Running Like Ron

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/running-like-ron/

All that changed on May 15, 2007. The first big debate of the 2008 campaign was sponsored by Fox News. At first, the good doctor looked lost in a sea of blow-dried politicians. But then moderator Wendell Goler asked the question that launched a movement.

Maybe it was because he was trying to purge the field of the sole critic of the neoconservative foreign policy so beloved by the Fox crowd. Or maybe he was just looking for ratings. In any event, Goler adopted a prosecutorial tone as he asked Paul why he was the only candidate to oppose the Iraq War.

Professor Paul responded with a rather dry history lesson concering conservative opposition to foreign-policy adventurism going back to the days of Robert Taft. The timer rang.

Goler persisted.

“Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?” he asked.

“What changed?” Paul said. He seemed honestly puzzled at the notion that the principles espoused by the Founders could be altered by a one-time event. Once he got Goler’s drift, though, he explained that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” for U.S. government meddling in the Mideast.

“They attacked us because we’ve been over there,” Paul said. “We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”

That sent the front-runner into a frenzy. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani demanded time to repeat the talking point around which his entire campaign was based. “That’s an extraordinary statement as someone who lived through September 11 that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq,” said Giuliani. “I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.”

The audience erupted in applause. Talking heads all over America started chattering about the biggest gaffe of the campaign. They pronounced the campaign over for Paul.

It was just the beginning. Paul knew something the pundits didn’t: there’s a strong strain of support in America for what traditional conservatives call “noninterventionism” and neoconservatives call “isolationism.”

[boutons_deux]

OBL said WTC attack was in retaliation for US military boots occupying his sacred Saudi Arabian sands.

iow, "That's Why They Hate Us" busting into their countries for oil and occupying/warring indefinitely, murdering civilians, etc, etc.

neocons, supposedly isolationists, convinced Poppy to start the Gulf War after Saddam said he was withdrawing from Kuweit, and then they planned in the late 90s to invade Iraq, and they want to go into Iran. Isolationist? GMAFB

[Winehole23]

You're talking nonsense again, boutons. Neocons = liberal interventionists. Which maybe is why Obama gets along so great with them..

[EVAY]

B-D is accurate insofar as OBL blaming American military presence in Saudi Arabia as the pretense for all the terrorist stuff. The fact that such a position is preposterous is lost on both liberals and neocons.

Saudi Arabia asked the U.S. to put boots on the ground there before the first Gulf War because they were afraid of Saddam. On that basis, OBL should have attacked his own government instead of the U.S., but that wasn't going to make him a hero against a 'great satan' the way attacking us would.