May 15, 2007

Giuliani Wins, But Paul Threw The Game

Team Rudy should send a hundred roses to Ron Paul -- yellow roses, of course -- after the Congressman essentially tossed the debate to Giuliani. Rudy had a pretty good night going anyway, but when Paul as much as said that the terrorists had a point in killing 3,000 Americans, Rudy let fly with the righteous indigation that an entire nation was busily hurling at their television screens.

Ron Paul -- the Black Sox of Republican debaters.

Rudy needed a good night after a lackluster first debate, and he got it. He also managed somehow to be the only candidate to criticize a Democrat on specific policy stands. However, he wasn't the only candidate who benefitted. John McCain did considerably better than his Angry Man performance in the first debate, coming across as measured and poised. Mitt Romney continued to show that he has mastered the format. Even Mike Huckabee, who got the biggest laugh, scored more substantially on the issue of life and made himself look presidential. Duncan Hunter got kept off camera but showed his credentials when he got the opportunity.

As for the others, they did less well. Tancredo had trouble putting together a complete sentence and seemed rattled for most of the evening. Tommy Thompson was a rock -- in that he barely moved all night long. He did better than last time, but he had nowhere to go but up. Jim Gilmore spoke longer while saying less than almost anyone on stage.

But the Buffoon Of The Year award goes to Ron Paul. His contention that America deserved the 9/11 attack should end his political career. Hopefully it will convince the next forum to exclude him from the proceedings. Paul made everyone else look tolerable, and had most of us yearning for a vaudeville hook.

Don't forget to tune in to Debate Central!

UPDATE: Don't miss Michelle Malkin's live blog and big wrap-up. She makes a point that I had meant to address, which is the superior performance of Fox. There is no comparison between Brit Hume and Chris Matthews, and the two networks as well. This was crisp, sharp, with germane and substantive questions and a minimum of silliness. The MS-NBC forum was so silly that it almost defied description. Perhaps the Democrats should reconsider their allergy to Fox.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/9982

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Giuliani Wins, But Paul Threw The Game:

» GOP presidential candidates: The 2nd debate (LIVEBLOGGING - REFRESH OFTEN FOR UPDATES) from Sister Toldjah
We’re one hour away from the second debate amongst the GOP presidential hopefuls. Tonight’s debate, hosted by Fox News and moderated by Brit Hume (yay!), takes place at 9 ET in Columbia, SC at the Koger Center on the campus of the Univers... [Read More]

» Giuliani Notes: Rudy Wins South Carolina GOP Debate from FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
So, who won tonight痴 debate? Flap will wait for the polls. But, is there any doubt? McCain and Romney were smacking each other and Rudy looked like a President and his throw down of Ron Paul begs to be seen again: [Read More]

» Soundbite Of The Night from Ed Driscoll.com
Mike Huckabee gets on the board: "We've had a Congress that has spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop". Video here--hopefully we'll also see a clip of this moment. Update: Here's the video of Rudy slamming Ron Paul,... [Read More]

» Blogosphere Round-Up: Reactions To Last Night’s Debate from Iowa Voice
I’ll have more commentary on last night’s debate later on, but first let’s check the reaction to … ... [Read More]

» WTW: Ron Paul Joins The Nutters from Pirate's Cove
  Morning, y’all, Jebediah here. I caught some of that thar GOP presidential debate, and I believe that the Democrats have found their new presidential candidate: Ron Paul. See, the nutroots do not like Hillary. They do not want her to be pr... [Read More]

» Ron Paul - Rudy Giuliani Blowback Debate (Video) from Outside The Beltway | OTB
The most interesting exchange from last night’s Republican debates was the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani over the cause of the 9/11 attacks. Paul asserted that they were “blowback” resulting from American interventionis... [Read More]

» Debates, Falwell, Hoohah, etc from The Anchoress
The Debate: No, I didn’t watch the GOP debate. “Too Early, All Pols Go Away” and “Your Endless Campaign Stops Here” are still mantras of the day. But J’s been watching, as have Dean Barnett and Don Surber. Captain ... [Read More]

Comments (100)

Posted by RBMN | May 15, 2007 9:53 PM

Fred Thompson really needs to make up his mind. Fred, if you're going to get in, get in.

