Why did the Clinton Administration decide not to take bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him?
I don't believe Congressman Paul ever said we should do nothing.
He said that we've lost too many soldiers in Afghanistan...leads me to believe he's not going to go anywhere and hit the enemy, or that he'd go in (after all, he did vote for the 2001 Authorization) but pull out the minute it wasn't mirowave burrito warfare.
What is amazing to me is that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate willing to cede Iraq to Al Qaida and/or Iran, yet his supporters will claim all over the place that he will be a fierce terror warrior, and that no one else in the field will be his equal. Yeah, sure.
However if you can dig up a statement in which the good Congressman said the attacks on the Cole, Khobar, and the American embassies should go unpunished I'll happily concede your point.
Guess who else said we would deal with the people who did those attacks? Bill Clinton.
I don't remember him doing that. I remember him saying that the attacks were a response to some of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Sure, and the police didn't say the rape victim raped herself, they just said she shared some of the blame because she shouldn't have been in that part of town. I'll cover blowback in a separate post.
I think everyone pretty much agrees this is the case. AQ doesn't like our foreign policy. That's a fact.
Let me ask you a serious question. I mean, seriously think this one over: Have you ever, even once in your life, heard of a Jewish person asking "why did Hitler hate us? Shouldn't we figure out what was making him so angry so we can avoid doing it again?" Have you ever heard of someone saying, "If the Jews would have just done X differently, maybe Hitler wouldn't have put them on the cattlecars"?
Armed pilots sure would have come in handy against 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters, though. And if those mutts had been stopped we most likely wouldn't be worrying about other nuts with detonating Dentucream now would we.
No suprise to see a circular argument from a Paulestinian. In his message (specifically, the part you quoted in your post) Paul complained about the lack of guns in the cockpit and then said the government's answer was seizing toothpaste. So let's see if you're intellectually honest:
1. What is the reason you can't take toothpaste or shampoo on flights anymore?
2. Would armed pilots be able to stop a liquid bomb?
3. Would armed pilots on September 11th killing 19 guys who planned to die anyway have stopped Al Qaida from attacking airliners with explosives?
Did they? Did all of them disagree? When was that poll taken? Got a link to the statements of each and every airline CEO to document that assertion?
OK...are you actually going to try to claim that Ron Paul said "the airlines" and he meant half of the airlines, or two of the airlines?
But, since you asked, see the two links I provided in post 331.
Maybe they didn't ridicule him openly, but they didn't do a damned thing to expedite the process either.
I'll type this slowly so that you can understand it:
What...did...Ron...Paul...say?
What...did...I...say?
What I don't like is the yards of bullsh** I see spewed about the guy. Ron Paul doesn't hate America. Ron Paul doesn't think 9/11 was 'our fault'. And he certainly does support our troops.
Sure...Mussolini and Neville Chamberlain supported their troops, too.
Because Bin Laden "had broken no American laws".
Guess who else said we would deal with the people who did those attacks? Bill Clinton.
OK so you can't dig up any quotes of Pauls saying he wouldn't deal with those attacks. You could have just said that.
Let me ask you a serious question. I mean, seriously think this one over: Have you ever, even once in your life, heard of a Jewish person asking "why did Hitler hate us? Shouldn't we figure out what was making him so angry so we can avoid doing it again?" Have you ever heard of someone saying, "If the Jews would have just done X differently, maybe Hitler wouldn't have put them on the cattlecars"?
No I haven't Now let me ask you a serious question. What the Hell does that have to do with what we're talking about? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they didn't like our foreign policy. Germany sank our ships because they didn't like our foreign policy. Germany bombed London because they didn't like British foreign policy. What the hell is the matter with you that you can't simply admit that our policies have consequences attached to them?
No suprise to see a circular argument from a Paulestinian
I'm not one. I'm a Thompson guy. And I'll thank you to stop the insults.
1. What is the reason you can't take toothpaste or shampoo on flights anymore?
We can.
2. Would armed pilots be able to stop a liquid bomb?
An unarmed airline flight attendant managed to stop Richard Reid, so yes I think they could.
3. Would armed pilots on September 11th killing 19 guys who planned to die anyway have stopped Al Qaida from attacking airliners with explosives?
As I said above, an unarmed female flight attendant managed to stop an AQ bomber. An armed pilot would have blown his head off and the rest of the flight wouldn't have been spent listening to Reids insane ramblings.
L