FrankRep
12-30-2009, 02:57 PM
Ben Stein Explains His Attack on Ron Paul, Creating More Questions Than Answers (http://www.examiner.com/x-19718-Boston-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d30-Ben-Stein-Explains-His-Attack-on-Ron-Paul-Creating-More-Questions-Than-Answers)
Examiner | Thomas Eddlem
December 30, 2009
Ben Stein published (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment) an explanation of his attack on Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on his American Spectator blog December 30. Two days before Stein had termed Rep. Paul 's argument against the ever-increasing U.S. intervention in Muslim nations in the war on terror an “anti-Semitic argument” in a debate on CNN's Larry King Live (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ).
Rep. Paul – who favored the attack on Afghanistan in 2001 as a legitimate response to the September 11 attacks – has in recent years argued that the more than eight-year-long occupation of Afghanistan and military strikes on other Muslim nations are increasingly being viewed by Muslims as a foreign occupation force that props up corrupt governments rather than a legitimate anti-terrorism effort. Regarding the most recent hijacking of an airline on Christmas day, Paul noted that interventionist-minded policy-makers are “never asking the question: What is the motive?” Dr. Paul went on to explain that the most recent would-be airline hijacker “said why he did it. He said because we bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive.”
Stein said on Larry King Live December 28 that Rep. Paul's words constituted an “anti-Semitic argument” and explained further in his American Spectator column (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment) that:
“...in my long experience, those who talk about the U.S. 'occupying' Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel -- a line long associated with Rep. Paul, as I understand, and again, maybe I am misinformed -- and then to biting criticism of Israel and then to bitter comments about Jews generally.”
Rep. Paul had never mentioned Israel or anything Jewish during the debate, nor is there any statement in the former obstetrician's 35-year public record that gives a whiff of hostility to Jews or Judaism. Stein's explanation, and his performance on the original Larry King Live segment, raise two issues related to the war on terror.
1. Anti-Semitism. The first issue is whether a person can advocate that the United States have a policy of minding its own business and staying out of foreign quarrels, as President George Washington advised in his farewell address (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp), and not be an anti-Semite.
Stein argued (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ) on the Larry King Live segment that the United States must help all of its “friends” or be considered anti-Semitic. According to Stein, one is an anti-Semite even if he refuses to support the corrupt Islamic state of Yemen with military force because the Yemeni government is among “our friends.” Two days later Stein qualified the statement in his American Spectator blog (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment) – two days after he let his “anti-Semitic argument” fly – by adding that if Ron Paul accepted U.S. support for Israel that he may not be an anti-Semite. “I was about to add that I was sure that Rep. Paul was not going that far,” Stein explained. “So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him.” Essentially, Stein was saying that even though he labeled Rep. Paul's arguments “anti-Semitic” on national television, he was willing to admit that perhaps Rep. Paul was not an anti-Semite after all.
If someone does take George Washington's view (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp) of keeping out of foreign entanglements, Stein modified his argument on his American Spectator blog, a person is an anti-Semite only if he applies the principle to all nations, including Israel. Whereas Rep. Paul has advocated a foreign policy perfectly in tune with Washington's farewell address (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp) – one without any favoritism or intervention whatsoever – Stein may indeed still consider him an anti-Semite.
2. Blowback. The more relevant issue revolves around military intervention and whether the United States becoming the policeman of the world creates what is called “blowback” in the intelligence world. Stein denies the possibility that anyone could be motivated to attack the United States because our government is in the business of blowing up people across the Middle East. “They're terrorists and murderers because they are psychos, same as all terrorists and murderers,” Stein told (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ) Rep. Paul during the Larry King debate. Stein argues that terrorists are crazy, that they do not act in a rational way, and that they therefore cannot be reacting to the death of a loved one or fellow countryman. Terrorists attack without reason, Stein flatly stated.
If Stein is correct and terrorists are indeed insane and acting without a reason (a reason may have merit or be entirely devoid of merit), then there is no reasonable expectation that they would target the United States any more than any other government, person or object. If there is no reason, then the attacks are purely random. In fact, if terrorists are truly insane and without reason, logic suggests they would be far less likely to attack the United States. Attacking the United States requires extraordinary travel preparations for Middle Eastern terrorists and intricate planning that is ordinarily beyond the capacity of most insane people to accomplish. And it certainly doesn't fit the random pattern under which Stein insists terrorists heed.
Stein went on to explain (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ) that Ron Paul's arguments were wrong and that the United States has an obligation to prop up the corrupt government of Yemen:
“I never heard anything quite like that in my whole life. What he's basically saying is that we are doing something wrong by defending ourselves. Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we've got to help defend them. They are our friends.”
Ben Stein must not have watched any of the Republican Presidential debates for the 2008 election cycle to never had heard an argument like that, as Ron Paul had made precisely the same arguments throughout the campaign. In fact, during the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate on May 15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani made an almost identical comment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=print) to Stein's:
“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.”