You can't easily join this "American Idol" in the middle of the season either.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 15, 2007 10:09 PM

I see Romney again Captain...

Rudy was sharper...

But Romney again shows he has the stuff.

Ron Paul is going to be promoted by Democrats, pushed in polls by Democrats, and encouraged by liberal extremes.

FOX loses in my opinion.

Letting Wendell and Ron Paul take over the debate.

McCain looks old, tired, and cannot hide his liberal mistakes in the past.

Posted by brooklyn | May 15, 2007 10:14 PM

Giving credit to Rudy as well, for wisely ignoring questions challenging his 'conservatism' to rebuking and warning about Hillary Clinton's socialist folly...

The Mayor and Romney would be mighty fine on a ticket.

Thompson and Newt are weak for not getting in...

PERIOD.

i like Newt and Fred, but both have a lot of explaining to do, about their past, including the issues many vilify this President over, such as immigration.

Posted by Yamir606 | May 15, 2007 10:22 PM

Thank GOD for RON PAUL!!!! I 100% support Mr. Paul and ALL of his ideas! YES, we DID bring 9/11 on ourselves by VOTING IN THE WICKED BUSH CLAN who allowed our own government to orchestrate that evil act of terrorism. Folks you have all been fooled into giving up your liberties for security!?!?!? And then have the balls to support the biggest clown of them al, Guiliani!?!?!?! SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Ordinary Coloradan | May 15, 2007 10:24 PM

Guiliani - Paul saved his butt, but as a Pro Choice Gun Control Gay Marriage type, he ultimately will not win the nomination.

Romney - didnt do all that great, but didn't do poorly either. Took a shot at McCain and got clobbered for it.

McCain - gave as good as he got, but went off into tangent land a couple of times. At least no Dr Evil smile tonight. Solid counterpunch with Romney.

Huckabee and Tancredo: Best Lines of the Night. Those will get the air time (Along with the Fred Thompson take down of Micheal Moore).

Others: Didnt hurt themselves but didn't stand out either, still in the hunt for VP or a cabinet position (Hunter SecDef for example).

Brownback need not be there - Romney has his positions covered, perhaps not as genuinely, but Brownback has immigration amnesty weakness, and that means he is on his way out. Best to leave sooner than later.

Tommy Thompson and Gilmore need to go soon, before the next debate. They have nothing to contribute except rhetorical tricks (for which Gilmore got busted), and TMI technobabble (Thompson)

Ron Paul needs to go. Immediately. Like, throw him off the plane with a parachute on the way home tonight. Bye Ron. Ron, you say so many of the right things then start channeling Ward Churchill on 9/11. Its sad.

Posted by HA | May 15, 2007 10:30 PM

I disagree with you about Ron Paul. Ron Paul's position on why we were attacked on 9/11 is correct and supported strongly by al-Qaeda literature and scholarly analysis. The Giuliani/Bush position that we were attacked because we're free is intellectually lazy, and a blatant attempt to take advantage of public ignorance of al-Qaeda.

Posted by Karen Reese | May 15, 2007 10:34 PM

Yamir606 - time to take your meds ;-)

Giuliani wins the debate!!

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | May 15, 2007 10:37 PM

I see the "Truthers" are starting to show up here. Must be closing time at the Kool-Aid bars.

I wonder ... has Ron Paul replaced Chuckles Hagel as the MSM's favorite Republican? After Paul's "Truther" moment tonight, the answer has to be "Yes".

Say ... if Paul would fix up his 'do, he could run with the John "the Breck Girl" Edwards!

Posted by Ordinary Coloradan | May 15, 2007 10:51 PM

HA and other Ron Paulists...

Ever heard of Jihad? Ever read the Koran?

Our presence or absence over there is irrelevant to the threat we pose to the Wahabbists and Salafists.

Our existence and culture, and its omnipresence globally through the triumph of free markets, is a direct and fatal threat to their version of Islam. So they will attack the source of that threat, wherever it is. Bali, Philippines, New Guinea, Thailand, London, the Netherlands, etc.

Remember Salman Rushdie and the death threats that remain in force decades later? Or Daniel Pearl? Or Theo van Gogh and his murder by Islamist terrorists? Or many others. Are you blind or just being deliberately stupid?

