Republican Debate
The Poet Omar on May 16 2007 at 3:55 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, The Poet Omar's Page
I didn’t have the opportunity to watch the entire Republican Presidential candidate debate, but I felt that the highlights mentioned at Fox News were informative enough about the frontrunners positions to be worthy of comment. My own breakdown follows the comments:
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidates were basking in their own glory on Wednesday after a tough primary debate that featured several jabs among the White House hopefuls but afterward drew compliments about their own and each other’s performances.
And this is really just standard politician behavior, especially this early in the race. Nobody wants to seriously alienate anyone else on the stage, in case they need their support later on. Curiously, though, I haven’t yet seen the kind of dirty, political streetfighting going on amongst the Republicans that I’ve seen amongst the Dems (Senators Clinton and Obama, in particular). Maybe it’s just too early on or is there really a small measure (very small) of higher quality behavior amongst those on the Right than on the Left? For those irate Leftists who are sputtering denials over the last statement, Google comments on Jerry Falwell’s passing for a wide variety of left-wing inhumanities.
“I thought the questioning was fair in the sense that it gave us all a chance to answer and either give a good answer or bad answer. But most of my colleagues that I had a chance to speak to afterwards, five or six of them, all were very, very pleased with the idea that the three questioners gave us a more fair chance to answer. At least I felt less constrained,” said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
When has Rudy Giuliani ever felt constrained? Well, other than within the context of marriage, anyway.
“I was really pleased. The thing I wanted to get across was that we need to fundamentally change Washington. Washington is a mess and I want to make sure people understand is that we are going to put in place benchmarks. … Benchmarks have to be applied to our government,” said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Benchmarks? Hmmm… sounds like old Ross Perot talking points. Although Romney may find things like earmark-reform to be a bit more challenging to pass and enforce than he seems to think.
Even John McCain, the Arizona senator and frontrunner in South Carolina, said he was impressed by Giuliani’s performance at the debate.
And speaking of needing to clean up the mess in Washington … enter John McCain father of a fair amount of it.
Giuliani won the strongest applause of Tuesday night’s first-in-the-South Republican primary debate at the University of South Carolina when he took exception to Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s suggestion that the United States’ interventionist policy invited the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I thought Mayor Giuliani’s intercession there was appropriate and frankly very, very excellent. I really appreciated it because we should never believe that we brought on this conflict. This is an evil force that is trying to destroy everything we stand for,” McCain said.
Yes, but be honest, John, you are just trying to score brownie points with Rudy. Goodness knows you don’t want Romney to be the VP on Rudy’s ticket. Of course, that may be tactically unfeasible since both Giuliani and Romney are from the Northeast. Still, best to be in Rudy’s good graces the whole time.
One of the highlights of the debate came when Paul said the United States has been bombing Iraq for 10 years and doesn’t understand how the Middle East operates.
“Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting,” Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.
“They are delighted that we’re over there because Usama bin Laden has said, ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary,” he continued.
And this is why Libertarians enjoy the level of support in US elections that they regularly do. Ron, love ya babe, but SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN! Or go ahead and just become a Democrat, because apparently you embrace a position that at least 1 out of 3 of them do. That should get you some votes in Austin. It is a genuine shame that straightjacket-needing loons like Ron Paul are the public faces of libertarianism in the US. Sad.
“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”
Paul did not, eliciting a flurry of candidates seeking to get their 30 seconds to rebut him.
Of course he didn’t respond. He just wanted to throw a bomb which he knows he has about as much evidence to support as the kids who made, “Loose Change.â€
Finally, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo managed to get in his two cents when he responded to a question saying that reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum would not only help with global warming, but is a national security issue.
“My dear friend Ron here, I dearly love and really respect, but I’ll tell you: I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether … Israel existed or didn’t, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it. And we have to defend ourselves,” he said.
Ah, we just had to have the token Know Nothing Party Candidate here. Tancredo, also known as Mr. “Let’s Nuke Mecca,†has a long history of outbursts that firmly identify him as a member of Congress’ pool of genetic defectives. Thanks for playing, Tom. Seriously, all this guy is good for is giving DU and Kos free ammunition in their ongoing war against the “evil†Republicans.
The debate, held at the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C., had some feisty moments as the Republican primary candidates sought to distinguish themselves in a crowded field. Tancredo took another shot at fellow GOP candidates when he said he is surprised at the number of conversions toward his tough position on illegal immigration as well as abortion and gun control.
“I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines,” he said.
Damascus, ah yes. Probably another place Tancredo wants to nuke.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also was able to slip in a criticism of the congressional members at the debate, saying Congress has “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop,” a slam on the Democratic presidential candidate who earned unwanted scrutiny for spending $400 of campaign money on a haircut.
True, but we still remember what happened last time we elected a President from Arkansas. Nice shot at John Edwards, though.
It was a one-up to McCain, who had quipped earlier that he has spoken with sailors who take offense at being accused of ever being so drunk as to spend as much as Congress.
“We didn’t lose the 2006 election because of the war in Iraq. We lost it because we in the Republican Party came to Washington to change government, and government changed us,” McCain said. “We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor. Although I never knew a sailor — drunk or sober — with the imagination of my colleagues.”
Well, yeah Senator, that’s true. And you, personally, are a huge part of the problem. Instead of running for higher office, step down and let someone actually dedicated to fiscal responsibility take over. Maybe you can run for governor of Arizona or something. Or maybe one of those cushy lobbyist jobs.
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore tried to attract some attention by calling out so-called conservatives for taking non-conservative positions. Prodded to name names, Gilmore referred to “Rudy McRomney,” combining the names of McCain, Giuliani and Romney. Gilmore cited Giuliani’s position on abortion rights, Huckabee’s decision to raise taxes in Arkansas and Romney’s mandate requiring universal health care while he served as the governor of Massachusetts.
“Did I get left out?” McCain asked to laughter.
“I’ll come back,” Gilmore retorted.
Former Virginia Governor that no one outside of Virginia has ever heard of. Enjoy the lime-light while it lasts, Jim.
Giuliani, however, took the accusation in stride.
“First of all, I think ‘Rudy McRomney’ wouldn’t make a bad ticket, and I like the order,” he said before scolding Gimore. “Republicans should be uniting to make certain that what the liberal media is talking about — our inevitable defeat — doesn’t happen.”
