Pat Buchanan defending Ron Paul

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sry0fcr

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
240
Location
Houston, Republic of Texas
Townhall

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.
Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.
"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."
The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous -- the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.
After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.
Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.
A fair question and a crucial question.
When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.
What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?
Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?
Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."
Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."
Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles -- after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse -- but we must understand.
Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.
By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.
 
In the wake of 9-11, Ron Paul's first idea on how to fight dispersed terror groups was to take a page from history. HR 3076 IH 107th CONGRESS

It was the Constitutional thing to do and has proven effective in the past. Instead, Bush went to the UN for "permission" on a number of things, got an "authorization for use of force" instead of an outright declaration of war, and has a completely asinine ROE for our troops. Don't even get me started on his abdicating the Commander in Chief position to a "war Czar".
 
It sounds good to read, but what Paul actually said was we were over there bombing Iraq, not all the stuff about supporting Mujahideen against Ruskies, etc. maybe he needs a better speech writer - ya think?
 
It sounds good to read, but what Paul actually said was we were over there bombing Iraq, not all the stuff about supporting Mujahideen against Ruskies, etc. maybe he needs a better speech writer - ya think?

That was part of his answer, it’s difficult to sum up all the specific examples of US intervention in the Middle East that might have contributed to the hatred towards the US in 30 second sound bytes. IIRC he cited 3-4 more examples but his point is the same our foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere sucks.
 
It IS great that he can give such coherent answers off the top of his head. On the other hand, he WOULD benefit from some coaching. Not everyone can look past a defect in the presentation to see the substance behind it.

--Len.
 
Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

Here, here.
 
The great thing was, I don't think he was using a speech writer, Dr. Paul knows his stuff.

Look: this was about the debate and his poor showing on TV. I don't care if he is Albert Einstein if he can't present himself in front of cameras and an audience for a fifteen second statement he needs some coaching. I like him also, but I'm not blind.
 
It IS great that he can give such coherent answers off the top of his head. On the other hand, he WOULD benefit from some coaching. Not everyone can look past a defect in the presentation to see the substance behind it.

Compared to Bush, Ron Paul's public speaking is impeccable.



And I didn't hear anyone saying that George W. Bush was "unelectable" back in 2000.



Unrehearsed public speaking ability be damned, Ron Paul IS presidential material.
 
Sry0fcr said:
That was part of his answer, it’s difficult to sum up all the specific examples of US intervention in the Middle East that might have contributed to the hatred towards the US in 30 second sound bytes. IIRC he cited 3-4 more examples but his point is the same our foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere sucks.
He mentioned two foreign interventions, Mohammed Mosaddeq being replaced by the Shah in Operation Ajax (CIA shouldn't even get credit since the British came up with it and planned the whole thing). Madeleine Albright apologized for it. Now you might wonder why Operation Ajax could piss off the Arab world forever since it was an op against Persians Shias and had nothing to do with religious matters, we kicked out of power a socialist that would have aligned Iran with the Soviets. It's one of the lamest answers to the "why they hate us question", it's in Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback" which Ron Paul referenced in the debates.

Ron Paul's other point about the enforcement of the no fly zone and resulting targeted bombings didn't seem to hold up in light of the fact that the world trade center was bombed in 1993.
 
I think Dr. Paul's "non-interventionist" stand could have wide appeal with Republicans and libertarians (and Libertarians, for that matter) if we stop trying to lump him in with the "blame America" crowd. He has argued that America's foriegn policy toward any given country has a direct affect upon the people of that country, and that we should be mindful of that fact. That is a far cry from saying that "terrorists wouldn't attack us if we pulled out of the middle east" or that America "had it coming". So far, I've found Dr. Paul's stance to be perfectly reasonable and I believe he could do a lot of good for my country.
 
Saying this may get this thread shut down, but the muslim extremists would hate us and will hate us (Christians and Jews) regardless of what we do or have done. Islam was orignally spread by the sword and will continue to be.
 
...the muslim extremists would hate us and will hate us (Christians and Jews) regardless of what we do or have done.
Sure they will--I agree completely. But I don't care who they hate. They can hate anyone they want to. So what if they hate us? Are you suggesting we kill them until they start loving us? Let me know how that works out. :evil:

--Len.
 
Whether past foreign policy created this problem or not is really irrelevant in my opinion. If I flip someone off in traffic, does that mean they have a right to try and hurt me and that I shouldn't then defend myself because I caused the problem? Nope. Also, it wasn't Bush's past foreign policy that created 9-11, so should he just sit on his hands and say "well, we caused this problem, so I guess we deserve it. Nothing to do now except wait till they aren't mad anymore." How is Paul's comment useful in any meaningful way?

Budney, they can hate us all they want, just don't start killing people as a result, or taking steps to try and kill people. Stay in your own country and hate me all you want.
 
Ron Paul is naive.

People who place principle over pragmatism often appear that way.

Even if it's true, I'll take principle. I'm fed up with the problems pragmatism causes. Let's see if the problems caused by following principles are any different. I don't think they will be worse.
 
Ron Paul is naive.
+1

He hasn't yet figured out that the only way to become President is to prostrate yourself to the corporate fat-cats and special interest groups while at the same time making saccharine, unkeepable promises to the unwashed masses to guarantee their votes.

How dare he attempt to bring facts and straightforward speech into the realm of politics?
 
I would much prefer to hear Ron Paul say what is in his mind than to hear some of the canned answers that come from the mindless. His intelligent thinking is far superior to the drivel spilling out of the coached minds of the other candidates. Maybe people will perceive and be glad that they are getting something real for a change.
 
He hasn't yet figured out that the only way to become President is to prostrate yourself to the corporate fat-cats and special interest groups while at the same time making saccharine, unkeepable promises to the unwashed masses to guarantee their votes.

How dare he attempt to bring facts and straightforward speech into the realm of politics?

If you vote for me, all your wildest dreams will come true.

Unfortunately, the only way to get elected today is to promise just that. :barf:
 
I thought they graduated to "If you vote for my opponent, all your worst nightmares will come true."

It has the advantages of generally being correct (no matter who you vote for) and not requiring actual campaign promises that voters might expect you to keep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top