Posted on 05/21/2007 1:53:00 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.
Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."
Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Thanks for that link. Stop amnesty of illegal immigrants!
Look! Paul blamed the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks. That said, he has no credibility.
Maybe because Ron Paul isn’t an Islamist.
May 21, 2007
The Ron Paul Effect
Antiwar Republican makes waves
This is from the site “Anti War.com
That says it all. A suck up site to R Paul
and his fringe beliefs.
Bill Mahar who said the terrorists that flew into the WTC
are heros has also said Ron Paul is his new hero.
I don’t know why we conservatives have to put up with libertarian - constitutional party idiots.
They are not going to change anyones minds only reaffirm
that thet are lacking knowledge and truth.
It was common knowledge already before 911 and OBL made no secret about why he was attacking us time and time again. If you go back and sift through the media from khobar towers you’ll see references as to our presence in the holly land. How these little tid bits of information are pieced together by policy makers attempting to advance their career and sell themselves is what’s interesting and disappointing alike.
BS, Paul’s comments implied that it was correct to blame the USA. Paul is an isolationist. The USA cannot become isolationist in the modern world.
This whole debate purports to give justification to a crime against humanity! I think it is obscene to suggest that there are “reasons” for the killing of innocents. Ron Paul should keep those kinds of comments to himself, he would appear to be far less foolish if he did. And for that matter so would anyone else who cares to defend Ron Paul’s “choice” comments.
I don’t like liars and fools. I will not vote for either of them!
LLS
Paul definitely put US intervention in the Middle East as a reason for 9/11 during the last debate.While I agree,Desert Storm,invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq can be debated on their individual merits,I cannot agree that the US “had it coming” for these actions (notably Iraq and Afghanistan which was after 9\11) as Paul suggests !!!
It is not conservative to bash conservatives, especially when they hold to fiscally conservative positions.
Why do you continue to do so?
Two losers. One RINO and one LOON.
No, they did not.
On the contrary, Paul repeatedly speaks out against isolationism. He is not an isolationist.
Me, too.
Has Ron Paul laid out a plan for defeating Islamo-fascism? I would like to read it. Ron Paul’s method of dealing with Islamo-fascists seems to be to follow their orders. He seems concerned when we do things the Terrorists don’t like.
He reminds me of the old joke about the doctor who tells the guy with the hurting arm not to move it like that. Then it won’t hurt anymore.
Pretty obvious that Rudi lives in an imaginary world where Arabs attack us because, well, who knows exactly.But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies (read: Saudi Arabia).
Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.
But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. The head of the Michigan GOP demanded he be excluded from future debates.
Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). One former staffer declared Paul an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.
This is all patently absurd. Actually, it's offensive. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.
But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise as outside the bounds of civilized debate is doubly ignorant.
If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests anywhere you can find them, smacking them with sticks. You're bound to get stung again.
It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place and trying to prevent it from happening again.
Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:
— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."
— Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."
Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:
— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."
— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."
— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.
The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right.
Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.