Thread: Rudy Giuliani Vs. Ron Paul and Reality

Wed May 16, 12:29 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070 ... n/45195576

The Nation -- Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.

The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 19s were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is 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."


Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."

Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 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 withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.


The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."

Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the text message voting, here were the results of last night's debate. Paul came out on top of Giuliani:

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyy Paul !!!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

FOX News asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night's First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina's Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.

• Did You Miss the Live Broadcast? Click Here to Watch the Entire Debate on FOXNews.com.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.

You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results

— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

While i completely agree with Mr PAuls statement I think that he totally shot himself in the foot last night and I'm sure he will be lambasted by the talk shows today.

While I admire Guilianni for carrying the NY city through the 9/11 crisis, I don't want him as our President. He's too domineering and snippy. He reminds me of Bush Senior. I never liked him either. Always seemed to be looking down on others and cranky.

Just my opinion...

I totally DISAGREE with Paul's statement, and was glad Giuliani mentioned something. However, up to that moment, I felt Paul was doing the best out of all the candidates. I wish Hunter would have gotten more attention, as well as Tancredo. I didn't care too much for the debate.

I thought Dr. Paul's comments were the highlight of the evening. Finally, someone with enough balls to tell the American people the truth! I'm sure he'll be pilloried by the talking heads, but that's OK, they only show their lockstep ignorance when they do.

Originally Posted by TyRANTosaur

I totally DISAGREE with Paul's statement, and was glad Giuliani mentioned something. However, up to that moment, I felt Paul was doing the best out of all the candidates. I wish Hunter would have gotten more attention, as well as Tancredo. I didn't care too much for the debate.

DITTO

he lost my support.......I'm sick of the BLAME AMERICA CROWD
Especially those who have little to no knowledge of the history concerning this serious issue.

Futhermore, seems that this 'crowd' never blinked an eye concerning KLINTON"S massive SCREW-UPS while the ever increasing muslim attacks upon Americans and our Military grew.

SOMALIA anyone????? USS COLE?????

Tancredo & Hunter will retain my support.

While Paul's comment's regarding Iraq last night may be true to a certain extent, I don't think it was to his advantage to take the position he did in blaming the United States for 9/11. A comment like that may be considered acceptable to a liberal viewing audience, but as a Republican - my sense is he put is foot in his mouth. It's still early though, plenty of time to recover from the blunder. I'm sure others will follow the same path (put foot in mouth) repeatedly before it's all over.

I agree with TyRANTosaur, Hunter and Tancredo were minimized once again. I think they both did an excellent job with what little time they were given though. Furthermore, Tancredo did an excellent job of calling a turkey a turkey last night (referring to the issue flip-floppers on stage).

I've yet to figure out the hold Guilianni seems to have over so many conservatives. The man is a liberal attempting to dress himself as a conservative. Why can't the rest of America see it?

Just my opinions.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

To think that our presence there had no bearing on the motivations for terrorist actions is a bit short-sighted, IMHO. I don't 'Blame America First', and neither did Dr. Paul, but to ignore the reality of the 9/11 Commission's findings is folly.

Ronald Reagan was right. We should have STAYED OUT after the fiasco in Lebanon. That we didn't was a mistake that we should own up to, and never repeat.

*Edited to add that after Reagan it was Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush that were responsible. No one is giving Bill Clinton a pass.

I'm already wearing my Ron Paul 2008 T Shirts at work, if nothing else than to spark the conversation that he is totally opposed to amnesty of any sort.

I've gotten into three conversations today and funny how I have not yet met one person that is pro amnesty. Even minorities that come in my store are ticked off with the current state of "invasion".

Ron Paul's answer last night was correct. And if the US could stop meddling in everyone else's business and worry more about securing our own borders; this nation might have a chance.