Media echoed, applauded Giuliani's distortion of Paul's comments about 9-11 attacks
SUMMARY: Several media figures mischaracterized a response that Rep. Ron Paul gave at the Republican debate, with some asserting that Paul had "blamed"
the United
States
for the 9-11 terrorist
attacks and others simply accepting Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of Paul's statement -- that the United
States
had "invited the attack." In
fact, Paul did not blame the United States for the 9-11 attacks or say that the United States
had "invited" them.
Covering the May 15 Republican presidential debate at the University of South Carolina, some media figures mischaracterized a response by Rep. Ron Paul (TX), asserting that Paul had "blamed" the United States for the 9-11 terrorist attacks. In other cases, they simply accepted former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of Paul's statement -- that the United States had "invited the attack." Paul did not blame the United States or say that the United States "invited the attack." He said the attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to attack the United States. Moreover, the media largely ignored Paul's further comments on those remarks after the debate, including his assertion that "Americans didn't do anything to cause" the attacks.
During the debate, Paul asserted that terrorists attacked the United States on September 11 "because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East." When asked by co-moderator and Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler if he was suggesting that "we invited the 9-11 attack," Paul replied: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it." Giuliani immediately responded to Paul claiming that what he had said was "an extraordinary statement ... that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq." Giuliani added: "I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." From the debate:
PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9-11 attack, sir?
PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, 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 heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
During a postdebate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Paul: "Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11?" Paul replied: "No, I think that's a cop-out." Hannity then asked: "Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?" Paul responded: "I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us. Paul later stated explicitly: "[T]he Americans didn't do anything to cause [9-11]."
Yet when describing the confrontation between Paul and Giuliani during the debate, numerous media figures claimed that Paul "blamed" the United States for 9-11 or said that the United States was "responsible" for the attacks, and they made no mention of his subsequent clarification. In addition, some not only accepted Giuliani's interpretation of what Paul said but praised Giuliani's response.
For example, on the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning, Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei said that "Rudy Giuliani came off terrific" during the debate, "mostly because he got that softball, where Ron Paul lobs it to him and basically blames the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks." In response to VandeHei, co-host John Roberts mimicked a baseball swing with his arms and said, "Ron Paul -- lob ball, and boom." VandeHei then concluded: "You dream of those moments when you're a candidate, that's for sure." Later in the program, Roberts said that Paul "did kind of stick his foot in it, though, when he suggested last night that it was U.S. intervention overseas that was responsible for the 9-11 attacks."
A May 16 Politico.com report on the debate by Jonathan Martin mentioned the dispute between Paul and Giuliani and uncritically quoted Giuliani campaign manager Mike DuHaime's claim that Giuliani "is not going to sit there and let somebody say that [9-11] was our fault."
From Fox News' postdebate coverage:
HANNITY: I want to go back to this exchange you had with Mayor Giuliani here for just a second. Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11?
PAUL: No, I think that's a cop-out.
HANNITY: Our policies?
PAUL: When people imply that what you're saying is that, "If you don't endorse my foreign policy, you're un-American, you're unpatriotic."
HANNITY: I never said anything like that. I'm not saying ---
PAUL: No, I don't say you --
HANNITY: You're suggesting --
PAUL: No, but I think that was the point in the debate that if I didn't endorse this foreign policy, you turn it around or they -- he turned it around.
HANNITY: I'm not saying that, but what specifically then are you saying? Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?
PAUL: I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us. And anybody who's done any research on this has found out -- [inaudible]
HANNITY: What have we done to cause the attack --
PAUL: Wait, wait, let me answer.
HANNITY: What did America do to cause the attack on 9-11?
PAUL: OK, the Americans didn't do anything to cause it, but policies over many years caused an elicited hatred toward us, so somebody was willing to commit suicide. For instance, the occupation with our military troops on their holy land in Saudi Arabia, bombing a Muslim country for 10 years, putting on sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people. So that caused that anger.
From the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning:
VANDEHEI: I thought Rudy Giuliani came off terrific, mostly because he got that softball, where Ron Paul lobs it to him and basically blames the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks.
ROBERTS: Let's take a quick look at that and then you can keep going on that. Take a look.
[begin video clip]
PAUL: They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.
GIULIANI: That's an extraordinary statement, 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 11th.
[end video clip]
ROBERTS: So, Giuliani, in the California debate that you were at, was criticized for kind of not showing the type of, you know, heavily, sharply focused leadership that he is well known for, obviously taking that opportunity there.
VANDEHEI: You can't buy opportunities like that in politics. I mean, this is a guy whose entire campaign is based on, "I can keep you safe, I'm the 9-11 warrior." And here he's able to, you know, stand up in front of this Republican audience and say, "That's absurd. Withdraw your remark." It was great TV.
ROBERTS: Ron Paul -- lob ball, and boom.
VANDEHEI: You dream of those moments when you're a candidate, that's for sure.
ROBERTS: Yeah, absolutely.
[...]
KIRAN CHETRY (co-host): So, who is Ron Paul? Well, he's the man described by some of the political analysts as, quote, "the longest of long shots in the GOP field." He's a nine-term congressman from Texas, an OB/GYN from the Houston area, actually. And he is barely registering in the polling. In fact, in our CNN polls, I think he's under 1 percent.
He's also the libertarian candidate -- he was -- for president back in 1988. Didn't do so well, drawing just about 400,000 votes nationwide. He also voted against the defense spending bill and against the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. He believes, as he said, in limited government. He's actually calling for, John, the abolishing of the Homeland Security Department, and he wants to take away a lot of the power of the Federal Reserve.
ROBERTS: Yeah, I saw that. That's how he would cut the federal budget, by abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. He did kind of stick his foot in it, though, when he suggested last night that it was U.S. intervention overseas that was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, which drew that sharp response from Rudy Giuliani, which drew applause from the audience. So it looks like --
CHETRY: That's right, and he didn't back down from it either, so he --
ROBERTS: He didn't, yeah, you're right.
Cut the crap and just tell me who said "9/11" the most. That's who I'm voting for.
My wife and I made a drinking game of the first Republican debate. We each picked a key word, and every time they said our key word, we had to take a shot. She picked "Clinton". Unfortunately, I picked "Reagan". I don't remember the last two-thirds of the debate.
Very good...
Good idea, boy what a great way to liven up the next debate.
well, reagan didn't remember the last half of his presidency.
Thanks, Mefirst, that was the best chuckle of the day!
You can play the same game watching the democrat debate. Every time they say Iraq or Bush you have to drink...just make sure you don't have to work the next few days.
