Fred Thompson Supports Lautenberg Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok I had a typo. But he did BLAME American policies for what happened.

If you didn't see the debate, I couldn't believe it myself when I heard him.
 
Policies, yes. Americans are not necessarly defined by their government's policies. This is an important distinction.
Yes?

Biker
 
Are any of the "policies" that America has justification for 9/11? I do not believe ANYTHING justified that and therefore I changed my mind about Ron.
 
and thereby make it more likely that the most evil of all of the candidates (i.e. the Dem nominee, likely to be Hillary, but assuredly a fervant anti-gunner) will win the election.

I am calling it right here, if Thompson takes a hawkish "stay the course" stance on Iraq, he will not beat any of the Democrats.

Americans do not like long drawn out conflicts, Korea, Vietnam both caused the presidential office to switch parties, Truman was replaced by Eisenhower, Johnson by Nixon.

I actually think Paul could win the general election due to the fact I believe he is the only one running who actually voted against the Iraq war.

I believe the Iraq war will dominate 2008 just like it did in 2006, anyone who the public believes may "stay the course" will get zero liberal and independent swing votes and lose the election.

I think Paul would do better against Hillary and Co due to his stance on Iraq

Here is Thompson's postion on Iraq:

Iraq

Thompson believes that we were right to invade Iraq but recognizes that we made mistakes, "Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now [with General Petraeus]."[27] But he also says that "our coalition should be proud of what we have averted [in Iraq]."[26] "If Saddam Hussein was still around today with his sons looking at Iran developing a nuclear capability, he undoubtedly would have reconstituted his nuclear capability. Things would be worse than what they are today."[27]

He thinks we should be looking beyond Iraq, "whether we leave there under our own terms or not, it's still going to be a very dangerous world. If we leave there under bad circumstances, we're going to have a haven down there for terrorists. The whole area, I'm afraid, will become nuclearized."[28]
 
Twenty711...

I'm not saying that anything "justified" 9/11 and neither did Ron Paul....that is *your* term. Can you point out to me where Paul even intimated that 9/11 was "justified"?
Be honest or take a walk.

Biker
 
It was in one of the first Republican debates, Guillanni called him on it and asked him to retract his remarks and he refused to do so. I"ll see if i can find a transcript of it or maybe someone on here could help me.
 
Are any of the "policies" that America has justification for 9/11? I do not believe ANYTHING justified that and therefore I changed my mind about Ron.

No, nothing justifies terrorism and Paul never said it did.

He simply stated what the CIA and the 9/11 commission report stated, that contrary to what Bush tells you terrorist do not hate us because we watch MTV and eat McDonalds.

The reason there is so much resentment towards us in the middle east is because of our intervention there.

Read about it here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm
 
I have dial up...provide the salient parts - if you would - in print.
Thanks in advance...

Biker
 
Biker, here you go:

PAUL: No, non-intervention was a major contributing factor. 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 ten years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 Attacks, sir?

PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

GIULIANI: That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, 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 heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

MODERATOR: Congressman?

PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there. I mean what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?[56]
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I agree with Ron Paul.
 
Those who think Paul is the best thing since sliced bread should vote for him. He'll get his 1 or 2% in the primary and then the Paulites can kick the ground and vote for Fred in the general against Hillary, simple really.:)

BTW, Neither the Republican or Democrat candidate will be pulling out of Iraq after the election in 08. This whole pullout thing is just fodder for the sheeple. While some of our tactics and strategies might change America ain't leaving Iraq or the Middle East anytime soon. To much is at play. Fred just needs to shine the light to the voters and especially to the kooky liberal base that Hillary's plan ain't no different.
 
Thanks Texas...

He provided *reasons*, not justification. Seems that most people like their truth candy coated.

Thanks again, Friend.

Biker:)
 
Biker,
Here are the questions and the answers.
at no time did Dr. Paul say that it was Justified.
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, 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 heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

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. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
Click to expand...
 
If Paul was not justifying then I'll put my support behind him again. He really should be careful on such a sensitive topic; I liked the guy and I guess I took his words slightly differently than he intended.
 
And HOW is this now a Ron Paul thread? Y'all are crazy.

As for the OP, how disengenuous can you get? Do you know that FT supports the Lautenberg Amendment? Really? Did you ask him? Did anyone? Because as far as I know what he did was to vote for the Omnibus Appropriations bill. That doesn't mean he supports Lautenberg. At the worst it means he compromised to get something else through and shouldn't have, or perhaps even worse he just didn't read that paragraph in the 700 pages. Unfortunate, and regrettable? Certainly. Damnable regarding the philosophy of his political platform? Um.... no.

Some of GOA's statements recently, especially the inflamatory, LYING ones, have made me reconsider my membership.
 
And HOW is this now a Ron Paul thread? Y'all are crazy.
Click to expand...
I had no intention of turning this into a Ron Paul thread.
I will correct disinformation.
Fred was a lobbyist for many years, He is also a lawyer.
If "he didn't read it" is his only defense, it is pretty lame.
I don't think I can vote for someone who will vote for something he doesn't understand.
 
ENUF.

10 posts on Fred/Lautenberg.

35 posts on RonPaul can't win/I'm voting my conscience durnit!

Take it to the RonPaul megathread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phaetos
  • Locked
Presidential Candidates Backgrounds ...
Replies
4
Views
397
awkx
A
C
  • Locked
Fred Thompson and the Gun Ban
Replies
1
Views
526
Bartholomew Roberts
B
C
  • Locked
The Lautenberg Amendment
Replies
0
Views
358
ColoradoJeff
C
J
  • Locked
Fred Thompson on the Issues
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
2K
JShirley
JShirley
G
  • Locked
Are You A Lautenberg Victim? Know One? Repeal Laut?
Replies
18
Views
991
Highland Ranger
H
Back
Top