At last night’s second Republican debate, Rep. Ron Paul—regrettably from the Great State of Texas—parroted some idiotic “applesauce” (to use one of my favorite Scaliaisms) about how US foreign policy supposedly invited OBL and the 19 misfits to attack us on 9/11.
A visibly upset Rudy drops script and calls Paul out on his lunacy. Man, what a heavyweight battle this would be between Rudy and FDT.
May 16, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Rudy really hit the nail on the head with his comment. Ron Paul might as well drop out now and give his campaign dollars to Rudy. This is the type of anger I would expect of a President and a Patriot — not some snivling, weak apology for having been the victom of terrorism.
June 8, 2007 at 12:26 am
Just because you disagree with Ron Paul’s view on any certain situation, doesn’t mean he should drop out of the race. If you really feel like that, what would stop me from having the exact same position on Guliani? Why shouldn’t I petition that he’s not invited to the next debate. Because of the first amendment that’s why! Because it wouldn’t be American. (atleast the “old” american way).
BTW, what’s the deal with 20 presidential candidates spending millions “racing” each other to the white house, to have power and solve problems, yet they cannot work together to find a compromise on. I say our representatives need to tighten up and learn how to work together more, rather than be so damn competitive with each other. It’s a fact there’s two very opposite opinions about where our country is and should be going right now.
I don’t know if I’m going to vote for Ron Paul, but I sure as hell won’t be voting for Guliani!!
June 8, 2007 at 3:13 am
You guys are both completely retarded. Rudy was later made to look like an idiot for never having read CIA information or the 9/11 Commission Report – only stupid Americans like you guys would actually have thought Rudy was right. Ron Paul proved his point, and Rudy doesn’t know ANYTHING about our foreign policy.
June 8, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Dan – If I haven’t been transparent enough on this blog, I’m heavily leaning towards voting for FDT. However, if he doesn’t run (now seemingly highly unlikely), or loses the nomination to Rudy, I would feel absolutely safe voting for Rudy. I just don’t agree with him on any social issues.
As for Paul, I will give him props that he is a true Libertarian, but anyone who tries to justify the slaughter of innocents is morally adrift and unable to lead.
BTW, I’m not advocating he drop out b/c I don’t agree with him–although I vehemently do–the reality is he’s just not a viable candidate. Same with McCain and Romney. The only two with a real shot are FDT and Rudy.
Also, the First Amendment has nothing to do with who’s invited to media-sponsored debates.
Last, we are a capitalistic country, hence the competitiveness.
June 8, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Ted -
“[Y]ou … stupid Americans?” Somehow Ted, I am dubious regarding the depth of your knowledge of “our foreign policy.”
That being said, Rudy is entirely vulnerable on many policy issues, both domestic and foreign, but the one ace he has–which non-Americans may not be able to fathom and instead merely deride–is the collective debt many of us in the country feel we owe to the Mayor for his service during 9/11.
Moreover, by CIA information, do you mean the “slam dunk” intelligence George Tenet was peddling or something else?
While I generally agree with you that someone running for our nation’s highest office should be as well-informed as is possible, I’ll make a rare exception in Rudy’s case because he lived (and almost died in) the events of that horrible day, and the many long, sad days that were to follow. And for the record, I give far more credence to Rudy’s recollection of those events than I do to Richard Ben Veniste or the presciently-named Jamie Gorelick.
June 11, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Ron Paul never said Americans invited the 9/11 attacks. He said US foreign policy of being involved in the Middle East contributed to the attacks.
Who began US involvement in the Middle East? FDR.
What’s happened to the Republican party? It’s totally bought into the Progressive-Globalist-Interventionist bull. Aren’t we suppose to be taking care of Americans and guarding our own borders?
History of US interventionism:
Wilson, Democrat, Advocated globalisim and interventionism, takes US into WWI to defend our allies. Helps create the League of Nations. Opposed by Republicans.
Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, takes the US into WWII because US is attacked, to fight Nazism, and fight Facism. Helps create United Nations. Begins US involvement in Middle East and US alliance with Suadi Arabia. Opposed by Republicans.
Truman, Democrat, takes US into Korea and the Cold War to defend our allies and to fight Communo-Fascism. Helps create NATO. Opposed by Republicans.
Eisenhower, Republican, former General, negotiates end of Korean War. Warns against having a powerful military. As an alternative to a strong military and entering military conflicts, he advocates building weapons for deterrance.
Johnson, Democrat, takes US into Viet Nam because US forces are attacked and to fight Communo-Fascism.
Nixon, Republican, takes US out of Viet Nam, opens dialog with Russia and China. As an alternative to the arms race and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates economic competition.
Reagan, Republican, increases dialog with Russia. Ends Cold War through economic victory without ever sending troops to any Soviet country.
To quote President Reagan:
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Were Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson the true conservatives? Were Washington, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan just wrong? Ron Paul voted to go after the terrorists who were involved in 9/11. He voted against granting the president authority to go into Iraq. He wants the troops home, to guard our borders.
George Washington defeated the British (the most powerful empire on Earth at that time) on American soil. To quote President Washington:
“avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other………The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible……..Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it…”
June 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Naldie-
Great comment! Agree that the Republican party has taken a decidedly odd, interventionist turn since 9/11. However, as an obnoxious, simple-minded Texan, I have to admit I am generally for the notion that all bets are off after 9/11 and that we have to go after our enemies wherever they are, even if that means the interventionist policy I’m favoring puts me more in line with the Democrat party.
I just think it’s a much different world after 9/11 than it was, say, during the Bosnian war, and the old terminology doesn’t really still apply (at least in the same way it used to).
Also, Gen. Washington defeated the British on our soil through conventional (albeit guerilla) warfare. That same paradigm doesn’t exist when the threat is nuclear terrorism instead of Redcoats with muskets.
July 1, 2007 at 8:38 am
sorry to you all people I m not American however something push me to make comments I tell you what it is I m from former Soviet Union ,and it seems to me that way of life in America is getting closer to the way I had lived in USSR long ago ,I feel it very clear because I do can compare ,of course this is not opinion neither conclusion but I have to say my heart belongs to candidat who wants to turn America to the place where it belongs -honest ,open ,strong ,nonagressive ,prosper country.
July 2, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Andrew,
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment, I welcome your input anytime.
Lord help us if we turn into anything even remotely approaching what you had to endure under communist rule in the former USSR.
With Obama’s recent $30 M in 3 months fundraising haul, it very well might be Obama vs. FDT or Rudy. It’ll be fun to watch no doubt.
-020033