Ron Paul pwns Rudy Giuliani

[yankeefan21]

It was showtime at the Republican presidential debate on Tuesday, and the big surprise was the man in the spotlight -- Ron Paul, the longest of longshots.

 

Paul, a nine-term congressman from Texas and the Libertarian Party candidate for the White House in 1988, stood out in a field of 10 Republican presidential candidates by standing up to front-runner Rudolph Giuliani in a spat over the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Paul initiated the exchange with Giuliani, the mayor of New York on Sept. 11, by implying U.S. policies in the Middle East had contributed to the attacks in New York and Washington.

 

"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," he said.

 

Asked by a moderator if he was suggesting the United States invited the attacks, Paul said: "I'm suggesting 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."

 

An irate Giuliani interrupted and asked for a chance to respond.

 

"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," said Giuliani, who leads national polls in the Republican race.

 

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11th," Giuliani said to wild applause, asking Paul to withdraw the comment.

 

But Paul, who frequently strays far outside the Republican mainstream, would not back down.

 

He said the Central Intelligence Agency was right to teach about "blow-back" and the United States cannot "do what we want around the world" without inciting hatred and a response.

 

Paul voted against defense spending bills and the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq. As a libertarian, Paul believes in limited government. He has proposed a diminishment in the power of the Federal Reserve, and called in the debate for abolishing the Homeland Security Department.

 

Paul, an obstetrician-gynecologist from the Houston area, barely registers in polls of the crowded Republican presidential field.

 

His bid for president as the Libertarian candidate in 1988 drew just more than 400,000 votes nationwide.

Source

[EndLine]

Can anyone post a video link please.

[yankeefan21]

You have to admit, the guy was absolutely right. Sure, we were "victims" of violence, but it wasn't like it came out of nowhere. Giuliani is going to need to do some homework because there's no way he wins this election if he can't figure out WHY we were attacked. WHY is the single most important question that needs to be answered now that the WHO and the HOW has been figured out. Think about it: how do you prevent catastrophes if you don't know why they happen?

[Passion]

Well, I'm officially not voting for Ron Paul.

[yankeefan21]

Well, I'm officially not voting for Ron Paul.

Based on what? His opinion that US involvement in the Middle East led to the events of 9/11?

[PhxPhin]

yeah - really owned him..........................

 

we should just help them turn the middle east into a fundamental islamic state and then not do anything that could offend them - wouldn't want to instigate any further retribution.......

[Passion]

Well, I'm officially not voting for Ron Paul.

Based on what? His opinion that US involvement in the Middle East led to the events of 9/11?

Based on I don't agree with his politics?

 

I don't even see his 'point'. What does he even mean, what is he getting at? We shouldn't do anything that might mean we are getting attacked? The US was the direct cause of 9/11?

 

This guy is Republican in name only. I nearly said clown, but I don't think he is anywhere near a threat for me to have to say that.

 

I won't be voting for Giuliani either but if anyone 'pwned' anyone or helped himself out in the primary, it was Rudy.

[CapeFish]

Ron Paul

Tom Tancredo

 

BTW, Huckabee was snappy last night, as usual. :thumbup

[Shaq-Man]

I watched about 20 minutes of the debate, and that exchange was in there.

 

The only person doing the 'pwning' in that exchange was Rudy.

[mr_eob]

You have to admit, the guy was absolutely right. Sure, we were "victims" of violence, but it wasn't like it came out of nowhere. Giuliani is going to need to do some homework because there's no way he wins this election if he can't figure out WHY we were attacked. WHY is the single most important question that needs to be answered now that the WHO and the HOW has been figured out. Think about it: how do you prevent catastrophes if you don't know why they happen?

 

Dude, even his own supporters are trying to spin it by saying that his words were misinterpreted.

[Flying_Mollusk]

The news seem to suggest that Rudy won that exchange even though Paul stuck to his guns.

 

Also, whether or not we should be involved in the Middle East, Paul is technically right. One of the biggest reasons Osama started to hate the US was because we played the strong role in liberating Kuwait. He really felt like it was a matter that Muslim nations should have handled themselves in terms of fighting Sadam(once again disproving the 9-11-Iraq link). It is also our assistance to Israel. This of course does not mean we should not be doing such things. But it does mean that they are the origins.

 

Id go further and say our strong support for the Mujahideen had a lot to do with emboldening people like Osama.

[Guest markotsay7]

Ron Paul is absolutely right.

 

I'm a conservative, registered Republican, for what it's worth.

