Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (4726)	5/16/2007 7:23:40 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Andrew Sullivan on Ron Paul's comments.. _________________________________ "Blowback" 16 May 2007 03:22 pm Last night, Ron Paul was savaged for daring to point out that sometimes our foreign policy interventions cause more long-term problems than they solve in the short term. I would have thought this was an obvious point, but it caused spluttering and outrage on the podium. Yes, we did nothing - nothing - to deserve 9/11 - and Paul should have said so forthrightly. But we are very foolish if we believe we can simply ignore the issue of blowback in this long war. In fact, in the battle against Jihadist terror, the point seems to me to be more relevant than in most wars. One indispensable element of our long-term success is winning over Arab and Muslim populations to the cause of democracy, secularism, moderate Islam and global integration. The more Arabs and Muslims feel alienated and attacked by the U.S.. the more support terror will get, and the more power al Qaeda gains. My hope for the Iraq war was that by removing a dictator, providing democracy, and ensuring stability and development, the US could reverse this tide by one bold gambit. I was naive, of course, and under-estimated both the resilience of anti-Western sentiment among Arabs and Muslims and also the competence and honesty of the Bush administration. The bottom line, however, is that the actual war as it has been waged in Iraq has not just failed in its basic purpose - to get rid of WMDs that did not exist - but it has actually been a major victory for al Qaeda in moving Muslim opinion their way. It is not just a defeat for the US; it is a huge win for the enemy. Josh Muravchik explains the damage: Asked whether one of the goals of U.S. global policy is “to weaken and divide Islam,” 79 percent answered in the affirmative, including 92 percent of Egyptian respondents. Asked whether the U.S. aimed “to spread Christianity in the Middle East,” 64 percent said yes. The poll then asked for the "primary goal" of the U.S. war on terror. Offered three choices, 36 percent said it was “to achieve political and military domination to control Middle East resources.” Thirty-four percent thought it was “to weaken and divide the Islamic religion and its people.” Only 19 percent thought the reason was “to protect itself from terrorist attacks.”... In addition to such paranoia, the poll pointed to other delusions. Asked to identify the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, for every three respondents who pointed to al Qaeda, four pointed the finger at the U.S. or Israel. As for the roots of this hostility to the U.S., the poll cast doubt on some common assumptions. It is often said that the publics in Muslim countries are angry at U.S. support for the regimes that oppress them. But asked if they favored pushing the U.S. “to stop providing support to such governments as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan,” only a modest plurality agreed. The one country that registered strong agreement with this proposition was the one democracy, Indonesia. By contrast, in Egypt—the only country surveyed that was also mentioned in the question—a narrow plurality opposed pushing the U.S. to cut aid. So much for the idea that Egyptians are hostile to us because we support their government. A second explanation of anti-Americanism that the survey cast into doubt is the war in Iraq. There is no question that the war has fueled rage at the U.S.: when respondents were asked whether they approved of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, slightly more than half said yes, slightly more than one-quarter said no, and the rest were undecided. The question serious supporters of a real war on terror must now ask is: will continuing the fight in Iraq help reverse this trend or cement it for decades to come? Is the war making us less secure and the world much less safe? Would withdrawal or continued engagement makes things better? At the very least, it seems to me, this question should be on the table in the Iraq debate. And yet the Republicans - with the exception of Ron Paul - don't even want to talk about it. Until they do, they are not a party serious about national security. andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (4726)	5/16/2007 7:40:54 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

More from Sullivan on Paul...He is all the rage today, like him or loathe him....but why drop him from the debates? _________________________________ The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a "crackpot." Hannity predictably savaged him last night (see above). The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I'm getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They're scared, aren't they? The Internet polls show real support for him. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers. We have a real phenomenon here - because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for. Whether you agree with him or not ( and I know few outside doctrinaire libertarians who agree with everything he says), he has already elevated the debates by injecting into them a legitimate, if now suppressed, strain of conservatism that is actually deeper in this country than the neoconservative aggression that now captures the party elite and has trapped the US in the Iraq nightmare. Last night, Fox News tried to destroy him. Today the right-wing blogs will. My view is that the Beltway has this wrong again, as Byron York is finding out. Paul is saying things many Americans and many Republicans believe. On the war and spending, he is venting a vital part of conservative opinion - and, in my view, the conservative critique of this war and these Republicans is more damning than any liberal one. I may not agree with him on everything and he is far from a smooth operator. But he has more balls than most of them put together. Check this video montage from the first debate and this exchange from the second. Make your own mind up. Hang in there, Dr Ron. There are more of us out here wishing you the best than you know. andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com