Posted on 05/26/2007 4:47:15 PM PDT by Coleus
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) Thursday repeated his challenge to debate foreign policy with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and offered Giuliani a "reading assignment" of books examining U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The Republican presidential hopefuls briefly sparred over foreign policy during the Republican debate in South Carolina on May 15. Giuliani criticized Paul for suggesting that U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to Osama bin Laden's motivation in orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said during the debate. Giuliani interrupted Paul's comment to make a point of his own. "That's really an extraordinary statement," he said. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq, I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."
In a post-debate interview on Fox News, Giuliani compared Paul's comments to conspiracy theories about Sept. 11 and said it "makes no sense." But during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Paul said he was "giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment." He recommended that Giuliani read four books that outline causes for al Qaeda's hatred of the United States, including the 9/11 Commission Report and Chalmers Johnson's 2000 book, "Blowback." The night of the debate, Paul expressed a desire to debate Giuliani directly on foreign policy. Thursday, he told Cybercast News Service that he still wants to debate the former mayor but admitted it was "not likely" to happen.
Paul said his reading list backs up his position on foreign policy. "The whole notion that our foreign policy has nothing to do with [terrorism] and that Giuliani has never heard of this is preposterous," he said. "Even the 9/11 investigation report supports my position that there is blowback, that there are consequences." In its analysis of the motivating factors behind the al Qaeda attacks, the 9/11 Commission, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, noted that bin Laden "stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world."
"He (bin Laden) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War," the commission report stated. Paul also cited a 2003 Vanity Fair interview with Paul Wolfowitz in which the then-deputy defense secretary said that U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia had been a "huge recruiting device for al Qaeda." "In fact, if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land," Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair.
Paul said that addressing the grievances expressed by terrorist leaders like bin Laden could reduce the motivation for terrorist actions against the United States and its citizens. "They need something really forceful to get somebody to commit suicide terrorism," Paul said, adding that bin Laden and other terrorists would be "disappointed if we leave" Iraq because it would remove a major recruiting device. "He distorted what I believe," Paul said of Giuliani, criticizing his opponent for what he viewed as a personal attack. "We just need to get away from the demagoguing and the challenging [of] patriotism.
"The issue is foreign policy. It's not patriotism," Paul said, calling it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" to characterize his statement as placing blame for the attacks on the victims. In a statement e-mailed to Cybercast News Service , Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said "to further declare Rudy Giuliani needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand is just absurd." "It is extraordinary and reckless to claim that the United States invited the attacks on September 11th," Comella stated. She did not respond to Paul's invitation to debate Giuliani on foreign policy issues.
Of course there is that whole Japan invading China thing that was just so overrated I guess.....
Plenty, especially the cowardice, the traitorousness and the backstabbing.
The lying is not very likeable either.
The fraternization with 9/11 conspiracy theorists is also very distasteful.
And, as you wrote yourself:
He voted against the Patriot Act.
So there's the stupidity too. That also isn't too likeable.
Cowardice? What cowardice?
The lying is not very likeable either
What lies?
He voted against the Patriot Act.
So there's the stupidity too. That also isn't too likeable
Ron Paul (unlike almost every other federal elected official) takes seriously his oath of allegiance to the US Constitution in the form as it was understood by the Founders. Almost every federal elected official likes to cite their fidelity to the Constitution...but, when they deem the Coinstitution's limitations on federal power to be an impediment to some federal power they think is important, they sound just like the New Deal socialists who, so as to avoid the constraints the Constitution places on the feds, dreamed up the nonsense of penumbras, emanations and the "living Constitution" that changes with the times. The fact is that the Constitution does not give the federal government any police powers other than those necessary and proper to carry out expressly enumerated federal powers.
Its also worth noting that not a single Congressman or Seantor was able to read the 500 pages of the PATRIOT Act before voting on it...they were simply not given the time. Do you really want your congressman voting on things they have not read and know little about...that in itself should demand a vote against
Any of us spending any time or money on Ron Paul is a waste of time. The Ron Paul supporters get their orders from their daily brainwashing seminars. Life is too short to waste time being indoctrinated about every Anti-American conspiracy theory. I’d rather read honest fiction than the Ron Paul fiction disguised as fact.
His advice that America should let others dictate our foreign policy so people won't have an excuse to physically hurt us anymore.
"I'll do what you want if you promise not to hurt me" is the essential attitude of the coward.
What lies?
Pledging one's dedication to Congressional term limits of 2 terms again and again to anyone who will listen, and then serving 9 terms.
The fact is that the Constitution does not give the federal government any police powers other than those necessary and proper to carry out expressly enumerated federal powers.
Among which is the Constitutional requirement that the federal government provide for the common defense of the several states.
A fact Ron Paul ignores.
Its also worth noting that not a single Congressman or Seantor was able to read the 500 pages of the PATRIOT Act before voting on it...they were simply not given the time.
The text of the act in 12pt Times New Roman font in Microsoft Word is less than 200 pages. The Act was sent to Congress on October 23, 2001 and voted on October 24, 2001.
I would expect that an educated adult - which we expect our Congressional representatives to be - could read a very important 200 page document in a day.