Never be as good a game as with the ReNAMBLAcan debate, Dems just dont have the discipline of message moronocons do.
Saying we should listen to these terrorists and there reasons for being terrorists is not only dangerously naive and uninformed, it's a big waste of time.
Why not spend a lot of time asking serial killers why they do what they do? You see, once they're a serial killer I don't care about the why. I just want them locked up or killed. There's no point in listening to crazy or trying to understand crazy. Because it's CRAZY!
Could it be that religious brainwashing begun from a young age is responsible? I guess we should try to understand Hamas and there use of a Mickey Mouse character to indoctrinate kids with hatred and intolerance. I understand them just fine. They're killers. They're criminals. They're not going to change. just Kill them!
If you don't see the value in finding out why killers become killers, then you are the one who is naive.
Couldn't have said it any better.
"They're killers. They're criminals. They're not going to change. just Kill them!"
If I remember well the reports on the Hamas Mickey Mouse Character, that's, word by word, exactly his message. Go figure why the hate you, after that !
Bravo, Nerzog.
Don't bring reason into this discussion, Nerzog. :)
Well put. I am not sure it does much good to try and explain that to the crowd that apparently believe they can kill every person who opposes us.
Considering 9-11 was carried out by 19 people, I think the "Kill 'em all!" solution alone isn't very likely to succeed.
Very Nice NERZOG....have you personally ever attempted to negotiate/debate a Conservative Islam believer that only sees a world from two thousand plus years ago? If your answer is yes them I'm really surprised that you have not been beheaded if your answer is no then make an effort to debate.......(please make sure your last wishes/will is intact) There is no logic.....
Every conservative Muslim will behead me?
Are you sure?
Every one?
Well, damn, if that's the case, then we should bomb them to smithereens. Why pussyfoot around if that's the case? Thanks for clearing that up for us. What did we ever do without you to guide us down the right path?
Or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong, and not every Muslim is unreachable.
Spoken like a true liberal: Maybe that killer is really a victim.
The sad truth is, and you folks won't face it, that you are cowards. You live your lives in fear. You are the ones who stand around and whine and wring your hands (with plenty of encouragement from the left wing [an oxymoron] media) while those on the right try to apply common sense and get the job done.
There is no evil, only a difference of opinion. That guy we call a terrorist is, to your way of thinking, perhaps a freedom fighter.
Liberals have never seen a murderer, a thug, or a dictator that they didn't want to feel some sympathy for, find out why he is like he is, want to get close to him and rally around him when he is criticized. You can't discriminate because that's against your religion.
No the sad fact is you are a moron. A bedwetting coward who is so afraid of terrorists that instead of fighting them you want to blindly attack anyone who looks like them or lives in the same part of the world as them or has the same religion. You are like a fear biting dog. Stupid, irrational, and ,motivated by your instincts only. We all agree that we should go after terrorists. The difference is we have a shred of human decency and dont want innocents to suffer from our battle with them if at all possible. You are such a cowardly fool that you couldnt care less how many innocents die as long as you can FEEL safer because you are doing SOMETHING, anything that has the superficial advantage of making you FEEL safer while you hide under your bed. So tell us, how many innocents have to die for you FEELING of safety. Let us know so we dont annoy you with our handwringing that what we are doing ISNT making us safer and is causing suffering to innocent people that is morally unjustifyable. People like you will destroy the world. Fear biting morons.
Right Nerzog.... I suspect you have an ideology of a politically correct war. NO war has ever been won without innocent by-standards getting killed or at a minimum getting hurt. It started 40 plus years ago with Vietnam and a continues in Iraq and other parts of the world today.That is the problem.... the rest of the world capitalizes on our weaknesses and our PC ways and we crater and shake to their ways. Do you really think any radical ISLAM follower gives a RATS A$$ about what the media thinks if they kill innocent people in various parts of Africa in order to spread their ancient ideology. The answer is a healthy HELL NO. Somehow the PC movement here in America feels they can negotiate. Their is no negotiation with these extremist. Look at Israel they have attempted just about everything in negotiation tactics starting with Anwar Sadat and where are they today 30 plus years later?. Every administration Democrat and Republican has made attempts to bring peace to the table with some really bright minds and you have the balls to tell me that negotiation works with these people get a clue start letting some light under the rock!!
Look jonnydoestreadverywell. You are clearly very stupid and incapable of actual thought. There are many things wrong with your litany of repetitive rightwing talking points. First I am not Nerzog, second yes innocents die in war. For that reason it is incumbent on those who would use state violence to keep the bar for fighting a war very high. Instead of using terrorism as an excuse and telling lies along with distorting intellingence in order to start a war. Yes Israel did negotiate with Sadat after having two wars with Egypt in 20 years. And what happened? The camp David accord and peace with Egypt ever since which to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex would understand invalidates the rest of your ignorant rant. Israel has also tried unremitting violence against the Palestinians since 1967 how has THAT worked out for them IF the problem could have been solved by violence and oppression it would have been solved long ago. You are clearly incapable of higher brain function and simply repeat whatever some rightwinger TOLD you to think which we have already addressed many times. Rent a couple of brain cells then TRY an original thought I am sure it will be painful at first and any thought you MIGHT generate will clearly die of lonliness but its a start.
I personally dont want to negotiate with Ben Laden or any other terrorist. However all of the Muslims in the middle east are NOT radical terrorists. It makes sense to do something other than making more and MORE enemies rather than finding common ground among the ones who ARENT radical terrorists because people like YOU are too stupid to understand the difference.
I don't agree with Ron Paul's view of the role of the federal government, but he's spot on with his comments about why the U.S. is so unpopular in the Middle East. The historical reality is our foreign policy over the past 60 years has been focused on two things: supporting Israel and protecting U.S. corporate interests (mainly oil). Over and over, we have alienated large numbers of Arabs either by supporting totalitarian regimes (see Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein) or installing U.S. puppets (see Iran). We just need to stop messing around in the affairs of other countires all the time. Name one country where the involvement of the United States has led to an independent, free and democratic nation (setting aside post WWII Japan and Germany).
You nailed it, OldMarine, sort of
...those on the right try to apply common sense and get the job done.
That's why things are so bad. They don't try to apply logic, or any sense of history, and they certainly don't take advice from anyone who might express a different point of view. They just apply their own common sense, and we've all seen where it has led, God help us.
Caint trust that newfangled logic and analysis stuff it be kinda Skeeery
Kurt Vonnegut said it best: we live in an age of guessers who think their wild guesses about this or that are far more accurate than all the analysis and science on Earth.
