But suggesting that the United States is culpable for its own punishment on 9/11 from Al Qaeda is as near a disqualifying position as one can adopt.Couldn't agree with you more. But if he hasn't already disqualified himself (that is, if he ever "qualified" himself in the first place) then he's awfully close. So let him shoot himself in the foot. But trying to bar someone from speaking in a public debate because you don't like what he has to say is about as un-American and anti-conservative as ideas get.
>>But trying to bar someone from speaking in a public debate because you don’t like what he has to say is about as un-American and anti-conservative as ideas get.
I suspect you’re making the assumption that free speech rights are identical to a compulsory requirement to be heard (correct me if I’m wrong). This really isn’t true. Mandating speech to be heard irrespective of standards is, isn’t free speech at all. And in fact it isn’t practiced.
Were Paul a Islamofascist who preached the enslavement or murder of the Jews for instance, he would almost certainly be disinvited from the debates. This is a more extreme example naturally, but it reveals that there are and should be standards for inclusion/exclusion in a Republican debate. It’s not true that if you have an opinion, it’s appropriate to include it. If these standards exist, what are they and where do they begin and end? My point is merely that ritualistic and reflexive anti-Americanism like Paul’s should be among those that disqualify. And once again, is not the same thing as censorship.
Except this does not at all resemble what he said. He said that past US foreign policy has contributed to the hatred which inspired 9/11. And this is unequivocally and undeniably true.