Even if they had to cancel a tennis lesson or a manicure to get it done.
Do you really want your congressman voting on things they have not read and know little about...that in itself should demand a vote against
No one in Congress had any excuse to not have read it. If they don't understand what legislation is and what it does, they don't have any excuse for that either.
If someone in Congress didn't bother to read it or couldn't understand it, they should just resign.
Americans can decide what they want their foreign policy to be...but its good that people are finally recognizing that there is a connection between American foreign policy and AQ's constant threat of terrorism. Ron Paul has never suggested that AQ "dictate our foreign policy"...only that Americans understand that the threat of terrorism is one of the costs of that policy. Americans, if they understand the connection, may decide that whatever benefits we Americans derive from having permanent military bases in Saudia Arabia or Iraq...or from supporting Israel....or from imposing years of sanctions on Saddam...or from deposing Saddam...are not worth the costs of living under a constant threat of terrorism and being in a permanent state of war. On that point, I agree with Ron Paul...I don't see how years of interventionist US policies in the middle east have benefitted your average every-day American like you or me...other than we have cheaper oil...but had oil prices been left to the volatility and political instability of the middle east...the environmental nazis would have been marginalized long ago and we, the originators of nuclear power, may have a serious nuclear energy program...and we may have been drilling for oil all over North America
Among which is the Constitutional requirement that the federal government provide for the common defense of the several states
That section of the Constitution is tied to the tax and spend power of the federal government. But the PATRIOT Act is essentially a criminal, regulatory statute. General regulatory police powers were, for most of our history, the exclusive province of the states...the New Dealers, as always, effected a radical expansion of federal powers and transfored the constitutionality of federal police power...but even then, the Courts tied federal police powers to other express federal powers (generally the Commerce Clause).
Pledging one's dedication to Congressional term limits of 2 terms again and again to anyone who will listen, and then serving 9 terms
So...where's the lie? Paul has never voted against a term limit bill...he has refused to accept a congressional pension, he is so far ahead of every other congressman in terms of fiscal restraint...the argument for favoring term limits is that politicians become entrenched and hand out public moneys in return for votes and campaign contributions...no one can say Ron Paul does that...if you had 435 congressmen like Ron Paul...the size of the federal government would be a fraction of what it is today
“Americans can decide what they want their foreign policy to be......and we may have been drilling for oil all over North America”
Well let’s go over a few of our interventions — we kept the Soviets from their quest of obtaining a warm water port when they invaded Afghanistan; prevented Iran from taking over Iraq (Islamic fundamentalists with a stranglehold over the ME is really not good for anyone); Saddam taking over Kuwait and Saudia Arabia (Saddam Hussein with a stranglehold over the ME is really not good for anyone); oh and that silly stand by Israel thing that pretty much ensures their continued existence on this planet.
Ron Paul looks the other way because he has that term limit bill he has to lobby for.
Al-Qaeda's goal is the establishment of a pure Muslim caliphate as the world's only superpower.
In order for this dream to be realized, America must be destroyed.
It does not amtter if America bends over backwards to help Muslims or ignores Muslims or enagges in warfare against certain Muslims.
If the US helps Muslims it is: "infidels trying to buy Muslims off."
If America ignores Muslims, it is: "Rich America turns its back on the suffering ummah."
If America makes war on any Muslim state, it is: "America has declared a new crusade."
They will always have an excuse no matter what we do or do not do.
The answer is not modifying our behavior, but in modifying theirs.
That section of the Constitution is tied to the tax and spend power of the federal government. But the PATRIOT Act is essentially a criminal, regulatory statute.
You are creating arbitrary distinctions that do not exist in constitutional law.
So...where's the lie?
Lie: "I believe in term limits." Belied by his actions in standing for reelection again and again.
Quite a few counterfactual assumptions you make there...relax...trust that the whole world will not descend into suicidal chaos...even if US government bureaucrats aren't trying to manage it all.
Yeah the Soviets really weren’t that bad were they?
“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep”
Even OBL is not that delusional...the Muslim world has barely left the 1500's...they have been dominated by the West for the last 100 years...you cannot really be concerned that any Muslim country is going to be a superpower anytime in the next 300 years. Radical Islam won't even make it out of the Middle East (unless Western countries continue to allow it to be imported through immigration)...once the US lowers its presence in the region and stops presenting itself as a common enemy, the Muslims will turn their nihilist destructive tendencies on each other. The Ayatollah spent the 1980's railing against American culture...and no one in the Middle East cared. OBL seems to have taken that lesson so that his public statements always focus on US policies in the Middle East
Saudi Arabia is warning the US not to leave Iraq because a US departure may result in Saudi Arabia sending support...even militias...to protect the Sunnis from the Iranian-backed Shiites in Iraq...in the below article, Obaid suggests that Saudi Arabia may flood the world markets with cheap oil to bankrupt Iran...which all sounds good to me
You have Sunni tribal shieks fighting Al Qaeda
Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda'
To many of these Sunnis, I would bet they have no use for AQ but they also have no use for the US forces there. I could understand the argument that, before it leaves Iraq, the US needs the Iraqi government to be at a level so that it can take on AQ in Iraq...but are there any signs of progress in that direction? More importantly...the US government is not planning on fully departing Iraq anytime...regardless of the progress of the Iraqi military and government. Permanent military bases? Are we just stupid? I mean, we finally removed the bases from Saudi Arabia not so long ago because they were well recognized as a continuing source of propaganda for AQ...now we will replace those bases with new ones in Iraq...and, again...what is the purpose behind this consistent large US presence in this region other than to protect the supply of oil...that might be worth the costs...but, with the rise of a radical Islamic movement since the late 1970's...and now the growing jihadist movement...maybe its time to reconsider...its not 1970 anymore
We should continue this conversation when you have learned more about America's enemies.
