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 ...
You may not want our help.
To get elected, you NEED our help.
Or perhaps you slept through last November, in which case this’ll be news to you.
We are in this now and had damn well better win and win now.
Define what you believe “winning” is.............
some one forgot to tell Paul and PJB.
Giuliani is ALL Hat, no hair..
Children flying kites was a reason Osama bin Laden attacked America.
Richard de Couer Leon forcing Saladin into a peace treaty and allowing Christian pilgrims the right to travel unimpeded was a reason Osama bin Laden attacked America.
The difference is, from Dr. Paul's point of view, that US Foreign policy can be changed.
And no reason to change our foreign policy..unless we collectively decide we like being attacked.
Perhaps foreign policy AND domestic policy (like NOT allowing foreigners from “terrorist” countries of origin to enter our Nation?
Of course the current administration is advocating settling thousands of iraqis here.........that sure makes sense too.
I’M NOT SURE IF WE CAN POST FROM THE ARMY TIMES BUT HERE IT IS/
In testimony earlier this year, David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told Congress that the Bush administration believes that any pay gap that might have existed since 2005 has been closed as a result of pay increases targeted to specific paygrades and years of service. Providing bigger pay raises for everyone is considered by defense personnel and budget officials as unnecessary and wasteful when there are other military priorities that are not funded or not fully funded.
While this is true, it is not what Ron Paul actually said.
He said we were attacked over here because we were over there.
He implied that was the sole reason why we were attacked. I call BS on that.
While this is true
It is true and you recognize it as being true with your own words.
Exactly. Ron Paul and the Paulidiots are fungal distraction.
If you RINO’s think you can win without us, go for it. Finish wiping your asses with the Constitution and see how far you get.
While Bush and the neocons have you fixated on things in the Middle East that don't affect your life, Bush and Kennedy and the liberals are opening our borders to tens of millions of more Mexican and South American Immigrants. Future Democrat voters who will drive down our standard of living and drive up our crime rates. Unlike the boogey man Saddam with his tinpot army, the immigration invasion's going to affect your life for real. But Bush has correctly calculated that he can get away with it because he's got Bushbots fixated on third world counties, which they can't even find on a map, on the other side of the globe.
Rob Paul is for smaller government, the way Goldwater was. The neoconservatives who’ve taken over the GOP - and their moutpice, Fox News - don’t like that, so he has to be marginalized by ridicule.
Bull, we can no more change past policy than we can change the history of the Crusades. And the Crusades are just as legitimate a reason in bin Laden’s mind as is the First Gulf War.
Ron Paul was blaming a rape victim for dressing “slutty”; he was blaming an abused woman for not listening to her husband; he was blaming a murder victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
First, full disclosure: I am not a Rudy Guliani supporter or advocate, and I seriously hope he does not get the GOP nomination.
But Ron Paul did demonstrate his naivete about the Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Why?
He erroneously conflates their public statements, their public excuses, as their motives. In doing so, he wrongly identifies U.S. actions as responsible for those motives. In fact, it is the opposite.
Their motives long pre-existed U.S. actions in the Middle East that they “complain” about, have no alteration to them even when U.S. actions would appear to help local Muslims, and they - those with and those like Osama - would be working on those motives whether or not the U.S. had any role at all in the Middle East.
What the terrorist’s like Osama offer are grist for the world media to join their jihad, in the public relations sense, in opposing U.S. actions in the Middle East precisely when and where U.S. actions have opposed or frustrated their motives.
They offer their excuses as “motives”, which Ron Paul naively accepts at face value as “motives”, because the U.S. is the only major player who consistently will obstruct their motives.
Their motives are very basic. They seek a Muslim theocratic Taliban-style regime imposed on all Muslims and eventually on all people - pure and simple. The rest is simply the international public relations wing of their constant jihad - not “motives”.
I would not want one so naive about the real nature of Islamic terrorists in the White house - though, in all fairness, I have no absolute confidence that Romney or McCain or Fred Thompson are completely aware of the Islamic fascist threat, in the total war sense (every public, political and social arena and venue - not just intelligence and military).
And, worse, the present administration is a eunuch in the face of the contribution to the long-term threat against us supplied by the Saudi-Wahabi faith and the Saudis massive world-wide promotion of its advancement - it supplies the religious shit for brains by which young, mostly male Muslim sheeple make themselves willing cannon fodder in the jihadists cause.
I am sure the the enemy can overlook a thousand bombs being dropped on them, that is no reason to attack us. It certainly has to be religious mandate; head back in the sand!
So now you know what binladin thinks...............
Ron Paul was blaming a rape victim for dressing “slutty”; he was blaming an abused woman for not listening to her husband; he was blaming a murder victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Dr. Paul said nothing of the sort, your analogies are silly.
US foreign policy going back decades has been to destabilize countries like iran & iraq, (remember the US installed puppet Shaw?) and put into power individuals who would in theory act in the best interest of the US. This policy has largely been a failure (IMHO).
Many in our country, including Dr. Paul, believe that this type of manipulation is clearly unconstitutional and should cease.
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.