[Guest Night Phantom]

This exchange last night (and the torture speak) really left me dismayed with the state of my party. I only found even two of the candidates on that stage decent, and one of them has no chance.

 

Paul, an obstetrician-gynecologist from the Houston area, barely registers in polls of the crowded Republican presidential field.

Tell that to ABC News and MSNBC.

[strandedx02]

Statement from Dr. Paul's campaign:

 

Press Release

 

Why Hasn't Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?

 

May 16, 2007

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

ARLINGTON, VA - During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

 

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

 

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."

The pwn may not have been quite evident last night...but it's there now.

 

link

[Passion]

Ron Paul would like to sit on his laurels, keep military and defense funding down, and put it in to a dormant state like it was during the Clinton years and what has really handcuffed (no I'm not blaming the current situation on Billy so don't go there) us in cleaning up most of our own mess in Iraq.

[Shaq-Man]

Ron Paul is right about what? That Islamic terrorists hate us because of our involvement in the Middle East?

 

Those are captain obvious statements.

 

Like F_M said, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't be involving ourselves in the Middle East. While the statements about the cause of terrorist hatred of the US are correct, he's using retribution by terrorists as the focal point of his argument for why the US should adopt a non-interventionalist foreign policy, so as to not piss off terrorists more. It's inappropriate for a politician to say something like that at a presidential debate, particularly when he was asked in a follow-up if he was suggesting that we invited the 9/11 attacks: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. ..."

 

He really set up Rudy's comeback. Anyone who watched the crowd reaction can tell you it's pretty obvious that Rudy picked up points with the public with his rebuttal, even though substantively he didn't say anything at all.

[Passion]

Ron Paul is right about what? That Islamic terrorists hate us because of our involvement in the Middle East?

 

Those are captain obvious statements.

 

Like F_M said, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't be involving ourselves in the Middle East. While the statements about the cause of terrorist hatred of the US are correct, he's using retribution by terrorists as the focal point of his argument for why the US should adopt a non-interventionalist foreign policy, so as to not piss off terrorists more. It's inappropriate for a politician to say something like that at a presidential debate, particularly when he was asked in a follow-up if he was suggesting that we invited the 9/11 attacks: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. ..."

 

He really set up Rudy's comeback. Anyone who watched the crowd reaction can tell you it's pretty obvious that Rudy picked up points with the public with his rebuttal, even though substantively he didn't say anything at all.

QFT.

[Guest Night Phantom]

We can't leave the mess we've created in the Middle East. No way. We also can't say that 9/11 is 100% our fault, because anyone who has the zeal to launch themselves along with dozens of innocent people into a building with the purpose to kill more innocents is clinically insane in my non-doctoral opinion.

 

However.....forget "blow-back." You don't even have to get into that. It's simple cause and effect. If you get involved in someone else's affairs (whether right or wrong), people are going to be upset. That's just a fact of life. If someone walked into your family, got rid of your father, and started running the show, wouldn't you be figuring out a way to off the guy?

 

No issue is so simple, and to believe the US didn't have a hand in paving the way for any attacks ever committed on it is silly.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War the "domino theory" behind containment.

 

The fact of the matter is that if a country stops intervening in Middle Eastern affairs and stops instigating fights with people willing to take vengence at any cost, they will not suffer "blowback." Even if they are already knee deep in the sand.

 

Anyone who has studied history, or at least pieced it together from watching Rambo III, would know that the Soviet Union partook in over a decade long attempt to capture Afghanistan. In response, the Soviets faced armed resistance and terrorist activity. As soon as the Soviets retreated, the Afghani resistance had no reason to continue fighting. In fact, even after all the emnity, the Soviets faced no "blowback" as soon as they stoped intervening in Muslims' affairs. Of course, now tha there is armed activity in Chechnya, Russia is experiencing terrorist activity from that region. Again, it is the result of their violent foreign policy towards the area.

 

The same thing happened to America in the 1980s. Reagan stationed men in Lebanon, experienced "blowback," and withdrew admitting that to withdraw in disgrace was better than trying to get involved in irrational Middle Eastern politics. The result was that America experienced no attacks directed towards them outside of the unrelated and still controversial La Belle discotheque bombing.

 

 

Yes, withdrawing is not very macho. And yes, terrorist scumbags have no right to dictate our foreign policy. However, we as Americans have to decide if our honor and the foreign policy itself is worth the costs. It's simple cost-benefit analysis. Do we benefit from the cost?