Hint hint. Rudy wants McCain as his VP. As I mentioned above, Romney, although a more attractive candidate and certainly closer to Giuliani’s positions than McCain, is tactically unfeasible. Rudy needs someone from out West. Or a Southerner.
“It’s a form of flattery to be attacked but I wish my name would get in the moniker. … I could use the bump,” Huckabee said, adding that he doesn’t apologize for getting 94 tax decreases while being a Republican governor in a Democratic state, even though he raised gasoline taxes in his state.
“We raised gasoline taxes in my state to build a road program that we desperately needed. But 80 percent of the people of my state voted for it,” he said. “Do I apologize for going along with what 80 percent of the people of my state supported? No.”
Huckabee, “Man of the People.†Go back to Little Rock guy. He’s another one like Gilmore. Nobody knows him and, frankly, I don’t see that changing.
In the 90-minute debate, answers were limited to one minute and the candidates spoke quickly to try to make their points, win their argument and avoid the dreaded bell that rung when their time was up.
All the candidates at Tuesday night’s debate shared one common agenda: They wanted to get out of the question-and-answer session unscathed and hopefully in a better position than when they started.
Uh, yeah. Which is pretty much what they want out of any debate. Bump your numbers and don’t take any major blackeyes. Why are we bothering to waste space saying this?
Much of the attacks were on McCain. The Arizona senator was hit for his positions on immigration, campaign finance and government spending, among other items.
“My fear is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics — and that’s bad,” Romney said.
Excellent point which could be turned into a broad strategy of pointing out that McCain is part of the problem in Washington, not part of the solution. Of course, Romney’s real race here is against Giuliani, not McCain. McCain is just setting himself up to be the VP to one of the two Northeast candidates. If Mitt wants to be the eventual nominee, then he needs to focus on differentiating himself from Giuliani and proving that he’s the better candidate.
McCain got his opportunity to counterattack later with a cutting barb at Romney. “I have not changed my position on even-numbered years or changed because of the different offices that I may be running for.”
Also a good point. His Mittness has a bad tendency to flip-flop on issues. Maybe it’s a Massachusetts thing.
While the candidates were able to get in their tackles, they did speak seriously on several topics. California Rep. Duncan Hunter, who wrote the border fence bill signed by President Bush in October, criticized the Bush administration for not moving more quickly to build the barrier.
“We need to be able to ask people when they want to come into America: Knock on the front door because the back door’s going to be closed,” Hunter said.
Yep, but try telling that to “Mr. Amnesty†himself, GW Bush.
McCain sought to solidify his position as the frontrunner in the South Carolina polls by saying he is willing to be the last man standing in favor of war.
“If we fail in Iraq we will see Iraq become a center for Al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region and they will follow us home,” McCain said. “Americans are frustrated because of the mishandling of these war, but America’s vital national security interests are at stake.
Taking a tough stance on Iraq, former Wisconsin Gov. and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said he wants to hold the government accountable by letting the Iraq parliament vote on whether U.S. troops should remain.
“The United States government has been there for four years. We’ve lost many individuals — 3,400 individuals as of today — and it’s time for the al-Maliki (government) to vote whether or not they want us in the fifth year to stay in their country, or whether or not they want us to go home,” he said.
But Kansas Sen. Sen. Sam Brownback said the way the war is being conducted is not sustainable. In an appeal to bipartisanship, Brownback said that the parties in the United States need to pull together at home to win in Iraq.
“We will win if we can pull together — and we can win the war,” he said. “It’s difficult for a democracy, particularly in the United States, for us to win with one party for the war and one party against the war.”
And all of this underlines a couple of questions that I have about the War:
To those supporting the War and continued military action: Whom exactly are we fighting? Don’t just use the standard cop-out and say, “Terrorists.†Tell me what targets we are supposed to be bombing. Are we trying to get someone to surrender here or what? What is the specific military objective that we are trying to achieve? Note the word, SPECIFIC. “Helping the Iraqis step-up while we step-down,†is a talking point, not an answer.
To those opposing the War and continued military action: Whom exactly are we supposed to negotiate with? Syria, Iran, al-Maliki (who, btw, is supposed to already be on our side)? When and how should we withdraw? And to where? Okinawa is not a valid response, btw. What is the grand political solution that Harry Reid has been telling us about? What are we negotiating? Specifics, please. And why does it appear that Congress has taken on the duties of the Executive by negotiating anyway. That’s W’s job. Not Nancy Pelosi’s or Harry Reid’s.
The candidates also were asked to respond to a hypothetical scenario — homicide bombings at three shopping centers near major U.S. cities. With hundreds dead and thousands injured, a fourth attack is averted when the attackers are captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay to be questioned. U.S. intelligence believes another, larger attack is planned and could come at any time. How aggressively should the detainees be interrogated about the where the next attack might be?
First to answer was McCain, a former POW in Vietnam who opposes the use of torture.
“We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people,” he said. “It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they’re going to tell you what they think you want to know.”
And, in all fairness, John McCain is the only person who has first-hand knowledge of this. (Well, maybe some of Giuliani’s ex-wives too, but that’s beside the point). I tend to agree with McCain’s position, as torture, although sometimes effective, disgraces the ideals that the US attempts to claim itself the champion of. In other words, if we still want to wear the white hat, torture is out. Otherwise we need to get off our high horse and just admit that we are no better than China, Russia, etc.
“In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know that there’s going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. Shouldn’t be torture, but every method they can think of,” Giuliani said, adding that that could include waterboarding. “I’ve seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don’t want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or anyplace else.”
Nice duck there, Rudy. You saw it coming from a mile away, I’ll bet. If anyone on that stage is really and truly a “politician,†it’s Giuliani. Make of that what you will.
“You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I’m glad they’re at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo,” Romney said.
Another dodge, although not as neat as Rudy’s. Romney seems to be trying to follow in Giuliani’s footsteps, he just isn’t quite wily enough. It may not be a bad strategy, though.
“Let me just say, this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of defense,” Hunter said. “I would call him up or call him in, I would say to SecDef, in terms of getting information that would save American lives even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: ‘Get the information.’”
Let me just say this, go home Hunter. Stick to what you know up there. You could have ducked the question and brought up some kind of point about poor border security leading to the hypothetical disaster. You are a border security guy. Stick to that. Duncan Hunter against Giuliani and Romney is like George Foreman at his current age against Muhammed Ali in his prime.
