Ben Stein Explains His Attack on Ron Paul, Creating More Questions Than Answers
(Examiner.com) -- by Thomas R. Eddlem --
Ben Stein published 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.
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 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, and not be an anti-Semite.
Stein argued 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 – 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 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 – 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 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 that Ron Paul's arguments were wrong and that the United States has an obligation to prop up the corrupt government of Yemen...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
If Stein truly believes it is anti-Semitic for Americans to want to get Israel off our welfare dole, and to object to sending Americans off to fight wars for Israeli interests -- which begets ever more attacks by Islamic militants on American positions, then he is living proof that American Zionists put Israeli Jews ahead of American Gentiles, and should never be trusted in positions where Israeli and American interests might come into conflict. And I'm not just taking about Jewish Zionists. George W. Bush was a Gentile Zionists who put Jewish Israeli interests ahead of American interests when he pursued the elective Iraq war, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11 -- attacks that likely would never even have taken place but for U.S government interventionism in the Mideast on behalf of Israel, and Washington's blank check support for the Jewish state.
For example, Jeff Gates notes that 'Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the mass murder of 9-11, conceded that the motivation for that attack was to focus “the American people…on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab Muslim people.”'
What Americans are dealing with in Zionism is an insidious, elitist ideology that operates by incorporating American politicians on their rise up the ladders of power (as was the case with Barack Obama), or once they have reached the pinnacle of power (as was more the case with George W. Bush.) And eventually, Zionism actually becomes an elitist, sacraficialist state of mind, wherein it's perfectly acceptable to send lower class Americans to their deaths on behalf of Zionism's interests. In fact, Zionism even manages to incorporate poorer and more ignorant Americans by invoking the Old Testament and suggesting that Americans are fighting for the heritage of Western civilization by protecting the progeny of the tribes of biblical Israel. Actually, the opposite is true. Many Jews harbor profound grudges against Western civilization because of its Christian basis and its historical intolerance for Jewish ethnic rackateering, and thus stab it in the back at nearly every opportunity.
Ron Paul is too smart to fall for Zionism's platitudes and methods, which is what drives guys like Ben Stein crazy.
Israel can sink or swim on its own merits. Ending American interventionism around the world is in no way throwing Israel to the wolves, as Stein seems to suggest. It is forcing it to quite acting like a parasite and stand on its own two feet -- something that is apparently anathema to mentality's like Stein's.
Americans need to implement a new litmus test for their politicians. Instead of being pro-Zionist as the price of entry to the upper echelons of power, politicians should be tested as either Zionist neutral, or anti-Zionist to get elected. Because just like its bastard twin Communism, Zionism will ultimately destroy whatever it touches.
Comment by "Chris Moore" on Quis Custodiet Traditionis Custodes?, by E. Michael Jones - There would be no Jewish Question if the educated elites among the Christian peoples hadn’t betrayed their own principles. At a time when Jews stand by e...
14 hours ago