Who needs intelligence reports that state Iraq is making more terrorists, creating more animosity toward the USA? Not these people. They know "in their gut" that Iraq is the right move.
Faith has supplanted thinking, so it is no wonder our foreign policy is a topsy-turvy mess of shotgun diplomacy and fanatical ranting.
Time to sweep the guessers into the streets and get some thinkers in power.
Question is: are there enough thinkers remaining to vote into power other thinkers, or have the guessers taken over?
I think 2006 answered that question, and so will 2008.
Sayonara, GOP.
Randy
"That guy we call a terrorist is, to your way of thinking, perhaps a freedom fighter."
Yeah, cause the right would never treat a possible terrorist as a freedom fighter? I noticed this after the administration released Luis Posada.
Why not spend a lot of time asking serial killers why they do what they do?
We do. Cops do it, Psychiatrists do it. It helps quite a bit in finding out what factors (besides "just crazy") are at the root of these crimes.This in turn tells us who to watch that might be likely to do these things, as well as which factors we can concentrate on to prevent the crimes from happening.
This is how non-hysterical adults handle problems- short term, punishment and restraint of offenders, but long term, thinking through the bigger picture and trying to eliminate as much of the problem as possible from happening in the first place.
Although "kill 'em all" is a reasonable way to run your life, too.
We need to add EHULL's name to our mailing list for the US Flag style adult diapers. (I'm assuming he/she or it is an adult).
You get the commission on this one HBL.
10-4, WK
Long term?
You have to be kidding, right?
I have yet to meet a rightwinger who understands "long term".
They follow the lead of Bush. Destroy the long term benefits of Social Security for my kids and grandkids to benefit rich people today. Successfully invade Iraq without thinking about the long term consequences of attacking a 3 faction country only held together by the will of a dictator. Attack the Justice Dept to load it with close to 100 graduates from a 4th tier law school with no regard to the long term damage to its reputation and our nation's ability to enforce all of our laws fairly!
That's 150 graduates from a 4th tier law school.
The Bush administration has yet to meet a fanatical Christian they do not like. Except Christ himself.
They would trample Christ for being a dirty hippy pinko liberal.
The Sermon on the Mount was rather subversive 2,000 years ago.
How do you think today's power holders would treat Christ? The same as the Romans did.
Crucifixion would make a big, big comeback, if it already hasn't
Howard Dean, anyone?
Randy
So, to stop the killing - you would have more killing?
Why provoke them if we don't have to?
We use Mickey Mouse to indoctrinate kids into hatred and violence, too. We use the real thing! War goes better with Coke and that stupid cheerful mouse. A non-stop barage of advertising and third-rate retellings of popular myths. all so that our children will be forever addicted to shopping for the Disney brand image instead of thinking about reality. Non-stop show tunes, cranked from the maw of the Disney machine. Let's beat the kids to an early death with it and glorify the US Empire at the same time, too. White man always wins in a Disney movie. America uber alles, of course, Yankee can do no wrong nor evil.
If there is any icon for the corporate plan to homogenize the entire nation into complacent pastel cut-outs at the ticket booths, the engine of American pop culture programming....it's that damn mouse. Mickey Mouse is a demon of greed.
have you seen the mickey mouse character the palestinians are using on a tv show to teach hate of jews and islamic supremacy?
Who said we shouldn't punish terrorists?
You are really stupid if you see no value in trying to figure out why people kill. It doesn't resolve their guilt in any way. It might enable us to figure out how to stop others from travelig that same path!
Are you really that stupid that you see no value in trying to stop more terrorists from being created?
Are you really that stupid that you see no value in Head Start, to help kids before school, so that we don't end up with as many dropouts down the line? We developed those programs after we examined what dropouts had in common, and part of their upbringing included not enough academic stimulation and not enough nourishing food in your years before official schooling began!
Are you really that stupid that you don't see any value in having boot camps for young offenders to try to keep them from becoming lifelong criminals? We developed those programs by examining what lifelong criminals needed and didn't get before they became lifelong criminals!
keep hitting the dog and see how long he remains a friendly dog. it really is a no brainer. there is no longer excuse for such ignorance.
Hats off to Ron Paul for being one Republican who can clearly see why Islamic extremists hate America and why thousands walked the streets in Muslim countries carrying pictures of Osama bin Laden shortly after 9/11.
Still, the Grand Oil Party is never going to wholly accept the reality of our Middle East predicament and will continue to proclaim that the hatred of these brutal barbarians is entirely without reason or provocation.
Ron Paul is far too honest in his analysis to be a Republican.
He's just far smarter than the rest of them. More ethical, too. One of the only handful of sentient beings in a lunatic-ridden Congress.
He's also probably the furthest to the right of any of the Republican candidates. If he actually were President you and your fellow liberals would be screaming about how he's "trying to starve the poor" and "destroying the environment." Believe me, you wouldn't want Paul to be President.
Well I probably would. This is where the left/right dichotomy as a descriptive political spectrum breaks down. Paul is pretty much a righty libertarian. He will probably be right next to me on some issues most economic issues he is most likely farther to the right than the field. I saw a four way construct for political definition once that was pretty good it was a test you could take it was like left/right AND social/economic. A bit more accurate but not in keeping with the black/white left/right thinking the media prefers to deal in.
Ron Paul's not a Republican.
He was sponsored for election by the Republican Party, but he's not a Republican. He ran for President as a Libertarian! He only used their political party moniker to get elected because we're basically a two party nation.
You're just 1300 years off....the Islamic fanaticals' desire to kill us "nonbelievers" began in the 7th century....please learn a little history before you start spewing.
That is a complete lie.
Paul acknowledged Guiliani's ignorance on the matter and his utter lack of historical context when speaking about our problems with the mid east.
I posted it earlier and I'll post it now:
Why aren't more "CONSERVATIVES" behind Ron Paul?
For the record, I said after the first debate that he was a very attactive candidate to me. I didn't watch the debate last night because I found a life at the last minute.
As for his statements here, I do believe Guiliani misrepresented what Paul said.
If Ron Paul was truly the face of the Republican Party it wouldgo far at restoring the publics faith in them.
I can respect a man who tells it like it is without pandering. I could live with Paul as president if it came to that, I couldn't say that for the rest of that sorry bunch.
Sadly, skillful pandering is as important to most politicians as money.....most Republicans are no more adept at it most Democrats.
I agree with you - principles, integrity, candor and principled leadership pretty much trump most ideological differences for me. Ron Paul appears to be a straight shooter and not unfraid to ruffle long standing party talking points. I give him credit for that.......how long he hangs in there against the "powers that be" is anybody's guess?
