Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Ron Paul on 9/11
David Horowitz's NewsRealblog ^ | Ryan Mauro

Posted on 02/21/2010 10:09:06 AM PST by Michael van der Galien

“To the Muslim world: We get the message. My imperialistic predecessors have caused a sea of anger against the U.S. that has culminated in this disaster,” President Ron Paul says as he addresses the nation on September 11, 2001.

Days later, President Paul visits the rubble of what was once known as the World Trade Center. Climbing on top of the rubble, he grabs a megaphone. The cheering firefighters and policemen nearby wait for their leader to speak their minds, personify their anger, and make the world shake with his words. Paul turns the megaphone on, and the high-pitch of his squeaky voice is magnified, resulting in a groan of pain from the nearby residents who have already suffered enough.

“We will offer a free trade agreement with Afghanistan in exchange for handing over all Al-Qaeda members guilty of attacking us,” President Paul says. “Should they refuse, we will target these terrorists with airstrikes and raids, but we will not be tricked into over-reacting and committing the same mistakes of aggression that got us here.”

Imagine if Ron Paul had been president on 9/11.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: paulestinians; ronpaul; rupauls

1 posted on 02/21/2010 10:09:06 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

There are enough living nightmares to go around without having to add this one...


2 posted on 02/21/2010 10:11:57 AM PST by Farmer Dean (every time a toilet flushes,another liberal gets his brains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

OMG.

He is a irrational reactionary.
OHN!!!!


3 posted on 02/21/2010 10:13:22 AM PST by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

imperialistic? i’m sorry... which middle eastern country is a US territory again? which one did we conquer (and keep)?

call me crazy, but i prefer when people use proper words.

i believe the term for a country that pushed invading forces out of a country would be ‘liberator’


4 posted on 02/21/2010 10:13:25 AM PST by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien
“To the Muslim world: We get the message. My imperialistic predecessors have caused a sea of anger against the U.S. that has culminated in this disaster,” President Ron Paul says as he addresses the nation on September 11, 2001.

He's an idiot... just as bad as those "truthers" .... what a bunch of loonies...

5 posted on 02/21/2010 10:15:35 AM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

Ron Paul would never bomb anyone without permission from congress first, therefore, he would not threaten it.


6 posted on 02/21/2010 10:16:56 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Ron Paul would make Obama’s overseas Apology Fest look like a war.

Paul would withdrawl from the world, an isolationist and appeaser that he is.


7 posted on 02/21/2010 10:19:11 AM PST by rbmillerjr (I'm praying for Palin....if not I'll vote 4 conservatives...Mitt won't get my vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien
You can not embrace fiscal responsibility and call for small government, then turn around and reject the most fundamental role of the federal government, the national defense of America and expect to be taken seriously.

Ron Paul may see himself as a modern day revolutionary in the spirit of America's Founders and Framers, and he may call himself a non-interventionist, but he's nothing more then an old school paleo isolationist. Another Pat Buchanan but with a larger and more obsessed band of political loyalists.

Paul and his followers wrongly blame America for 911 and give the terrorists a free pass for their WTC, Pentagon and Flight 93 killings. Like the liberal Democrats, Ron Paul and his followers oppose direct military engagement with the terrorists and reject the Iraq and Afghan Wars, along with the Patriot Act, FISA, enhanced interrogation and the prison at Gitmo. All the actions since 911 that have kept America more safe and secure from Islamofacism, Ron Paul and his followers are against.

Without a doubt, implimenting Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda would be destructive to our Republic.

8 posted on 02/21/2010 10:24:06 AM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

I don't think you're crazy.


9 posted on 02/21/2010 10:38:07 AM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

“In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a “dramatic failure” as President. Paul also said, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration”, Reagan was “a failure, yes, in, in many ways”. Transcript of Paul’s remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP.”


10 posted on 02/21/2010 10:41:19 AM PST by rbmillerjr (I'm praying for Palin....if not I'll vote 4 conservatives...Mitt won't get my vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Michael van der Galien

This is insanity. It may just be that that with this kind of thinking and the people who voted for this kook, that a true conservative party will emerge comprised of folks of all stripes to form a Tea Party or Liberty Party or how about the Constitution Party.


12 posted on 02/21/2010 10:48:10 AM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal

forgot my tagline..


13 posted on 02/21/2010 10:50:34 AM PST by celtic gal (No RINOS..maybe we need a Constitution Party to replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

Ron Paul diplays the bipolar characteristics of most Libritarians. On some issues he is normal. On others WACKO!


14 posted on 02/21/2010 11:11:21 AM PST by texican01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

Been here... done this... have the t-shirt and bumper sticker... let me just say that I will NOT be voting for paul... romney or huckster ever and for any reasons. JUST SAY NO!

LLS


15 posted on 02/21/2010 11:15:41 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Ron Paul would never bomb anybody...period!

He would rather wait until they have amassed inside our country, then try to placate them.

16 posted on 02/21/2010 12:32:36 PM PST by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien; Reagan Man
It seems that nobody noticed (or else cared) that the "quotes" from "President" Ron Paul are all made-up by the Paul-hating writer.

