Ron Paul by suggesting that this country deserved being attacked on 9/11 is not sound in his thinking on ANY level period. Therefore he cannot be sound in his foreign policy thinking either and is not to be trusted under any circumstances.
I don’t think Paul said the country deserved to be attacked — he just did not clearly explain himself, like Ford in 1976. Paul said he wanted Robert Taft, Sr., foreign policy.
However, His blaming America for 9/11 shows his utter lack of awareness about reality. He comes across as a stingy uncle who is completely tone deaf about the issue.
It's too bad because he actually has some good Constitutionalist Principles. He killed any legitimacy he had before now in tonight's debate.
I felt very uncomforable when Ron Paul was spewing.
I agree , Ron Paul has no business even being in the debates. He’s WAY off base in his thinking .
Unquestionably. And I repeat my query of several days ago to our good host: Jim, is an open an admitted 9/11 "truther" -- one who also believes (by his own admission tonight) that we "deserved" to be attacked by Islamofascists -- considered a credible and legitimate potential Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency?
Giuliani supporters were (quite rightly) admonished not to openly promulgate anti-conservative memes and positions of equivalent toxicity and perniciousness on this site, just a few short weeks ago.