FOX Republican Debates!

[ReformedDave]

From Jim Bovard's Blog-

Wednesday 16th May 2007
Ron Paul’s Radical Mix: Truth & Politics
7:38 am | Bovard | Bush | Attention Deficit Democracy | Comments: 0

Hats off to Ron Paul for another great performance in the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina last night.

For almost six years, politicians have acted as if it is federal crime to speak bluntly about 9/11. On the day of the attacks, George Bush proclaimed that the hijackers attacked because they hate America for its freedom. This has been treated as a revealed truth ever since. (When I saw Bush on TV that day, I was perplexed how the US government could know the motive before it knew the identity of the hijackers).

Ron Paul has never kowtowed to this dogma, and last night he deftly debunked the 9/11 catechism. From the transcript:

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?

****

Giuliani’s snort is the best answer the Republican establishment can offer for the hard facts that Paul presents.

But such snorts will not be enough to perpetuate Republican control over the American people.

Ron Paul is the type of candidate that the Founding Fathers envisioned - someone who cherishes the Constitution and understands why it leashed politicians in perpetuity

[Digging4Truth]

2 Question addressed to Ron Paul.

It was a question concerning what areas of government he would cut out etc. The question was asked of another candidate and then addressed to Ron Paul.

Answer
I'd start with the departments. The Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security. The Republicans put in the Department of Homeland Security. It's a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it is unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods & the hurricanes.

So, yes, there's a lot of things that we can cut. But we can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend 100's of billions of dollars overseas and spend 100's of billions of dollars on a welfare state and entitlement system that has accumulated 60 trillion dollars worth of obligations and think that we can run the economy this way?

We spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly 3 billion dollars a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption and we can't afford that. We can't afford it as a government and we can't afford it as a nation.

So tax reforms shoud come but spending cuts have to come by changing our attitude about what government should be doing for us.

Additional question asked...
You would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security in the midst of a war sir?

Answer
Well I think we should not go to more bureaucracy. It didn't work. We were spending $40 Billion on security prior to 9/11 and they had all the information they needed there to deal with the threat. It was inefficiency. So what do we do? We add on top of that a gigantic bureaucracy that they're still trying to put together along with a tremendous increase in funds.

So I don't think that the Republican position ought to be more bureaucracy. Why did they double the size of the Department of Education? (Bell rang... time up)

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Dora

Did you watch the FOX Republican Debates?

Ron Paul is some kinda NUT!

Who do you think won the debate.

I loved the comment Mitt Romney made about John Edwards "Raising taxes like John Edwards in a beauty salon."

Also enjoyed Rudy Guilliani's reaction to Ron Paul's statement that America "deserved" 911.

I'm all for waterboarding these radical jihadist.

McCain makes me nervous...he's been two-faced in the past.


Wish Condolesa Rice would run.

What has McCain been 2-faced on?

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Kutless

What has McCain been 2-faced on?

I guess because he has agreed with liberals at times, I call that being balanced? Some say 2 faced????

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!

Are YOU serious??????????????????????

PLEASE tell me you are joking?????????????????????????

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Are YOU serious??????????????????????

PLEASE tell me you are joking?????????????????????????

He is joking. He is PCI but not crazy!

[Steve Epley]

After hearing the debate there is NOT one of these guys I would waste my time going to the polls to vote for.
The top three are Democrats and most of the rest are LULUs.

Where is Fred Thompson? You Tennessee guys get busy.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

After hearing the debate there is NOT one of these guys I would waste my time going to the polls to vote for.
The top three are Democrats and most of the rest are LULUs.

Where is Fred Thompson? You Tennessee guys get busy.

I will be pesonally working for his election if and when he announces. The word is that he is announcing in July but I hope he moves it up.

Since none of the other canidates have "caught fire" I think Fred could step in and wipe them out pretty quickly. He may be waiting though so he doesn't peak too soon.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Whats so nutty about Ron Paul? Just because he said America deserved 9-11? Personally I do grieve over such tragedy. But America deserves far more than that. Her judgement will stun and shock us when it comes in fulness.

He didn't say that America deserved 9/11, he said that America's foreign policy, particularly its decades of butting its nose in the Middle East, is why the terrorists hate America and why they carried out 9/11.

Originally Posted by CC1

Dora,

You have gone and done it now. There a couple of Ron Paul fans on here who have not realized yet what a nut he is. I hope they watched the debate if his true colors came out.

He did quite well in the debate.

Even many of his rational stands would not work. He is an "isolationist" Republican who believes if you ignore the rest of the world they will just go away and leave you alone. Wrong!

Would not work? Why? Because you want big brother government running your life for you and want America to continue butting its nose in other nations' affairs? The FOUNDING FATHERS warned against foreign entanglements and Ron Paul holds the same position they did.

I did not watch the debate because it is WAY too early in my opinion to be thinking about the 08 election.

Then you have no basis on which to say whether "his true colors came out" whatever those are supposed to be!

I do follow politics avidly though and no doubt Mitt Rommney is the most polished and Presidential looking and acting. If only he were not a Morman. That really bothers me. Also the fact that he is a recent convert to social conservatism and I have a feeling that is just so he can win the Republican nomination. He was very much pro abortion until just a couple of years ago.

Romney is the most polished and, as is so typical of the stupid sheeple that call themselves Americans, they'll vote for someone like him exactly because of his polished looks and mannerisms.

He and Rudy J. would both be much better than any Dem running but it would sure be hard for me to have to vote for a social liberal.

Any of the 10 candidates would be better than any of the Democrats!

The debates don't matter anyway because Fred Thompson is going to enter the race by sometime in July and shake everything up!!!!

So the Republicans can only hope!