Reagan Man wrote: Paul and his followers wrongly blame America for 911 and give the terrorists a free pass for their WTC, Pentagon and Flight 93 killings.

That's a big lie. Rep. Paul has made it clear that he is not a "truther."

Like the liberal Democrats, Ron Paul and his followers oppose direct military engagement with the terrorists and reject the Iraq and Afghan Wars,...

Another lie. Rep. Paul voted for the authorization to militarily attack the terrorists in Afghanistan, and further introduced legislation to pay private entities to attack al-Qaida and its allies. Rep. Paul did not support the invasion of Iraq, pointing out that with regard to 9/11 we had more cause to attack Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

17 posted on 02/21/2010 12:39:10 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter (Obama: Just another illegal alien living in public housing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texican01
Ron Paul diplays the bipolar characteristics of most Libritarians. On some issues he is normal. On others WACKO

Exactly. I loved his speech during the debates preceding the bailout vote in October of '08.

But he's too looney on too many issues. Plus, I don't like the egotisitic little games he plays such as submitting pork for Texas District 14 and voting against it in Congress knowing full well it will pass. He simply does not have what it takes to be President.

18 posted on 02/21/2010 12:45:07 PM PST by Allegra (It doesn't matter what this tagline says...the liberals are going to call it "racist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Inappropriate Laughter
No lies, just the truth.

While Ron Paul supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan, he later would oppose funding for US troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The evidence is in and the Patriot Act, FISA, enhanced interrogation and Gitmo all working together, kept America more safe and secure from Islamofacism and terrorist attacks. Ron Paul was deadwrong on all counts. JFTR, Ron Paul has never voted for an annual US Defense Appropriations Bill.

Truth is, Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook. When Paul says that they attacked us on 911 "because we're over there", he's deadwrong. The Islamic religion opposes the US (western culture) because it opposes our way of life and our unalienable rights to freedom and liberty. The idea that America, through our federal government and military, has no right being involved overseas defending and protecting Americans and American interests, is simply not true and more a case of historic revisionism then anything else.

America has been here before. In 1784 the Continental Congress appointed Jefferson, Adams and Franklin to a special commission to deal with the problem of the Barbary States, the terrorists of that time. Jefferson and Adams were sent to London to negotiate a peace treaty with the Dey of Algiers. They reported the Dey's reason for his Islamically-inspired hostility towards America:

"[I]t was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

In 1801 President Jefferson dispatched a group of frigates (USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid) to defend American interests in the Mediterranean. Jefferson informed Congress of his war actions. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." In 1805 US Marines marched across the desert from Egypt forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. As a result of Jefferson's actions, the Muslim Barbary States began to crumble from US naval bombardment and raids by US Marines.

"From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."

Nothing has changed since Jefferson took military action against the Barbary terrorists. The only way for America to survive as a free nation against hostile forces of Islamo-terrorism, is to kill our enemies.

Ron Paul foreign policy is a weak, naive and dangerous to America's future. Thank God Paul will never be elected President.

19 posted on 02/21/2010 1:34:28 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I am agnostic on Paul. I loves some of the things he says and other things I think he makes good points but I am not sold on. It seems when people disagree with Paul's foreign policy it is on strategic grounds not philosophical ones. Namely if we do what he says we will be in more danger in the short run. I think his philosophy is that you don't do things that make you safe in the short run that will ultimately make you less safe in the long run. Also, it is not right for the leaders of one nation to pick and support the rulers of another. You said...

Truth is, Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook. When Paul says that they attacked us on 911 "because we're over there", he's deadwrong. The Islamic religion opposes the US (western culture) because it opposes our way of life and our unalienable rights to freedom and liberty.

What is your evidence for that? I can give you lists of evidence to the contrary. Hundreds of terrorists have said time and again why they attack us and it is not what you just said. They intend to bring back the Caliphate. We support secular and less fundamentally Islamic regimes in the middle east. We have a western outpost in Israel. The regimes we support are very difficult to topple. We are the road block to their success in their goal of uniting the muslim nations of the world. That is why Israel is little satan and we are the great satan. Ron Paul is not incorrect as to the motivation of our attackers.

One can argue that Paul is wrong because we need to be in the middle east to prevent the extremists from toppling moderate regimes and reviving the Caliphate which would ultimately be more dangerous to us.

20 posted on 02/21/2010 2:00:56 PM PST by nitzy (A just law does not punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
Your post is confusing the issue, if not the debate. I'm not sure what you're point is. I don't disagree with you about the Caliphate, moderate Islamic states or the huge historic factor of Israel. May be if you read or reread what I posted in #19, you might sound more lucid.

Specifically, the part about what the Dey of Algiers TOLD Jefferson and Adams in 1786 in London. The Islamofacists want to spread Islam and the word of Mohammad. They want all infidels to become Muslim. Nothing has changed in the 200 years since Jefferson or for that matter, since Mohammad walked the Earth some 14 centuries ago.

21 posted on 02/21/2010 2:21:58 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

So right. Our presence in the ME is just an excuse to justify what they are doing. The real reason is they hate us for what we are - non-muzzie. If we weren’t “over there” they would still attack us. They don’t respect weakness. They consider us their slaves.


22 posted on 02/21/2010 6:08:50 PM PST by TStro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson