Thursday, May 17, 2007

How 'bout that Ron Paul?

Seems like he touched a nerve in that last debate. Poor old Rudy nearly had a seizure when Ron suggested that the 9/11 attacks might have been in response to U.S. foreign policy:

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?

MR. GIULIANI: Can I have 30 seconds, please?

MR. : No, no, no, wait a second. Let's -- we'll all get 30 seconds.

(Cross talk.)

MR. GIULIANI: They are coming --

(Cross talk.)

MR. : We all want 30 seconds of time --

[Rudy didn't get his 30 seconds. Instead, they moved on to talk about the really important issue of the day: Whether South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings.]

I really find it odd that Giuliani thinks he's never hear that before. And I find that funny because, as you may recall, right after the attacks, Rudy turned down a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks. You'd think he'd remember something that angered him so much that he refused $10 million for the widows and orphans.

Anyway, an ABC News poll has Ron Paul down as the winner of the debate by more than 10 to 1 over all the other candidates combined. And he also beat the second place choice (which wasn't a candidate) by more than 10 to 1. Take Ron Paul out, and the entire Republican field combined couldn't beat the second place finisher: "It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands." As of this writing, the results are these:

Ron Paul: 21,799

It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands: 1,828

Mitt Romney: 376

Rudy Guiliani: 362

None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson: 345

John McCain: 169

Tom Tancredo: 86

Mike Huckabee: 51

Tommy Thompson: 36

Duncan Hunter: 33

Sam Brownback: 25

James Gilmore: 16

Labels: , ,


Blogger Susan in St. Paul said...

My feelings about why Sept 11 happened when it did are 3 fold, and rather unpopular.
1) the 1993 bombers vowed to finish the job. No one was listening except that brokerage house on the 9th floor of WTC1 who immediately started having regular fire drills and had limited loss of lives.

2) clearly our foreign policies over the years esp. the presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula. Bin laden was quite specific:

3) because after our banana republic type election the country and presidental administration looked too weak and divided to stop or do anything substantial about the attack. Unfortunately they were correct.

How could Giuliani be unaware of what Bin Laden clearly listed as a reason? what part of "the killing innocent children in Iraq" was he not getting?

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:45:00 PM  
Blogger Laurie said...

Giuliani was just buying time because he obviously didn't count Ron Paul as a serious contender and he and his staff didn't do their Ron Paul homework.

Now that Ron Paul is on all the candidates' radar, this might actually turn out to be interesting.

I hate politics.

Friday, May 18, 2007 9:51:00 AM  
Blogger Susan in St. Paul said...

Laurie- I agree there is that too, but I also think there is a lot of selective hearing with politicians these days.

The best way to win is to know your enemy, and what your enemy believes, you may not agree with it but they are acting on that belief regardless of how you see it. You certainly don't win by strengthening their belief system.

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:41:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home