Ron Paul at the 10/9/07 Republican Debate
If you’re like me, you didn’t get a chance to watch the actual 2 hour debate on CNBC because you have the most minimal cable package possible. CNBC was supposed to stream it live and have it available afterward, but I couldn’t find it anywhere on their site, and the clips I did find were encoded in cringe-worthy windows media and didn’t work at all.
So thank God for YouTube. Posted above is everything Ron Paul had the opportunity to say. Notice it’s only 7 minutes out of the 2 hours.
I was very pleased when Ron Paul came out passionately swinging at Romney’s remark that he would have to “consult his lawyers” about pre-emptive war with Iran. It’s rare you see a politician have the courage and conviction to show a little outrage and anger.
You can also find the full transcript of the debate here.
Once again, Giuliani takes “Most Incompetent Smug-Faced” award.
Let’s see what he said.
- “And the point of — I think it was Congressman Paul made before — that we’ve never had an imminent attack, I don’t know where he was on September 11th.” In his rush to bring up 9/11 yet one more time, Giuliani forgot what the word imminent actually means. Besides the 9/11 commission report, maybe he should consult at a dictionary.
An attack on the twin towers was not looming over us like a black cloud. It was not in any way “imminent”.
- “…well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan…” This in response to Dr. Paul saying that it was no country that attacked us on 9/11, but 19 thugs.
Pakistan? Really? So why aren’t the war hawks gearing up and calling for strikes against Pakistan? And didn’t half of those thugs come from Saudi Arabia? What do they want to do about Saudi Arabia? Or are these countries just not as easy to vilify as Iran?
Timothy McVeigh, in Kansas, rented the truck he used to bomb the building in Oklahoma City. Should we have bombed Kansas? Maybe a pre-emptive strike could have stopped that “imminent” attack. I think the whole was also planned in the state of Kansas, so that’s another strike against that obviously hostile territory.
I think my favorite Dr. Paul quote of the night was: “Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn’t know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn’t know about it.” And when he said the words “Washington, D.C.” he gestured toward his fellow debaters. Since he was on the very end of the stage, it was very easy to include them all in his subtle condemnation. Classic.
(Yes, some of them are not D.C. politicians, but they all denied that there was a recession or that the economy was headed toward one. But it’s inevitable given our monetary policy, as Dr. Paul pointed out.)
Don't forget to subscribe to my full RSS feed to get daily updates of this blog!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Matt,
Thanks for posting this. I enjoy watching this from the sidelines and Ron Paul almost - almost - makes me want to vote this time!
Lee
I’m in almost the same boat as you! I actually resolved not to vote, but the longer this goes on, I might eventually give in to the temptation when the time comes!
For someone who says he doesn’t endorse anyone for President, you sure seem to cheer for Paul a lot. I don’t have a problem with you supporting Paul, mind you…but if you’re gonna do it…just do it.
An attack on the twin towers was not looming over us like a black cloud. It was not in any way “imminent”.
You’re kidding right? All those other terrorist attacks leading up to the twin towers were just a bunch of coincidental isolated incidents? Muslim Extremists haven’t been calling the US “the Great Satan” and calling for jihad against us for decades? 9/11 wasn’t “imminent?” Do you expect the terrorists to openly declare war on us before attacking…oh wait…they DID. And they’re STILL at war with us…just ask them.
Pakistan? Really? So why aren’t the war hawks gearing up and calling for strikes against Pakistan? And didn’t half of those thugs come from Saudi Arabia? What do they want to do about Saudi Arabia? Or are these countries just not as easy to vilify as Iran?
Again, I must assume that you are being facetious. You honestly cannot see the difference between individual citizens of a nation acting without government support or sanction and those who’s activities are actively condoned and supported by the government? By your theory, the US government should have bombed Washington DC for Timothy McVeigh’s attack. Kansas isn’t a nation.
You don’t remember the weeks we waited after requesting for the Afghan government to arrest and extradite the terrorists? You don’t remember the Taliban basically telling us to pack sand? You don’t remember the President telling them that if they continue to support Al Qaida that we would construe that as being “with them” and, therefore, our enemy? We didn’t just arbitrarily attack a peaceful country. They were harboring, supporting, aiding and abetting an entity which had declared war on and attacked us. The Pakistani government cooperated with us. The Afghan government cooperated with an enemy sworn to destroy us. Yes, most of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. And your point is? If they had the support of Saudi Arabia…why were they based in Afghanistan? Sure, some citizens of Saudi Arabia strongly support the terrorists…but the government does not. We should attack the government because they don’t have total control over what the citizens believe and do? We’d better declare war on ourselves then.
I was point blank about how I would cheer for him while he kept his message on target, because no one else has his message. If someone else did, I would be cheering for them as well. I’d prefer it if I didn’t have to rest most of my hopes on the abilities of one man. Thankfully, this so-called revolution in thought would continue in some shape or form even if Paul dropped out, so I’m not too invested.
I probably wasn’t too clear. An imminent attack, as the neo-cons are using the word now, is an attack that we can see coming and have a clue as to when and where it will happen. Troops are gathering, armies are shuffling, etc. 9/11 was not an imminent attack the same way Pearl Harbor was not an imminent attack. We were completely caught off guard in both cases.
Should we have been? The FBI apparently had the right intel to put the pieces together for 9/11. But they didn’t, and competency of government is a different topic altogether.
Under the Constitution each state has it’s own form of sovereignty. But again, that’s another topic.
I can see the difference. I just mentioned it to call out the absurdity and inconsistency of the neo-con reasoning. Pakistan is not very pro-western, and they even have nukes. So why are we focusing on Iran ? Because they’re easier to vilify with such a crackpot as President. But the Iranian people themselves are some of the most pro-western people in the Middle-East.
I’m not criticizing our entry into Afghanistan. They really gave us no choice. (Although I will say that this is just “blowback” as defined by the CIA. We’ve been over there in the Middle East for years, so of course we’re going to have enemies. And we keep making more enemies with every passing day.)
So? They have NUKES! We can’t allow anyone in the Middle East to have nukes, according to the neo-cons (except of course Pakistan and Israel.)
It’s very arrogant to dictate and police policy in the Middle East when we show such obvious favoritism to those nations who suck up to us.
Reverse it. Should be we punish a nation’s citizens for something it’s government believes and does? Again, the Iranian people themselves are some of the most pro-western people in the Middle-East. They don’t respect or take their president very seriously. But they would certainly unite behind him if attacked or invaded, the way we united behind Bush the months after we were attacked.
I’m glad we aren’t going into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But we have a very real chance of going into Iran, when the reasons for doing so are just as spurious. We don’t learn from history, not even recent history!
We need to draw the line and adopt a more humble foreign policy.
Thanks for your comment, and forcing me the clarify what I meant.
And thank you for clarifying.
Pakistan already has nukes…you can’t put the genie back into the bottle. Perhaps we erred in “letting” them acquire them in the first place, but that’s a moot point. We are where we are.
Pakistan’s government is not calling for the extermination of the Israeli people or the pushing of the Israeli state “into the sea”. Pakistan’s government is not actively supporting, training and equipping terrorists. Pakistan’s government has not declared themselves to be the enemy of the US and called for attacks on US interests and allies.
Saying that our objection to a Nuclear Iran is simply because it’s “easier” to vilify a nutjob like Ahmadinejad is a gross oversimplification. It’s not that it’s “easier”…it’s that it makes sense to object to a country run by a dangerous, racist, narcissistic lunatic obtaining the means to wipe entire cities off the map at a single stroke. Especially when the aforementioned lunatic has made no bones about the fact that he hates us and our allies and supports those who have attacked us in the past and have expressed a dedication to doing so again in the future.
Your characterization of an attack on the government of Iran is sophistry. Eliminating a threat is not “punishment”. Iran can avoid an attack by ceasing the threatening activity. Should they continue the threatening activity, any attack would be designed to eliminate that threat, not to punish, and our efforts against Iran would be directed against the government, not against the people. Would there be collateral damage? Of course. But any attack will be designed to minimize that collateral damage and the US military has become quite adept (relatively speaking) at doing so.
I truly wish that Mr. Paul’s ideal of the US staying out of foreign affairs was plausible in this day and age. Perhaps if we disengage slowly enough and in such a manner as to not leave our allies defenseless, we could reach that ideal in a couple of decades. But we must face the realities of the world as it exists today, not pine for how great things would be had we never gotten ourselves into this mess.
As the world exists today, the US is hip-deep in matters international and there are significant numbers of people who hate us for it…who hate us enough to go to any lengths to punish us for perceived wrongs. We cannot simply play turtle, pull our head into our shell and hope they leave us alone. I do not believe that they will. And I believe that, even if I thought they might, the risk is too great to take that for granted.
We are where we are. How we got here and whether we should be here or not doesn’t change where we are.
That deserves a longer and more attentive response than I can give right now. I’ll give my response in a post next week so both sides can get the fullest potential audience I can give them.
Thanks for your participation.
[…] quotes are from Sailcurt’s final comment from the Ron Paul at the Debate […]