Posted on 05/26/2007 4:47:15 PM PDT by Coleus
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) Thursday repeated his challenge to debate foreign policy with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and offered Giuliani a "reading assignment" of books examining U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The Republican presidential hopefuls briefly sparred over foreign policy during the Republican debate in South Carolina on May 15. Giuliani criticized Paul for suggesting that U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to Osama bin Laden's motivation in orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"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," Paul said during the debate. Giuliani interrupted Paul's comment to make a point of his own. "That's really an extraordinary statement," he said. "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 11."
In a post-debate interview on Fox News, Giuliani compared Paul's comments to conspiracy theories about Sept. 11 and said it "makes no sense." But during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Paul said he was "giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment." He recommended that Giuliani read four books that outline causes for al Qaeda's hatred of the United States, including the 9/11 Commission Report and Chalmers Johnson's 2000 book, "Blowback." The night of the debate, Paul expressed a desire to debate Giuliani directly on foreign policy. Thursday, he told Cybercast News Service that he still wants to debate the former mayor but admitted it was "not likely" to happen.
Paul said his reading list backs up his position on foreign policy. "The whole notion that our foreign policy has nothing to do with [terrorism] and that Giuliani has never heard of this is preposterous," he said. "Even the 9/11 investigation report supports my position that there is blowback, that there are consequences." In its analysis of the motivating factors behind the al Qaeda attacks, the 9/11 Commission, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, noted that bin Laden "stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world."
"He (bin Laden) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War," the commission report stated. Paul also cited a 2003 Vanity Fair interview with Paul Wolfowitz in which the then-deputy defense secretary said that U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia had been a "huge recruiting device for al Qaeda." "In fact, if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land," Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair.
Paul said that addressing the grievances expressed by terrorist leaders like bin Laden could reduce the motivation for terrorist actions against the United States and its citizens. "They need something really forceful to get somebody to commit suicide terrorism," Paul said, adding that bin Laden and other terrorists would be "disappointed if we leave" Iraq because it would remove a major recruiting device. "He distorted what I believe," Paul said of Giuliani, criticizing his opponent for what he viewed as a personal attack. "We just need to get away from the demagoguing and the challenging [of] patriotism.
"The issue is foreign policy. It's not patriotism," Paul said, calling it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" to characterize his statement as placing blame for the attacks on the victims. In a statement e-mailed to Cybercast News Service , Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said "to further declare Rudy Giuliani needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand is just absurd." "It is extraordinary and reckless to claim that the United States invited the attacks on September 11th," Comella stated. She did not respond to Paul's invitation to debate Giuliani on foreign policy issues.
Bill Maher’s audience scream for Ron Paul. Case closed.
video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLOLYtWLMyw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcorner%2Enationalreview%2Ecom%2F
I assign Paul to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for his foreign policy lesson.
Not hard to see how the media is USING Ron Paul, as something of a kook, to make Giuliani look good. Of course, in this project, both Giuliani and Ron Paul participate. The media is there to dutifully report these
“exchanges” between them, which are supposed to be highlights and rally everyone to Rudy’s side, but in fact just make everything look contrived and cynical.
I was going to point out that Ron Paul was a welcomed hero on the most anti-American show ever produced.
I knew nothing about Ron Paul until those debates several days ago...now I know all I need to know about him. He’s a phocking idiot.
Next excuse?
I actually voted for him in ‘88; can’t see that happening again.
Huh? I didn’t watch any video, I wasn’t responding to any video, just to point out that I’ve already seen this phenomenon in action, during the debates, and in references to it AFTER the debates when Giuliani has been interviewed on FOX, for example. The media I am talking about is NOT Bill Maher,(who I am sorry I don’t consider part of the Media, altho they’re bad enough), but precisely the media that , as I said, strives to make Giuliani look GOOD, by linking him up with an antagonist like Ron Paul. Or am I STILL unclear?
Bill Maher’s audience scream for Ron Paul. Case closed.
video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLOLYtWLMyw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcorner%2Enationalreview%2Ecom%2F
I guess I thought I was replying to the poster, Coleus, and not you. I was not replying to you, so I guess nothing I said made sense to you.Now I understand.....I think.......
No fan of either, but the more Rudy ducks Paul, the more it makes Rudy look bad.
The really eerie thing about all this is that Rudy is getting exposed
Ron, I’m pretty sure that none of the 9/11 guys was from Iraq. Most of them were, in fact, from Saudi Arabia, a country that we have, I’m also pretty sure, never bombed (whether we perhaps should have is another matter). And your point was?
Why is Ron Paul ducking my challenge to have him debate me?
Why is Ron Paul cowardly avoiding AmishDude?
What is Ron Paul afraid of?
Why is Paul ducking me? Why is he afraid to debate me? I let his minions on FR know of the challenge I was issuing. Why won’t Paul debate me?
Pearl Harbor decisively refutes Paul’s stupid theory.
As if the disgrace of America leaving the UK to fight the Reich alone isn’t enough refutation of Paul’s America First! non-interventionism.
We all know those persistent ‘smartest guy in the room,’ but despite their intelligence they just can’t seem to convince people of much of anything.
On what basis do you make that conclusion? Pearl Harbor doesn't "refute' Paul's theory, though it does confirm the fact that FDR probably deserved impeachment for his possiby criminal failure have us reasonably well prepared for such an attack.
