Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and Explaining 9/11
I haven't written much about politics in recent months, but I can't help commenting on the exchange last night between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani during the Republican Presidential Debate.
After answering a question about the war in Iraq by defending a non-interventionist foreign policy, which he claims (and to a significant extent rightly so) has been a common conservative position throughout American history, Congressman Paul was asked by the moderator whether the 9/11 attacks ought to have changed his stance on non-interventionism. Paul responded by pointing out that U.S. interventionism, and in particular the ten year bombing campaign in Iraq and other policies in the Middle East, played a significant role in fueling the hatred that motivated the 9/11 attacks. He suggested that we think about the motivations of those who commit terrorist attacks by considering how we would respond to other nations were they to adopt policies toward the U.S. similar to those that we have adopted toward nations in the Middle East. Wouldn't we be angry if, for example, China began building large military bases on U.S. soil?
After Paul concluded, Giuliani interrupted the proceedings and said of Paul's remarks "that's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack, because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." Not surprisingly, this comment elicited a huge round of applause from the audience of South Carolina Republicans, despite the fact that nearly every clause of the statement suggests either gross ignorance or deliberate distortion of what Paul actually said.
There was nothing extraordinary about Congressman Paul's statement. Many people, including some conservatives, have recognized and argued that certain U.S. policies in the Middle East contribute to hatred of the U.S. among some Muslims, and therefore to terrorism.
Next, Paul never said that "we invited the attack." Giuliani, like many Republicans, used this phrase in order to suggest that what Paul intended to say was that because U.S. policy in the Middle East played a role in causing the hatred that led to the attacks, the attacks were somehow justified. But of course he intended to say no such thing, nor does this conclusion follow from the premise that U.S. policy played this role, as many conservatives attempt to imply. Just as ascribing a motive such as romantic jealousy to a defendant in a murder trial helps to explain why the defendant committed the crime without doing anything to justify it, ascribing motives to terrorists such as anger over U.S. foreign policy does nothing to justify terrorist attacks (this is true even if the anger over U.S. foreign policy is itself justified).
As I said above, Paul's statement was anything but extraordinary; at the same time Giuliani's claim that he's never heard anyone say what Paul had just said is beyond extraordinary; it's absolutely unbelievable. It suggests that not only has Giuliani been oblivious to a great deal of the debate over why 9/11 happened and what we can do to prevent similar attacks in the future, but he's also never himself considered the possibility that U.S. policies abroad could play a role in determining how people around the world view our country, and thereby whether or not they're willing to strap bombs to themselves in order to kill Americans. In the world of Giuliani and the Republicans, no U.S. policy could ever be the cause of anger toward the U.S., and therefore no U.S. policy could ever play any role in explaining attacks on our country. This leaves them with nothing to say by way of explaining terrorism other than the standard "they're evil and they hate freedom"nonsense.
Finally, it's absolutely despicable that Giuliani continues to use the fact that he was mayor of New York during 9/11 to claim some sort of infallibility with respect to debates over the attacks, and terrorism more generally. The fact that he "lived through the attack of September 11th" gives him no privileged access to the truth about how best to combat terrorism, and no right to dismiss the views of others who happened not to be in New York on that day. And there's no reason that anyone, including the other Republican candidates, should let him get away with using 9/11 in this way. I too happen to have been in Manhattan on 9/11, but if I or any of the millions of others who were there were to attempt to use this tactic in debates about terrorism, we would be regarded as trying to exploit 9/11 for rhetorical advantage, and rightly so. This is precisely what Giuliani is doing, and yet he is allowed to get away with it.
On a concluding note, it's somewhat encouraging (even if only very slightly, and even if only because we have come to expect so little from political discourse in our country, especially from the two major parties, and even more especially from the Republicans) that a libertarian candidate such as Paul, who remains critical of the war and other disastrous Republican policies, is there to challenge the GOP war-mongers in these debates. There's even a bit of evidence (though I suspect not too reliable) that he's having an impact on some people's thinking. In Fox News' text message poll of viewers in which they asked who won the debate, Paul finished second, with something like 26% of the vote, and for a while was leading (which, incidentally, infuriated Sean Hannity). Of course this could just be due to a few enthusiastic libertarians voting many times, but it was still enjoyable to watch Hannity's angry expression every time the poll was discussed. Ultimately, Paul is not a candidate with whom I agree very often. I'm too much of a cosmopolitan to take his extreme isolationism seriously (I think, for example, that we have an obligation to do something about the situation in Darfur), and his desire to eliminate basically all public aid programs is something that I would strongly oppose. But it is nice to see a Republican with views that are at least somewhat coherent trying to engage seriously about the war, and who isn't afraid to say what even many Democrats seem too afraid to regarding the link between U.S. foreign policy and terrorism.
