Where Giuliani Is Blind, Paul Can See

• Here is a link to this portion of the debate to which I make reference in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpUZiud98lE&mode=related&search= If you haven't yet watched it, I would suggest that you do.

In the South Carolina debate last night Congressman Paul said, “They [terrorists] 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. 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. We need to look at what we do from the perspective– what would happen if somebody else did it to us” (my own emphasis added). This explanation, to me, seems a concise and cogent argument against trying to micromanage the rest of the world.  If we Americans try to consider what we do from more than one angle, we might take up a more humble – and ultimately beneficial – foreign policy.  However, after Paul's answer Giuliani cut in, insinuated that Paul had said America “invited” the 9/11 attacks, and demanded that Paul rescind his comment. Giuliani's ad lib drew loud applause from the audience.

I absolutely cannot believe that the audience at the debate was supporting another politician spouting out the simplistic and disingenuous “the terrorists hate us because of our freedom” nonsense that has been the bread and butter of the Bush administration over the past few years. That may be a quick answer that you give in response to a curious five-year-old, but to condense a complex subject like that for voters is nothing less than condescending.

The point is, if I pee in your Cheerios (accidental or otherwise), you're probably going to be angry whether or not I had a good reason. Sweden and Switzerland are both free, prosperous western countries, yet middle easterners don't declare either of them “the great Satan” and burn effigies of their leaders on a daily basis. The difference between those two and the US is that they try to avoid meddling with other countries and maintain neutrality as much as possible.  Thus, denying that what we do may have consequences or “blow back” would suggest a fundamental inability to see an issue from anything but one narrow perspective.  Paul wasn't blaming the US for 9/11.  His actual point was that the obvious truth that our foreign policy was a contributing factor, just as one of the causes of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis was the US installation of the Shah decades before.  This opinion is not some moonbat, tinfoil-hat-wearer's delusion; it is the same view that both the 9/11 Commission and the CIA hold.

Therefore, only two possibilities exist: either Giuliani is completely ignorant of the facts or, the far more likely explanation, is that Rudy wants to be able to say “9/11” at every available opportunity.  Either way, Giuliani proved himself to be pandering to rigid, dangerous black-and-white thinkers, and right now all I can hope is that the electorate is savvy enough to see that fact.

As for myself, I'm strongly considering voting for Ron Paul. Not only does he speak the truth, but he speaks much-needed truths.