If you watched the GOP debate on May 5th then you’d know my candidate Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani got into a small, actual “debate” about American foreign policy. If you saw it but don’t remember, let me refresh your memory.
PAUL: No, non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten 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.
MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 Attacks, sir?
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’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They’ve already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.
GIULIANI: 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. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.
Notice how when Paul states American policy can actually provoke attacks (OMG!) Giuliani jumped all over him, cowering behind his record as mayor of New York City during the 9/11 Attacks. Giuliani’s been doing this for the last 5 years, and this is the only reason he has any support; he was “the savior of New York.” At least, that’s what they want you to think.
If you discount Giuliani’s record as Mayor of New York, he hasn’t a single positive asset going for him. And even if you didn’t, what’s being Mayor of the largest city in the country have to do with foreign policy?
By defending 9/11 victims, Giuliani is getting some applause. But is that really what he’s doing? The man’s an opportunist; a careerist. And a very good crook. He’s fooling a lot of people.
Now, let’s go on and analyze a few quotes (verbatim) from sources that can back up their expertise, unlike Rudolph.
From Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback:
The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not “attack America,” as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an “asymmetric strategy,” in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are “a beacon for freedom” and because the attackers were “evil.” In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, “This is civilization’s fight.” This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values–as a “clash of civilizations,” in current post-cold war American jargon–is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the “blowback” that America’s imperial projects have generated.1
Maybe if a scholarly expert on foreign policy isn’t enough for you, we’ll look for a definition of this word that, according to Giuliani, cannot even exist. Must less in the United States.
According to Wikipedia:
Blowback is a term now broadly used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.
“Broadly used” must not include the most intelligent, and popular Rudy Giuliani. Also, I’d say “covert operations” can be broadened to include bombing Iraq and installing puppet governments in Iran.
Now let’s look at the 9/11 Commission Report (the official report, by the way, released by the U.S. government, which Rudy Giuliani should be very well acquainted with), p. 48:
In August 1996, Bin Laden had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The long, disjointed document condemned the Saudi monarchy for allowing the presence of an army of infidels in a land with the sites most sacred to Islam…
Having our military in sacred Muslim land could also provoke unintended consequences, as it is the mark of a policing nation which seeks to spread its own personal views of “freedom” with the rest of the world. This could be called “blowback” (sorry Rudy).
This was only one quote which I found while skimming through the report one night. I’m sure many, many other quotes could be found, but I have neither the time nor patience to deal with ignoramuses who don’t want to hear the truth…if they cannot accept this much already.
If you do, however, want to know more, I encourage you to read Michael Scheuer’s book, Imperial Hubris. The author himself appeared at a Ron Paul speech to support the Congressman. You can also read Dying to Win by Michael Pape, which explains the logic of terrorists.
So you see, folks, it’s not our “freedom” that makes the terrorists want to murder us, it’s our belief that we can do whatever we want around the world and not suffer the consequences. This belief needs to stop. Only then will the terrorists blink.