Giuliani's statement and interaction with Rep. Paul was the top story on news shows and on the front page of newspapers across the country the following day. It almost strains credulity for a person like Stein who claims to be a political consultant to not have ever heard an argument before after such a news event. He may not have heard of the argument before, but it shouldn't go without noting that he was pretty sure from his “long experience” with such arguments that it was an anti-Semitic one.
Stein's argument (like that of Giuliani's more than two years earlier) is that to search for a reason, motivation or pattern among terrorist attacks is equivalent to saying that the United States is to blame for the attacks. Stein reaffirmed his statement that discussion of blowback is nothing more than blaming the United States for terrorist incidents.
But the logic of blowback is not only inevitable, it gains strength with the passage of time. No rational person would argue that if American soldiers are still combating terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan 100 years from now that United States soldiers would no longer be seen as liberators and would instead be seen as a foreign occupying force to the natives. The question that strikes to the core of the issue is how long does a legitimate strike for national security take to become an occupation army? The answer, whatever number the reader comes up with, is a lot smaller number for people living in the country where foreign soldiers are shooting, bombing and killing people. Eventually the terrorists become freedom fighters against the occupying army according to the local population. Many people across the Middle East long ago moved on from the liberator to the occupier worldview, Rep. Paul argues, and that can only end in ever larger numbers of “terrorist” attacks against the United States as long as U.S. intervention continues.
If one accepts that occasionally terrorists have reasons for committing their crimes, even if those reasons are not legitimate, then it stands to reason increasing U.S. intervention will only provoke more of a reaction. It also raises the question of whether the goals Stein laid out are worth the price being paid by American soldiers. Stein noted (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ):
“Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we've got to help defend them. They are our friends.”
In the case of Yemen, U.S. military intervention began back in 1982 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/world/nation-challenged-military-us-broadens-terror-fight-readying-troops-for-yemen.html?pagewanted=1), six years before the first terrorist attack against Americans emerged from the nation. But the larger issue is: Do we really need to defend Yemen's corrupt, Islamic government and its system of torture with the blood of American soldiers? The corrupt Yemeni government, a virtual one-party state which engages in torture, censorship and a host of other human rights violations, is more important than the lives of American soldiers, Stein is essentially arguing. The statement says volumes about how much Ben Stein “supports the troops.” Under such a worldview, U.S. soldiers are mere pawns to be traded away if the U.S. government can get a bargain foreign government to do whatever its will is at the time.
From such a person, the accusation of “anti-Semitism” seems to lose its sting.
YouTube - Ron Paul on Larry King 12/28/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdG4eySIU8)
SOURCE:
http://www.examiner.com/x-19718-Boston-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d30-Ben-Stein-Explains-His-Attack-on-Ron-Paul-Creating-More-Questions-Than-Answers
Examiner | Thomas Eddlem
December 30, 2009
Ben Stein published (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment) an explanation of his attack on Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on his American Spectator blog December 30. Two days before Stein had termed Rep. Paul 's argument against the ever-increasing U.S. intervention in Muslim nations in the war on terror an “anti-Semitic argument” in a debate on CNN's Larry King Live (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ).
Rep. Paul – who favored the attack on Afghanistan in 2001 as a legitimate response to the September 11 attacks – has in recent years argued that the more than eight-year-long occupation of Afghanistan and military strikes on other Muslim nations are increasingly being viewed by Muslims as a foreign occupation force that props up corrupt governments rather than a legitimate anti-terrorism effort. Regarding the most recent hijacking of an airline on Christmas day, Paul noted that interventionist-minded policy-makers are “never asking the question: What is the motive?” Dr. Paul went on to explain that the most recent would-be airline hijacker “said why he did it. He said because we bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive.”
Stein said on Larry King Live December 28 that Rep. Paul's words constituted an “anti-Semitic argument” and explained further in his American Spectator column (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment) that:
“...in my long experience, those who talk about the U.S. 'occupying' Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel -- a line long associated with Rep. Paul, as I understand, and again, maybe I am misinformed -- and then to biting criticism of Israel and then to bitter comments about Jews generally.”
Rep. Paul had never mentioned Israel or anything Jewish during the debate, nor is there any statement in the former obstetrician's 35-year public record that gives a whiff of hostility to Jews or Judaism. Stein's explanation, and his performance on the original Larry King Live segment, raise two issues related to the war on terror.
1. Anti-Semitism. The first issue is whether a person can advocate that the United States have a policy of minding its own business and staying out of foreign quarrels, as President George Washington advised in his farewell address (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp), and not be an anti-Semite.
Stein argued (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ) on the Larry King Live segment that the United States must help all of its “friends” or be considered anti-Semitic. According to Stein, one is an anti-Semite even if he refuses to support the corrupt Islamic state of Yemen with military force because the Yemeni government is among “our friends.” Two days later Stein qualified the statement in his American Spectator blog (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment) – two days after he let his “anti-Semitic argument” fly – by adding that if Ron Paul accepted U.S. support for Israel that he may not be an anti-Semite. “I was about to add that I was sure that Rep. Paul was not going that far,” Stein explained. “So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him.” Essentially, Stein was saying that even though he labeled Rep. Paul's arguments “anti-Semitic” on national television, he was willing to admit that perhaps Rep. Paul was not an anti-Semite after all.