After answering a question about the war in Iraq by defending a non-interventionist foreign policy, which he claims (and to a significant extent rightly so) has been a common conservative position throughout American history, Congressman Paul was asked by the moderator whether the 9/11 attacks ought to have changed his stance on non-interventionism. Paul responded by pointing out that U.S. interventionism, and in particular the ten year bombing campaign in Iraq and other policies in the Middle East, played a significant role in fueling the hatred that motivated the 9/11 attacks. He suggested that we think about the motivations of those who commit terrorist attacks by considering how we would respond to other nations were they to adopt policies toward the U.S. similar to those that we have adopted toward nations in the Middle East. Wouldn't we be angry if, for example, China began building large military bases on U.S. soil?
After Paul concluded, Giuliani interrupted the proceedings and said of Paul's remarks "that's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack, because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." Not surprisingly, this comment elicited a huge round of applause from the audience of South Carolina Republicans, despite the fact that nearly every clause of the statement suggests either gross ignorance or deliberate distortion of what Paul actually said.
There was nothing extraordinary about Congressman Paul's statement. Many people, including some conservatives, have recognized and argued that certain U.S. policies in the Middle East contribute to hatred of the U.S. among some Muslims, and therefore to terrorism.
Next, Paul never said that "we invited the attack." Giuliani, like many Republicans, used this phrase in order to suggest that what Paul intended to say was that because U.S. policy in the Middle East played a role in causing the hatred that led to the attacks, the attacks were somehow justified. But of course he intended to say no such thing, nor does this conclusion follow from the premise that U.S. policy played this role, as many conservatives attempt to imply. Just as ascribing a motive such as romantic jealousy to a defendant in a murder trial helps to explain why the defendant committed the crime without doing anything to justify it, ascribing motives to terrorists such as anger over U.S. foreign policy does nothing to justify terrorist attacks (this is true even if the anger over U.S. foreign policy is itself justified).
As I said above, Paul's statement was anything but extraordinary; at the same time Giuliani's claim that he's never heard anyone say what Paul had just said is beyond extraordinary; it's absolutely unbelievable. It suggests that not only has Giuliani been oblivious to a great deal of the debate over why 9/11 happened and what we can do to prevent similar attacks in the future, but he's also never himself considered the possibility that U.S. policies abroad could play a role in determining how people around the world view our country, and thereby whether or not they're willing to strap bombs to themselves in order to kill Americans. In the world of Giuliani and the Republicans, no U.S. policy could ever be the cause of anger toward the U.S., and therefore no U.S. policy could ever play any role in explaining attacks on our country. This leaves them with nothing to say by way of explaining terrorism other than the standard "they're evil and they hate freedom"nonsense.
Finally, it's absolutely despicable that Giuliani continues to use the fact that he was mayor of New York during 9/11 to claim some sort of infallibility with respect to debates over the attacks, and terrorism more generally. The fact that he "lived through the attack of September 11th" gives him no privileged access to the truth about how best to combat terrorism, and no right to dismiss the views of others who happened not to be in New York on that day. And there's no reason that anyone, including the other Republican candidates, should let him get away with using 9/11 in this way. I too happen to have been in Manhattan on 9/11, but if I or any of the millions of others who were there were to attempt to use this tactic in debates about terrorism, we would be regarded as trying to exploit 9/11 for rhetorical advantage, and rightly so. This is precisely what Giuliani is doing, and yet he is allowed to get away with it.