You are ignorant (at best) to believe as you do - read bin Laden, read the Koran, read the Imams and the fatwahs they issue. They mean what they say, and I advise you to take them at face value.

Otherwise you are just setting us up to be fat stupid targets for them. And I will not participate in your setting me and my children up to be sacrificed to your naiveté and idiocy.

Posted by ck | May 15, 2007 11:00 PM

Paul said we need to look at what we are doing from the perspective of the people we are doing it to - He said the reason we were attacked was because we were interfering with things we didn't quite understand in that region -
That is the consensus view, yet Giulani calls it absolutely absurd - And you guys think Giuliani won it? Maybe in the republican world - I don't know how - But maybe - But with people who are actually interested in the facts, instead of 'they attacked us for our freedom', then Paul was the one who hit the mark -

Posted by HA | May 15, 2007 11:04 PM

Mwalimu Daudi: Not agreeing with the wildly ignorant "attacked us because we're free" position doesn't make you a "truther" in the sense you mean to imply. I think the US had nothing to do with the attacks, but that the US should be blamed for inciting the hatred of the US in the middle east that led to the creation of al-Qaeda.

Ordinary Coloradan: Neither blind nor stupid. You're insinuating that terrorism is a characteristic of Islam. Fine, hold that opinion, but Islamic terrorism hasn't been around nearly as long as the Koran. It happens to have coincided with the fallout from many US actions- primarily: the two US bases in Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia and strong obvious support for the state of Israel that amount to an interference in Middle Eastern politics. You can argue all you want that the US was right to do this, but that doesn't take away from it's effect on radicalizing many future terrorists. I have no doubt that you, as an America, would feel a desire to fight against the same if it were taking place in America.

Posted by ck | May 15, 2007 11:04 PM

The really astounding aspect of it all is that Captain and a lot of posters here really feel that we were just sitting idly by doing nothing against anybody to make anybody mad, and then all of a sudden out of the blue came terrorism and hatred towards us -

Explanation as to why it happened? Because we are free? Gimme a break - You can't really buy that!! There is a reason why we were attacked - Whether or not we were wrong in what we were doing to incite them is something I will let everyone else judge for themselves - But to sit around and play the innocent ignoramus is helping nobody -

Posted by me | May 15, 2007 11:09 PM

Bring on the liberal trolls...

Posted by Terry Gain | May 15, 2007 11:13 PM

HA is completely correct and completely wrong (as is Ron Paul). In his Declaration of War on America bin Laden did refer to the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia.

But why were they there? They were there to enforce the No Fly Zone which was imposed to protect the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north from Saddam's murdering, stalinist regime.( Over 100,000 Shiites were slaughtered in the aftermath of The Gulf War.)

HA and Ron Paul would re-create America in the image of France - take what you can from the world but bear no responsibility for its condition.

It is precisely what I would expect from the selfish political philosophy called libertarianism.

I see that the Dems have text messaged Paul into the lead. Watch MSM spin this.

IMHO Romney and Guliani come out on top. McCain performed well but his statement that we shouldn't use torture because it will convince our enemies not to use terror is absurd given that the enemy is completely unrestrained by any civilized conventions. He is also mistaken to describe waterboarding as torture. It's scary as hell (and effective) but causes no injury. It is not torture.

I was also impressed by Duncan Hunter but the eventual winner will be one of the big three.

Posted by ck | May 15, 2007 11:19 PM

I love the liberal troll comments - Not because they're true (which would imply some sort of baiting), but because its the easiest way to dismiss a comment you have no logical reasoning to dismiss otherwise -

There is a concept that all humans have to agree on in order to have a rational debate - That is the concept of logical arguments - The concept of non-contradiction. We have to agree on what's logical before we can agree on anything - If you guys find the arguments posted by ck and HA and Paul illogical - explain - otherwise you might as well be referring to yourself when you call people trolls -

Posted by richard mcenroe | May 15, 2007 11:25 PM

RMBN -- The fact that Fred is going around these clown-car 'debates' only makes another selling point for the man...

Posted by ck | May 15, 2007 11:25 PM

Terry - And why were the shiites and kurds in trouble? because we told them to try and start crap with saddam and we would be in there to help them out - then we left them out to dry (the airstrikes hardly helping them much ) -
And before that, why did Saddam have any power in the region whatsoever? Because we gave them military supplies to help rule in Iran -
And why didn't we like Iran? Because we were trying to control their leader before and it didn't work out too well -

See how well our interventionist policies have worked out for us?

