Ron Paul Leading The Cause Of Freedom In Iowa

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Chan

Interesting. Rudy Giuliani said, "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."

Excuse me??? I don't recall Giuliani being in either of the two towers of the World Trade Center during the attack (or in any of the attached buildings closer to ground level). How is he "someone who lived through the attack"?

Chancellor,
I could not imagine not including Giuliani in the Word Trade Center situation. Regardless of whether he was in the towers or not, he did a superb job of keeping the city from going chaotic. Therefore, I have no problem in his feeling he was a part. He was! - as major of that city!

What I do have a problem with is his grand political ploy against Ron Paul, and he knew it was going to be a good one, too!

That's going to be a rather memorial statement for him and almost on the same lines as Lloyd Bentsen against Dan Quayle.

They all look for one to give!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Chan

Interesting. Rudy Giuliani said, "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."

Excuse me??? I don't recall Giuliani being in either of the two towers of the World Trade Center during the attack (or in any of the attached buildings closer to ground level). How is he "someone who lived through the attack"?

As mayor of New York Giuliani did "live through" the attacks. From more than 2000 miles away I felt that I had "lived through" the attacks. Giuliani was in a NYC Fire Department onsite command center on West Street when the towers collapsed. He had to escape the collapse of Tower One (the second tower to fall) through an underground pedestrian passage way with a Fire Chief and others.

What I find disingenuous about RP here is the way he says "we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" (prior to the 2003 invasion). That statement alone is tantamount to a lie. It is intentionally worded in such a way as to create a false impression of the US mission after the first Gulf War.

The US "bombings" (usually just small HARM missiles that follow a radar signal to its source) were counter measures to suppress tracking radar and were used only when an individual coalition aircraft had been actively "locked on." It was always self defense on the part of the coalition pilots. To go out of your way and try to paint it as US aggression the way Ron Paul does is treasonous to the pilots whose lives were on the line. How do you think those pilots would feel about having RP as CINC?

And remember, those pilots were risking their lives under the direct authorization of the UN, NATO, the EU as well as their US commanders. Even the Arab League had backed the cease-fire agreements from 1992, authorizing those pilots to do the fly-overs and to defend themselves when necessary.

Who but an enemy of the United States would make a declaration like Ron Paul did? I'm sorry, but Ron Paul puts himself into the same camp as the Ward Churchills' and C. Clark Kissingers' of the world.

I don't know that I would vote for Rudy, but I know that he was at least on our side on September 11. I'm not so sure about whose side Ron Paul is on.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Chancellor,
I could not imagine not including Giuliani in the Word Trade Center situation. Regardless of whether he was in the towers or not, he did a superb job of keeping the city from going chaotic. Therefore, I have no problem in his feeling he was a part. He was! - as major of that city!

He did a phenomenal job but he really can't say that he was a survivor of the attack because, frankly, he was not in the towers and was not one of the emergency responders actually involved in digging people out of there.

What I do have a problem with is his grand political ploy against Ron Paul, and he knew it was going to be a good one, too!

Agreed.

That's going to be a rather memorial statement for him and almost on the same lines as Lloyd Bentsen against Dan Quayle.

They all look for one to give!

Sadly, yes.

Originally Posted by pelathais

As mayor of New York Giuliani did "live through" the attacks. From more than 2000 miles away I felt that I had "lived through" the attacks. Giuliani was in a NYC Fire Department onsite command center on West Street when the towers collapsed. He had to escape the collapse of Tower One (the second tower to fall) through an underground pedestrian passage way with a Fire Chief and others.

Yes, I saw the movie too! It's not the same thing. The command center was not really "on site" because it was a short distance away from the site itself.

What I find disingenuous about RP here is the way he says "we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" (prior to the 2003 invasion). That statement alone is tantamount to a lie. It is intentionally worded in such a way as to create a false impression of the US mission after the first Gulf War.

Oh, please! We had planes flying over Iraq for those 10 years and sometimes they did engage when fired upon. So he engaged in a little hyperbole - Giuliani did more than his share of that, including in his claim to have been a survivor of 9/11.

The US "bombings" (usually just small HARM missiles that follow a radar signal to its source) were counter measures to suppress tracking radar and were used only when an individual coalition aircraft had been actively "locked on." It was always self defense on the part of the coalition pilots. To go out of your way and try to paint it as US aggression the way Ron Paul does is treasonous to the pilots whose lives were on the line. How do you think those pilots would feel about having RP as CINC?

