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 ...
""..Dr. Paul that question. I bet he answers it."
(me) He already has. In his speeches, anyway. Might be on his website, too.
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.
Are you saying the retribution for 9/11 was a UN responsibility?
Who’s the one-worlder?
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.
I just want to be clear here and make sure I understand you.
This comment was made another poster......not me.
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?
.
The attacks on RP are showing that many here are as venal as the DUmmies. Freetards indeed.
What policies caused OBL to attack the US?
Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.
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.
Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.
Just my opinion.
PAUL/TANCREDO 2008
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
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.
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.
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.
That does it. I'm finished with you, mister. I won't try to argue with a liar.
Ron Paul singlehandedly helped Giuliani’s campaign regain footing after what had been a somewhat lackluster night. Thanks a lot, Ron.
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.