Act two.(POLITICS)

THE second Republican presidential "debate"--it would be better described as a candidates' forum--was dominated by a dust-up between the front-runner and a minor candidate. Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian, said that Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 because of our previous interventions in the Middle East, and in particular because of our bombing of Iraq. Rudolph Giuliani broke in to say Paul's statement was "extraordinary" and should be withdrawn.

Paul's description of what motivated bin Laden is accurate, though incomplete. But Paul's implied conclusions--that we should not have gone to war with Iraq in 1991, and that a non-interventionist policy is safer for Americans--do not follow. As badly as the second Iraq war has gone, we would be in a much worse geopolitical position if during the 1990s Saddam Hussein had controlled Iraq and Kuwait and held Saudi Arabia in fear. The notion that interventions always, or usually, yield "blowback" would be ideologically convenient for a libertarian such as Paul, but that is no reason to think it is true. American policy should take account of the possibility of retaliation against us, but not be rendered impotent by it.

Giuliani, by smacking Paul down, played to two of his strengths simultaneously: He was tough on terrorists, and he seized control of the stage. The other eight candidates were bystanders. More than the other candidates, Giuliani ...