Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality

Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.

The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "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."

Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."

Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."

Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (63)

1. Paul's right. bin Laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia and attacked us on 9/11 to make it happen. And happen it did. Two years after 9/11 we were out. "U.S. officials transferred control of portions of Prince Sultan Air Base to Saudi officials at a ceremony on Aug. 26, 2003. The U.S. pullout was scheduled to be completed then early September 2003."

   We haven't been attacked by bin Laden and his boys again because Bush ran with his tail between his legs just as Reagan did from Lebanon.

   bin Laden won! Bush used the attack of 9/11 as a pretense for attacking Iraq for its oil.

   What's the difference between Jerry Falwell, religious fundamentalist and Osama bin Laden, religious fundamentalist?

   Answer: Osama is still alive!

   "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

   itmfa

   BTW, I watched the GOP talk show tonight and my favorite candidate is that guy in the middle, I think his name is Hunter Thompson. ;-)

   Posted by COProgressive at 05/16/2007 @ 01:02am

2. I think his name is Hunter Thompson. ;-)

   Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 05/16/2007

   satire?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 08:16am

3. So it is correct that Iraq was one of the reasons for 9/11?

   Posted by abell12ct at 05/16/2007 @ 08:30am

4. Thanks for the laugh Rese!

   Posted by abell12ct at 05/16/2007 @ 08:36am

5. Posted by ABELL12CT 05/16/2007 @ 08:30am | ignore this person

   Iraq was just one issue for arab muslims. the palestinian impasse is another. for Bin Laden at least the US troops stationed in Saudi was the biggest issue, but mid east muslims in toto have had their lives and countries run by outside western powers, which is the source of their anger. the invasion and destruction of Iraq caused by the US has moved up to one of their main issue. in this sense, among others, the Iraq war has been a political disaster for the US in the region. we will pay the price for this adventure for a long time to come.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 08:41am

6. I think that the sanctions placed on Iraq were also a major cause for 9/11. But what were we to do? Keeping the sanctions wasn't a good idea nor was lifting them and letting Sadaam go on his merry way. Was taking Sadaam out the best of all options?

   Posted by abell12ct at 05/16/2007 @ 08:49am

7. Apparently, Congressman Paul inspired RESE this morning.

   I'm still waiting on his 3000 word Cut&Paste from Wayne Madsen on how Mossad agents planted thermite in Anna Nichol Smith's boobs!

   Posted by Mask at 05/16/2007 @ 08:50am

8. Was taking Sadaam out the best of all options?

   Posted by ABELL12CT 05/16/2007 @ 08:49am | ignore this person

   it was obviously the worst of all options. the fascination with Saddam was misguided. he was the head of the Baath party. he could have been replaced by another Baath thug. killing Saddam has solved nothing.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 09:11am

9. Was taking Sadaam out the best of all options?

   Posted by ABELL12CT 05/16/2007 @ 08:49am

   clearly not for 3500 Americans. Or the 20,000 wounded. Or the 750,000 Iraqi dead (Yes, the British guvt came out and said the Lancet study was valid. So much for chimpies oft parroted statements about the study being invalid)

   think about that ABEL. 750,000 Iraqi dead. 2,000,000 have fled their home country. Another 2,000,000 have been internally displaced. Would you be happy if the Chinese did that to us, or the Mexicans or anybody for that matter. How about if Iraq were in Mexico, would you want our guvt undermining their effort?

   so, no invading Iraq with no plan for stabilizing it was NOT the best option. Millions of us knew that before, because we didn't let fear rule us.

   guliani is going nowhere. He has only 9/11 and that fear card is wearing thin with all but the 28%'ers.

   Posted by crabwalk at 05/16/2007 @ 09:23am

10. Well let's see ... we already have a refugee crisis with Mexico. I've heard that 12,000,000 have fled that country. I'm not saying the Iraq war was right or wrong but that Sadaam should have been taken out. If we sent in a black ops team to kill him and his sons that might have been a better solution.

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/16/2007 @ 09:31am

11. Posted by DRHAMMER 05/16/2007 @ 09:32am

    Iraq is a libertarian paradise, yet no libertarians are wiling to go over and start some industry.

    ????

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/16/2007 @ 09:35am

12. By the way, Rudy is just another deluded nitwit photo-op whore.

    (His campaign advisors must never let him see his own campaign footage...)

    Posted by drhammer at 05/16/2007 @ 09:36am

13. Posted by ABELL12CT 05/16/2007 @ 09:31am | ignore this person

    it would have solved nothing. america is not the ruler of the world. we do not send out hit teams to kill every tin pot dictator. Mugabe would have been higher on the list than Saddam, the Burmese junta too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 09:56am

14. we already have a refugee crisis with Mexico.

    oh I don't know. the employers of those mexican millions seem very happy with the arrangement.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 10:11am

15. ther are refugees and there are refugees. the mexicans are fleeing towards something, a job. the Iraqis are fleeing from something, a civil war. big difference.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 10:12am

16. Ron Paul - Texas Straight Talk - Right On!

    Rudy exemplifies debating style of right wing authoritarian followers....hear no evil....speak no evil.....see no evil...... Mr. 9/11 was genuinely threatened. Paul was stealing away the whole basis of the Rudy platform. Nice try Rudy...we aren't buying it.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/16/2007 @ 11:02am

17. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/16/2007 @ 10:11am

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/16/2007 @ 10:12am

    did you take some wisdom medicine today? Spot on.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/16/2007 @ 11:30am

18. thanks, Crab. I don't know what got into me.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 11:47am

19. boy did giuliani exploit that opportunity! what an idiot?

    "will the senator withdraw his statement that the 'US invited 9.11'"?

    uh, rudy, the fox news anchor was the one who said, "did the US invite 9.11", not the senator.

    and in any case, the answer to that question, is undoubtedly YES, the united states DID invite 9.11.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:05pm

20. Ah, there goes Rudy with his "pre-9/11 versus post-9/11 mentality" bit again.

    So glad to know he is proudly accepting the mantle of ole' G.W. Bush, another brilliant mind whose lies, dishonesty and simplicity have served us so well.

    However, I am glad to see that even Fox News viewers were not immediately taken in by Mr. Mayor's emptyheadedness. Maybe there is some hope yet.

    Posted by hhemwm at 05/16/2007 @ 12:07pm

21. note: according to fox news own poll on the debate, paul won by a 2% margin over giulani, and a wide margin over the rest of the field.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:07pm

22. Never mind Ron Paul.....just curious...

    when will the DEMOCRATIC candidates take up the banner of "9/11 was our fault"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2007 @ 12:07pm

23. It is also refreshing to hear a REPUBLICAN politician make the comment that maybe Al Qaeda and other militant groups are actually benefitting from the American presence in Iraq.

    This nonsense about we have to fight em' over there to keep them from coming over here is just plain stupid. It is repeated ad nauseum and then you have little maudlin stunts like Mr. Giuliani pulled where anyone who questions the logic of said position is essentially branded as unAmerican.

    But it is not working any more. And it is about da*n time.

    Posted by hhemwm at 05/16/2007 @ 12:09pm

24. giuliani's worst debate point: "as someone who's been through 9.11......"

    uh, rudy, i hate to say it, but, we all went through 9.11 in one form or another. and even if he WAS the ONLY person to have been through 9.11, that it no way favors him to critique foreign policy any better than anyone else.

    idiot! i can't believe people applaud him.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:10pm

25. there are a lot of people who went through 9/11 worse than Rudy, who has not lost any relations in the attack. wanno know about Rudy, ask those folks.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 12:16pm

26. ron paul really is (by FAR) the only intelligent person in the field. the candidate with the most substance is NOT the one with practical solutions, but the one who critiques the system the best. the one with the most self-awareness. rudy is completely out of reality altogether. he's like Bush 2.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:19pm

27. Posted by RESE 05/16/2007 @ 07:37am | ignore this person

    Have you read Blowing up Russia, by Alexander Litvinenko & Yuri Felshtinsky?

    If it can happen there, why not here. Maybe you are on to something. Its worthy of discussion.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/16/2007 @ 12:22pm

28. is it me, or are many so-called conservatives just under-educated in terms of critical faculties?

    i notice that most universities in the US separante the business departments from the liberal arts, which is clearly in evidence in the debate points and styles of most (not all) conservatives. hitchens, sullivan, buckley, et al, can clearly debate well, and have high levels of self-awareness, but the rest of the lot is like totally losing it dude (to be california about it)....

