacks themselves and putting it on the pre-war presence of military bases in Saudi Arabia?" Yet, you had already answered this question in your previous paragraph when you wrote, "In pre-9/11 tapes and propaganda, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden did in fact refer to this presence as his primary complaint against the West."
So I have to ask...why SHOULDN'T Paul emphasize this fact? You seem to think it was a mistake. I think it's something that the American people very much need to hear over and over and over again, in order to provide some minor counterbalance to all the rot that the other Republican candidates (particularly Giuliani) keep repeating about how American foreign policy (including base placement) is not responsible for inducing the attacks.
By the way, I don't think I previously welcomed you to the Nolan Chart, so welcome! We're glad to have you here.
It's all about learning from mistakes and history. You can't simply say, "they blew up the towers, they're guilty, let's kill them all and install democracy around the world." that kind of agenda that the US has been on for the last 50 years is highly dangerous. We are not learning from history, and there for we are doomed to repeat. the longer we stay in the Middle East as a force, the more aggression and hatred will build until the entire Middle East revolts. People can very easily be joined by the common enemy. that is the point.
Leno's show does not allow the time necessary to completely absorb the challenges our foreign policy played toward the attack of 9/11. "The statement was so brief and imprecise that it's impossible to determine..." shows you have an understanding that this and other formats don't allow the time-frame necessary for true understanding of Ron Paul's positions. One must study in-depth his, as well as the other candidates, positions yet most don't.
The terrorists are at fault for acting and killing so many that terrible day. Ron Paul supported the efforts to kill bin Laden. He also understands the foreign policy we've had since the end of WWII (even before that if you look at our poorly conceived intervention near the end of WWI) helped provide fuel for the twisted minds that planned this disaster. You must, at the very least, begin with our 1953 interference in Iraq but even better would be to understand the ripple effects of the British 1910 interference when they created Iraq. It is much more complex than a Leno show can explain.
 I watched and did not witness a strike out yet that is due to the immense background study I've done on Ron Paul and all the other candidates as well as history. Reading your article, and attempting to see it without that background, I can see how one might perceive his response as a strikeout. However, I urge you and any who continue to read this fine article, to furhter research the history. You will see it is much more than our Saudi Arabian influence, as Walt's response addresses.
I've responded to your column with one of my own. As you'll see, while I like the first half of your article, I couldn't disagree more with your observation in the latter half.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-01-08 12:09:06
Anytime an audience like Leno's gets exposed to Dr. Paul's principles and reason it certainly cannot be considered a strike-out. That air-time was incredibly valuable the night before a primary.
I often wish Dr. Paul had a coach for improving his delivery of short answers. I see symptoms of his being too close to the topics because he is such a student of the constitution and of economics. He know the topics forward and backward but he doesn't appear to spend any time practicing short, concise answers for top issues. His team must know these questions are coming yet instead of planning for them they rely on Dr. Paul's ability to sift his vast depth of knowledge on these issues and create an interview appropriate response in real-time. Â
This is just poor planning. It causes him to rush, to have trouble finishing sentences and to say things that really need a substantial bit more context in order to show how everything holds together.
To anyone who has read A Foreign Policy of Freedom, the answers are great because they already have the context. To those who are just hearing his message for the first time, he sets himself up to be assailed by the uninformed and unscrupulous antagonist.
Dr. Paul is badly in need of a coach for crisp deliver of his messages in an interview format. No one on his team exhibits a polish indicative of their ability to plan and practice a crisp delivery. They all seem to just 'wing it'; relying on their inate talents to get by. That's great as far as jumping in and getting the ball rolling but now they have to present an attention to detail that they apparently even aware they are missing. Â
There's this concept of crime prevention you don't seem to have heard of.
In reference to Ron Paul's discussion of motives, there are times when law enforcement and local governments take measures to prevent crime before it occurs, and to do this, they must first understand what causes the crimes, such as, oh, I dunno...
I actually respect that Paul tends to avoid taking the opportunity to panderingly 'knock one out of the park' just because he can. He's really different for a politician.
But he certainly didn't strike out. Maybe that's the first time you've been exposed to the idea that not everybody appreciates foreign military bases and foreign intervention. I think Paul is dead-on when he says we would neither appreciate nor tolerate Chinese bases and protection of natural resources within our boundaries.
Finally, he was crystal clear on the facts that (A) the terrorists are 100% to blame and (B) even for angry dissident groups it needs to be made clear that the American people themselves should never be attacked for the terrible policies of some of our leaders. He's consistent there. He doesn't think we should bomb the hell out of innocent Iranian and Syrian citizens (er...'unfortunate collateral damage') because of diplomatic disagreements with *their* leaders. But the rest of the Republican candidates sure think that makes sense . . .