Posted by Qwinn | May 15, 2007 11:28 PM

I admit, the trolls are pretty funny.

It amazes me that they don't see the flaws in their own arguments - to wit, if America is to blame as a result of their meddling in the Middle East, why did Spain get bombed? Istanbul? Bali? London? Cairo? Amman? Jeddah? Karachi?

France suffered several major terrorist attacks in the 90's. Even west China is having trouble dealing with Islamic terrorists.

It seems that if the US earned their attack on 9/11, so has pretty much every other country in the world. Who knew they were all setting up shop in Mecca?

Qwinn

Posted by Gary Gross | May 15, 2007 11:30 PM

Frankly, Romney's answers late in the debate were so nuanced that I thought he'd taken debating class from John Kerry.

I also thought that McCain had a smugness about him that was unappealing. His asking "Can anyone doubt that we have too much money in our political system "? will be another reminder why he's totally out of touch with the based. His defense of the 'Al-Qaida bill of rights' was embarrassing.

Ron Paul looked like an idiot, which he is. He made Tom Tancredo look measured & reasonable, no small feat.

The funniest line of the night goes to Huckabee saying that Washington politicians spend money "like John Edwards in a beauty salon."

Rudy's smackdown of Paul was great, making him the obvious winner but the biggest winners tonight were Fred Thompson & FNC.

Chris Wallace & Wendell Goler were great. Thompson also won by not standing in with a bunch of little men biting at Rudy's ankles.

One last note: Jim Gilmore & Mitt Romney give winding, indirect answers, which isn't flattering to them. Worse, it's insulting to the viewer. It's so bad that I no longer can take Romney seriously. He likely did ok for himself tonight with most people but he isn't presidential timbre in my eyes anymore.

Posted by mw | May 15, 2007 11:31 PM

For the love of god Chuck Hagel, get up on that stage.

Posted by Terry Gain | May 15, 2007 11:44 PM

"And why were the shiites and kurds in trouble?"

In trouble? Don"t you mean being randomly slaughtered. Congratulations ck. This is one of the most ignorant justifications I've ever seen for mass murder. And if you think the mass killings started only after GHWB encouraged the Shiites to rebel you know nothing about what life was like in Iraq under this genocidal stalinist regime.

And we supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war because we didn't want Iran (whose population is 3 times the size of iraq) to win.
Am I to suppose you wanted Iran to win?

Typical liberal. No understanding of context.

Posted by ck | May 15, 2007 11:52 PM

Qwinn - there is no logic in your statements -

First off - You refer to Bali, London, Spain, Instanbul etc as having been attacked - presumably (in accordance with your argument) all by the same groups with the same intentions -

That would be incorrect - they were not the same groups, and they did not have the same intentions -

Second of all, you seem to be stating that everyone who says there is A reason why America was attacked (which I guess you are saying there is NO reason why America was attacked), is wrong because all these other countries were attacked too.
But you fail to follow the circumstances around the other country's bombings. Somehow you seem to be arguing that the other country's bombings were done for no reason at all. completely random - check your facts buddy - they all have stated reasons, and they are all different.

Your logic fails - America was attacked for a reason - get over it -

This is what I was talking about with the logical arguments - We need to agree on what's logical - If everyone here can't agree that Qwinn's argument is illogical, then we simply can't debate -

Posted by Ordinary Coloradan | May 15, 2007 11:53 PM

"Islamic terrorism hasn't been around nearly as long as the Koran. "

Thank you. that was jsut what I needed. Enough rope for you to hang yourself.

Maybe you should go play with the truthers and argue about the melting point of steel? You obviously know as little about this subject as Rosie knows about structural engineering, but like Rosie, you don't let that stop you from braying, unaware of the breathtaking idiocy of your statements.

So this is all a late 20th century phenomena - that's what you claim.

Ever hear of Jefferson's report on the Barbary Pirates?

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams even went to London to negotiate directly with the envoy from Tripoli.