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:22pm

29. actually paul did screw up when he tied iraq to 9.11

    bad move there.....hope he caught it and corrected it for his fans....

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:24pm

30. darla, I think Rudy is betting on another attack. then he'll be positioned.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 12:25pm

31. Its amazing. I've got relations that were former Bush supporters who have sworn off GOP with exception of Ron Paul. They have watched the debates on both sides thus far, and the only candidates they like are Paul and Gravel. Are the winds of change truly blowing?

    Posted by OneVote at 05/16/2007 @ 12:26pm

32. from DavidCorn.com

    May 16, 2007 Another Debate

    Another presidential debate--another snoozefest?...

    This time it was the Republicans' turn,....-crowded debates are not all that useful in sorting out the contenders. Too many wannabes are on the stage....

    Who won?....I would have to go with Giuliani. Why?....

    Posted by David Corn at 12:13 AM

    Posted by Happy at 05/16/2007 @ 12:28pm

33. well, happy, he was mostly right. rudy came in 2nd, according to polls.

    i don't honestly think that corn thought rudy was 'correct' in his stance....just that he won.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2007 @ 12:31pm

34. Its amazing. I've got relations that were former Bush supporters who have sworn off GOP with exception of Ron Paul. They have watched the debates on both sides thus far, and the only candidates they like are Paul and Gravel. Are the winds of change truly blowing?

    Posted by ONEVOTE 05/16/2007 @ 12:26pm

    This is partialy my point when I state that there are no conservatives in govt today, that a conservative can win in 08, that a libertarian is more like a conservative of the past...and Bush, 1 and 2, never were conservatives...and that is why they are in trouble and why many here think Hillary is not that far away from Bush......and why Reagan won big and Bush 1 lost big in the primarys(perceived as another New England lib of sorts)...I could go on..

    and why I laugh at guys like Conshame and Frank who harp about Bush and neo cons and republicans...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2007 @ 12:35pm

35. is it me, ...

    Posted by DARLADOON 05/16/2007 @ 12:22pm

    Yup, it's you...influenced by your gardening, of course..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2007 @ 12:37pm

36. and styles of most (not all) conservatives. hitchens, sullivan, buckley, et al, can clearly debate well....

    Posted by DARLADOON 05/16/2007 @ 12:22pm

    Uh, DARLA...Christopher Hitchens is a socialist, not a conservative.

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2007 @ 12:39pm

37. and why I laugh at guys like Conshame and Frank who harp about Bush and neo cons and republicans...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2007 @ 12:35pm | ignore this person

    I find that I share much of libertarian and true conservative philosophy. You are right, I think that if GOP could field such a candidate, that they might have a shot. Democrats plan to sit on their hands till the election so as to not do anything controversial, but that is precisely why I will be more than willing to entertain a vote for the GOP depending on who they field. Its interesting. GOP should be getting the message that they need to something radical to turn the tide. A true conservative with libertarian blood would be radical indeed.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/16/2007 @ 1:04pm

38. Christopher Hitchens is a socialist, not a conservative.

    Posted by MASK 05/16/2007 @ 12:39pm

    Sorry, Hitchens is an ass. Period.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/16/2007 @ 1:14pm

39. I'd enjoyed Hitchens' erudition for years in The Nation and was sorely disappointed by his joining with the imperialists in demonizing Sadam and, by extension, as it's turned out SINCE the FIRST Iraq war in '91, the Iraqi people who've been made to endure crippling external sanctions in addition to the internal despotism.

    Posted by lewwelge at 05/16/2007 @ 1:47pm

40. notice that most universities in the US separante the business departments from the liberal arts, which is clearly in evidence in the debate points and styles of most (not all) conservatives. hitchens, sullivan, buckley, et al, can clearly debate well, and have high levels of self-awareness, but the rest of the lot is like totally losing it dude (to be california about it)....

