Posted on 05/16/2007 4:24:00 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Video clip of her easily dissecting the whack-job "truther" movement on FOX's The Big Story, here.
Enjoy. ;)
Why? Our attention spans are longer than that, one hopes, and Dr. Paul doesn’t speak in sound bites. He never has.
I agree. Still there are those who deny OBL's own admission as the "reason" being that he planned the attacks upon the US. That reason was Iraq, as documented in OBL's 1998 PBS interview - whether or not we deem it justified, OBL gave Iraq as a motivator. He even stated then terrorists were already in the US planning attacks, but Giuliani says he's never heard any of that before. It tells me Giuliani isn't quite the war on terror expert he supposes he is, or Giuliani simply lied to grandstand.
From what I've been abled to piece together, from the 1998 PBS OBL interview and the statements made specifically putting US presence in Iraq as a motivator to attack the US, from the return of the Saudi prince's check and the reason behind Giuliani's rejection being the prince linked the US presence in the ME to the attacks, from Giuliani's assertion he's the "best qualified" to lead the WOT because of his understanding the terrorists, if the latter being true I'd say Giuliani lied.
And I'm no Ron Paul fan, but it disgusts me to see Giuliani's cold exploitation of the 9/11 attacks for his own political ambitions and his manipulation of the truth for his own interest.
First of all, he wasn’t stating “facts” — he was stating his opinion that U.S. involvement in the middle east was the cause of the 9/11 attacks. My problem is not that Paul looks to Bin Laden’s words to explain why we were attacked, but that he is following Bin Laden’s prescription for making terror attacks effective.
Because he was specifically given the opportunity to make clear whether he thought we invited it and he didn't take it.
If he said "no" then elaborated that still would have been helpful. But you can read his answer all day and still not be sure he didn't think we invited it simply because he was specifically asked and didn't give a specific answer.
Being clear is not the same as speaking in a soundbite.
I don't dislike Paul. He's much, much better than my representative. But I don't want him as president.
This is the first time I’ve heard the term “truther.” What does it mean? Does it mean those crazies who think WTC 7 was taken down by George & Marvin Bush?
That's the point that his supporters seem to be missing. Ron Paul may be a rock solid defender of the Constitution, a patriot, a veteran, and a staunch conservative. He's also bonkers.
The first rule of being a politician is that you have to get elected. In order to get elected, you have to understand and balance who the people are, what they want, and what they need. Paul may be a great conservative ideologue, but he's got a tin ear for national politics. People that either don't understand what will alienate their base, or don't care, aren't competative politicians.
Locally, sure. Maxine Waters thinks the CIA's been selling crack to black people for years. Hats off to the 35th district of California for keeping her off the streets and giving her a job. But that charity ends once she leaves her district. You can't sell crazy nation-wide.
If you want to have stupid views, that's fine. But if you don't know they're stupid, or consequences-be-damned you're going to voice them anyway, expect to be cast aside as a loon.
So the 9/11 Commission Report isn't fact? Interesting, I thought I read it, I guess I didn't....and I guess Al Qaeda's reasons given in 1996 for declaring war on the US didn't happen either...Hmmmm, and read that right even here on this site as it was posted several times
Thank you for clarifying the Republican party is dismissing so much written word (some of it by our own government) to get the 'message' out.
but that he is following Bin Laden’s prescription for making terror attacks effective.
What because he refused to answer a question based on next season's 24?
Paul was referring to this section of the 911 Commission Report. While Bush and Giuliani would prefer to paint their enemy in whatever terms are convenient, thankfully people like Ron Paul understand that you must know your enemy if you wish to defeat him.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf
‘In my opinion Ron Paul cares more about the U.S. Constitution than anybody here. ‘
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. And I don’t doubt Ron Paul ‘cares about the Constitution’.
Doesn’t change the fact he sounds like a leftwingnut, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Kook.
Congressman Paul is a Libertarian, unless there is a GOP fundraiser that he will benefit from.
(chuckle)
He didn’t say that we deserved 9/11, but more that we indirectly caused 9/11—”blowback,” right? That statement can be easily misinterpreted/spun into “we deserved it.”
I don’t agree with the guy, and think his foreign policy is unsound (and disagree 100% with him on the alleged causes for Islamic terror against us), but no, he didn’t say we deserved it.
}:-)4
‘To equate him with Rosie is absurd.’
On the topic of 9/11 there isn’t much difference between them. They both blame America for it, as his own words demonstrated conclusively in the debate. You can’t spin it.
But apparently you can spin it.
Or you can’t tell the difference between an explanation, which he gave, and a justification, which you choose to call it.
“I am freakin’ fed up with the absolute misrepresentation of what Dr. Paul said.
Those who say he said we deserved 9/11 are liars or stupid.”
Yet, his words are very clear to everybody but himself, and his supporters....
Well, no, they are not clear, as your mischaracterization continues to demonstrate.
‘How did Paul give terrorists a pass?’
By forgetting the time frame between the 1972 Olympic Massacre and the end of the Gulf War.
Around 500 Americans had been killed by Muslim extremists between those dates. He choose to focus on the decade after the Gulf War, and thereby undermined his own credibility on the topic.
Um, that is not “giving them a pass.”
Giving someone a pass means excusing their actions. I dare you to show me where Dr. Paul did that.
Paul/Kucinich 2008.
The jokes on us.
‘The constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact or an excuse to be the world’s patsies.’
Bingo.
The fact the terrorists want to erase the Constitution we have seems to escape this kook Congresscritter.
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.