Several historians and writers have reminded us recently of the ambassador’s nearly forgotten answer. Fortunately, Jefferson prepared a written report for the government and left other records of the incident. Here’s a description from The Atlantic Monthly in 1872:

“Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

From the Koran, which you obviously have NOT eer read:

Sura 9. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

Pretty clear? And there are others Suras and Hadiths as well. Its very apparent you have not read the Koran (especially the specific verses like the ones cited above and the commentary that backs it up in Islamic scholarship), nor bin Laden's speeches and tracts outside of the dribs and drabs that are published in the US, nor the various polemics and fatwahs that are issued overseas from the Salafist and Wahabbist mullas - and the madrassas as well as the Shia in Iran.

You ARE grossly ignorant, as you have just shown.

Moreover, it seems to be a deliberate ignorance on your part. So that takes it from the folly of honest ignorance into sheer irrational stupidity on your part.

I suggest you seek professional help.

Game. Set. Match.

Posted by MarkJ | May 15, 2007 11:53 PM

"For the love of god Chuck Hagel, get up on that stage."

If God truly loves "Chuckie Cheese," He'll keep the "Nebraska Nabob of Negativism" OFF the stage. I'm afraid Chuck Hagel has forgotten a sage bit of advice allegedly dispensed by one of his illustrious Republican forbearers; namely, Abraham Lincoln.

To wit:

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and think yourself a fool, than to open it...and remove all doubt."

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs | May 16, 2007 12:01 AM

Hunter and Huckabee stole the show, I think. Gotta admit, Huckabee's Edwards in a Beauty Parlor joke was great.

Posted by harleycon5 | May 16, 2007 12:01 AM

Captain I think you are spot on about the debate. Before I even read your comments I thought the very same thing concerning the candidates.
Guliani won this one as he both showed forceful response toward Paul's ridiculous assertion that America is to blame over 9/11.
Despite Fox's poll based solely on text messages that put Paul almost won, being narrowly edged out by Romney, I think Paul was a disaster save his statement that taxes should be "as low as possible".
As for the other candidates I think the other winner was Mike Huckabee, who had the best joke of the night, with his "spends money like John Edwards at a beauty shop" quip. So another contender did indeed take a shot at a Democrat, although in a humorous way.
McCain did well as he seemed more comfortable, but he still didn't appeal to me when he forgot that 3 of the terrorists caught recently were illegals, and with his seeming weakness on interrogation techniques, where he related that we should not set a bad example to our enemies, who in this case could care less about the Geneva conventions.
Romney did as well as in the first debate, with the highlight of the debate being his statement that he would not shut down Gitmo, but rather expand it. This was a conservative statement. However, I did not see anything else that really hit the ball out of the Park over his opponents.

Posted by ck | May 16, 2007 12:06 AM

Terry - I love your ignorant arrogance - really gets my blood flowing =)

First, I don't recall ever justifying mass murder - that would be you justifying this war -

Second of all, you were the one to bring up the specific slaughter of shia and kurds - look up to your last post -

I was replying to your post - it's rather hilarious that you will yell at me for stating something you brought up in the first place - but so be it -

Lastly - I was showing how us interfering has not led to good things for the most part - Giving Iraq weapons was not our only options to reign in Iran - It's the option we went with though - And it backfired in the long run - If you disagree with that, then I'm surprised you wanted to attack Iraq.

I can see this is going to take a turn for the worse - More of these ignorant and asinine comments will start to emerge - and it's not good for my mental health - have fun with your own justifications -

Posted by ck | May 16, 2007 12:10 AM

Re:Ordinary Coloradan
Because we all know the Koran only dates back to 1786

And we also know that the only religious zealot in history that used violence, are those who read the koran -

good argument - you have every right to berate

Posted by Keith C. Kimber II | May 16, 2007 12:17 AM

Ron Paul didn't throw the debate for Guilliani. Infact RudE made himself look like an ass by putting words into Ron Pauls mouth.

He was totally right. But then again how many Americans actually study history.

Posted by HA | May 16, 2007 12:33 AM

“Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’"

Who are you? And how dumb do you have to be to call this terrorism? Think about how many wars can be characterized under this description. Would you call them all terrorist wars?

I think you really show how dimwitted you are by trying to pass this off as a strong link from the Koran to terrorism. No wonder your argument blows- you don't know what terrorism is.