    Posted by DARLADOON

    Have you ever compared a liberal arts' degree plan with a business major's.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/16/2007 @ 2:45pm

41. The author of this article must be incredibly proud that his piece has elicited a wave of virulently racist, Jew-hating comments. Congratulations. You are right, America itself (and the Jooooz who control it) are obviously to blame for an attack in which 3,000 civilians were murdered in broad daylight. I think I'll stick w Rudy, thanks.

    Posted by TruthTeller at 05/16/2007 @ 5:07pm

42. I'd enjoyed Hitchens' erudition for years in The Nation and was sorely disappointed by his joining with the imperialists in demonizing Sadam and, by extension, as it's turned out SINCE the FIRST Iraq war in '91, the Iraqi people who've been made to endure crippling external sanctions in addition to the internal despotism.

    Posted by LEWWELGE 05/16/2007 @ 1:47pm

    Ohh dear. Whenever people criticize our move against Iraq in the Gulf War, it seems as though they never really offer any coherent alternative courses of action. He had WMD, that much was blatantly obvious. He also had just invaded a sovereign nation, meaning that action to expel him from Kuwait could not possibly have been illegal. Absent either military action or some form of sanctions, do you really mean to suggest that leaving Saddam alone after his invasion of Kuwait was somehow a reasonable course of action?

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/16/2007 @ 5:29pm

43. Posted by UTCAREFUL

    I'd love to see the reaction of Americans if our country was dominated by an outside power with an alien culture, different religion. How would Americans tolerate a government propped up by a foreign power? If their was a situation analoguous to Israel and the abuse of Palestinians in relation to the US, what would Americans do?

    Things happen for a reason. If you stick your hand in a fire you're gonna get burned.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/16/2007 @ 5:47pm

44. MTSPENCE, give me a "yes" or "no." Are you saying we deserved the 9/11 attacks?

    Posted by utcareful at 05/16/2007 @ 5:57pm

45. if I may jump in here. we did not deserve this attack. at the same time our highhanded imperialistic actions towards arabs in the ME were the cause of it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 6:02pm

46. Alright, Johannes is making it interesting. We have causation vs. fault and single cause vs. multiple causes. Also, Johannes and I think that even if the U.S. wronged the Middle East in some way, 9/11 was not a proper response. MTSPENCE seems to think it was (the Ward Churchill view).

    Posted by utcareful at 05/16/2007 @ 6:31pm

47. Posted by UTCAREFUL 05/16/2007 @ 6:31pm | ignore this person

    the attack was a successful one. first that it was pulled off without a leak or an infiltrator was the first success. that the US troops were withdrawn from saudi was the second success. Bin Laden's aim is to overthrow the saudi monarchy. we had a similar experience a while back, overthrowing a monarchy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 6:46pm

48. oh yeah, that was the other thing. he sites the fox "text message" poll that ron paul won, which was about as unscientific as one can get. ron paul's supporters have been flooding polls, shows, and sites to get their candidate attention. it means nothing. the average american, even the average republican before last night, hasn't even heard of ron paul.

    Posted by dgaj at 05/16/2007 @ 7:09pm

49. they will now.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/16/2007 @ 9:37pm

50. Giuliani was wrong but Ron Paul was also wrong.

    Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate by their own words. They want the Mideast so they can conquer it for themselves. But it will not stop there the Mideast is only the first step. They also demand North Africa and South East Asia.

    Destroying Israel is only the first step for them it is necessary but not sufficient. What are you going to do when they demand that that the US stops supporting India?

    Al Qaeda also demands Spain . What are you going to do when Al Qaeda demands the US not have relations with Spain?

    One thing that is left out Bin Laden in complains the US supports China's oppression of Muslims and Russia ‘s actions in Chenchnya . This is completely false. He blames the US for low oil prices. I would not shock me if one day he claims that Alternative energy is a plot by the US against Muslims

    The real truth is that Bin Laden blames the US for anything that he doesn't like in the world which suits him cause the objectives of Al Qaeda are to gain the Caliphate. The mideast won't be the end.

    Sorry but readers of the Nation seem not to know the difference between necessary and sufficient.

    Posted by Jonathanstern at 05/16/2007 @ 9:55pm

51. ...but readers of the Nation seem not to know the difference between necessary and sufficient.