I knew nothing about Paul before last week's debate and would have even put that aside, if I had not come to know - here on FR - how much his supporters sound like the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys of the Left.
Consider this— if Bush and Blair were around in the 1930s, Hitler and Mussolini would have been squashed like bugs. Ron Paul is an idiot.
You sound like one of those misguided people who think we can protect ourselves by patroling the border and beefing up port security. You might as well build the Maginot Line. Such measures do nothing to prevent our enemies from arming themselves to the teeth possibly with the weapons of Armageddon.
This is why we need to be on offense against terrorism. The fact that MAD doesn’t work with dark age fanatics with mass suicide on the brain should be proof enough.
Lastly, consider your Japanese point. Suppose we did know that the Japanese had violent intentions toward us. If you are condemning Roosevelt for inaction, then preemptive action against the Japanese in the Pacific must be what you’re arguing. But suspect you haven’t deduced any conclusions from your premises yet, which is why *I* am here to help.
He must be an isolationist. Naval gazing like this keeps our eye off of the enemy we must defeat.
Any free and open society can be hit by a surprise attack. The Paulist problem is that they don't believe in fighting back. For details on this position, go to LewRockwell.com. You might want to wash your hands afterward.
I assign Paul to STFU.
If Giuliani is as liberal as people say, he would be Maher’s favorite Republican. So either Rudy isn’t quite so liberal or Maher is just a dumbass who doesn’t know a liberal when he sees one.
Who is he recommending? Noam Chomsky? There isn’t much difference between he and Paul on the Mideast.
I detect that those who advocate for Paul’s candidacy have a hidden agenda: The legalization of drugs.
A kook?
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
What’s not to like?
I didn’t say he WAS a kook, I said the media was using him AS a kook,casting him in that role, in this back and forth with Giuliani, in order to make Giuliani look good.
Both are participating in this little drama, obviously to get the most they can out of it.
I didn’t say he WAS a kook, I said the media was using him AS a kook,casting him in that role, in this back and forth with Giuliani, in order to make Giuliani look good.
Both are participating in this little drama, obviously to get the most they can out of it.
One thing that is puzzling me is where and how Rudy transformed his admirable deportment in the 911 aftermath into a profound expertise on national secirity. I just don't see it. He's gotten a rep that he hasn't really earned.
Thanks for posting this.
Giuliani is so far left that liberal talking heads are criticizing him.
We witnessed Giuliani dealing with the aftermath of those attacks - a huge leap from the experience of dealing with terrorists.
Giuliani disgracefully exploits those attacks for his own political ambitions.
Suggestion time: why not just stop posting to any Paul post..let them die due to inaction.
Like the other howling baboons on this thread, you simply rely on what other people have told you to think.
Basic history lesson: FDR pushed the Japanese hard with embargoes and trade sanctions. There is substantial evidence to suggest that he did it to force them to do something overt, thereby giving us a reason to get involved with World War II. The evidence also shows that he vastly underestimated their reaction, thereby resulting in many deaths and loss of military armament. However, his goal was achieved.
I marvel at the empty minds who think everything that happens on the geopolitical stage occurs in a vacuum. I’d be willing to bet you’re one of those people who is proud that we took Saddam out, but who is utterly oblivious to the fact that we put him there in the first place.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not sure what you think “Paul’s stupid theory” is, but I’d be willing to bet that what you think he said is, in fact, not at all what he said. You likely either read what others have said about it, or you clutched at your emotional reaction to parts of what he said and failed to engage your brain to completely understand.
But Shirer nicely points out everywhere along the line the Nazis could have been stopped.
To the person who keeps copying and pasting the Ron Paul list of policies, you may as well just post this:
He opposes regulating the Internet
He opposes regulating the Internet
He opposes regulating the Internet
And, along with Tom Tancredo, that makes him unique. It gives Ron Paul a lot of popularity on...the Internet of all places. :-)
Paul’s view on the Iraq War leaves me unimpressed. It is almost the Noam Chomsky view, although half the conservative state of Wyoming would agree with it.
Since the Iraq War and any hostilities with Iran are expected to be over by January 2009...I am not putting the issue on my top 5 list of priorities.
Maher is about as far left was you can get.
Paul wants to legalize dope.
Paul is a Truther
That is why the far Left, like Maher love him.
Check out the Educating Rudy press conference. Good stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
Giuliani will be making a mistake not to debate Paul on TV at least informally. By not doing so, it makes it look like he disagrees with Paul on everything.
The reason why this is more of a mistake for Giuliani than the other candidates, is because Giuliani had been the favorite of the small l libertarians in the Republican Party until the debate.
Ron Paul, by the way, does small l libertarians a tremendous disservice by making it seem like being anti-war is part of that “philosophy”. But Giulani makes a mistake by thinking that Ron Paul is popular with people who would not have voted for Giulani anyway.
Giuliani cannot win the general election without the kind of people who are now into Ron Paul.
If I were a Giuliani advisor, I would coopt some of Ron Paul’s best rhetoric about government staying out of people’s lives and go on TV to complement Paul on some issues, while reminding everyone that Al Qaeda had, and still has, the intention of taking over the world’s oil and ruling the world.
You'll see this happening on a lot of Ron Paul threads.
That's because the FRINOs are more in love with neo-con globalism than actual liberty.
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.