“First of all, let me say that I would go to the U.N., but it would be to state an opinion and to take advantage of our rights under international law, not to go ask for permission,” Gilmore added.
Point gain for ducking the question. Point loss for being a totally irrelevant candidate in this primary.
Romney and Giuliani both were forced to defend their positions on abortion. Romney said the voters, not the courts, should determine whether abortion is permitted.
“I can tell you that I’ve looked at this long and hard. I’ve always been personally pro-life. I’ve taught that to others, it’s been part of my faith. The question for me was: What should government do in this kind of setting? And the Supreme Court stepped in and took a decision, and I said I’d support that decision,” Romney said. “And then I watched the impact of that decision as I was governor of Massachusetts. … Roe v. Wade has gone to such an extent that we’ve cheapened the value of human life.”
Nice triangulation, Mitt. Although the point that the voters should make such decisions is perfectly valid, Romney is trying to hold too many positions here. Either you are for or against abortion. All of this, “I’m personally against it†malarkey smacks of Democrat tactics. In one 30 second answer, Romney said that he was personally against abortion, supports the right of the voters to choose abortion, supports Roe v. Wade, then concludes with Roe v. Wade has cheapened the value of human life. It is inconsistent to support all of these positions. If abortion is bad and you are “personally against it†then be a pro-life candidate. If Roe v. Wade was a good decision, then be a pro-choice candidate. You cannot be both!
“There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are of as good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion. And I think in a country where you want to keep government out of people’s lives, or government out of people’s lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani is trying to offend the least amount of people here, but he is clear that his position is pro-choice. Style points for throwing out a libertarian position regarding government coercion. What does that say about Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court abortion cases, though? Isn’t that government coercion? I don’t remember a vote being held regarding abortion. I do remember a bunch of old men in black robes telling us that abortion should be legal. Hmmm…
That answer did not satisfy Huckabee.
“[Giuliani] has been honest about his opinion; he’s been honest about his position. And I think that’s a healthy thing for our party and for this debate. But I’m pro-life because I believe life begins at conception. And I believe that we should do everything possible to protect that life …. and that’s why we go out for the 12-year-old Boy Scout in North Carolina when he’s lost. That’s why we look for the 13 miners in Sago, W.Va., when the mine explodes. That’s why we go looking for the hikers on Mount Hood: Because we value life,” the former governor said.
Consistent culture of life. Good point, Mr. Governor. Rambling supporting positions (the Sago mine, Mount Hood, etc.) took away from that point, however.
Thompson, who added that embryonic stem cell research is a promising science, but adult stem cells appear to have the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells.
“Until this research is done, we do not have to destroy any more embryos. There is enough lines right now, and capable with this other research going on, that embryonic stem cells, along with adult stem cells, cord blood and amniotic fluid can continue,” he said.
That’s true, but then John Edwards wouldn’t be able to make paralytics walk again.
This wasn’t a bad first round, but we haven’t really gotten down to hard campaigning quite yet. Watch the candidates positions evolve over the next few months to see how dedicated they really are to what they said in this debate.
Sphere: Related Content39 Responses to “Republican Debate”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
McCain has been taking heat for his pro-illegal stance. Local 2544, Tucson sector, of the Border Patrol has slammed McCain for refusing to meet with them. He has zero support of the Border Patrol. McCain-Feingold allowed for people like George Soros (Dr. Doom) to pump millions into 527s to try to control elections. For McCain to say that he has never supported amensty, one only needs to read McCain-Martinez to see that McCain seems to have experienced some sort of conversion since he helped write that bill.
Giuliani is basically a one issue candidate; the war against radical Islam. What amazes me is that in our PC world, no candidate wants to talk about what this really is for the Islamofascists, a religious war. Giuliani says he would appoint stick constructionists to the SCOTUS, and that is a good talking point, but it is just that, a talking point. With the appointment of another conservative judge in the mold of Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, the Democrats have too much to lose and will fight that candidate with all they have until we see another Robert Bork. I am not willing to vote for a guy that may not be able to deliver on a conservative judge with a Democrat controlled hill. It is also the law firm that Giuliani is connected with that is working for the Spanish firm given the contract to build that travesty against every Texan, the Trans-Texas corridor. Do you think Rudy is going to bend to the will of the people when it comes to his buddies?
Tancredo is not just a one issue candidate although the MSM has presented him as such so that is the general consensus. But he is dead on with illegal immigration. Friends in Kennedy County, Texas have found Islamic prayer rugs left on their property by illegals. Wonder why Muslims would be paying a cayote up to $15,000 to sneak them into the U.S?
Ron Paul was my congressman before redistricting. What can I say? He is certifiable and should just retire. End of story. At least he is not writing articles for Al Jeezera like Kucinich, whom I am sure Paul thinks is right on the mark.
None of them impress me and some of the (Paul) disgusts me. Maybe I should send him the book on the life and philosophy of Mohammed Qutb.
Didn’t watch it, and frankly I don’t think it’s going to matter in the long run. All the candidates that might run haven’t declared. And with the primary being so far away, everyone has a chance to shine, and stink.
If you want to read a transcript of the debate, here you go…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
Umm, I hate to be the one to mention this, but the American presence and actions in the Middle East is one of the primary reasons Al-Qaeda exist. That we built a major base on Muslim “holy ground” and attacked a Muslim country, however justifiably in our own eyes, was considered shockingly offensive to Osama bin Laden. This isn’t controversial - it is well know, and well publicized. (Besides, would Paul’s comment play into the whole “Saddam and Osama were in on it” meme all the war supporters still sometimes push?)
Furthermore, the concept of blowback - that otherwise rational policy choices will produce unintended, unforeseeable, and disastrous consequences - is fairly well established as well. These are not difficult concepts, and I think Giuliani deliberately misrepresented what Ron Paul was actually saying (which was, essentially, that our tendency to stick our fingers in everyone’s face can have consequences).
Look Ron Paul has many faults, such as abolishing the Fed, but “blaming America” is not one of them. He didn’t, and it’s really unfair to claim he did.
Also, why aren’t you laying in on several of the candidates for appealing for help from a TV character to help them fight terrorism (Jack Bauer)? Isn’t that like saying “if I were President, it sure would be great to call upon Superman?” Seriously, there were bigger fish to fry than whether or not Ron Paul is sufficiently Republican because he is non-interventionist.