    Posted by JONATHANSTERN 05/16/2007 @ 9:55pm

    Don't brush all of us Nation readers/posters w/the same brush! Read more....a third of us here are well aware of the goals of them `terrorists'!

    Posted by Happy at 05/16/2007 @ 11:30pm

52. Pathetic What brilliant logic! Yes, our bombing them and being 'over there' is the cause of 9/11. Ron Paul has some good qualities, but this theory is not only entirely wrong, it's scary how naive it is. The reality is, the extremism we see today, is more due to the debauchery of Western civilization, and our twisted media outlets that promote ungodly lifestyles in the middle-east. This infuriates muslims who consider non-muslims as less than human and has engendered much jealousy for the wealth they perceive we have. And while we are comparitively wealthy, the irony is our Western society by and large is egregiously poor in our modern materialistic culture - and much more in our understanding of the dynamics of an Islamic state.

    For you Americans who may disagree with Conservatives, and seem to have an abundant supply of vitriol towards you're own countrymen, listen very closely to the following statements. For all your misplaced rhetoric and insults against Christians and the Christian heritage of this country, you will suffer the most in an Islamic state. If you think for one minute that you'd fair better in a tolerated Islamic state such as the Royal Saudi Kingdom than here with Christians, I invite you to visit and experience what awaits you. Furthermore, what the Al Qaida groups would install would be far worse than modern Islamic rule in Saudi.

    I'm no political pundit, I don't know what these monikers of neo-con, neo-lib, or left vs. right really mean. But having family from the middle east, I can tell you I know whatever grievence you feel you have against Christianity and traditional American families, you have to be really far gone to consider people who generally tolerate your opposing view in society something worse than Al Qaida. Furthermore, to attribute the acts of terrorism and muslim extremism to something other than the apocolyptic plan of men who are bent on death and destruction may in ultimately lead to your own.

    What did the 2mm+ Sudanese do to deserve their executions by the hands of militant muslims?

    What about the hundreds of thousands Nigerian Christians?

    How about the 1.5mm+ Armenian Christians?

    And the Indonesian Christians who are regularly persecuted? What do you tell the parents of two teenage girls recently beheaded for their faith?

    How about the Turkish Christians recently disemboweled for their faith? Or the other Christian missionaries who had their throats cut - entirely separate incidents that happened in the same month in "secular Turkey".

    These references are but a brief overview of the concerted effort of Muslims to systematically eliminate Christians who they view as their most powerful enemy. If they get past Christians, do you pagans and non-believers think that anything but forced conversion or death awaits you? Oh, and don't think for a second you'll ever be considered in the same class as the Arab Muslims... go visit modern Kuwait for a taste of what racist class sepearation awaits you.

    In the final analysis, all nations will be broke under the hand of Jesus Christ - including America. So frankly, I don't care what decision a person comes to relating to these matters - in the end, Christ is victorious. But I would hope, in a worldy sense, Americans would not be so stupid to allow naive self-abasement and contrived guilty trips to blind them to our common enemy of freedom which is militant Islam.

    Posted by peleyoetz at 05/17/2007 @ 12:23am

53. Posted by PELEYOETZ 05/17/2007 @ 12:23am:

    In the final analysis, all nations will be broke under the hand of Allah - including America. So frankly, I don't care what decision a person comes to relating to these matters - in the end, Allah is victorious. But I would hope, in a worldy sense, Americans would not be so stupid to allow naive self-abasement and contrived guilty trips to blind them to our common enemy of freedom which is militant [infidel Christianity/Zionism].

    There, fixed that for you. Change a couple of words, and you have the spewings of Bin Ladin.

    See how the fundamentalisms are interchangeable?

    Back under your bridge with you, now.

    Posted by siegeljd at 05/17/2007 @ 01:27am

54. You too can take the quiz:

    Who said it? Falwell, Robertson, or bin Ladin?

    Enjoy!

    Quiz [funnystrange.com]

    Or, if you want to cheat (this version has the answers at the bottom of the page):

    QUIZ: Jerry, Pat, or Osama? [godlessgeeks.com]

    Play away, PELEYOETZ.