If someone does take George Washington's view (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp) of keeping out of foreign entanglements, Stein modified his argument on his American Spectator blog, a person is an anti-Semite only if he applies the principle to all nations, including Israel. Whereas Rep. Paul has advocated a foreign policy perfectly in tune with Washington's farewell address (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp) – one without any favoritism or intervention whatsoever – Stein may indeed still consider him an anti-Semite.
2. Blowback. The more relevant issue revolves around military intervention and whether the United States becoming the policeman of the world creates what is called “blowback” in the intelligence world. Stein denies the possibility that anyone could be motivated to attack the United States because our government is in the business of blowing up people across the Middle East. “They're terrorists and murderers because they are psychos, same as all terrorists and murderers,” Stein told (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ) Rep. Paul during the Larry King debate. Stein argues that terrorists are crazy, that they do not act in a rational way, and that they therefore cannot be reacting to the death of a loved one or fellow countryman. Terrorists attack without reason, Stein flatly stated.
If Stein is correct and terrorists are indeed insane and acting without a reason (a reason may have merit or be entirely devoid of merit), then there is no reasonable expectation that they would target the United States any more than any other government, person or object. If there is no reason, then the attacks are purely random. In fact, if terrorists are truly insane and without reason, logic suggests they would be far less likely to attack the United States. Attacking the United States requires extraordinary travel preparations for Middle Eastern terrorists and intricate planning that is ordinarily beyond the capacity of most insane people to accomplish. And it certainly doesn't fit the random pattern under which Stein insists terrorists heed.
Stein went on to explain (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ) that Ron Paul's arguments were wrong and that the United States has an obligation to prop up the corrupt government of Yemen:
“I never heard anything quite like that in my whole life. What he's basically saying is that we are doing something wrong by defending ourselves. Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we've got to help defend them. They are our friends.”
Ben Stein must not have watched any of the Republican Presidential debates for the 2008 election cycle to never had heard an argument like that, as Ron Paul had made precisely the same arguments throughout the campaign. In fact, during the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate on May 15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani made an almost identical comment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=print) to Stein's:
“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.”
Giuliani's statement and interaction with Rep. Paul was the top story on news shows and on the front page of newspapers across the country the following day. It almost strains credulity for a person like Stein who claims to be a political consultant to not have ever heard an argument before after such a news event. He may not have heard of the argument before, but it shouldn't go without noting that he was pretty sure from his “long experience” with such arguments that it was an anti-Semitic one.
Stein's argument (like that of Giuliani's more than two years earlier) is that to search for a reason, motivation or pattern among terrorist attacks is equivalent to saying that the United States is to blame for the attacks. Stein reaffirmed his statement that discussion of blowback is nothing more than blaming the United States for terrorist incidents.
But the logic of blowback is not only inevitable, it gains strength with the passage of time. No rational person would argue that if American soldiers are still combating terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan 100 years from now that United States soldiers would no longer be seen as liberators and would instead be seen as a foreign occupying force to the natives. The question that strikes to the core of the issue is how long does a legitimate strike for national security take to become an occupation army? The answer, whatever number the reader comes up with, is a lot smaller number for people living in the country where foreign soldiers are shooting, bombing and killing people. Eventually the terrorists become freedom fighters against the occupying army according to the local population. Many people across the Middle East long ago moved on from the liberator to the occupier worldview, Rep. Paul argues, and that can only end in ever larger numbers of “terrorist” attacks against the United States as long as U.S. intervention continues.
If one accepts that occasionally terrorists have reasons for committing their crimes, even if those reasons are not legitimate, then it stands to reason increasing U.S. intervention will only provoke more of a reaction. It also raises the question of whether the goals Stein laid out are worth the price being paid by American soldiers. Stein noted (http://tiny.cc/j2ncZ):
“Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we've got to help defend them. They are our friends.”
In the case of Yemen, U.S. military intervention began back in 1982 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/world/nation-challenged-military-us-broadens-terror-fight-readying-troops-for-yemen.html?pagewanted=1), six years before the first terrorist attack against Americans emerged from the nation. But the larger issue is: Do we really need to defend Yemen's corrupt, Islamic government and its system of torture with the blood of American soldiers? The corrupt Yemeni government, a virtual one-party state which engages in torture, censorship and a host of other human rights violations, is more important than the lives of American soldiers, Stein is essentially arguing. The statement says volumes about how much Ben Stein “supports the troops.” Under such a worldview, U.S. soldiers are mere pawns to be traded away if the U.S. government can get a bargain foreign government to do whatever its will is at the time.
From such a person, the accusation of “anti-Semitism” seems to lose its sting.
YouTube - Ron Paul on Larry King 12/28/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdG4eySIU8)
SOURCE:
http://www.examiner.com/x-19718-Boston-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d30-Ben-Stein-Explains-His-Attack-on-Ron-Paul-Creating-More-Questions-Than-Answers