One last bit: I’m surprised that after six years now of dreadful mismanagement lovingly catalogued in this space, all you can accept from the GOP are candidates who represent more of the same.
Joshua, perhaps you should study the history of the Islamic caliphat movement from the beginning of the Muslim Brotherhood to Al Jihad to Al Qaeda (and various other groups) because it is obvious you know little of that history. Maybe you should get a book on Mohammed Qutb and his philosophy. Or read the Looming Tower which gives an excellent background on the current “caliphate by jihad” movement.
Ever wonder why the date 9-11 was chosen? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the Islamic hoards marching throught Europe, converting and conquesting with the sword, might have something to do with the fact that they were defeated at the gates of Vienna on Sept. 11 effectively ending their conquests in Europe?
Or maybe you could study how the Saudis ASKED us to come there and build bases when they were threatened by Iraq? And how the Saudis have continued to request us to stay? Tell me, hear much about the power of the Saudi Army lately?
It is people like you who have such dismal knowledge of the jihad movement that allows someone like Ron Paul to say what he does and get by with it. I know Dr. Paul and I have seen him slip further and further into moonbattery as the years go on to the point where I can no longe support him and haven’t been able to for a long time. If I had my choice between voting for Ron Paul or an armadillo in a Astro’s cap, Paul would not get my vote.
So what? Osama Bin Laden considers southern Spain to be Muslim territory. And Turkey (Ancerlik). And any other nation with a significant Muslim population. An honest reading of Bin Laden reveals his true reasons for attacking the US, and that is that we are the United States of America, Super Power, and as such we stand in the way of Bin Laden developing his own Super Power Caliphate (expialidocious!).
And Al Queda is merely an offshoot of the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood which goes back generations and has nothing whatever to do with US foreign policy. Please stop infantalizing our enemy by representing them as mindless reactionaries that wouldn’t exist if not for US power. Sure we’re powerful, but we’re not all that. Nor is power itself, the belief in which forms the heart of true American arrogance.
yours/
peter.
I’ve been accused of many things, but being ignorant of history is not one of them. Thanks - I needed a first today.
Anyway, al-Qaeda did not spring forth from the ether, filled with hatred and willing to don suicide belts to create the Caliphate. The reason Osama bin Laden exists in the first place is the Islamic funding networks we helped to create in the course of arming and encouraging jihadism in Afghanistan in the 1980’s (Ghost Wars by Steve Coll is an excellent history of this). Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the mujahideen war, has been explicit that he still considers the creation of al-Qaeda worth bankrupting the Soviet Union. In other words, he considers 9/11 a direct example of blowback in which we and the Saudis and Pakistanis funded, armed, and encouraged Islamic radicalism against the Athiest infidels trampling upon Muslim soil… and then noticed those same radicals fighting against a different set of, to them, infidels who were trampling on Islamic soil. In other words, we, the United States, bear some degree of responsibility for the current state of global Islamic radicalism. It is crucial to recognize that so that we can avoid similar mistakes in the future. That’s where Paul is coming from—ill considered but well intentioned policy can have vastly far reach consequences.
Further, looking at the recruiting material of al-Qaeda, as well as the stated aims of its top leadership, you don’t find any reference to the gates of Vienna (those references, along with the blathering about Andalusia and the grander Islamic cause, were tacked on to Al-Qaeda in the late 90’s, well after its founding).
Indeed, from Osama bin Laden himself (handily summarized in Peter Bergen’s Holy War, Inc.), we can find three primary motivations behind his extremism: 1) a religious opposition to an American military presence in Saudi Arabia; 2) American policy toward Israel, and 3) the “un-Islamic” behavior of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia wanted us there? So what? bin Laden wants to destroy the royal family just as much (or more so) than he wants to destroy us.
That’s not to say that al-Qaeda has aims worthy of negotiation. A caliphate modeled after Zawahiri is not something we can or should tolerate. But overstating the reach of al-Qaeda’s ideology, and understating our own hand in cultivating, is a big reason why we are in the current mess we are in.
But debating the finer points of Qutbian theology isn’t what I was talking about. I still think you’re egregiously misrepresenting what Ron Paul said. That you think he is crazy is beside the point. Address what he actually said if you think blowback is not a valid concept. Don’t just write it off as America-hating.
To address one thing Peter Jackson said: al-Qaeda existed as an organization with Osama bin Laden at his head years before he met al-Zawahiri and become associated with Egyptian Islamic Jihad. That their short term goals—which include grievances against the Egyptian government and an American presence in the Middle East—are similar does not in any mean their originations are the same. EIJ would still be a one-country backwater extremist group if not for Osama, and Osama is our doing.
Again, simply saying our policies resulted in the current mess doesn’t necessarily mean those policies were wrong. But we have to accept the fact that our decision to use proxy holy warriors in Afghanistan while then abandoning it to its fate after the withdrawal has brought with it some very seriously consequences. Especially so now, while we consider the ultimate consequences of Iraq (which I think will be grave no matter what). We can minimize our future losses by being honest about why we have to make tough choices now, and why and how we made tough choices then.
That is what I’m saying. And it’s the basis of what Paul is saying, when he says our policies in the Middle East played a major role in September 11. It has nothing to do with hating America; I think it has far more to do with trying to save it.
Hah!
But dude, didn’t you hear? Not only did Hussein have stockpiles of sarin gas, he also had a secret stash of Kryptonite that he obtained from Mohamed Atta from their meeting in Prague after he stole it from the Metropolis Museum of Natural History.
Well, at least that has been “pretty well confirmed” by
Lex LuthorDick Cheney.So Superman would be useless.
Better stick with
The Three MusketeersJack Bauer.Cheers.
I disagree that that was what Paul was saying, and I am no Paul hater. I have voted for him for President (or would have, when did he run?)
I think responsibility is the wrong word though. I think saying the policies were not necessarily wrong is an important thing, but I would go further. While the specifics show our role, it is important to realize that those specifics are not really the point. Whatever policy we pursued (within reason) would have provided ammunition to Bin Laden or others. The terrorist movement in the Middle East preceded Afghanistan, and the ideological trends were in place whatever we did. Paul would have no involvement at all. If we did that would the Middle East be less oppressive? Would the jihadist ideologies not have come to greater prominence? I don’t think so, nor do I think we would be any less hated. Would 9/11 have happened? Maybe not. Would Bin Laden be the central figure? Maybe not. Would other issues and figures just as problematic exist? Yes. It isn’t all about us. It is the ideology, and in a place ruled over by the types of powers that rule it and the ideological ideas that exist, they would have risen in some fashion either way.