The point of the matter is that we were over Iraqi airspace where we had no business being. I don't care if it was part of a cease fire agreement imposed on Sadaam Hussein, we had no business over there.

And remember, those pilots were risking their lives under the direct authorization of the UN, NATO, the EU as well as their US commanders. Even the Arab League had backed the cease-fire agreements from 1992, authorizing those pilots to do the fly-overs and to defend themselves when necessary.

I'm well aware of that - I was in the Gulf War! It's not relevant because, again, the United States had no business being over there.

Who but an enemy of the United States would make a declaration like Ron Paul did? I'm sorry, but Ron Paul puts himself into the same camp as the Ward Churchills' and C. Clark Kissingers' of the world.

That you made such a remark shows you didn't really pay attention to what he said and most definitely didn't pay attention to the context of his statement.

I don't know that I would vote for Rudy, but I know that he was at least on our side on September 11. I'm not so sure about whose side Ron Paul is on.

Ron Paul is on the side of THE CONSTITUTION! Only enemies of the United States would not be on the side of the Constitution.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Chan

Yes, I saw the movie too! It's not the same thing. The command center was not really "on site" because it was a short distance away from the site itself.

I missed the movie, I was going from news reports and what I know about West Street and the area around the World Trade Center. He wasn't under the footprint of the collapse, but he was within a radius within which others were killed. As mayor his statement wasn't hyperbole, it was from the standpoint of leadership.

Originally Posted by Chan

Oh, please! We had planes flying over Iraq for those 10 years and sometimes they did engage when fired upon. So he engaged in a little hyperbole - Giuliani did more than his share of that, including in his claim to have been a survivor of 9/11.

Chan, respectfully here, you said "and sometimes they did engage when fired upon." With a single exception, the only time during those 10 years that the US fired upon Iraqi installations was when the very plane that fired was "locked" on by ground radar. And that single exception was when BC launched some cruise missiles at Iraqi air control in response to something Monica Lewinsky said (we probably feel the same revulsion there).

But at no time was there ever a condition that could be even remotely described as "bombing Iraq..."

Originally Posted by Chan

The point of the matter is that we were over Iraqi airspace where we had no business being. I don't care if it was part of a cease fire agreement imposed on Sadaam Hussein, we had no business over there.

This would go to your fundamental view of when the use of force is necessary. I personally don't like the use of our military forces, but I recognize that from the stand point of our national interests, we have to use force sometimes. The issue with Sadaam was one of those occassions, in my view.

That it dragged out so long was the result of the fact that Sadaam and others knew they could manipulate the divisions in the West and in America in particular to get away with a lot. If just all of NATO had stood firm (France and Germany) in 2002, there probably would have been no need for 2003. Sadaam and Sons, INC. would be sunning in southern France today.

Originally Posted by Chan

I'm well aware of that - I was in the Gulf War! It's not relevant because, again, the United States had no business being over there.

Thank you for your service. I know it was a sacrifice, but it is really appreciated, whatever disagreements we may have. In fact, in part because you did serve we can disagree, and agree.

From a national policy stand point, I have to disagree. Despite the losses we suffered, freeing Kuwait and trying to maintain the terms of the cease fire were good policy.

Originally Posted by Chan

That you made such a remark shows you didn't really pay attention to what he said and most definitely didn't pay attention to the context of his statement.

No, I did read the entire statement three times and have thought about motivations, etc. I am really concerned about the Rosie O'Donnell-like aspects of what he said. Maybe he was just trying to get in some digs and stand out and apart from the "front runners..." but it was unnecessary at best; a stab in the back at worst. Just my perception.

Originally Posted by Chan

Ron Paul is on the side of THE CONSTITUTION! Only enemies of the United States would not be on the side of the Constitution.

I'm sure he is. What I said, I said with maybe some of the hyperbole that you mention. It's just that I am concerned about how, or if we stand together as a country. All of the paranoid conspiracy stuff makes us look even more divided than we really are.

And, no. The United States did not "deserve" 9/11. To the extent that "we brought it upon ourselves," the examples cited by RP do not warrant the deliberate targeting of 3,000 civilian lives. There are ways to fight back in this world, and when it's the US you are fighting, those ways can be very financially rewarding to the "other side."

Look at Germany and Japan. Russia should have pleaded mea culpa in 1990 and we would have poured even more billions into that country than we already have. The fact that our "defeated enemies" are doing so well, says a lot about us and our military (your hard work included). We should emphasize that message.

God bless.