But the public seems hungry for what he's serving up.
TOmmy I agree with everything you just said.
Over the last week I've been reading up on Pual and he now has been in the first two GOP debates and yet there is this sort of media blackout about the guy. It's like the media is afraid to draw any attention to this guy. I'm a straight up lib, but I have to admit I really like this guy as a candidate. I really don't understand why this guy isn't getting more press, he seems like the IDeal conservative (Across party lines) when I look at his voting record and some of the things he has said. Just a little frustating that there are people out there putting out a different message and it seems the the media is in a effect silencing them. Look at all the polls, he even came i second lace on the fox poll. THere have been a lot of claims about spamming, but the media won't even draw attention to that out of fear that he might gain some traction.
I think it's because the GOP, and the Democrats, for that matter are very much afraid of a "loose cannon"......somebody who doesn't tow the particular party line on most issues. Ron Paul advocates positions, based on his libertarianism, that many big fat GOPers are uncomfortable with.
His support right now is pretty much internet driven, but he is getting press for getting Guiliani's ire....who knows what can happen with him? I hope he keeps being a major thorn in the party apparatus' side.....it's refreshing to watch them squirm. Look at Hannity for example, he is having a cow over this guy.......that in itself is worthy of a Ron Paul donation.
Really? You could live with a guy who wants to abolish the IRS and basically return the size of the federal government back to what it was before the Great Depression?
Yes....I could
I guess you like paying taxes. I would rather keep my money than letting it go to pay the national debt/fed. If RP has his way, the fed would be eliminated and therefore, so would inflation. Think about that, prices actually staying the same or going down.
"I guess you like paying taxes"
No. I'm a conservative. I agree with Paul on economic issues. I was simply making the point that I find it interesting that liberals seem to like Paul, and wouldn't mind him being President even though he wants to end all their cherished social programs and greatly reduce the size of the federal government. I think that Paul is great on economic issues, but I simply disagree with his views on national security. He wants to completely repeal the Patriot Act and get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, and this seems to me to be an extreme policy which would jeapordize our national security and increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks. That's why I can't support Paul for President.
I like a lot of things about Ron Paul, I liked long him before this debate, and I am very liberal. I do not agree with everything he proposes, but I would be willing to take the good with the bad because he seems like he is honest and not just pandering to get votes. He seems to have a great deal of integrity, and I believe he takes his positions on things based on what is best for this country, not just what is popular with the republican base. I respect honesty and integrity, and I do not like how, unlike Paul, many politicians treat the American people like we are stupid and do not know what is really going on. If it were between Paul and Clinton, I would definitely vote for Paul. Please do not put all liberals in the same box as we are capable of critical and independent thought.
Sorry, liked him long before...
He wouldn't end the border agencies. He's probably beef them up rather well, with an eye towards real security problems. He'd save money by dropping loads of govt pork, freeing up funding. He's a smart boy. He'd do a great job, probably even find bin Laden pretty quick. He's still my favorite libertarian. He's a liberals at heart. He has the traditional libertarian anti-imperial attitude and favour mores local, decentralised democracy and far more federal fiscal responsibility. He's the best man for the job on the Repub ticket.
A Paul/Kucinich alliance would be most interesting.
Rino, I think your confusion as to how liberals could like Paul is based more on your beliefs about liberals than on reality.
"Cherished social programs" and a love for huge wasteful government are not ideals of anyone I know. They are myths and simplistic demons used by the right to create a caricature of "liberals".
I understand that the right wing media has made a living on these ideas, but if you really look at the history (the reality based one) of past leaders of different "left/right" leanings, you might be surprised.
"Cherished social programs" and a love for huge wasteful government are not ideals of anyone I know"
So you wouldn't mind it if a libertarian President abolished Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, and many other programs that Democrats support?
"Myths"?!?
So the dems' $400B tax increase proposal....the largest tax increase in the history of the United States...a tax increase that will cost each American family $3K+ per year....is going to be used for what? National Defense? Haha
You lie like a Limbaugh. Trying out for a post as a radio host are you? Dems are trying to raise taxes on all American families by 3 thousand. YOU are full of it.
I could have told you before the debate you would find him at least interesting. Like you he is more of a right leaning libertarian than a partisan Republican.
Perhaps many conservatives are and/or have.......
But I think they just find themselves not willing to admit that they had been had by this new breed of so-called conservative,
My thinking on this is that they might not come out and say it but if things stay at its present course many of them will vote for Dems next year if only because their own party has completly turned its collective back on them!
As I said earlier, most of them won't ever admit any of it!
"Why aren't more "CONSERVATIVES" behind Ron Paul"
Because we probably wouldn't even have a country if Ron Paul were President.
Conservatives would still be welcomed here if Ron Paul became president.
Right rino because the evil A-rabs are going to build rafts and come over here by the millions somehow avoiding our navy and kill us all. Your delusions are becoming Weinerlike in their granduer
SOLON they already did... about a dozen plus of them. Have you been living under a rock or is it amnesia? Total estimated cost/damage about $92 billion to New York about $53 Billion to insurance companies 83,000 job loss and 3000 plus lives.
Yes. 20 of them did and it was a horrific act of terrorism. I missed it ending our country, how did I miss that? Oh wait BECAUSE IT DIDNT HAPPEN. Were YOU perhaps in an asylum somewhere and missed that IT DIDNT HAPPEN? We can be hurt, we can be hit, we need to be vigilant AND go after those who do such things. However saying if a libertarian republican is elected we most likely wouldnt have a country is stoooopid. To destroy us it will take a lot more than a few acts of terrorism or do you think we are so weak we would just fold because we are soooooo afraid? I have a lot more faith in our resiliance than that. To destroy us would take, oh I dont know something like an invasion and taking us over kinda like in my little example.
To destroy us would take, oh I dont know something like an invasion and taking us over kinda like in my little example.
Screw up! I hit the wrong button before adding a comment
Sorry :>(
Do you seriously support Paul's position that the Patriot Act should be completely repealed and the Department of Homeland Security should be abolished? Paul's positions on these issues are dangerous and show that he doesn't understand the threat that we face today from radical Muslims.
It shows no such thing. Since when do conservatives support adding a new layer of beauracracy to deal with a problem as opposed to adding resources to the traditional agencies tasked to deal with those problems in the first place. Whether it is what I would do or you would do it does NOT show he doesnt take the theat seriously nor even that YOUR way is the better way. Why dont YOU run for president so we can all get a good laugh? I wouldnt repeal all of the Patriot act. I would get rid of some of the sections that infringe on our civil liberties. The hyperbole, in fact the outright stupidity of claiming we probably wouldnt have a country if someone like him were elected doesnt withstand one seconds scrutiny.