While Dan doesn’t know you, and it is wrong to suggest you are ignorant of history, I do think Qutb is a pretty important figure. His ideology, and others like it, is not about our presence, and would have been available to those willing to use it whether we had removed ourselves or not. Bin Laden (or someone else), like Hitler, didn’t need the Jews or any other specific figure or act to build his campaign for influence. He just needed a frustrated populace. Unfortunately for us, we exist as a target, whatever our policies are. Qutb certainly felt as much, and many others.
That doesn’t mean any of those policies were right either, it just means our status as target is based on a number of reasons, and the specific complaints they use to justify them are not that important compared to the underlying fact of who we are. Just as Hitler didn’t need any particular crime to blame the Jews or any other target. He hated them anyway.
Thank you! Beat me to it.
Again, beat me to it. Qutb, although educated at a graduate level in the West (specifically the US), was a joke of a scholar. He rehashes old arguments and faulty interpretations of Qu’ran and Hadiths that were originally promulgated by Muhammed al Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyyah and others. The important thing to note here is that many of the supposed scholars that Qutb based his malarkey on were DEAD before Christopher Columbus was BORN. Although we can rationalize OBL and Qutb’s statements all we want and indict the US government, the bottom line is that the underlying structure and arguments supporting their beliefs pre-date the US. The US is simply a convenient target for their pent-up rage. Put simply, they are taking a page out of the Nazi playbook (which all too many Salafists supported, btw).
Ron Paul is certifiable. To me, he’s nothing more than a Ward Churchill clone.
Regarding the Jack Bauer thing, eh, it’s almost too stupid to comment on. Bauer is a fictional character that has apparently become the wet dream of far too many Americans. Mentioning him in a serious discussion of terrorism is like mentioning Lucille Ball in a serious discussion of candy production line operational strategy.
Lance, I’d only quibble with one bit about the historical hypotheticals. For bin Laden, what turned him against the U.S. was two things: the U.S. troops invited onto Saudi soil (which he considers holy) to handle the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and the dictatorships of the region which we supported during the Cold War to fend off Soviet designs on oil. bin Laden was elevated to celebrity status and developed arms channels because he participated in the guerilla war we funded in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets.
Put differently, and this is a recent conclusion of mine I’ve been pondering how best to articulate, I see Islamic radicalism as a direct symptom of the Cold War. Put simply, since this post is about those candidates and not the foundations of Islamism, we misjudged things. Not a crime, to be sure, but we need to make damn sure we don’t do that again.
And Omar, comparing Paul to Churchill is needlessly inflammatory unless you can point to a statement equivalent to “little Eichmans.” Grow up.
Then you have not adequately studied Islam, its leaders, its deviants or its history. As a Muslim, I have some insight into this issue although by no means do I fully understand the motivations behind some of the Salafist or radical Shia leaders. OBL to me, is simply a pan-Arab nationalist with fascist leanings. He uses reckless religious language to cloak what is nothing more than a political agenda. Read OBL’s ridiculous “fatwas” and such. They are not only clueless from a scholarly point of view, but read more like what you expect from a Hitler or Mussolini than a religious fanatic.
Paul’s comments directly point the finger at the US for 9/11. He BLAMES America for 9/11 and demands that we accept responsibility for the actions of fanatics. That, in my book, puts him in the same category as Churchill. BTW, when guest blogging on someone else’s blog, it pays to display some measure of courtesy to your hosts. Disagree with us as a group or individually all you like, but show some manners. Another way of putting it is that at a very young age someone should have taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I could mention the same thing, though I’m unsure how I’ve been disrespectful here. Recall that upon voicing my disagreement I was immediately derided as ignorant (though, granted, he doesn’t own the blog). Regardless, I’ll just point out that respect flows both ways; the entire point of my dissent in this comment thread is that you’re misreading what Ron Paul was saying, while in response he’s written off as a Ward Churchill—a deeply unfair tag, unless I missed a few years of Paul lying on his resume, writing several books of plagiarized research, and a career built on grievance identity politics.
My remark about radical Islam was meant to apply to al-Qaeda, and how it has influence the Islamist movement. Of course there were violent, intolerant Muslims beforehand—the book I just reviewed was in part about how they were conquered by Russia in the 19th century, and I know that at least as far back as the 1790’s American merchants near North Africa had to content with Islam-derived violence.
The point I am making is that we bear some measure of blame for Osama bin Laden, for al-Qaeda, for the modern and expansionist variant of Islamism, and for our own years of refusing to confront the problem head on (recall that scholars, an entire unit at CIA, and several sub-bureaus of the State Department in the 90s wanted to directly confront the very extremist networks we had built in the 80s but were ignored or sidelined by the higher-up political appointees). Because you really cannot discuss them today without understanding how they came to be, and you cannot understand that without the very significant role the US played in that.
But since this is about the candidates, allow me to quote Ron Paul, and I would appreciate hearing how this constitutes moonbattery or War Churchillism.
That is absolutely right. If we are to premeditatively invade a country, we should declare war against it and throw all of our efforts to the cause (I should note that if we had done that, I would probably be advocating staying). Now I actually disagree with his characterization of Reagan’s “courage” in withdrawing after the Beirut bombing; it showed weakness, not courage, and that perception has plagued us ever since. But in a way, that’s almost the point. We need to face the fact that, as a nation, we are not willing to bear even relatively moderate costs to achieve and expansive foreign policy vision. If we are not directly threatened, the American people have a very low tolerance for foreign adventurism. Many Americans, and I include myself among them, felt the invasion was necessary because Saddam Hussein posed a direct, looming, imminent threat not just to American but to global interests. The reasoning behind that was not just false, but I now suspect it was deliberately false. That is why you see a 70% disapproval rating for the war, and for President Bush.
Or, to make it a bit more electoral: a winning platform is not built on an unpopular war. But back to Paul
It’s worth noting Paul is the only candidate who is seriously addressing the issue of debt, the issue of the nanny state, and the issue of the unbelievable amounts of government waste and mismanagement we’ve learned to just put up with.
