Posted on 05/18/2007 8:12:39 AM PDT by sdnet
In a desperate attempt to make Rudy Giuliani out to be the hero of Tuesday night’s debate, Fox News is continuing to attack Texas Congressman Ron Paul for something he did not say. In the latest installment of this campaign, John Gibson of Fox News says that Paul “suggested that the U.S. actually had a hand in the [9/11] terrorist attacks.” No, what he said was that U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact.
Gibson’s comment shows how Fox News has been eager to slant the news in favor of Giuliani, who claimed in his famous response to Paul that the congressman had said that the U.S. “invited” the 9/11 attacks. That was false, too.
Some would say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, in this day and age, are somewhat naïve. But Giuliani’s assault, assisted by Fox News, which co-sponsored the debate, goes so far over the line that an honest media watchdog has to say something. Gibson, trying to make Paul’s comments about 9/11 into “The Big Outrage,” claimed that he was a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the group that claims the terrorist attacks were orchestrated by some kind of secret cabal of U.S. officials. He compared Paul to Rosie O’Donnell, who suggested 9/11 was an inside job.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
What Ron Paul did say is that he accepted Bin Ladin’s analysis of history, and that we should also.
And that based on Bin Ladin’s analysis of history, we should retreat from every alliance and every commitment we have that might bring us into conflict with Bin Ladin and the other muslim radicals and imperialists.
I say its a mistake to take Bin Ladin’s analysis at face value. He’s a propagandist with the need to explain to the muslim world why he failed to support his own country against Saddam, and why he repeatedly attacked the country that led the defense of his nation and expelled the invaders from his neighbor’s country.
But if you really pay attention to what he says, you’ll notice that his issue is Iraq. When he declared war on the US, his reasons are clearly our policing of Iraq skies, which were born out of our defense of still more muslims, the Kurds and the Kuwaiti border regions. He declared war on us in defense of Saddam, for those not paying attention. In the late nineties we were aware of his motivations which connected him to the defense of Saddam. We developed amnesia after 911.
He’s the one who drew first blood, as we now know, in Somalia, and he has to explain why he was attacking the country that was feeding starving muslims, and brought an end to muslim-on-muslim violence in that war-torn country.
What else can he say, but that he would, get this, be happy to defend his country if he were appointed to command of their forces. Seriously. Meanwhile, of course, he is involved in sending fighters to kill other muslims in Algeria, and he goes on to train insurgents fighting in every country from Sudan all across Central Asia to the Philippines, there isn’t a single country that doesn’t have a muslim insurgency trained in Bin Ladin’s camps. But in Ron Paul’s world, a guy that has launched warfare in at leat a dozen countries has a simple well-defined grudge against the US, that could be easily solved if we just got out of the way.
That was Japan’s motivation when they sunk our fleet in 1941. We were the only country capable of stopping them as they built their empire, and they intended to solve that problem with a knockout punch. And we were the only country capable of containing Saddam, and Bin Ladin meant to solve that problem by driving us out of the region.
We lost several hundred thousand of our finest, killed in the Second World War, and one of the lessons of that war was that if you wait until a threat is fully mature before acting, it may cost you the slaughter of an entire generation of your best people. Better to act while victory is relatively cheap.
Some of the replies of the "Paul junkies" are so over the top - right out of the box - I've got to wonder: Are they Democrat trolls or are they just smoking the same sh*t as the Michael Moore and Bill Mayer crowd?
I do think he would make a good cabinet secretary though.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Accusing a man who acually fought for this nation of not caring about the Constitution is a little low, even for the Ron Paul cowards.
Excluding the Ron Paul bit at the end, didn't John Kerry once say that?
The 2008 election is too important for us to waste time or money on strange minor candidates like Ron Paul who have a snowball’s chance of even getting the nomination let alone beating Mrs. Clinton. Ron Paul is a silly distraction that can drain us of energy and money that is needed elsewhere. Focus on Victory in 2008 folks !!!!!
Thanks for posting the link.
I think this whole thing was deliberately staged by Fox news, they just thought it would be funny to see a roomful of conservatives cheer on the liberal Rudy as he was allowed a cheap shot at Ron Paul. They knew that Dr Paul could never properly respond to such a question within the context of a 2 minute sound byte, but it sure made for good theater with Rudy, who they seem to be pushing for anyway.
They went so overboard on it though. I wonder if that was by design or by accident.
3.5% raise for the troops? Maybe he’s busy saving that money to lavish on the mexicans. I cannot remember a day when I was so disgusted and demoralized. I hope he lives to see the damage he is bringing down on the country he was sworn to defend.
Sauce for the gander, sir.
Nice Photoshop fraud there.
Or perhaps we’re just sick and tired of electing alleged conservatives who trample the Constitution and screw us every chance they get.
So we’re looking for a change.
But like I said, it’s certainly more fun for you to call us names than to address the actual facts Dr. Paul presents.
I can’t wait till the primaries are over, and you Paul cultists finally go away after he gets his ass whipped. Join the damn Libertarians and get it over with.
Yep. What you said!
An explanation is not a justification.
Lord help me, I am SO tired of typing that sentence.
Yeah, you Republicans are doing such a bang-up job, you don’t need any other voters. So keep insulting Libertarians.
And when you lose the next election, maybe you’ll realize we could have helped.
Perhaps we can have Bin Laden write our foreign policy for us; that way he won’t be mad at us. Maybe he could even be our Secretary of State; would that make them happy so they won’t attack us? Because we definitely don’t want to give him reason to dislike us. That could be Ron Paul’s campaign theme - “I’ll nominate Osama Bin Laden as Secretary of State” - if he thinks that the goal of American foreign policy is to please Al-Qaeda.
Well that fits right in with the Ron Paul crowd's "inside job" view of 9/11.
Did Ron Paul actually say: "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."
If he did, that was not taken out of context, and was not clumsily stated.
He said what he said.
I don't know much about the man, and I don't know if it is true when I hear people say disparaging things about him.
But I will say that any isolationist cannot lead this country. That is my opinion, yours may differ, but we do not live in a world where we can afford to be isolationist. If Ron Paul is an isolationist, I don't want him.
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.