In case you haven't noticed, we've lost our country already, to crooks, liars, PR men, campaign consultants, multinationals and the psychotic desire for "national security". Paul would bring the country back. He has one great thing going for him. He's the only sane one in the entire pack.
A captain at the wheel that's not a madman...things would definitely change for the better.
THey way I see it, McCain, Rudy orRomney would do far worse.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
This is the world's smallest political quiz.
It's easy and quick to take, and not totally accurate, but...
It shows where Ron Paul is, and how he is not a Republican in philosophy. He was elected under the Republican banner, but he's not a conservative. He's a Libertarian who was elected as a Republican. Libertarians are "conservative" on some issues and "liberal" on other issues.
Paul has a 83% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. He's pretty conservative. He isn't libertarian on every issue. He opposes abortion rights and wants much more border enforcement.
He's not a Conservative, like I said.
The fact that he's conservative on some issues doesn't make him a conservative, moron. It makes him a Libertarian.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/quiz.php
This is where I was on the quiz. I must be a libertarian as well.
Sorry. I'm not sure how that happened. The link didn't work. I'll try it again.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/quiz.php
Sorry. Still didn't work. When I took the quiz it said that I was a libertarian. I had a 90% score on the economic issues and a 90% score on the social issues. The link is all messed up.
Actually it say I'm a Libertarian.
My PERSONAL issues Score is 90%. My ECONOMIC issues Score is 80%
100% Personal 20% economic. SHOCK I am a lefty liberal
I was stunned seeing how many meda types swallowed Rudy's response, never comprehending the truth behind Paul's answer to the question. You can add Matthews (whose debate performance two weeks ago looks even worse after last night - nice going Wendell Goler!), and Andrea Mitchell to the uninformed list.
I know Rudy got the applause, but to me the debate made Ron Paul look the Lorax and the trees were Republican principles.
"I know Rudy got the applause..."
That explains the media's response...
Its clear none of these folks have ever learned to play Chess. In Chess, you not only develop your own strategy and tactics, you mentally SPIN THE BOARD and play from the other side.
You try to think about what your opponent's strategy is, and examine what tactics they may use.
The GOP doesn't get this ... that's why we have a war on terroirsm (which is a tactic).
If you don't really understand what your enemy wants to accomplish, you can't develop an effective counter strategy.
Hey, that's an idea
Why don't we arrange a chess match over at itsyourturn.com or somewhere, with the moonbats like myself (my USCF rating peaked at 2035) on one side, and the trolls on the other? That would make for an interesting, and possibly amusing, intellectual display.
In his 1997 interview with CNN, in Laden stated that he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a result of sanctions. Those sanctions were in place because Clinton said Iraq had WMD.
"Asked what message he would send President Clinton, bin Laden answered: 'Mentioning the name of Clinton or that of the American government provokes disgust and revulsion. This is because the name of the American government and the name of Clinton and Bush directly reflect in our minds ... the picture of the children who died in Iraq.' He was referring to the fact that, by May 1996, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990, for its continued violations of U.N. resolutions.
"He continued: 'The hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of America and the American president. The president has a heart that knows no words. A heart that kills hundreds of children definitely knows no words. Our people on the Arabian Peninsula will send him messages with no words because he does not know any words. If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land.... I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over one billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government's policy.'"
From a March 20, 1997 interview with Osama bin Laden, recorded on page 22 of Peter L. Bergen's Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (2001). CNN aired this interview on May 9, 1997, but, oddly, has apparently removed the transcript from its web site (see "Related Stories" at http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/24/arab.league/index.html). Fortunately, the complete transcript is available at http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf.
It should also be noted that Clinton dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce sanctions on Iraq. The troops numbers went from 950 in 1993 to 1,587 in 1996 to over 7,000 in 2000.
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, 1998 and 2002Translation, BLAME CLINTON.
I guess your histroy books only go back but so far. You've done some research, did you bother to dig a little deeper?
Can I assume you didn't have an issue with Paul comments? Can I also assume you think Guiliani was out of line with his comments?
Who was right Ron or Jud...I mean Rudy?
"I guess your histroy books only go back but so far. You've done some research, did you bother to dig a little deeper?"
Actually, my history book goes back further than most. MMFA and the MSM ahve history books that only go back as far as January 2001.
Can I assume you didn't have an issue with Paul comments? Can I also assume you think Guiliani was out of line with his comments?
You can assume Kev would blame Clinton for the sinking of the Edmond Fitzgerald if it was the topic.
*clap clap clap clap*
Kevin I agree with you and you make great points. You illustrated why many liberals don't like Bill Clinton or consider him left of center. You pointed out, and backed up nicely I might add, that Bill Clinton's foreign policies regarding sanctions was short sighted and down right cruel. However, by doing so, you also proved Ron Paul's point that our presence in the Middle East and our actions there are the cause for much of the hatred that now is directed towards us. Bush's policies haven't been any better. In fact they've been much worse. So Clinton did bad and Bush is doing bad, can we agree on that?
I'm currently working on a book called "Sins of the Husband." Most of what the left accuses Bush of was done first by Bill Clinton. However, many of those same people seem willing to put Clinton back in the White House via his wife.
"I'm currently working on a book called 'Sins of the Husband.'"
-----
It's hard for you, coloring all those pictures, isn't it?
I protested several times against these sanctions. Did you? Or do you just use the cruelty of the sanctions to take a cheap shot at Clinton and protect Bush from criticism?
When Bush took office, I heard no mention of his intention to remove the sanctions.
Great point.
If Clinton did such a bad job, for example, in not going after those responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole after he discovered who did that, in lat 2000, after Bush was elected, then why didn't Bush immediately go after those responsible? How is it bad that Clinton didn't do something in his last month in office (Clinton explains this by saying that he was being polite, and not starting something that Bush might need to finish. It was not urgent to punish those people, since the damage had already been done.) but Bush failed to do something for his first 8 months in office in response to the USS Cole bombing? How is it wrong for Clinton to have not punished people responsible, but somehow Bush gets a pass for not doing all he could to prevent another attack? Maybe he couldn't have stopped it, but he did almost nothing to try to stop it!
Kevin, you obviously have access to a great deal of information; sometimes credible, sometimes not... but I can never fully grasp the point you're trying to make with that information. Is your point about the Sean Hannity mantra of a double standard applied to Clinton versus Bush? Is it just to condemn Clinton? Or is it to absolve Bush from all sins? What's your point exactly?