On a concluding note, it's somewhat encouraging (even if only very slightly, and even if only because we have come to expect so little from political discourse in our country, especially from the two major parties, and even more especially from the Republicans) that a libertarian candidate such as Paul, who remains critical of the war and other disastrous Republican policies, is there to challenge the GOP war-mongers in these debates. There's even a bit of evidence (though I suspect not too reliable) that he's having an impact on some people's thinking. In Fox News' text message poll of viewers in which they asked who won the debate, Paul finished second, with something like 26% of the vote, and for a while was leading (which, incidentally, infuriated Sean Hannity). Of course this could just be due to a few enthusiastic libertarians voting many times, but it was still enjoyable to watch Hannity's angry expression every time the poll was discussed. Ultimately, Paul is not a candidate with whom I agree very often. I'm too much of a cosmopolitan to take his extreme isolationism seriously (I think, for example, that we have an obligation to do something about the situation in Darfur), and his desire to eliminate basically all public aid programs is something that I would strongly oppose. But it is nice to see a Republican with views that are at least somewhat coherent trying to engage seriously about the war, and who isn't afraid to say what even many Democrats seem too afraid to regarding the link between U.S. foreign policy and terrorism.
posted by Brian Berkey at 3:11 AM
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18266847&postID=8170715114287167163&isPopup=true Comments:
Great post, I agree wholeheartedly. However, Dr. Paul isn't against helping in Darfur-- he would just say that private enterprise would be able to do it more efficiently than government can. With fewer taxes and fewer wars to pay for, Americans could donate a lot more money to charity than they already do. Perhaps with fewer taxes to pay, they'd have to work less and would have more time for starting private organizations of their own. I agree with his stance on that wholeheartedly.
Brian,
While I agree with most of what you said, there is something to the idea that we somehow "provoked" these attacks. Whatever we did over there, in no way, shape, or form justifies the cold murder of so many people. I'm sure the US didn't go to that kind of extent over there. I'd have to say, that a light has to go on somewhere in the MONTHS of planning attacks such as 9/11 that says, "Hey, we're going to kill a bunch of innocent people, hopefully in the tens of thousands that have had NOTHING to do with the US policy."
You know I'm not a Republican. But it's a very bad explanation for 9/11 to say that we somehow provoked an attack like this.
-Dima
P.S. Check out my blog - krymerica.
The word 'invite' keeps being put into Ron Paul's mouth.
And what did the Iraqis do to 'invite' our attacks?
The neocons have trouble with the definition of the word 'invite.'
The Republican reaction to Representative Paul, as opposed to the 'popular' reaction, is one of the strongest reasons I have currently driving me towards abandoning my (public) party affiliation.
However, the opportunity to vote for him in a primary/caucus is one of my strongest motivations to keep my little voter registration card.
I have been disgusted with both parties for quite some time (since I achieved a tiny fragment of political awareness?). I remain a sort of Republican because they still pretend to support lower taxes (some to the extent of supporting an end to 'progressive', graduated, federal income taxes), while the Democrats don't bother with a pretense, ...but more importantly because they support the 2nd Amendment.
The two most important physical developments in history that support individual freedom are the printing press (now the internet?) and the personal firearm.
The last defense against absolute tyranny OR absolute anarchy is a loaded 12 guage in the hands of a person that knows how to use it.
Great Post! I was going to post on this, and instead I opted for a satirical 'family guy' clip satirizing political debate (I later checked on Technorati to find out that 'ron paul' was the most searched item on the net!).
As you mentioned, there are many who subscribe to this. 'Blowback' is, in fact, CIA jargon that was popularized by Chalmers Johnson. I don't see the 'aburdity' in Paul's narrative at all. Isn't this the other' dominant narrative of 9/11?
1) They hate us because of 'freedom'/ clash of civilizations
versus
2) 'Blowback' caused partly by U.S presence in the Middle East (Saudi, Afghanistan, Israel, Iran in from 53-79, etc.) and partly by other colonial and post-colonial conditions throughout the 20th century
Still, to Dima and others, I wish to say that Ron Paul's language didn't imply "justification"; rather, it implied that there are adverse effects to our policy and that we need to think twice about meddling in other people's foreign affairs, and think 3 times about (our) political history and what this war meant.
Upon reexamination we may, albeit via counterfactual narrative, come to the realization that the end of the cold-war provided a HUGE moment for redirecting our foreign policy...(and as the hegemon) thereby changing the conduct of IR.
...Maybe I'm too hopeful in Neoliberal narratives, but it's dangerous to think that the 21st century began with a bang, and considering the violence of the 20th, there's no way we can continue these trends.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home