[P-40]

Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

OR both.

[traviskicks]

A pretty good article on this:
‘It’s OK if Ron Paul was right’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1835783/posts

[The_Eaglet]

ping

[listenhillary]

Paul Has a Point

If he wears a hat, maybe they won’t notice.

[af_vet_rr]

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them.

Paul phrased it very poorly during the debate, but he's right in that the various terrorist groups have had it in for us because of our presence in the gulf for a couple of reasons - #1, religious, #2, we've propped up Saudia Arabia and Pakistan's governments and kept them (by proxy) from being overrun by extremists.

What I'd like Paul (and others) to touch upon is that these groups have made it clear for years that they don't want us there, and attacked us multiple times under Clinton, who did not take them as seriously as he should have, which led to them getting angrier and bolder, until we finally had 9/11.

Nobody wants to say it (except maybe Ron Paul and a few FReepers here), but if Clinton had taken the threat seriously, these days people would say "Osama been who?"

[death2tyrants]

“But we also shouldn’t just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. “

What a joke of an article. These anti-war clowns act as though Iraq was chosen at random. Ron Paul is a lying conspiracy theorist and a traitor.

[chaos_5]

The only reason this has any traction is because the MSM loves a bitch fight. It’s the Jerry Springer syndrome.

[I see my hands]

To: Radley Balko

"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"

If that's reasonable, bug wit, then why aren't you motivated, in light of recent Islamist foreign policy as demonstrated on 9/11, to go to the mid east and give your life to kill as many Muslims as possible?

[jackieaxe]

Ron Paul is a far better republican than Rino One Note Rudy. What’s even more sickening was how One Note compared Ron Paul to the Saudi Prince who One Note returned the $10M check to. One Note did good by 911. He made $16m in books and lectures, now he wants to be president.

[Rodney King]

Uh oh... posting that what others in the world think of us is in any way influenced by how much we mess around in their country is a violation of the 9/11 religion. It’s like questioning Mary’s virginity on a catholic caucus thread, or posting that maybe, occasionally, W is not the greatest on a Day in the Life thread.

[Ohioan]

I would suggest that for every vote Rudy's demagogic gambit has cost Paul, Paul's refusal to quail before Paul or the talking head, Sean Hannity, has cost Rudy ten.

Those advising Rudy and several others ought to ponder the enduring success of the 1930s film, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington." Americans have never liked political bullies--nor should they.

William Flax

[WOSG]

Suddenly, this is such a side issue.

... if the senate immigration bill is passed, 20 million illegal aliens legalized, $2.5 trillion in social costs, a new permanent Democrat majority voting in a vastly different social and political structure....

America as we know it is a gone anyway.

Save the country - make the call:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835886/posts

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Look! Paul blamed the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks. That said, he has no credibility.

[7thOF7th]

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.

[LibLieSlayer]

I don’t like liars and fools. I will not vote for either of them!

LLS

[Obie Wan]

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 !!!

[Poser]

Two losers. One RINO and one LOON.

[SaxxonWoods]

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.

[George W. Bush]

article:

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.

Pretty obvious that Rudi lives in an imaginary world where Arabs attack us because, well, who knows exactly.

It's more than a little bizarre that the pols don't grasp fundamental causes for conflict with Arabs and Muslims.

[billbears]

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.

My eyes must be playing tricks with me. This is on Fox is it? What? Somebody that tells the truth decided to hack their site? Excellent news and well reasoned argument.