Ditto.
He pretends that 1980-92 dissappeared in some black hole. He doesn't mention what the landscape was like in Iraq prior to Clinton taking office. He also doesn't list Clintons motivations for has actions stated or otherwise. If Kevin is calling Clinton to task how can he just absolve Bush 1&2 for their actions. That part of his analysis is a little unclear.
Yes, 500,000 dead Iraqi children. 1 million entire terms, including his frequent dropping of bombs on their country. Clinton is also a Crusader and did his part in the genocide of the Babylonians. Can't expect much from a corporate Arkansas governor. Clinton supported regime change, signing the Iraqi Liberation Act and beginning the funding of Chalabi's INC. Not because Iraq was a threat, just because the Saudis wanted that oil offline to drive up world prices. Clinton was in on the game, President Gas on everything but roller skates.
I echo most thoughts here, Paul is the type of Republican I would like to see more of. Less opposition= evil, more reasonable people talking to each other. A vain hope perhaps. To me, as important as anything in the political arena today.
Can someone please go over to captainsquartersblog.com and find the thread this was discussed in and back me up - I swear that some of these people just don't understand the concept that everything we know has a reason behind it (except possibly at the subatomic level - some people say no causality exists there; but I think we just haven't found it yet-- though I suppose if it doesn't exist at the subatomic level, why would it exist at the macro-atomic level? but I digress) -
Instead of looking for a reason as to why we might be hated so much, some joker like Giuliani comes out and says what? He completely misrepresents Paul's argument and turns it into another crap argument that was so prevalent in the lead up to the war - basically this: What?! You hate America?!!? And everyone cheers, because everyone knows that America can do no harm - And even if we do, it's well-intended harm, so therefore we shouldn't have to pay a price for anything we do -
It's infuriating -
Leave it to the media to annoint as the winner of the debate the guy who was the most shameless panderer.
Giuliani's a braying jackass. He didnt care what Paul actually said. He had a line to deliver and he delivered it. Naturally the audience and the media swallowed it whole.
The next time Giuliani says "I went through a terrorist attack on 9/11," I wish one of the candidates would interrupt and say "we ALL did, Rudy. We ALL did."
One of them should at least say, "Rudy, do you think your response to the terrorist attacks would have been better if you hadn't foolishly, and against the advice of professionals in the field, put the first response command center in the Twin Towers? How about if you had done what you said you would after the first attack, and spent the money to make sure the Police and Fire Department could communicate with each other? Do you think perhaps that things would have gone better?"
As Richard Belzer said on Real Time, "Giuliani was out on the streets on 9/11 in the first place because he didn't have an office any more!"
Richard Belzar is an F'ing patriot. I saw that episode of Bill Maher.
Belzer is a very bright guy. I read his book on conspiricies. It was funny, entertaining and informative.
The popular tide is changing as evidenced by the Fox News Poll that showed such a dramatic surge for Ron Paul. The main stream media is slow to catch on but I really believe people are tired of the same old line of BS from all of them, the media and politicians. Ron Paul said the truth. And it's a foreign policy epiphany that should please liberals, conservatives, moderates and libertarians.
Ron Paul is right!
Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated that politicians are lying to the American people about the terrorists' motives: "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."
Wow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhj-0JsKmA
Did anyone see this?
I agree with a republican. Glenn Beck was right! the End of the world IS near.
"Media echoed, applauded Giuliani's distortion of Paul's comments about 9-11 attacks"
Distortion? I don't think so. This is merely MMFA's own opinion, and as they would say, a "baseless" one. Paul clearly stated in his remarks that the U.S. caused 9-11 to happen. He basically blamed 9-11 on our foreign policy decisions. There's no other way you can interpret it. Giuliani was right to call Paul out on this. The terrorists want to kill us because they hate us because of our freedom and capitalistic system. And also partly because their religion teaches them to do it. The United States did not cause 9-11, and the terrorists would still attack us even if we left the Middle East all together. They would simply follow us home.
"The terrorists want to kill us because they hate us because of our freedom and capitalistic system."
I do think some in the Muslim World have a problem with some of our freedoms but that's not why they attacked us or want to attack us. They want us to stop interfering in the Muslim World and that's what Ron Paul was getting at. The more we keep interfering in the Muslim World, the more they hate us.
And aren't you blaming America by saying our freedoms and capitalistic system caused the attack?
"And aren't you blaming America by saying our freedoms and capitalistic system caused the attack"
Uh, no. I'm saying that there are those who are envious of us and seek to destroy us because of our way of life. That's their problem, not ours. I wouldn't want to change our system simply to appease the terrorists.
"Uh, no. I'm saying that there are those who are envious of us and seek to destroy us because of our way of life."
So you are blaming America.
So we should be fighting a war on envy instead of terror?
You people who still believe the "they hate our way of life, they hate our freedoms" fantasy never fail to amaze me. How frustrating it must be to live in your world where everyone's envious because they don't understand that we're bombing them for their own good. That we're occupying them so that they may see the light. That we starve their children so that their leaders will lead their country to the promised land. We would be happy to be more benevolent, if they'd just be more like us. You must lie awake at night wondering why they can't.
Your flippant "it's THEIR problem" attitude apparently doesn't transfer to foreign policy, or you don't recognize how many noses we have sniffing around outside our borders in "their problems". You whine hourly that the democrats are going to take away your guns, your freedom of speech, your right-wing radio liars, impose a one-world government. And yet you have no problem when the U.S. imposes sanctions on another sovereign nation or covertly deposes it's leader, or scams them into hopeless debt with promises of dams and bridges, only to hold them hostage at the point of a mortgage, until they conform to the life we deem best for them.
After all, they're just a bunch of silly, ignorant monkeys who don't recognize good ol' American benevolence when falls out of the sky on them. We shower so much kindness on them that it litters the ground and causes their testicles to glow in the dark. Some kids will never forget our charity, because they'll see it for 14 hours every day reflected by a label on a tee shirt or pair of sneakers they're sewing together.
And you believe they hate us because we listen to rock and roll in our Escalades late Saturday night. Well, trust me - we're really not important enough to them to be envied, if we'd just stick to our own problems...
...like addressing that paranoia so prevalent on the right.
RINO, this isn't a game.
Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated that politicians are lying to the American people about the terrorists' motives.
See Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks
and Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
There is only no other way to interpret it if your mind is mired in the simplistic Manichean worldview that has captured your thinking. Even the Pentagons own study says its our POLICIES that are causing the hostility not our freedoms and took Bush to task for pushing this simplistic propaganda. Only simpletons take it seriously. Suppose a woman commits adultery and her husband tries to kill her. Does that mean she CAUSED her husband to attempt to murder her? Does it mean that she did nothing wrong because her husband did something even more venal? No it means neither of those things. Paul did not say we CAUSED 9/11. It is worth pointing out that different actions can have different outcomes. If you remain this simpleminded you have no hope of understanding they dynamics that shape the world. The kind of mindless propaganda that you spew when you say they hate us because we are free is astonishingly inane. If that were true why arent they attacking Norway? Canada? If its capitalism why arent they attacking Japan? The mind numbing sillyness of this ludicrous talking point is almost embarassing to refute, no thinking person should be dumb enough to repeat it.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:KFEk5t7Xq5AJ:www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf+Pentagon+report+they+hate+our+policies+not+our+freedom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Notice on page 48 it says directly "Muslims dont hate our freedoms they hate our policies." I know a propaganda parrots gotta do what a propaganda parrots gotta do but dont expect people with actual functioning brains to take such tripe seriously
"I don't think so."
-----
You should have stopped after the first three words in that sentence. It would have been the truest thing you've ever posted.
9/11 is because of our foreign policy decisions. It's blatantly obvious. You don't park a full fleet and army down in a patch of sand for 22 years without causing frictions with the locals. The US has been belligericizing in the Gulf region militarily since 1985, has been at open conflict for 6 of those 22 years, mostly recently invading an entire country just to nick it's oil after laying aerial and economic seige to the country for 13 year straight.
We're too allied to Israel, too involved in it's racist behaviour towards Palestinians. The war god cult on the loose. We help Israel keep three million people in total poverty and hopelessness, all for a few buildings in some scrub hill city. Think that doesn't throw grit at the natives constantly?
I'd call US foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East abrasive, don't you think? Maybe the violence from their side has a lot to do with 250,000 US troops and mercenaries just taking their countries at will? Of course they're angry at us....we're taking over their lands and killing them in large numbers. You honestly can't fathom that all that negative energy we throw at them, all those soldiers with rifles, that it has nothing to do with the violence we experience in general?
"The terrorists want to kill us because they hate us because of our freedom"
-----
So George Bush's method of fighting them is to do away with our freedom so they won't attack us any more?
What a long string of RNC talking points. I count 6. All been shot down before, don't see any use, you never answer, merely move on to another series of complaints. Whats your personal record for one post?
What "RNC talking points" are you talking about? And what do you disagree with in my post? I'll respond to your post if you would like to answer my questions.
Read above, you've already been thoroughly pounced on and quite effectively.
I think that the way that the media treated Paul, especially Hannity and the Fox folks, leaves no doubt in my mind that the Democrats made the right decision to cancel the Fox-sponsered debate.
It was strange, too, that Ron Paul came in second in the viewer poll on the debates. He beat Giuliani who came in third. I've heard nobody talk about the results of that poll.
Yes, well the results would conflict with the pre-planned post debate spin on the pre-ordained winners of the debate. Rep. Ron Paul's finish in the poll was surprising and very newsworthy. If I was Mitt Romeny's team, I would be quite concerned about the blantant bias of Fox toward Rudy G.
Here is a link to the poll results, you won't find them easily if you go to Fox's webpg. They are either buried or deleted
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html
Am I the only one furious at the "Murdoch Managed Mental Midgets" and their spin that Ron Paul actually said "American's are responsible for 9/11". Hannity is a paid mouthpiece - its Info-tainment for a buck. There is no shoe leather in researching a news story today, ala Woodward and Bernstein. Its just endless distorted sound bites by Marrionette News-boys. Besides, Rupert won't pay for real investigative reporting. No $ ROI in the facts.
The tragic result is that a competent and capable man like Ron Paul is smeared by endless media loops of an untruth. God bless media matters, but I'm afraid this space will not compensate for the corporate media smear they unleash by the mega-ton.
And Guilliani (sp) was on camera through out 9/11 because he put the NYC Disaster Command HQ in the World Trade Center, despite sound advice to place it elsewhere after the '93 WTC bombing. As a result of that poor judgement, he had no where to go for Command and Control. Hardly qualifies him to protect America.
Ron Paul over all the rest, but sadly, he's to honest to win and he won't stoop to Spin!
Know your enemy...General Patton read Rommel's book and beat him in the dessert in WWII. Ron Paul is correct.
John Rosina, Fellow Vietnam Vet
Actually, I was waiting for Sean Hannity to allege that Ron Paul said America deserved 9/11... which would be a fairly typical Hannity interpretation.
I got over being furious about the media years ago. As you point out, it's what they do for money. Until that stops coming in to them, we can count on a lot more of it. As long as there are ignorant people out there holding uninformed opinions, confirmation will be the hot product.
I liked your Giuliani comment, too. Made me realize that he was out there standing on that pile of rubble, because it really was his office. And not metaphorically, either.
"he had no where to go for Command and Control"
Yep... and he certainly go to Gracie Mansion, the Mayor's official residence, because his wife of the moment, Donna Hanover, had kicked him out.
BTW, while Giuliani was separated from Hanover, before their divorce, Giuliani lived with a friend, Howard Koeppel, and his gay lover. Check out the pictue of Giuliana with Koeppel here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825040/posts
I wonder how the Republican Bible-thumpers in South Carolina who applauded Giuliani's retort to Ron Paul feel about Rudy's "liberal" lifestyle.
"he ceratinly couldn't go to Gracie mansion..." (Sorry)
The spinning of the story documented with such detail in the article above is EXACTLY why I get my news here and not on TV. Unfortunately,most americans don't and they are silly putty in the hands of the mass media whose allegiances lay with corporate america. The fact is that the neocon agenda is completely at odds with a true democracy and that is why they are only going to deify the worst possible candidate. Paul is just too damn good for them--they need someone with a new face who will carry on just where Bush leaves off. THAT is the guy they will stand behind.
Ron Paul is far too honest in his analysis to be a Republican.
Or a Democrat, for that matter. I wish he had responded to Giuliani with:
And Iraq had what to do with 9/11 ???
