At the most recent Republican debate, candidate Ron Paul was attacked by Guiliani and others after suggesting that the terrorist attacks of 2001 were spurred by prior American actions.
In this editorial, CNN commentator Roland Martin takes Guiliani and the others to task for their willful ignorance in pretending our actions don't have consequences, as well as the fallacious idea that by saying "Here's why they killed people" Ron Paul or anyone else is saying that it's okay that terrorists killed people.
Here's the punchline from Martin's very cogent essay:
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
The debate format didn't give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I'm confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today.
At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will.
Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers.
Also, as Ron Paul's site points out, the idea that the terrorists who hit us in 2001 were motivated by previous American acts comes directly from the 9-11 Commission Report, so it's more than a little unsettling to hear Guiliani say he's "never heard anything so absurd."
Heck, that's unsettling even without the link to the report. What's at all absurd about the idea that our national policies may have angered people in the past? American foreign policy has angered other Americans. Surely the rest of the world might respond similarly?
Incidentally, of the Republican candidates, Ron Paul actually looks decent. I'll take an honest libertarian over a spend-crazy authoritarian pretending to be a libertarian any day.
Comments (1)
No, no, consequences are for OTHER people. Darker, female, whatever, but OTHER people.
/sarcasm
Posted by tim | May 21, 2007 12:50 PM
Posted on May 21, 2007 12:50