Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why are they lying about Ron Paul?
SmallGovTimes.com ^ | May 18th, 2007 | Cliff Kincaid, SmallGovTimes.com

Posted on 05/18/2007 8:12:39 AM PDT by sdnet

In a desperate attempt to make Rudy Giuliani out to be the hero of Tuesday night’s debate, Fox News is continuing to attack Texas Congressman Ron Paul for something he did not say. In the latest installment of this campaign, John Gibson of Fox News says that Paul “suggested that the U.S. actually had a hand in the [9/11] terrorist attacks.” No, what he said was that U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact.

Gibson’s comment shows how Fox News has been eager to slant the news in favor of Giuliani, who claimed in his famous response to Paul that the congressman had said that the U.S. “invited” the 9/11 attacks. That was false, too.

Some would say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, in this day and age, are somewhat naïve. But Giuliani’s assault, assisted by Fox News, which co-sponsored the debate, goes so far over the line that an honest media watchdog has to say something. Gibson, trying to make Paul’s comments about 9/11 into “The Big Outrage,” claimed that he was a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the group that claims the terrorist attacks were orchestrated by some kind of secret cabal of U.S. officials. He compared Paul to Rosie O’Donnell, who suggested 9/11 was an inside job.

(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: canidatetreason; government; paul; paulbearers; ron; ronpaul; small
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last
To: hoosierpearl
Oops, forgot the copy you on this.

""..Dr. Paul that question. I bet he answers it."

(me) He already has. In his speeches, anyway. Might be on his website, too.

121 posted on 05/18/2007 2:09:23 PM PDT by Designer (Aw, what the heck, I'll throw my two cents' worth in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: sdnet
No, what he said was that U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact.

So what is acceptable U.S. foreign policy to Osama bin Laden?... do we have a right to decline Osama bin Laden acceptable U.S. foreign policy with out being attacked?... if we accept Osama bin Laden U.S. foreign policy for us...what is the limit? ...

U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact ..and a someone "putting out (or not putting out)" policy is reason they might get rape..This is a fact ... you don't rape some one that roll over on demand... it's call being there "bitch"

Sorry I dont feel like being Osama "bitch" when in comes to U.S. foreign policy so a "not Osama's bitch" policy is a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America ...This is a fact.

122 posted on 05/18/2007 2:45:58 PM PDT by tophat9000 (Al-Qaidacrats =A new political party combining the anti American left and the anti Semite right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Designer

Are you saying the retribution for 9/11 was a UN responsibility?

Who’s the one-worlder?


123 posted on 05/18/2007 9:04:18 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: P-40

The real problem is our foreign policy is too fickle.

It’s going to take major miracle to turn the tide right now and prevent a democrat from gaining office - and who knows what bomb factories and bad foreign policy is enacted if that does happen.

You want the best reason to avoid intervention? Because when American’s lose their will and abandon the cause - it causes a lot of human suffering. Look at what happened to Vietnam when we lost the will to fight any longer and left. thousands of vietnamese left behind were brutally killed.

The reality is the laws of our nation were designed to protect individual liberty and I’m thankful for those laws, but they also prevent us from creating a lasting - consistent - foreign policy. No amount of “War Czar’s” will change that fact.

Perhaps I’m just to old to agree with my fellow onliners - but frankly, I’m ashamed of the mass media for trying to skew this debate. We aren’t talking about Noam Chomsky here. This isn’t about blaming America first, last, or anywhere in between. this is a conservative debate of idealogy and that Rino Guliani wouldn’t have a clue about such a thing.


124 posted on 05/18/2007 10:31:00 PM PDT by eboyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
"...And no reason to change our foreign policy..unless we collectively decide we like being attacked..."

I just want to be clear here and make sure I understand you.

This comment was made another poster......not me.

125 posted on 05/19/2007 3:24:13 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: hoosierpearl
What is Mr. Paul advocating that the United States should do [after the fact] if OBL attacked us because of our foreign policy? What should our future actions be?

It is impossible to speak for someone else. However, if we are honest we might be able to figure out the course of action that should be supported. For decades the US has had, as part of our foreign policy, the philosophy that the best way to deal with some countries is to destabilize the country followed by the installation of a puppet leader friendly to the interests of the administration in office. (remember the shaw of iran?) This has had mixed results from our perspective. Perhaps a different approach is called for. As it applies to Dr. Paul's position, maybe it is clear in his mind that iraq really had very little to do with the attack on our country and therefore it is a bad idea to meddle in their civil war?

