Friday, May 25, 2007


I have to like Republican candidate Ron Paul, even if many don't take him seriously. He seems to be the only contender with sufficient memory to recall some of what happened in the world before 2001. Things like the US engineered overthrow of elected Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mussadegh and the end of Democracy in Iran. Things like our support for Iraq's brutal war against Iran; all the nasty history the iPod generation is too uneducated to know about and the patriotic revisionists have redacted from the public memory.

When Paul suggested in the May 15th "debate" that they hate us because we're there and because of what we have done, New York's former mayor and drag queen said
"I don't think I've heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11."
  • Absurd:
  • ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous.
  • having no rational or orderly relationship to human life.

Absurd? Perhaps Guiliani's vocabulary is as idiosyncratic as his sense of logic. The idea that our long history of inept, sometimes brutal manipulations centered around beating the Russians to the oil and making deals with many devils to control the wells regardless of how much oppression was involved has had no consequences, is neither honest or credible. If anything is absurd, it's the idea that "they hate us for our freedom" and that we are above concern or blame for the consequences of our actions. Rudy seems to share in the Bush strategy of saying "freedom" and 9/11 as often as possible whether or not it has a rational or orderly relationship to reality.

A reasonable foreign policy has to include an honest assessment of history. It has to include acceptance of responsibility for that history and for current actions. I have to ask myself how many candidates are willing to go there instead of offering cheap slogans and feel-good esteem builders. At the moment I can't think of one on either side other than perhaps Paul or Gravel who is willing to stop pandering to arrogance, to phobias and obsessions and doctrines and get real. The world isn't about us and we can't control it by building H-Bombs and making threats.
They're delighted we're over there because it's easier to fight us there than over here." suggests Paul. "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they're delighted."
I'm delighted to hear someone say it.


facialanomaly said...

please read my fictional blog journal

PBH said...

5 reasons Ron Paul was right on the origins of 9/11

d.K. said...

Thanks, Capt. Fogg. I know I'm in good company when I read posts like this one, because I've had the exact same reaction to Gravel and Paul. And I walk around afterwards bewildered, wondering where it is that I got off the track, because this seems so logical to me, but can only 2 percent of the population really be those who are in-step, while the rest our out of step. I think of the mother watching the marching band. Her son, the bass drummer, is not in step with the entire rest of the marching band, and with the confidence only a mother can have, she opines that her son is the one who got it right... That's how I (we) feel, listening to these marginalized "jokes", based on the sneering assessments they get from the MSM. But I have gone back, and reviewed what they've said, and "que Dios me de fuerza", I can't see why they are wrong?!

Tell the truth. It always works. I won't hog your comments space, but give a short example. When, as a commander in the Army, I was ready to take a stripe for some infraction, the usual response for the soldier was to deny, explain, rationize... setting his own trap for the demotion. But when the savvy, smart, soldier, came in and said, "uh, sir, I f***d up - it was wrong, and I know what I need to do to fix it.
They had me every time. All my polished argument evaporated. I stuttered a bit, and would say something lame like, well, um. eh, since you have, er, finally, eh, realized what we could have done better here, I see no reason to arbitrarily punish you when you articulate better than me what should have been done... Y ya. That ended it, no punishment, nothing, simply, a lesson leared.
Today, somewhow ackknowledging weakness or even errors or reciting correct history, is verboten - and the whole gang accepts those rule of the game. So, to Gravel, and Paul, I say, go for the juggler - keep them honest and uncomfortable. They may not ever be winnable candidates, but they will influence, and add to the debate, thank god. Kucinich is their strategic model...

Good stuff.

Capt. Fogg said...


Thanks for the excellent link. I have to like Paul for making Rudy look like the delusional jerk he is.


The idea of hearing any politician saying "I messed up" is unheard of. Instead you get instant ad hominem; accusations of revisionism, treason and worse.

I remember Ross Perot's flawed and hopeless campaign, but he did manage to keep the "real" candidates from wandering out into the ozone during those debates. Every time they'd start sloganizing and digressing and reciting, he would make some wisecrack and "yeah but. . ." until they had to actually say something about the subject.

I hope that at the very least guys like Paul can keep them a bit more honest.