Posted on 09/13/2011 5:57:08 AM PDT by markomalley
The ideological rivalry between Rick Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul, arguably the most conservative and libertarian members of the 2012 race that are allowed on debate stages, has become a fascinating subplot of the 2012 debates, and tonight sparks flew as Santorum challenged Rep. Pauls foreign policy, comparing his opinions to Osama Bin Laden and putting him on a defensive that earned him boos.
We are under threat because we occupy so many countries, Rep. Paul began, explaining that the purpose of al-Qaeda in attacking us was to invite us to invade. Noting the difference between military and defense spending, Rep. Paul argued that America needed a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense but is willing to get along with trade with people. There is no authority in the Constitution to be the police of the world, Rep. Paul concluded.
Santorum, obviously disgusted with that answer, turned to Rep. Paul. On your website, on 9/11, you had a blog post that basically blamed the United States for 9/11 on your website yesterday, Santorum noted, You said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11. Calling this irresponsible, he demanded of Rep. Paul that a presidential candidate should not be parroting what Osama Bin Laden said on 9/11, as the attacks are not a result of our behavior, but because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists.
Rep. Paul responded with an attempt to explain what he believed was the motive pushing al-Qaeda, an explanation met with boos a rare sound in debates, where heavy Paul contingents are typically in attendance. The biggest boo line? The suggesting that America is being unfair to Palestinians.
The segment via CNN below:
Al Qaeda attacked our country.
Ron Paul attacks our government for its irrational, nation-building foreign policy that hasn't changed over the last 50 years regardless of who occupies the White House.
You do understand that the government is not the country? (And "we" are not the government, even if that is what is often taught in government schools.)
He blames us for the attacks. And most Americans disagree with his foreign policy.
As I noted in an earlier post, the U.S. Government is not "America."
The average American has no idea what the Government is doing in 190 foreign lands and probably doesn't care. The average American is more interested in Monday Night Football than a GOP presidential debate. We on FR are exceptional in that regard.
If you think Ron Paul and 0bama share the same opinion on U.S. foreign policy, please consider re-thinking that.
Would Ron Paul as president attack Libya without provocation? Without getting a declaration of war from Congress, as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution?
We don't need any more cowboys in the White House who launch wars against nations that haven't attacked us. I saw up on stage last night at least four of them, three in the "top tier." (And you know who they are.)
“There are shades of gray to the term occupation and all I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the MSM to force some clarification from Mr. Paul.”
Sorry, he doesn't blame you or me. He blames the terrorists, and, no, he has never once said 911 was an "inside job."
But Ron Paul doesn't buy the simple-minded excuse that the terrorists attacked America because we have our freedom of worship and can read dirty magazines. Along with many others, including the CIA's former chief of the bin Laden unit, Ron Paul understands what motivated Al Qaeda to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden spelled it out for all to see, but most Americans are in the Nile and don't want to believe it. He was a Muslim after all and therefore a liar.
So go right ahead and continue with the never-ending crusade against the fictional world-wide caliphate and Sharia law and see where it ends.
National bankruptcy is the end result, and you can reasonably argue that al Qaeda had that in mind as their ultimate goal. Our government took the bait by making war on Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Somalia, now Libya. Next stop: Iran? Syria? Mexico?
If they attack us because they hate our freedoms, as so many like to think, then what was the impetus for the “Arab Spring”? I guess they were fighting for more oppression? Makes sense to me....
I didn’t say he said 9/11 was an inside job. I said he attacks America all the time, and blames America for the attacks. Are you saying you can like Al Qaeda without being anti-American?
No.
On the other hand, you can despise your own government (as we have seen recently in Arab countries, and in the 1990s in Eastern Europe and Tiananmen Square) and still love your country, and especially your countrymen.
Your country is separate from your government.
But I think you already knew that.
We elect and reelect our leaders. Bush was reelected in 2004, after Afghanistan and Iraq.
Really? I didn’t know that.
Yes he was.
>>Paul must be getting lots of Liberal donations.... they want this clown IN the process.
The worse Paul makes Conservatives look, the better for O<<
I’ll never understand why Ron Paul is allowed to debate on a Republican stage. Who screwed up and let him through?
Since Ron Paul blames America for 9/11, I’d love to hear his explanation for the previous 1000+ years of Islamic aggression.
Yeah, it's all make-believe. Our eyes don't see what they see, and our ears don't hear what they hear.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You’re right.
No Libertarian belongs in the same venue with Conservatives.
>>No Libertarian belongs in the same venue with Conservatives.<<
Those are your words, not mine. I never suggested any such thing.
Right
Are you a Paultard by any chance?
I think Ron Paul is cracked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.