126 posted on 05/19/2007 4:00:08 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Are you saying that we should allow foreign entities (such as Osama Bin Laden or the Iranians) to dictate to The United States of America what our foreign policy should be in order to lessen the likelihood they would attack us?
******************************************************************************************************************
I think that is what Ron Paul is advocating.
127 posted on 05/19/2007 4:24:53 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

.


128 posted on 05/19/2007 4:37:57 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

The attacks on RP are showing that many here are as venal as the DUmmies. Freetards indeed.


129 posted on 05/19/2007 4:48:48 AM PDT by jaime1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

What policies caused OBL to attack the US?


130 posted on 05/19/2007 4:53:20 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.


131 posted on 05/19/2007 5:08:35 AM PDT by rlmorel (Liberals: If the Truth would help them, they would use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: John D

I hate to sound radical, but have you ever considered that maybe it IS wrong to have our troops in 70 different countries? Would the founders have considered that to be wrong? Is there something wrong with our CIA overthrowing governments we don’t like and installing US friendly regimes? Isn’t it obvious that we will make lots enemies this way??

Look man...Osama is SCUM. And no, we should not let him dictate our foreign policy (and he isn’t). But it’s impossible to deny that his power today is a direct RESULT of our foreign policy over the past 20 years. That is why it needs to change...not because he said so...but because it created him, and it is currently allowing him to recruit new terrorists in record numbers.


132 posted on 05/19/2007 6:52:56 AM PDT by Silverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.

Just my opinion.

PAUL/TANCREDO 2008


133 posted on 05/19/2007 6:55:07 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
The White House has come out in opposition to a proposal by Congress to raise military pay by 3.5 percent, according to a report by Army Times.

According to a report by Army Times In case you don't know the Army Times is not the official news source of the military. It is in fact owned by the Gannett Group and everyone knows they are a liberal group. So I would treat anything that comes from the Army Times with extreme caution

134 posted on 05/19/2007 7:08:34 AM PDT by Kaslin (Fred Thompson for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Silverbug
If you remember right Iraq started this war by invading Kuwait. We agreed to a cease fire if Iraq would abide by the agreed upon arrangements. Iraq refused, so we were forced to end the cease fire. I know Ron Paul does, but do you really think we should have just let Iraq invade Kuwait and us do nothing? Do you really think Iraq would have just stopped with Kuwait?
135 posted on 05/19/2007 8:24:13 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: xzins
szins said: "Are you saying the retribution for 9/11 was a UN responsibility?

I don't think I said anything of the kind, but without a quote from my post, I can't tell. May I presume you are referring to my post #103? If so, I think you should read it again, in the hopes of understanding me better.

So no, I didn't say that nor imply it.

Who’s the one-worlder?

Well, you of course! Isn't that what one would conclude from your comment about a "serious isolationist"?

Besides the fact that you have used a term that doesn't apply in this case, you oviously are getting your "talking points" from the MSM. You know, sir, that people who repeat the nonsense they are fed are sometimes referred to as "stooges", or "useful idiots".

Unless you actually believe we need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries without a vital national interest to the United States.

In which case, you are not a "stooge" but a one-worlder.

136 posted on 05/19/2007 8:59:11 AM PDT by Designer (Aw, what the heck, I'll throw my two cents' worth in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Designer

You said that we have to do the UN’s dirty work, and you said there was no vital national interest.

I’d consider a deliberate attack on US soil killing 3000 of our people to be “of interest.” At least, Pearl Harbor thought so. But, Pearl was an old girl who’s long gone. Her vengeful ways are no longer our ways. So we leave it up to UN....right?

And, since you think the UN should be handling our national security, I’d say that definitely makes you a one-worlder.


137 posted on 05/19/2007 10:30:10 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

There is no doubt Ron Paul is an isolationist. I cannot vote for someone of that mindset, not in today’s world.

I respect your opinion. I just disagree.

If it came down to Ron Paul or any Democrat except for Zell Miller (maybe) I would vote for Ron Paul.


138 posted on 05/19/2007 10:41:50 AM PDT by rlmorel (Liberals: If the Truth would help them, they would use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"And, since you think the UN should be handling our national security,"

That does it. I'm finished with you, mister. I won't try to argue with a liar.

139 posted on 05/19/2007 1:55:39 PM PDT by Designer (Aw, what the heck, I'll throw my two cents' worth in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: sdnet
They’re not lying about it. He said what he said, and has made similar speeches on the floor of the House - even suggesting we attacked Iraq because the people were different from us.

Ron Paul singlehandedly helped Giuliani’s campaign regain footing after what had been a somewhat lackluster night. Thanks a lot, Ron.

140 posted on 05/19/2007 2:04:10 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson