Video:Guiliani Responds to Ron Paul’s Statement that We Invited 9/11, 2nd GOP Debate
Written by Brandon on May 15, 2007 – 10:48 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Here is the clip of Ron Paul’s outragous statement and Guiliani’s response. Guiliani may be wrong on abortion but hearing the “blame America” rhetoric from Ron Paul was way past disappointing. Be sure to read Gop3.com’s summary of the debate drama from Katie Wycklendt.
HT: FullosseousFlap
For a more lighthearted jab, I definitely enjoyed this line from Mike Huckabee:
“We had a congress that spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.”
- Wednesday Hero: Chief Warrant Officer 2 Christian P. Humphreys - December 17th, 2008
- Awesome George W Bush Matrix Shoe Dodger Animated Image - December 16th, 2008
- Rep. Paul Ryan Doubles Down With a Second Bailout Failure - December 12th, 2008
- Bailouts Fail Already, More Than Half of Homeowners Back in Default - December 8th, 2008
- Wednesday Hero: Spc. Matthew T. Morris - December 3rd, 2008
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage |
May 15th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
That Huckabee line was the most amusing of the night. It’s a shame that his campaign has been poorly organized so far, otherwise he’d be one of those so-called top tier candidates already.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Sorry, man, but Paul was right. The U.S. foreign policy for the past 50 years has angered a lot of people around the globe. That anger can be organized by a kindred soul with a lot of money. Enter bin Laden. Read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and you’ll know the truth.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:11 am
[...] Watch the video, watch Rudy’s thumb on the podium - he is mad, he holds a strong belief, and he has the personal experience to back up his emotion. [...]
May 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Ron Paul does not “blame America” and his comments were not outrageous. He said there are consequences to our foreign policy actions. To argue otherwise is to argue that we live in a vacuum. Sean Hannity republicanism is not what this country needs. Republicans lost in 2006 on the war issue. Ron Paul agrees that if we are going to fight a war in the Middle East, let’s fight to win. The first step, is to actually declare war.
Extended video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk334TbliaY
Sean Hannity and Ron Paul (45 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY&mode=related&search=
May 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Ron Paul on Iraq
In his own words at the debate, last night:
“In 2002, I authored an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and nobody voted for [declaring] war. My argument there was: If we want to go to war and we should go to war, then Congress should declare it. We don’t go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea because those wars never end.”
“Ronald Reagan in 1983, sent Marines into Lebanon. And he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, 241 Marines were killed and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs: “I said I would never turn tail and run but I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics†and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.”
Taken from 1:23 into the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WobzdQ4a_4&watch_response
The clip is a condensed version of everything said by Ron Paul during the debate. Dr. Paul talks about everything a conservative should love and he has a record of always backing it up, no empty rhetoric.
I think the best illustration of the Ron Paul “gift to Guiliani” fallacy is:
Event One: United States installs the Shah in Iran, angering Muslims
Event Two: American hostages are taken in Iran
Event Three: Someone suggests maybe the two events are related
Event Four: Sean Hannity et. al. breathlessly asks “Are you saying America invited the hostage crisis??”
The Middle East is a very complex issue. If we want to have a war on terror, let’s declare war. It is the constitutional thing to do.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Sadly, Chuck, it doesn’t matter anymore. The message voters will probably take away from that exchange is that Giuliani is strong on terror, while Paul is anti-America. That’s not necessarily reality, but that’s what’s being said.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
[...] Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric. « Video:Guiliani Responds to Ron Paul’s Statement that We Invited 9/11, 2nd GOP Debate [...]
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Paul had a Point
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120360.html
The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the second GOP presidential primary debate has been striking. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists’ willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.
…
But to suggest that we shouldn’t even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise by attempting to define them as the lunatic fringe of political debate is not only ignorant, it’s an embrace of ignorance—a refusal to even hear ideas that might challenge your own perspective.
If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there’s a hornets’ nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn’t make sense to forge out looking for hornets’ nests, taking wild smacks at them with sticks anywhere you can find them. You’re bound to get stung again.
It also makes sense to see if there’s something you’re doing that’s attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you’re rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place, and you’re sensibly trying to prevent it from happening again.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:27 am
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/110/7629/ron.asp?nid=7629&wid=110
Ron Paul and Patriotism
A good read
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
…
Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.”With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.
…
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.
The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.
All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:17 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkfg0PixtnU&NR=1
A worthwhile video from May’s GOP debate.