    Posted by siegeljd at 05/17/2007 @ 01:47am

55. MTSPENCE, give me a "yes" or "no." Are you saying we deserved the 9/11 attacks?

    Posted by UTCAREFUL 05/16/2007 @ 5:57pm

    Why, yes, we did.

    My authority? Why, The [deceased] Right Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell, of course.

    The 700 Club, 13-Sept-2001, interview with The Rev. Pat Robertson:

    But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

    QED.

    Posted by siegeljd at 05/17/2007 @ 02:00am

56. Oh, but wait, there's more.

    Washington Post, September 14, 2001 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28620-2001Sep14.html

    God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says By John F. Harris, Washington Post Staff Writer

    Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America.

    "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

    "Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

    Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

    Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way â·" all of them who have tried to secularize America â·" I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

    People for the American Way transcribed the broadcast and denounced the comments as running directly counter to President Bush's call for national unity. Ralph G. Neas, the liberal group's president, called the remarks "absolutely inappropriate and irresponsible."

    Robertson and others on the religious right gave critical backing to Bush last year when he was battling for the GOP presidential nomination. A White House official called the remarks "inappropriate" and added, "The president does not share those views."

    Falwell was unrepentant, saying in an interview that he was "making a theological statement, not a legal statement."

    "I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist," he said. But he said America's "secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good."

    Robertson was not available for comment, a spokeswoman said. But she released a statement echoing the remarks he made on his show. An ACLU spokeswoman said the group "will not dignify the Falwell-Robertson remarks with a comment."

    Once again: We deserved it. Falwell and Robertson say so. QED.

    Posted by siegeljd at 05/17/2007 @ 02:05am

57. Posted by JONATHANSTERN 05/16/2007 @ 9:55pm | ignore this person

    this is all nonsense. and dangerous nonsense to boot.by focusing on the pipe dreams of some islamists we get a free ride on the very real complaints that arab muslims share. their region has always been a football for the western powers to kick back and forth. the Iraq war is just the latest of these imperialist adventures.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 08:21am

58. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/17/2007 @ 08:21am

    Right on JR.

    I was going to do a post addressing DGAJ, UTCARFEFUL, and PELEYOETZ fear mongering who just all seem to show up here at the same time. But you post nailed it in a nutshell. Thanks....

    "It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983), The Passionate State of Mind, 1954

    itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 05/17/2007 @ 10:54am

59. thanks Co. your quotes have been most informative.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 11:10am

60. So..I have a question.

    A lot of the arguments seem to suggest that Bin Laden is upset by our presence within the Middle East (which, I'm pretty sure, includes Israel). If that's the case, precisely what do you recommend? Leaving the Middle East entirely? How far would you actually be willing to go in order to meet the demands of bin Laden, which are particularly likely to increase as he sees them begin to succeed?

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/17/2007 @ 11:27am

61. Thrawn, a good first step would be to demilitarize the ME. all the arabs want Israel gone. that is at least the idea they pay lip service to. it's not going to happen. Israel will have to change its right wing and militaristic policies, not least because they have been a failure.

    by giving arabs an honest chance at settlement talks will undercut the radicals. the opposite has been true for some time.

    Bin Laden did succeed in his demand of no huge american troop presence in Saudi. the 9/11 attack worked, from his point of view.his however is not the only voice in the region.

    how did the cold war come to an end? with negotiations. that is how the conflict in the ME must end, with negotiations. this will not happen during Bush's regime.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 11:46am

62. Reading through some of the conspiracy oriented comments on here I feel compelled to air a concern. If we are going to promote Ron Paul as a legitimate candidate for the mainstream voters we need to do our best to show his realistic, sensible history of voting and policy.

    Focusing on fringe 9-11 theories will, without a doubt, offer more fodder for the people who are already talking about Paul's "tinfoil hat". he is NOT a tinfoil hat, conspiracy theorist, but a pragmatic, honest politician with the welfare of the Republic in his heart.

    We need to discuss the issues of his congressional voting record and his reasoned, rational stance on the issues.

    Those alone are enough to display that he is the only stand out candidate today running for the Presidency.

    Posted by evolver at 05/17/2007 @ 12:30pm

63. Paul was quoting the Iraq study group report, and he is on solid ground.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 1:24pm