This I should comment on.
No, I am not afraid that Al-Qaeda's dream will come true.
My concern is that tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans and others will be murdered by these lunatics as they pursue their hopeless dream.
His point was that military occupation of Saudi Arabia is why AQ declared war on the US. We had tens of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia while we spent a decade bombing Iraq, a muslim country, and these attacks on muslims and occupation of muslim holy land was not without effect. Are you as ignorant of the 9/11 commission report as Rudy?
A record of fiscal conservatism, deference to the Constitution, and advocacy of individual liberty.
A fully-paid pension and NO accomplishments ...
Check your premises:
Thursday, January 30, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC - US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) today reaffirmed his opposition to what he calls the "immoral" congressional pension system by refusing to participate in it. While serving in Congress from 1976 to 1984, Paul chose not to participate in the system, despite a taxpayer-funded pay-out which is more lucrative than any private system. He said high-dollar perks like the pension are areas that could be safely cut immediately, without hurting a single American taxpayer.
"The situation is even worse today than it was before," Paul said. "When I served in the late '70s and early '80s, the congressman had to actually write a letter to enter the program, I simply chose not to sign-up. Today, however, everyone is automatically placed in the system and house members are required to write a letter requesting that they not be included in the program."
After five years of service, a Member of Congress becomes vested in the system, with pay-off beginning at age 62, or pay-off begins at any age after 25 years of service. The five years can be either all in Congress, or added with other federal service, such as time in the military. If someone had 26 years of service, and depending on which of two systems they were under, a Member of Congress leaving office in 1994 could expect a yearly pension of between $52,800 and $86,000.
"This is one reason why so many politicians stay in Washington so long: they get a better retirement plan from the government than they could ever get from an honest job back home. We need to cut perks like this pension system completely; it is immoral that someone spend so much time in Congress that they even should think about getting retirement benefits. And then to expect those benefits to be paid by taxpayers at rates no citizen can ever hope to actually earn is even more unreasonable," said Paul. "There is a lot of talk about term limits, which I completely support, but if we are to seriously reform Congress, and return it to being a 'citizen-legislature,' then we must address these issues. Even the most strict term limits package currently being bandied about restricts members to six years in office, which of course vests them in the retirement system."
“Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering singlemindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called “to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations,”5 and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf
Bringing the world to Islam — the U.S. is responsible for OBL’s desire to “follow in the footsteps of the messenger”, if not for the United States, then OBL would be living in peace and harmony in his native Saudia Arabia.
...or is it that you are as ignorant of the 9/11 commission report and America’s enemies as Ron Paul is?
Thanks for the info.
You are creating arbitrary distinctions that do not exist in constitutional law
There is no distinction in constitutional law between taxation and regulation? If that is what you're saying, I can cite you a long list of cases that distinguish the two and analyze whether a federal tax under Article I, Section 8, clause 1 is, in reality, an unconstitutional attempt by the feds to regulate something or some activity in contravention of the 10th Amendment's reservation with the states of police powers.
Other than a few enumerated exceptions...there are no federal police powers...now, obviously, the feds have not adhered to the Constitution in at least 70 years so we have thousands of pages of federal criminal code...but violations of the Constitution by the federal government don't change the Constitution...so anyone who voted for the USA PATRIOT Act violated their oath of office...but I don't blame them too much...I would bet that most congressman don't even know that there are Constitutional limitations on federal powers
WASHINGTON, DC - US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) today reaffirmed his opposition to what he calls ...Yeah, Ron Paul, smartest kid in the class.
Technically 'correct' on issues yet 'wrong, a near complete idiot'.
Ever met one of those types?
They can't do anything practical ... let alone actuially 'lead' ('leading' a group of lemmings is not leading, it is getting in FRONT of the pack of lemmings!)
BTW, RuPaul, dear-heart to the Alex Jones of the world of which was once said of him:
http://www.gopusa.com/sartre/sartre_0324.shtml (link now inactive)When we were banned from the spook infested Free Republic, Jim Robinson stated: "Don't think much of the threat of a New World Order." Well, Alex Jones is the antidote to the FReepers disease.
Ron Paul (unlike almost every other federal elected official) takes seriously his oath of allegiance to the US Constitution in ...And you can tell this HOW exactly?
He doesn't seem to show it (he will not 'fight' for his causes; he is not the least bit passionate from what I have seen).
Simply casting a vote re: an issue and on principle is something the communists in congress do on a regular basis ...
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.