Before patronage took him away from writing Dakota War College, one of Pat Powers's favorite topics was Gerry Lange's position on terrorism (a rather absurd argument to bring up, given that international terrorism and foreign policy aren't really part of the daily portfolio of a state legislator, but never mind that for now).
Lange, a military veteran and scholar of history, refuses to give the standard red-white-and-blue butt-kicking bromides on how America ought to respond to the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Lange consistently asked (and continues to ask) that we give some thought and reflection about the ramifications of our foreign policy. Asked a question as a legislator about the proper response to al-Qaeda, Representative Lange had the Socratic audacity to suggest that we might profit from asking ourselves if America did anything to rile up terrorists and to consider changing policies that might defuse terrorism without our having to go to war and beget more violence with violence.
Lange's comments inspired Pat Powers to rhetorical violence. Powers dismissed any policy proposal from Rep. Lange by branding the legislator "an apologist for the terrorists." Powers deleted most of his online smears against Lange, but most of us in the blogosphere remember Powers's attacks well.
So where is outrage from the sock puppets at Dakota War College over this response Ron Paul gave during last night's Republican debate to a question on checking al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabab's power in Somalia?
You have to understand who the al Qaeda really is. The -- the al Qaeda responds in a very deliberate fashion. As a matter of fact, Paul Wolfowitz explained it very clearly after 9/11.
He said that al Qaeda is inspired by the fact that we had bases in Saudi Arabia. So if you want to inspire al Qaeda, just meddle in -- in that region. That will inspire the al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, he went on to say that that was a good reason for us to remove the base that we had had in 15 years in -- in Saudi Arabia and that we should have done that.
So there is a response. Al Qaeda responds to that and they -- they are quite annoyed with us. So if you drop -- if you have a no- fly zone over Syria, that's an act of war.
What if we had China put a no-fly zone over our territory? I don't think -- I don't think we would like that.
And I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us? When we have a no-fly zone over Iraq, it was for -- meant to be regime change. And evidently, some want to have regime change.
What is our business? Why should we spend more money and more lives to get involved in another war? That's an -- that is the internal affairs of the other nations and we don't want -- we don't need another nation to start nation building. We have way too many already. So this is just looking for more trouble. I would say why don't we mind our own business? [Ron Paul, CNN transcript, Republican national security debate, Washington DC, 2011.11.22]
I've thought that Ron Paul and Gerry Lange have some interesting similarities. Now Here Paul makes clear his alignment with Lange on seeing the need to consider that our foreign policy actions have consequences. Is Paul thus an "apologist for the terrorists"?
Dakota War College has found Ron Paul's positions on other issues agreeable and worthy of discussion. It has welcomed Ron Paul's efforts to lead discussion about entitlements. I assume that now, given that Ron Paul is saying the same thing about al-Qaeda as Gerry Lange did, my Republican neighbors will brook no further discussion of anything Ron Paul says. Where's the outrage, "Bill Clay"?
Listen to Gerry Lange's statement on al-Qaeda, history, and foreign policy, posted as a "rebuttal" to all of Gerry Lange's other policy positions, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINz632Hgg8
View Ron Paul's debate response on al-Shabab here: