[niki]

If Paul actually said this and feels that the 3000 innocent lives slaughtered on 9/11 did not justify a retaliation, how do you feel about that?

I can't speak to this video because I have not watched it. I do know he fully supports going after those who attacked us on 9/11. I will say Ron Paul is not the most eloquent of speakers and could have mangled or given a confused answer.

[jrooney]

Thanks for the response. I am confident a video and/or transcript will surface, and we will know if he said this. At this point, I have no reason to doubt the freeper that posted the thread.

"I do know he fully supports going after those who attacked us on 9/11."

Ron Paul has called for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan too, so if Osama and Zawahiri are there, he would not be going after them.

[SaxxonWoods]

“I can’t speak to this video because I have not watched it. I do know he fully supports going after those who attacked us on 9/11. I will say Ron Paul is not the most eloquent of speakers and could have mangled or given a confused answer.”

First attempted defense of the indefensible. That’s pretty weak, but OK niki, we’ll wait for the tape. And the clarification, heh. Apparently niki, you won’t defend Paul if he stands behind this statement, I take it.

[Mr. Silverback]

I do know he fully supports going after those who attacked us on 9/11.

How do you explain the contradiction between his support of the 2001 authorization and his characterization of the 2002 authorization as unconstitutional? The 2001 was broader and he admitted on the floor of the House that it was not a declaration of war and named no specific enemies.