Is He Really Getting A Fair Shake?
The big news from the Republican presidential debate this week was the supposed whipping Rep. Ron Paul took from Rudolph Guiliani. I did not see the debate, nor have I viewed the clip on line, a clip which is now widely available. But I know a little about Ron Paul. And since he is being smacked around by all of the Bush-loving neocon pundits, my antennae have detected a bit of "discredit the right wing kook, move center" conspiracy.
Ron Paul is possibly the most libertarian member of Congress currently serving. He is the only one who agrees to give ear to those who legitimately call in to question the legality of some government programs, including the constitutionality of the income tax.
Judging from Rep. Paul's voting record, he is a true conservative who favors states rights, as is indicated in a vote to limit the Federal government's powers by the 10th amendment. I would also take a leap of faith and say that Rep. Paul's seemingly un-conservative votes on some issues is not a reflection of his personal opinions, but is a reflection on his opinion that the Federal government has not particular role in the issue.
But Ron Paul is considered a kook by the main stream Republicans. Most neocons are ready to vote for Guiliani, who is indistinguishable from Hillary on social issues. But they label Ron Paul, who is more consistent in his stand for conservative ideals than any other sitting congressman, on the "fringe" of the right wing.
What Rep. Paul said was this: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is 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."
Guiliani then took the obvious politically expedient route and implied that Paul was on the lunatic fringe. But in substance, the most important phrase in the statement has t0 do with the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and our lack of understanding. If anyone can deny that applying western solutions to a region who is extremely opposed to the west is going to work out to anything but the defeat of one idea or other, then I would call them a lunatic.
But Guiliani played the popularity card, and people who disagree with the war in Iraq are not really popular with the Republican base. And in a debate of principles, I would have to side with Ron Paul.
I believe, as I have said before, that if our policy was to truly rebuild the country from the ground up, which would include the elimination of all anti-western leaders who show the slightest tendency toward violence, then perhaps the new mission in Iraq would be feasible. However, if we have not learned by now that the Middle Eastern mindset is truly foreign to those of us who are acclimated to the western culture, and that imposing our views in a diplomatic way only fuels their belief that we are weak infidels, then we never will learn.
Unfortunately, we did not limit our mission to deposing Saddam. We gave our soldiers a task that we are not willing to have the stomach to follow through.
Is now the time to withdraw troops? Do we give a timetable? Absolutely no to both. But when it is inevitable that given the constraints that we impose on ourselves that we will not succeed, the best policy is to give minimal required training and assistance to those who understand the dynamics of the politics and get out.
Ron Paul is possibly the most libertarian member of Congress currently serving. He is the only one who agrees to give ear to those who legitimately call in to question the legality of some government programs, including the constitutionality of the income tax.
Judging from Rep. Paul's voting record, he is a true conservative who favors states rights, as is indicated in a vote to limit the Federal government's powers by the 10th amendment. I would also take a leap of faith and say that Rep. Paul's seemingly un-conservative votes on some issues is not a reflection of his personal opinions, but is a reflection on his opinion that the Federal government has not particular role in the issue.
But Ron Paul is considered a kook by the main stream Republicans. Most neocons are ready to vote for Guiliani, who is indistinguishable from Hillary on social issues. But they label Ron Paul, who is more consistent in his stand for conservative ideals than any other sitting congressman, on the "fringe" of the right wing.
What Rep. Paul said was this: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is 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."
Guiliani then took the obvious politically expedient route and implied that Paul was on the lunatic fringe. But in substance, the most important phrase in the statement has t0 do with the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and our lack of understanding. If anyone can deny that applying western solutions to a region who is extremely opposed to the west is going to work out to anything but the defeat of one idea or other, then I would call them a lunatic.
But Guiliani played the popularity card, and people who disagree with the war in Iraq are not really popular with the Republican base. And in a debate of principles, I would have to side with Ron Paul.
I believe, as I have said before, that if our policy was to truly rebuild the country from the ground up, which would include the elimination of all anti-western leaders who show the slightest tendency toward violence, then perhaps the new mission in Iraq would be feasible. However, if we have not learned by now that the Middle Eastern mindset is truly foreign to those of us who are acclimated to the western culture, and that imposing our views in a diplomatic way only fuels their belief that we are weak infidels, then we never will learn.
Unfortunately, we did not limit our mission to deposing Saddam. We gave our soldiers a task that we are not willing to have the stomach to follow through.
Is now the time to withdraw troops? Do we give a timetable? Absolutely no to both. But when it is inevitable that given the constraints that we impose on ourselves that we will not succeed, the best policy is to give minimal required training and assistance to those who understand the dynamics of the politics and get out.
posted by Badbeans | 4:16 PM
2 Comments:
Immediatly pulling the troops with no clear alternative path to victory is the only thing I part with Ron Paul on. Rudy took a cheap shot at grandstanding on his 9-11 fame. Ron simply made the argument that these people hate us for a reason. That is indeed a fact. They hate us because of our deep involvement in middle eastern affairs. That, too is indeed an undisputable fact. He never said we brought this on ourselves or in anyway deserved it. No one bears the responsibility of that act but the actors themselves. He never said we should change our policies for the sole purpose of appeasing or passifying Middle Eastern Muslims. What he was alluding to is that America can expect more of these types of reactions as long as they hate us and they'll hate us as long as we're involved in middle eastern affairs.
Rudy has taken no stance on foreign policy. He's taken no stance on abortion. He's taken no stance on the war on terror. He's got no platform other than his face time on TV during 9-11. He's a RINO...every Democrat's, favorite Republican. McCain is too.
I thought Ron Paul won the debate hands down.
god..... you're such an expert on everything-get a life
Post a Comment
<< Home