Sorry for the long quote, but I think it’s necessary to see that Ron Paul was blaming our entire policy structure for the attack. That’s not very surprising; in fact, it is backed up with a voluminous literature on the creation, cultivation, externalization, funding, and eventual policies of al-Qaeda.
And of course, 911 Giuliani took the chance to remind everyone that he was the Mayor on September 11, goshdarnit!
But more importantly, Omar, how does that compare to “the office workers in the World Trade Center deserved it because they are morally equivalent to Nazi party members?” I still find that a shocking thing to say, because it is simply not true.
Since the spam block ate my last comment, one last bit from Paul:
Now obviously, the consensus here is that they do in fact hate us because we’re rich and free. But I think to truly make that case, you’d have to explain why the rich and free bit only entered Osama bin Laden’s rhetoric after he had begun bombing American targets, and why, before that, his sole purpose was driving us from those desolate holy lands he loves so very much. That’s the hole I don’t see anyone filling.
Not really. They hate us because we are not what they think we should be. That is not a new emotion or feeling, or unique to the Middle East.
That is what he said, but I don’t believe him, or, I should say I don’t believe it is all he cared about. Bin Laden would have found another cause, and in fact he has found many others depending on what he think will get the the coverage and publicity he wishes. However, it has little to do with my thesis. Bin Laden represents an intellectual movement, but it predates him, and will live on without him. His particular path may be dominated by the things you mention, but the set of vicious ideologies, of which Bin Ladenism is only one, would still exist. Baathism, the weird assortment of Marxist cults surrounding the PLO, HIzbullah and on and on would all still exist. Hitler may have turned out as a particularly awful mass murderer, but was only part of a European wide movement toward totalitarianism. No Hitler, history is different, but totalitarianism would have still grown. It might have even turned out worse. Hitler’s particular obsessions were not the issue.
That doesn’t mean your main point is without merit, our actions have provided justification, but neither you, Paul or I can with any confidence say things would be that different qualitatively if we had acted differently.
As for Paul, he wasn’t just warning that our actions have consequences, he compared us going and resisting Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, resisting the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, all of it, to the Chinese invading us. As if the two are “remotely” the same. That kind of moral equivalence bothers me, and a lot of other people. He wasn’t just saying that our actions had consequences, he was saying that we would do the same thing because we are doing the same thing as in his hypothetical.
Hrm. With regard to the bin Ladenism thing… he is largely responsible for globalizing and “modernizing” (in a technological sense) the global jihadist movement. You’re right that there were crazies before, and there will be crazies later, but I just can’t escape recognizing that the one crazy we bear a lot of responsibility for is also the one which made the jihad not as much about the general war on modernity but much more specifically about the war on the west in general, and in particular the US and our client dictators.
And I didn’t read Paul like that at all. I thought he was making the point that we would never accept foreigners on our soil, abusing us and building bases and dictating to use from behind their MRAPs how we should run ourselves. If you recall (and I hate inviting scorn through the reference), our political forefathers fought a rather brutal guerilla war against the British for that specific reason… and they weren’t really even foreigners.
As for Kuwait. I think, especially at the time, Bush I was right not to pursue the Iraqis all the way into Iraq (his reasoning—that even with 500,000 troops Baghdad would be unmanageable and we’d be stuck in a bloody quagmire—is oddly resonant now). We attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwait, and afterward placed onerous sanctions on the regime until it reformed. We can look back in hindsight and see how that wasn’t a sustainable solution, but it was fairly standard in the European echelon of warfare. Our bigger mistake there, and for this Bush I deserves much of the blame, was in not supporting the uprising against Saddam. All it did was clear out most of the people who’d risk something to stand against him, and show everyone else that we won’t follow through on our promises.
Anyway, that’s how I read Paul. We don’t accept foreigners telling us what to do, and we would never tolerate (imagine the urban warfare!) a dramatically foreign country to occupy us and build palaces and bases throughout the land. I think he’s right in reminding us of that, and how the Iraqis aren’t necessarily wrong to oppose the U.S. presence there (though they are obviously wrong to be so inhumanly brutal, which tends to negate the otherwise laudable goal of independence).
Sigh. I’m sure I pissed off a lot of people with this.
Okay,
I recovered your comments. Also everybody, due to a massive spam attack that has been going on for several days I have put in a delay on comments of 30 seconds. I think the spam filter was pretty much overwhelmed, and I don’t have hours a day to find the posts the filter sucks up while dealing with 4-5 thousand spam comments. So, you comments will post. I’ll try and put a warning in the comment area this weekend.
I would. If we were ruled over by a psychopathic dictator I wouldn’t care that it was another country’s troops. I understand them wanting us to leave, but I also understand them (and they don’t) not wanting us to leave yet. They don’t believe that the resistance is about us leaving either. They think the murderers will keep coming after them.
Anyway, I disagree with your read on Bin Laden. Not in general, just on our policies importance or that the west wouldn’t have been a target without him.
Again, that might well be the point - I dislike hypotheticals like this, because at some point all parties involved have to admit that quite literally anything could have happened. But bin Laden didn’t seem to have any grander designs until he was connected to the ISI/mujahideen networks in the mid-80’s; before then, he was just a run of the mill wealthy spoiled idle Saudi citizen (it’s also worth noting that even the particularly nasty mujahideen that have now thrown their lot in with al-Qaeda, like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, didn’t have the grand, expansive vision OBL did). That doesn’t mean he never would have come to target the U.S., but it does mean he wouldn’t have had combat victories against the Soviets on which to build his image and reputation, and that he wouldn’t have had easy access to and training for using clandestine international financial networks. I see it as an enabling thing, not as a creation thing.
And I think I need to again reiterate that I’m not necessarily repudiating our policies in the 80’s and 90’s—that’s a far more complex conversation that “right or wrong.” I’m just pointing out that, in a very real way, we’re still dealing with the consequences of choices we made 28 years ago. Facing that cost head on and accepting that it is there is, I think, the best way of making sure we don’t remain as short sighted in the future.
I understand you are not necessarily criticizing the policies.
The reason I am suspicious of the “right” way to pursue foreign policy is that no matter what you do there are all kinds of consequences which flow from it that cannot be foreseen.
