I watched last night's Republican Presidential debate with general interest. After all, it's important to know your enemies, and I want to distinguish the different characteristics of our Republican counterparts and understand their psyche. During that debate, I was somewhat impressed with Congressman Ron Paul. I know he's somewhat favored by all of us non Republican voters, but there were several things he did to distinguish himself. I was therefore relatively annoyed when the New York Times failed to show those differences and in fact ignored them.
After reading this article, I was surprised by the lack of notice for Congressman Paul's performance. The first thing that caught my eye was this quote; "All the candidates once again offered strong affirmations of their support of the war in Iraq, reflecting the general consensus among them." I think that quite obviously flies in the face of Congressman Paul's vote against the war. Secondly, the only mention of Congressman Paul was his spat with Rudy, but they did little to show the entire context of their mini-debate on the causes of 9/11.
Here's a letter I wrote to the New York Times directly on this subject.
To the Editor,
I was dismayed to read Adam Nagourney and Marc Santora's ambiguous and
unfair review of the Republican Presidential primary debate in their
article "Terror Attack Scenario Exposes Deep Differences among G.O.P.
Hopefuls". While not a Republican myself, I believe they did a
disservice to Congressman Ron Paul.
In their article, they stated "All the candidates once again offered
strong affirmations of their support of the war". Congressman Paul
displayed his opposition to the war in Iraq. Furthermore, he was not
suggesting that 9/11 occurred due to our bombings of Iraq, but rather
to our general presence in the Middle East. He displayed mastery of
Middle Eastern history, citing the 1953 coup in Iran as an event
leading towards the taking of American hostages in 1979.
Their only mention of Congressman Paul was an offhanded comment about
his theory, and they neglected to display his anti-war sentiments.
Only with accurate, helpful reporting can the American people be
expected to make a clear decision towards the candidates based on the
issues.
Let me put a little context to that. It is absolutely accurate to say that the American presence in the Middle East led to 9/11. Any candidate who claims that terrorists attacked us because we're a free country or because they hate our lifestyles is off their rocker. Bin Laden has stated time and time again that attacks against us come from our support of Israel against the Palestinians and the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia.
Congressman Paul recognizes the foreign policy principle that for every American action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I recently studied the incidents surrounding Mohammed Mossadeq and the 1953 coup and the American involvement in re-establishing the Shah clearly led to the anti-American character of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the taking of American hostages. To recognize such historical context is rare for American politicians, and I think Congressman Paul deserves some credit for that.
Regardless of some of his economic positions (tax cuts solve all problems!), I applaud Congressman Paul for his level headed approach to foreign policy and his recognition, in the face of Republican criticism, of America's mistakes in the Middle East. I hope that more politicians come to speak so succinctly about the historical context behind contemporary events.