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2008-01-08 16:24:37
Please read operation Ajax and how it led to the Islamic revolution before you attempt to criticize Paul's position on foreign policy.
It is ignorance in the extreme not to have bothered to look for a motive in the United States being attacked. You should particulary be aware of the fact that the Saudi Government does not represent the Saudi people. The Sa'ud Family is despised in Saudi Arabia and only continues to hold power because of US intervention undermining self determination in the region.
This is why the majority of the attackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians.
To continue to deny that we are 100% innocent in stirring up terrorism in the middle east is shocking to me.
The USA has always supported islamic terrorism if it helped our objectives at the time (80's afghanistan).
Was 9/11 our fault? No, but Ron is trying to tell an obstinate america that we have a collective contribution to exacerbating terrorism. Right now GW Bush openly funds and supports the MEK (Mujahaddein-e-Kalq), an iranian expatriate islamic/maoist terror group. Will that come to bite us later....you bet it will!
That is what Ron Paul is trying to tell us. We need to stop being childish and blaming others when we have responsibility for a lot of very bad things we've done to the world.
The Indepublicrat raises some very good questions.
Unfortunately The Indepublicrat does not appear to have the critical thinking skills necessary to answer the questions without our help. No problem, that’s what we are here for.
In essence what Dr. Paul was saying on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno was the most sensible thing. If we are to prevent future attacks from terrorists we had better understand what motives them. We can not go back and change what happened on 9/11/2001 but we can do our best to make sure that something like that never happens again.
According to Neocons the terrorists simply hate us for our freedoms and wealth. If one is to believe that they are motivated by nothing more than their religion, then all of the preemptive wars in the world won’t help us. We will never have the ability to sway Muslims from their religion and if their religion dictates war on us then it will be war until the end of time for us all. This would not explain why the Muslims were not committing terrorists attack on us from 1776 through 1986 though.
Ron Paul was saying that if we examine our own foreign policy we may find we had a role in motivating the terrorist attacks. While that may not be popular with some “patriotic” Americans it needs to be done if we are to have a chance to solve this problem for the future. It does take two to tango and our foreign policy did play a role in our being attacked on 9/11/2001. America was not simply the innocent victim that Neocons want to tell the public we were. As a nation we need to accept responsibility for our own actions and make the changes necessary to ensure our national security.
I hope that helps The Indepublicrat understand how Ron Paul truly hit a homerun on Leno.
You're just a lying agitator. Go look up the word "honesty" in an english dictionary, watch Paul's video of Leno's interview, re-read the garbage you've written here. Then apologize.
I was suprised that Dr. Paul used a different analogy on the Tonight Show. In the past he uses the analogy of walking through the woods and stepping into a snake pit. When you step into the snake pit and get bit whose fault is it? Is it the snakes fault?
We have done the same by trapsing all over the snake pit that is the middle east.
Yes, you Ron Paul supporters are too ignorant to see that most voters will vote like the indeublicrat. No matter what Ron Paul will not be the nominee. RonPaul logic says that theft happens because the rich have money, rape happens because women have vaginas, assault happens because that guy said something that he shouldn't have, and lynchings only happen, because the negro went into a whites only bussiness. Of course the criminal is 100% to blame, but what was his motive?
Posted By: Kevin Mitchell
Date: 2008-01-14 17:25:27
( Quote from above article:)
"So what is the purpose for Ron Paul's diverting focus from the attacks themselves and putting it on the pre-war presence of military bases in Saudi Arabia? If this were viewed as a simple murder case as Paul suggests, is he, like a district attorney, using motive to build a stronger case against the terror organization? Or is he, like a defense attorney, trying to build an affirmative defense to get them off the hook? Is he blaming the terror victims in the same reprehensible way in which a rapist blames his victim for wearing lipstick and a short-cut dress?"
THis is the same tact that Rudy Guilliani tried to use against Ron Paul( to his discredit) of suggesting that Ron Paul he is 'blaming the victims'.
Here is the simple truth that Ron Paul is trying to shed light on here. To understand The 911 attacks( and other 'terrorist' plots) one needs to examine the foreign policies that have been followed by the U.S for the last 50 years.
It is absurd to suggest that a 'few military bases' in Saudi Arabia are the cause of terrorism. Dig deeper into the story. How about the creation, funding, and equipping of 'Al Qaeda'( the Muhajadeen freedom fighters in another story) ?
Or the support and funding to Saddam Hussein, including the delivering of WMDs?
What about the CIAs constant covert presence in all of these oil producing states for the purpose of regime change?
It may be a bitter pill for most Americans to swallow, the fact that there are consequences to pay for a failed foreign policy- I just hope they don't assasinate the messenger this time around.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 The Indepublicrat, all rights reserved.