Funny thing about the comments re: Rep. Ron Paul being a long-shot and giving up a "home-run" shot to Rudy Giuliani, the Fox Debate viewing audience that night had a much different opinion. In a text message poll viewers were asked to vote for who they thought won the debate. Early on Rep. Ron Paul was in 1st place with 30% of the votes received. I checked the final tally the next day and Rep. Paul came in a close 2nd place finish (with 25%) to 1st place winner Mitt Romney (with 29%). Rudy Giuliani came in a distant 3rd place (with 19%)!! Viewers clearly felt Rep Paul beat Rudy Giuliani in the debate. Of course this poll is buried and not mentioned whatsoever but, here is a link for you to see for yourself...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html
Talk about distortion and manipulation of the facts.
THat's exactly what I'm talking about. This is beyond blatant.
Saying we should listen to these terrorists and there reasons for being terrorists is not only dangerously naive and uninformed, it's a big waste of time.
Ehull, this is so naive and uninformed , I simply can't find the words!!! Don't you think that there is any other way than killing everyone who disagrees with you? Do you actually believe that 'killing them all' could be an efficient, practical or pragmatic approach?
Have you ever 'worked' with children or horses? If so, did you learn anything?
Do you see your reflection in the fundamentalists?
Allow me to make it simpler so you can wrap your little mind around it: Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar?
Please correct the debate transcript. NOBODY applauded for Ron Paul when he suggested that we should actually consider the motives of the people who attacked us. The (Applause) note should be removed after his line.
GO listen to the video again. your wrong. It's all over youtube.
I listened again and you're almost correct. The applause isn't audible until AFTER Goler's comment, but I guess my problem was I was comparing Giuliani's applause to Paul's when of course there was no comparing the two.
"NOBODY applauded for Ron Paul when he suggested that we should actually consider the motives of the people who attacked us. The (Applause) note should be removed after his line."
Just to clarify, you are confirming that you were in fact wron g aren't you?
They are trying to ban Pual from future debates now.
Here's a petition to let Paul continue to participate in the RNC debates. I signed.
http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html
Maybe I'm naive but where exactly is the legendary liberal media bias and how can I subscribe to it? It seems that all the major networks (or nitwits) are towing the right wing line, then turn around and complain about liberal media bias.
The best analysis of the situation I've read so far.
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/54560
"We were in fact bombing Iraq after the first Gulf War. That was part of the containment policy. As a matter of fact, part of the reason the liberals thought that Iraq didn't have WMD's is because of said containment policy. We were monitoring them night and day as well as enforcing no-fly zones in the South and over Kurdistan. We were based in Saudi Arabia both during the conflict as well as after the war had ended. This was one of Osama Bin Laden's big demands of the United States. On top of wanting to convert or murder all infidels, he also wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, or as he likes to call it, the holy land. Now this little wrinkle hardly gets any mention in the news what with all of the focus on the much more easier understand former issue but it was in fact a serious demand. The problem was that he didn't have much of a right to make a demand. The Saudi Royal Family had us there by request and stayed in Saudi Arabia at their pleasure. In any case, the attacks by Al Qaeda in the 90's and then 9-11 were partly his answer to our unwillingness to leave Saudi Arabia. This was Ron Paul's point. Had Osama Bin Laden gotten his way and been allowed by the Saudi Royal Family to lead the Mujahudeen against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait as he did (with CIA help) against the Russians in Afghanistan, there probably wouldn't be an Al Qaeda today. However, as history has shown us, that's not what happened.The other statement he's being attacked on is his idea that we should cut the department of Homeland Security (and Education and Energy). Again, in sound-byte land that means he suggesting we do not defend ourselves or protect our national interests in time of war. While that assertion made for great television, it was also idiotic. In the land of attention spans, what Ron Paul was getting was that beyond the National Guard and other branches of the military, the job of safety and security is supposed to fall on state agencies and not some monstrous federal bureaucracy that is so convoluted it can't function in a time of crises. His point was that you don't keep people safe by creating more red tape; you do so by giving the state agencies all of the resources they need to get the job done. That doesn't take more bureaucrats, that just takes good common sense and better budgeting.It's the same thing with Energy and Education. Instead of having the government control something that it does not understand and is woefully unqualified to govern, you should allow but to be provinces of state and private enterprise exclusively. It is the job of the governors of each state to manage their own affairs and getting the federal government involved only muddies up the waters. More to the point, you end up, as we have, throwing away billions in tax dollars are bureaucratic machines don't function very well and don't actually solve the problem."
If the media had done their homework they would have discovered that Ron Paul was right on the money. Our meddling in the Middle East caused resentment and anger that in turn helped cause the events of 911. Obviously Paul did some research. Why doesn't the media do its job instead of getting on the 911 bandwagon?
Many people here claim to know why the (use your own word here) hate us, but they have no knowledge of history and they're just spewing talking points they've picked up.
I encourage you all....do a little research. Here's a hint, your "study" needs to begin in the 7th century or you'll continue to make many more false assumptions.
Well the Pentagon thinks THEY know and said so in the report I cited earlier. Rhino claims to know. The world was a different place in the 7th Century in the 15th Century European Christians were killing those THEY considered infidels. Ever her of the Inquisitions? I think as long as you keep spouting your ill informed opinions we might as well chime in with our opinions.
From the very beginning it has been forbidden to ask the question of why they attacked us. The only allowed answer is they hate us for our freedoms. I dont believe people generally are willing to die because of someone else's freedom. Any other answer and you are blaming America. I know almost no one who goes through life assuming that no matter what their own conduct should never ever be questioned. People like that are sociopaths or otherwise mentally ill. Yet when we act collectiively this becomes an a priori truth. Even just as a practical matter if our conduct is unrelated in any causative way to terrorism then it seems that nothing we can do will matter. If you believe this then the logic of it says we should start genocide now. We can never trust the indigenous populations in the mideast. Apparently some terrorists will always arise because of things about them and our own conduct is in no way related to theirs. We need to do what the Romans would do, put the population to the sword and eliminate them all. This seems to me the inevitable conclusion if you are right about not blaming America for anything. If not explain to me some model by which we can ever win over their minds. Personally I think such a unwillingness to even consider your own actions is the essence of evil. Joshua said before you you complain about the speck in your brothers eye look at your own eye for defects. Somehow it has become Christian to do the opposite if we are acting as a nation. I think we are all responsible for what WE do as nation and the rules of morality do not change just because we act collectively. With the philosophy of always blame others we will inevitably become an abomination. How many of you would teach your children to think this way? America after all is what we make it. I do not hate America just because I dont like what some of you want it to become.
Well said, John Henry. It seems that many on the right have confused patriotism with militarism.
Not to mention purposefully blurring the distinction between who we are and what we sometimes do.
Anyone who watches the montage put together by MediaMatters and still calls the mainstream media "liberal" is a complete melon head.