Posted by Rose | May 16, 2007 12:37 AM

Posted by: Ordinary Coloradan at May 15, 2007 11:53 PM

*******************

MAJOR MEGA DITTOS AND KUDOS! Standing "O"!

Ron Paul flushed, he is the Ralph Nader nutjob of the RINOS.

I like seeing so much of McCain and Giuliani - CONFIRMS MY DETERMINATION to NEVER vote for them, or to even vote for someone else to bother cross the street relieve themselves if either of those two were on fire!

Newt, Fred Thompson - please save your money. UGH!

Tom Tancredo did a very good job.

Romney did a very good job. For a blue stater, from this Southern sceptic - but I'm in no mood to gamble, regardless. He will impress a lot who are easily dazzled.

My highest kudos go to Duncan Hunter - consistancy, the border fence in San Diego, authored the bill for the fence - and believes in fighting to win the war, and no ILLEGAL ALIEN amnesty, sanctuary, or "entitlements" - and NO SWAMPING of America by ILLEGAL ALIENS who are FELONS!
QUALITY. This is what I am in search of.

Those who are worried about a fractured GOP not getting behind a single candidate - give us a Conservative like Duncan Hunter, maybe with Tancredo on the ticket.
IF you want a united GOP voting base large enough to win the General Election.

I say it again, RINOS NEED NOT APPLY!

REMEMBER DOLE AND FORD!

BTW, did anyone else see that dispicable ad about 50 minutes after the debates, while the Hannity and Colmes discussions were under way - a retired military officer bashed Bush on the Iraq war for all he was worth, declaring he resigned his commission so he could "speak out" - turned out to be a commercial for McCain.

It was to gag a magot.

Posted by HA | May 16, 2007 12:55 AM

Here's what Michael Scheuer, the former station chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden task force, has to say:

Osama Doesn't Hate Our Freedom: The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society.

How is the United States threatening Muslim lands? The post-9/11 crackdowns on Muslim charities have effectively ended tithing, which is one of the five pillars of Islam; our casual denunciations of "jihad" sneer at a central tenet of the Muslim faith. America supports corrupt anti-Muslim governments in Uzbekistan and China, "apostate" governments in the Middle East, and the new Christian state of East Timor. And, above all, it continues to house occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Posted by Qwinn | May 16, 2007 1:05 AM

ck,

"Somehow you seem to be arguing that the other country's bombings were done for no reason at all. completely random"

Uh, no. I didn't say this. This argument was made only in your own fevered brain.

"check your facts buddy - they all have stated reasons, and they are all different."

Oh, sure, I believe that. They're attacking virtually every single country in the world, and each and every country they've attacked has been attacked for it's own discreet reasons that make those attacks totally and complete justified. That so totally makes sense. How could I not see it?

You're a parody, you know that?

"Your logic fails - America was attacked for a reason - get over it - This is what I was talking about with the logical arguments - We need to agree on what's logical - If everyone here can't agree that Qwinn's argument is illogical, then we simply can't debate"

Right. You certainly pwned me with your brilliant argument that Islam wages terrorist attacks in virtually every country in the world, and they had separate and discrete reasons for doing so in each and every one that makes those attacks justified. But the US attacking Iraq - why, no justification for that at all.

Your logic so pwns reality, man. Seriously. Hats off.

Wow.

Qwinn

Posted by Rose | May 16, 2007 1:13 AM

Posted by: ck at May 15, 2007 11:00 PM


*******************

You need to understand something VITAL to what you said :

"THEIR PERSPECTIVE"...

You CANNOT look at it as "How you would feel IF IT WAS YOU"!

You MUST educate yourself enough to find out WHAT THEIR VIEWPOINT TRULY, REALLY IS, IN FACT.

Ron Paul is wrong because he refuses to get educated and ONLY looks at it "as if America was senselessly attacking HIM.

You need to hunt up some interviews with Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist, and with Bridgette Gabriel, a Middle Eastern lady raised in Lebanon as a Christian.
There are several others.

You need to investigate what ILLEGAL ALIEN MUSLIMS are doing in the European and Asian nations they are invading, multiplying in, and TAKING OVER, and quickly run into a tactic of GANG-RAPING WEATERN WOMEN as "uncovered meat" with a great deal of brutality, mutilation, and even murder, "BECAUSE THE WOMEN DESERVED IT - "ASKED FOR IT" by not being decently dressed by MUSLIM standards and servile enough in demeanor.