The response of many is isolationism, based on just that fact, such as Ron Paul. The problem with that is that of course consequences flow from isolationism as well which cannot be foreseen. So, limited points such as Bin Laden’s particular trajectory are not all that important in analyzing things, unless all you want to understand, and still very imperfectly, one particular event in time.
To a large extent, yes, and I quite strongly disagree with the standard libertarian isolationism (though I think it is distinct from non-interventionism, which is the term Paul uses). But I don’t think you need to conflate the grander Qutbian strain of Islamic fundamentalism and OBL’s raison d’etre. From the many histories of al-Qaeda I’ve read, it seems more like he started small, and it was only once he became plugged into the global finance network of the mujahideen that he developed the larger grand designs he claims to have now.
To me, that says something, that there may have been concrete actions we could have taken (or, in the case of Iraq, not taken) that would have left us in a dramatically improved, but by no means perfect, current state.
Joshua,
I agree with you on Bin Laden’s apparent course. I just disagree on how determinative our actions have been. I also don’t necessarily disagree about his intellectual relationship with Qutb, he has integrated him over time, but Qutb and his many intellectual heirs exist, and Bin laden swims in that stream.
I also agree that there may have been things we could have done, but I don’t think looking back teaches us what. I am not being a radical skeptic of history, I think my constant evoking of history shows that. Instead, I am asking (not addressed to you necessarily) for a little humility before the contingency of history and our ability to truly understand what happened and why in the past. (Warning: Upcoming long wordy post to explore this.) More importantly, backward lessons are almost impossible to apply with confidence moving forward, because we didn’t have the ability to see the “truth then, and will do no better in the future. Depressing, but true.
The connected dots of the past we see today are just bits of disconnected data in the past that were knitted together very imperfectly then. Many people insist that isn’t true, and to use a more contemporary example, look at the WMD debate and say “they knew!” It looks obvious, it can be almost impossible knowing what happened now not to see it as deception, but I am pretty close to 100% sure it wasn’t. It wasn’t obvious at the time, in fact, most people saw it as obvious in the other direction. Weak evidence that seemed strong in the context of “knowing” he had WMD seemed perfectly justifiable to use. We see this everyday in our regular lives, and on thousands of media sites throughout the net. That, by the way, is why as dysfunctional as the CIA appears (and like all people and organizations they are) I don’t see any evidence they are particularly so, the same with the military. In fact, I suspect they are more competent than most groups of people, though without a market to operate within, incremental improvement is a herculean task. That they advance as much as they do is pretty remarkable.
Anyway, I think you are misunderstanding Paul who I have followed for over 20 years. He is an isolationist, and while I am sympathetic with his ideological inclinations overall, like many extremely ideological people, he thinks his views are not just the best course of action, they are so right that almost nothing but good flows from them and almost nothing but bad flows from not applying them. He does mean we caused 9/11, that there is little difference between being in another country after overthrowing a dictatorship and another country invading us and imposing a dictatorship. Lewellen Rockwell and his crew do the same thing, acting as if fighting Milosovic, opposing Putin, and other tyrants is morally indistinguishable from opposing other democracies. Your view is different than his, and I don’t think reacting to them negatively, even if some people react much more harshly to them than I would, should surprise you.
Apology accepted, Joshua. My reading of Ron Paul’s various jeremiads over the years directed at the US government and its leaders is approximately the same as Lance’s. On a very deep, one could almost say pathological at this point, level Ron Paul believes in isolationism. He is a Lew Rockwell kind of Libertarian and he is going to see virtually every US direct action as imperialist adventurism. Plus the fact that he is livid anytime the US government spends money. I don’t disagree with some of his points about government waste, porkbarrel projects, fiscal responsibility, etc. I strongly disagree with his views on foreign policy and US history.
I honestly see Ron Paul as the Libertarian Pat Robertson. They both seem to be fundamentalists who are bordering senility, each in his own way. Robertson is an Evangelical fanatic and Paul is a paleolibertarian fanatic. While not every single one of Paul’s views falls clearly in the Lew Rockwell/Justin Raimondo camp, the majority do. And he is as obsessive about advancing them as the ONLY solution as they are.
Your reading of Ron Paul is certainly as valid as mine or anyone else’s. Like all other subjective topics, there is clearly no RIGHT/WRONG answer here. I simply happen to disagree with you and I consider that the good Congressman from Texas is, by implication, blaming the people of the United States for 9/11 because we elected those who made the choices that he feels led to 9/11. This is Ward Churchill behavior with, perhaps, a degree of qualitative difference, but certainly still in the same ballpark. Churchill’s fraud, lies, etc. reflect on him as a person and as a professional scholar, not on his political opinions which have nothing to do with those things. Although Ron Paul’s personal behavior certainly rises well above Churchill’s, his political opinions do not.
Well, I might say he is less conspiratorial than Rockwell and Raimondo. I admit to a soft spot Omar for Paul, but he has little patience for the worlds complexity, especially non-market complexity such as in foreign policy.
He also reads the US Constitution as a libertarian would want it to be as opposed to what it is. I wish the Constitution was as libertarian as he thinks it is, but it isn’t.
I think Paul is a libertarian, Rockwell and Raimondo could care less about freedom anywhere else, which is an odd libertarianism to me. They view what happens to other purely from a view of how our actions are not libertarian. So telling another government what we want them to do, or pressuring them to do so is “coercive” and we have no right to tell other people what kind of government to have. As if the people of the regimes they defend are making the choice themselves. Another aspect of this is very similar to the far left argument I often hear, which is that we are not free either. Different reasons for saying it granted, but Rockwell/Raimondo feel our government is so hopelessly corrupt and we are about to descend into a vicious economic collapse that gives us no moral right to talk about anyone else. Milosovic, Bush, what is the big difference? Paul heads into that morass at times, but I wouldn’t throw him into that pot. He is a fellow traveler, not a member himself.
So I have more sympathy for him than I do for Rockwell/Raimondo or Churchill from the left. So I guess we have a neat progression of views on him from Joshua to you, me in the middle. I will now declare with complete illegitimacy that I am therefore the moderate and I get to be the most right and most reasonable of all because we all know that the moderate occupies a hallowed position in our political discourse;^)
Bill? Is that you??
In this context I take that as a compliment. In fact, very high praise indeed.
