[billbears]

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.

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?

[soccermom]

LOL! Of course the 9/11 Commission Report isn't a "fact" -- it is a finding -- a conclusion, a list of suggestions, etc based on gathered information. The "fact" that Al Queda wrote a manifesto listing grievances does not mean those grievances caused terror any more than the Unabomber's manifesto means capitalism caused terror. It is Paul's opinion. Got it?

"What because he refused to answer a question based on next season's 24?" Uhhh....nooooo.... because he is advocating precisely what Bin Laden predicted -- withdrawal in the face of terror. If a child shoots his teacher while ranting about being given a bad grade, does that mean the bad grade explains the shooting? I don't necessarily think so. It may provide insight, but I'm sure there is more to the story. But let's assume someone wants to point to the shooter's rantings as the explanation. Fine. Is the answer, then, to never give bad grades again? That is my primary criticism of Paul. He isn't merely pointing to U.S. involvement to explain terror. He is, in effect, blaming the U.S. policy and validating the terrorists by advocating our withdrawal.