 

The fact that the Rudy the Gangster himself scored on a low blow that exploited people's utter ignorance of foreign policy is an insult to every American who has had it with politics as usual. Ron Paul was uncouth, but we got to put our pride aside and admit he's absolutely right. What we are doing now is expensive and makes us less safe. We never used to fear mass-terrorist attacks...now that we are over there, we consider it a very real possibility.

 

What changed? American foreign policy. History shows if we change it so as not to inflame Islamic Radicals, we will be safer.

 

Edit: Incorrect terminology.

[yankeefan21]

:goodpost

[yankeefan21]

I have too much to say on the topic of the Middle East in general and US Foreign policy as it pertains to that region specifically to summarize all of these thoughts in a single post.

 

Look, I am coming at this from the perspective of a combat veteran, a Libertarian [so I will admit my biases here], and someone motivated enough to study US-Middle East relations from a historical perspective. I am also someone who was personally involved in and affected by the events of 9/11. So, I tend not to sugarcoat my feelings/opinions on matters that apply to 9/11 and our armed forces.

 

You can call me whatever you want but I will maintain that the US has to stop using their military as a REACTIVE force. The US has been thrust onto the world stage as a leader and needs to start acting like it. We need to use our influence and resources in a much more PROACTIVE way.

 

For Fox, Shaq, and Phantom:

Does this mean that I advocate "sitting on our laurels?" Not at all. What I advocate is being SMART about how we go about our business. So far, we haven't done that. So far, the US looks like it is being run by a bunch of monkeys humping a doorknob. So far, it is EASY for a foreign national of ANY country to paint the picture that the US is being run by warmongers.

 

As I said from day 1, we needed to have clearly defined goals, objectives, and end dates if we were going to get involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. Without those pieces in place, we find ourselves in the position we are in now. We screw the Iraqi people with an immediate troop withdrawal, we screw the American people with a ramped up response, and we screw the American soldiers by maintaining the status quo. There is no easy out at this point, but an out HAS to be identified. We need to figure it out and get it done.

 

Let me ask you these three questions:

1. What is our current mission in Iraq?

2. When my phone rings and I find my services needed over there, what do I tell my wife?

3. When I find myself pulling my battle-buddy's lifeless body out of a deuce and a half, what do I tell his kids when they ask me "why"?

[isd71]

The problem is we weren't following a policy of regime change before 9/11 all we did was stop Saddam from taking over the whole Middle East and we did it with the support of everybody in the region except Osama and his gang. Osama got p**sed that Saudia Arabia, his home state, turned down his force and allowed western forces into the country that contained numerous religious sites, including Mecca. The only way to prevent his anger was to allow Saddam to do whatever he wanted in the middle east. Might Osama have stopped him I don't know, but they would still be fighting right now.

 

The real culprit of this situation, Africa and Vietnam that no one seems to mention is France and the United Kingdom. They carved up Africa, the Middle East, and southern Asia back in the early 1900s and the regions that held their former colonies are all or have been recently in turmoil.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

For Fox, Shaq, and Phantom:

Does this mean that I advocate "sitting on our laurels?" Not at all. What I advocate is being SMART about how we go about our business.

Speaking of proactive and sensible foreign policy, Ron Paul has been the only candidate to say anything regarding Osama bin Laden that may redirect American foreign policy towards Pakistan.

 

See (4:42 to end) on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB-u9Gtf14c

 

Well, to be fair, McCain pledged to follow him to the gates of hell, but I'm not sure he took it seriously...

[Hotcorner]

The problem with Paul making the statement the way he did was that he basically lobbed Guliani a softball right down the middle for Rudy to hit out of the park and score cheap points with the expected 9/11 "they hate us anyway" response.

 

It was as expected as rain on a cloudy day.

[Fishfan79]

Although I think Guiliani is full of it personally and gets far more credit then he deserves, not to mention his taking part as a member of the moral majority is amusing with his past "choices"

 

 

I do however feel that the US has taken a non-intervention and isolationist policy in the past more then a few times. Each of those times it has not ended up very well for us to a certain extent. Our policy prior to WW1 and against prior to WW2 were indirectly caused us in both cases not to be fully ready for war when it did come. Specially in WW2 it lead (not just us but britian and other countries) to the policy of appeasement which helped see to Germany's rising power in the time period.

 

 

The US can not become an isolationist country in the current world climate and economy. We need to keep our presence in every area of the world. Now am I saying he is not right to an extent? Of course not, he is very right that many of the reasons we were attacked by the terrorists spring from our relationship with isreal and other countries over there. But we need to have a balance.

 

 

I think his statements in many respects are true but at the same time it is too simplified.