Hrm, I guess I should also add that I’m not really a fan of Ron Paul in isolation (in particular his ideas of fiscal policy and abolishing birthrite citizenship are just batty). I just happen to think that he represents the least amount of bad of all the GOPers running, that’s all.
Hey, I voted for him over Bush I. You don’t have to convince me of his virtues.
I like a lot of what Ron brings to the table. But his appearance on the Alex Jones show and de facto endorsement of his ideas has had me swear off even thinking of voting for him.
It’s like what Kerry and Edwards did with those truthers asking them questions at their speeches, only Paul actually sought them out.
I agree with you on that. Plus, there’s his curious demi-association with white supremacists. I mean, the man is bats#*t crazy.
But that’s exactly what happened. The AUMF in Iraq is a legal declaration of war according to the D.C. circuit court. In 1991, the decision to invade Iraq passed by a single vote in the Senate, whereas in 2003 the AUMF in Iraq passed by margins sufficient to override a presidential veto. Also down the memory hole is the fact that the vast majority of intelligence concerning chemical and biological weapons did not originate with the Bush administration but was produced by the UN in the mid and late nineties based on Saddam’s stockpile declarations, declarations that were forced after the stockpiles were revealed to the West by an Iraqi defector in 1996, a full four years of weapons inspections notwithstanding.
yours/
peter.
Zawahiri helped Bin Laden found Al Queda. You should read this little bit too.
yours/
peter.
Peter, I shudder to quote Alberto Gonzales, but in 2006 he said this:
I suspect part of the reason Gonzales was being so specific was so he could justify the administration’s decision to ignore Geneva, among other wartime conventions and treaties (and war-applicable U.S. law). Also, I couldn’t find the ruling in which they declared an AUMF to be legally equivalent to a Declaration of War. Do you have a link? I’d like to read that.
About al-Qaeda: Zawahiri made al-Qaeda what it is today, but bin Laden’s organization existed for years beforehand. bin Laden was small potatoes in the mujahideen movement until the mysterious murder of his mentor and boss, Sheik Abdullah Azzam, in 1989, which led to his takeover of the organization—years before he knew or met Zawahiri. Ayman is a relative late comer to the international jihadist movement compared to bin Laden.
It doesn’t matter what Alberto Gonzalez says. I’m not sure what the source of the quote is, or what question he was answering; maybe he mispoke. Obviously there was no recognized government in Afghanistan with regards to triggering certain articles of the GC, but it was the administration’s policy to adhere to the letter of Geneva in Iraq from the get go because the Hussein regime was the recognized government of Iraq. That’s why there are no Iraqis in Gitmo.
But again, it doesn’t matter what Gonzalez thinks anyway. The D.C. Circuit Court ruled in Doe v. Bush that if it walks like a declaration of war and quacks like a declaration of war, it’s a declaration of war; there’s no need for the magic words “we declare war” to appear in the text. What’s more, they cite a surprising number of precedent decisions, so apparently this has been the law of the land for quite some time even though it’s not popularly known or understood.
Wikipedia’s entry for Zawahiri states that he and Bin Laden met in Afghanistan in the eighties. Maybe they’re wrong. But the truth is it’s Zawahiri that’s always been our real enemy. Bin Laden is just the shill.
yours/
peter.
Well, for one, it does matter what Alberto Gonzales says, since he was explaining, in a February 6, 2006 testimony to Congress, why the specific circumstances of a declaration-free war on Iraq granted the administration exceptional powers, rights, and abilities.
Further, that ruling isn’t saying what you think it said. It didn’t rule on the nature of the war powers clause, it declined to hear the suit because through the AUMF Congress abdicated its right to restrain the Executive in waging war. To quote Lynch’s ruling:
In other words, because Congress knowingly passed off its right to declare war, it is not a conflict between the branches when the executive uses that right Congress gave it. And Congress did so, knowingly and willingly, in full understanding of Iraq:
So this wasn’t a ruling that an AUMF is the same as a declaration of war, it is saying that an AUMF is essentially Congress granting the President the right to declare war. That is perhaps a subtle, but important difference. My point is that Congress punted, and skirted its Constitutional duty to control if and when we as a country go to war; the Court says that exact same thing, but since such a stance doesn’t constitute a conflict between branches but rather a deliberate transfer of power from one to another, it is outside their jurisdiction.
In other words, it was a big power grab by the Executive, and the Legislative by a large majority assented to it. Not illegal, absolutely. But, to me, deeply unethical.
And Wikipedia’s entry is wrong about the initial interaction between Zawahiri and bin Laden — that explicit collaboration came later, after Azzam’s assassination and the fracture of the MAK, which was already being operated if not headed by bin Laden well before he met Zawahiri. I hate when people pull books in comment threads, but Steve Coll has an excellent, well-sourced, and thorough history of how bin Laden and Zawahiri came to collaborate in Ghost Wars, which is an excellent book anyway on the formation of al-Qaeda.
Actually they say more than that:
Nothing in the Constitution or the debates around it says that wars powers are only legitimate or ethical when we say “declare war.” The Congress has no duty but to authorize the President to exercise his/her war powers. The language is designed to shape that exercise. They could have just declared war and ended all negotiations intended to give the chance to avoid war, but there is no reason they should have to, and many reasons they shouldn’t. Saying war is authorized gives the executive a potent weapon in negotiation that the target cannot count on a fractured Congress. “They have authorized me to go, do you want to talk?” He doesn’t have to go to war. He can stop short, unlike in a war now type of authorization. That is why just declaring war has rarely been done.
Whatever the merits of Gonzales’ testimony, the AUMF authorized war. No punting, and we know that because though many in Congress are playing the naif, when the war began the vast majority of those who voted for the AUMF were on board with the invasion. That some had problems with it are not due to an AUMF. If in October they had just said, “we are at war” they might have still argued about what that meant (and that has happened in the past.)
The court noted just that here:
We will never see again a plain old Declaration of War unless we have been directly attacked and response is totally non-discretionary. How often is that going to occur?
Actually, I am not sure we have ever seen a mere Declaration of War outside of those circumstances (or believed to be those circumstances) here in the US. So this is not a change, it is how it has always been done.
I think Joshua is right about Zawahiri (it has been a while since I read Ghost wars or any books about Bin Laden) , but that is my recollection. Bin Laden wants a cause though, the specifics are not that important.