AgapeRevolution.com

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. (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.

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?

During the second Republican debate, Ron Paul made an extremely cogent argument against U.S. intervention in the world. He accurately assessed the history of U.S. intervention and noted that interventionist policies have often produced backlash against the U.S. because people in other parts of the world do not want us interfering in their affairs. He also correctly pointed out that it was U.S. interventionist policies in the Middle East that produced the 9/11 attacks since U.S. intervention in the region was basically the stated reason for the terrorist attacks. Rudy Giuliani, seeing an opportunity, accused Ron Paul of stating that we invited the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and he asked Ron Paul to withdrawal the statement. There were three problems with this response.

First, Ron Paul never stated that the U.S. invited the terrorist attacks or that the attacks were justified. All Ron Paul said was that interventionist policies have consequences. It is kind of like a law of nature. When we act in another area of the world, there tends to be an equal and opposite reaction in response. He was simply stating that we need to understand that this is a cost of U.S. intervention, and it is a reason that we should avoid unnecessary intervention.

Second, even if Ron Paul was stating that the U.S. was at fault for the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Giuliani’s response did not properly address such an argument. Giuliani did not make any argument for why the U.S. was not at fault for the attacks on 9/11. He simply asserted that this was somehow an offensive idea on its face that did not even need to be addressed. This type of thinking represents a major problem for conservatives. Conservatives tend to have the opposite problem of liberals. Conservatives believe that it is impossible for the U.S. to do anything bad or wrong. So the second that any person says the U.S. has done something wrong, the response is to declare the person to be un-American without even addressing the substantive claim. This is the opposite problem of the left, which presumptively believes that the U.S. is at fault for anything that goes wrong. Rather than assuming that the U.S. is never at fault or always at fault, perhaps an assessment should be made based on the facts of the specific situation. But this sort of reasoning is too challenging for Giuliani who prefers to just follow the anti-intellectual path of making accusations about Ron Paul’s patriotism without addressing the argument that has been made.

Third, after accusing Ron Paul of stating the the U.S. was at fault for the 9/11 attacks, Giuliani next said that he has never heard of that before. This statement by itself demonstrates Giuliani’s foreign policy incompetence and proves he should not be president. One of the most important debates in the academic literature is whether U.S. military intervention tends to solve problems or make them worst. If Giuliani is unaware of the basic ideas in this debate, he does not deserve to be President.

The only thing more annoying than Giuliani’s incompetent response to Ron Paul’s argument was how the National Review has been practically gushing over the fact that Giuliani took down Ron Paul. Byron York said, “The Ron Paul moment was just one of Giuliani’s strong points in the debate.” Kate O’Beirne said, “His quick, indignant response to Ron Paul on 9/11 was the night’s soundbite that made him America’s Mayor again.” Kathleen Parker said, “Giuliani played daddy tonight and spanked Ron Paul for blaming the U.S. for 9/11.” T.J. Walker said, “In a spirited exchange, Giuliani finally had the opportunity to do what he does best: beat up on bad guys — in this case, those weak on terrorism.” Larry Kudlow said, “Ron Paul ran with the leftwing ‘I hate America’ line and Rudy pounded him for it.” It is just mind boggling to me how this shoddy and irrational grandstanding by Giuliani receives near universal praise from people at the National Review. Giuliani did not even make an argument. How can one say that he defeated Ron Paul when Giuliani said virtually nothing? It is one thing to say that you disagree with Ron Paul. It is quite another to say that Ron Paul lost this argument with Rudy. The truth is that Ron Paul solidly defeated Giuliani and demonstrated Giuliani’s own personal incompetence and lack of any expertise in the foreign policy realm.

(Posted by Trask)