Posted on 05/17/2007 8:25:59 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
May 15th GOP Presidential Debate
In a May 15, 2007 GOP debate in South Carolina, Ron Paul took a close second (25%) to Mitt Romney, who received the most votes (29%) in a Fox News sponsored text messaging poll.[31] On other sites, such as ABC News and MSNBC, Paul was the night’s winner, according to respondents.
Congressman Paul commented how America’s history of interventionism in the Middle East has led to an unpopular view of the U.S. in Middle Eastern countries. Agreeing with what has previously been asserted by the 9/11 Commission Report and the CIA’s specialists on al Qaeda, Paul stated that the CIA removal of an elected Iranian leader (the 1953 removal of the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq in Operation Ajax) and the bombing of Iraq in the 1990’s, culminating in the ongoing Iraq war, has led to increasing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.
He went on, stating that these events have also led to terrorists developing such a hatred for America, that they’re willing to die in suicide attacks. He said, “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.”
An outraged Rudy Giuliani, interpreted Paul as implying that America had invited the attacks through its actions and interrupted the proceedings to demand a retraction. Ron Paul defended his statement and further explained, “I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.”
Even early supporter of the Iraq War Andrew Sullivan was led by Rep. Paul’s remarks to conclude that;
“The question serious supporters of a real war on terror must now ask is: will continuing the fight in Iraq help reverse this trend or cement it for decades to come? Is the war making us less secure and the world much less safe? Would withdrawal or continued engagement makes things better? At the very least, it seems to me, this question should be on the table in the Iraq debate. And yet the Republicans - with the exception of Ron Paul - don’t even want to talk about it. Until they do, they are not a party serious about national security.”
Some reports have stated that Ron Paul is factually correct with his assertion; as cited in the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa called “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” published in Britain, reveals his anger with American policies as his reason for declaring a fatwa. In his fatwa, bin Laden cites the reasons for attacking America as, in order:
American involvement in the Middle East
Palestine, and
Sanctions on Iraq
The CIA’s former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, told CNN, “We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live.”
CIA analyst, political scientist, and author Chalmers Johnson spoke of blowback in regards to the September 11 attacks in October 2001 and has written books on the subject.
In a press release following the debate, campaign chairman Kent Snyder said in response to Giuliani, “It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe.”
Ron Paul’s purpose in the debates is to make Rudy look Presidential.
All these debates are meaningless activities at this point, the eventual entry of Fred Thompson is going to change the entire dynamic of the Republican Presidential nomination race. That's true even if Fred doesn't get that nomination.
That’s why he’s the best candidate!
I believe he’ll place within the top 3. I believe that he’ll build momentum from that, and while I admit I’m skeptical of his ability to win the nomination, he’ll win a lot of delegates. But, in a race this this many candidates, anything can happen.
I have some ocean front property in Arizona just waiting for your bid.
Paul has had his George Romney Moment.
Paul has had his George Romney Moment.
I think YOU’RE going to be in for quite a shock when the NH primary is over, assuming Paul is still around.
BTW—you cut a check to his campaign yet?
Ron Paul is also the only politician running who supports our troops instead of thinking of them as fodder for grandoise nation building schemes concocted by the neo-cons at AEI.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
The Carter administration thought that Khomeini was Just some soft-headed relgious leader, not a revolutionary figure. Biggest mistake since the Germans sent Lenin to Russia in 1917 to undermine the Provisional government of Russia.
You have your own delusion. There is a very real need to establish a government in Iraq that is beholden to the United States. Just look at the map, for God’s sake. It’s called geo-political reality. As to the conduct of the war, it seems obvious now that the present surge should have happened a year ago. If Bush had been on top of the matter, he would have saacked his generals and, maybe, something positive might have happened before the election, or at least by now.
Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative.
Well if we're going to include a fringe Libertarian like Ron Paul, we might as let Giuliani the Lieberman Democrat in on the fun.
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.