What they are doing on Australian beaches and in French suburbs is what they will do to you, WITHOUT a Global War on terror - you know this because THAT is precisely what they do to THEMSELVES in MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS.

This information is available to you on the internet, daily - you are without excuse for DAYDREAMING to yourself that these Muslims have YOUR standards.

Or maybe WE are daydreaming when we assume YOU have OUR western standards.
Frankly, I think THIS is the more likely truth - that YOU agree with Muslim terrorists KNOWING PRECISELY what they are, in all their stoning and limb-amputating, honor killing, judiciary style gory glory.

Ron Paul has as much chance in the Presidential race as a Westerner has of surviving a waltz through Mecca in a bikini, while holding a Holy Bible.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 16, 2007 1:13 AM

Dunno if the debates, if they were judged by how many people actually SAW THEM, would amount to a hill of beans.

In other words? Diehard political wongs will watch. And, only those that regularly watch TV. Another activity that's falling by the wayside.

Yes, at the end of the "debates" ... I'm sure we will see "moments" done as "sound bytes." But I don't see this as being a peticularly good sales venue right now.

My guess, too, is that the field, when we reach election day, will actually be cluttered. I don't think it's going to be a race between two parties. Because both of them are minority parties. And, there's enough money out there to influence everything but the weather.

Some candidates, ahead, will also get better breaks than others. While Iraq looks like a mess.

In HOUSE OF SAUD / HOUSE OF BUSH, there's a reminder than in August 2001; the Saud's were furious with Bush. For making sounds that he was sympathetic to the Israelis. And, less so to the palestinians. So, he back-tracked. And, sent the Saud's a hand-written, two page letter, saying he would mend his ways. And, treat the palestinians better. (OR? The Saud's were gonna raise oil prices.)

We got 9/11. And, UNLIKE FDR, after Pearl Harbor, you have no connection, here, TO A DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.

Instead, the Saud's seems to think they deserve "rewards." While, yes. Things are flying apart in the Mideast. Because with Saddam out of the picture, the world's 2nd largest oil reserves seems up for grabs.

Why did the "Wahabbists" think they'd win? They were sure they'd be left in power in Iraq. Because they enjoyed that position under Saddam. But Saddam wasn't a religous nutter. So, they only wanted him OUT. And, they've gotten a lot of stuff they didn't bargain for.

Ditto, to Bush.

While he has the "surrender attitude" implanted on his administration by JAMES BAKER. In case you didn't know it. That's the Iraqi Study Group's conclusions.

And, we've reached the day that Bush can't have it both ways. With 616 days to go.

Osama IS the House of Saud! Where do you think the funds come from? Who do you think cooked up the idea to export Wahabbism around the world?

And, who do you think is "brewing up the civil war among the palesoolians, huh?" You can run puppets on shoe strings. But the terror that underpins the WHOLE MESs comes from the arabian oil fields. You'd be surprised how "that" money has been ruling America.

There will be a backlash, though.

Posted by Lurker of sorts | May 16, 2007 1:31 AM

Ron Paul supports have been flooding conservative blogs, near spamming really, and them and maybe even the dems are google bombing the after debate polls that are text message things or dial tone choices.

The support levels shown in the after event polls have no relation to the debate performances. The only real thing to be considered is a concentrated effort to skew the results.

One good point tonight is the time was fairly spread among all the players and Rudy wasn't ignored or silenced like in the last session.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 16, 2007 1:40 AM

The percentage of people who watched the debates was very small. And, IF there's an effort to get people to "phone in" ... It reminds me of the times radio stations would do give-aways ... And, some people set up fifteen or twenty phones, with speed dials, because they were so hungry to win. WHO REMEMBERS THEM NOW?

In 1980, when the elder Bush tried to get the debates done his way, there was an interaction between him and Ronald Reagan; where Ronald Reagan's quip became famous: "I paid for these microphones."

Nothing like it yet, here.

But the interesting thing about Ron Paul's remarks is that they are the biggest hit with people who would never vote for him!

So, in an open forum; like primaries that are open. Candidates get support from people way over on the other side. It's called "cross over voting."

By the way, we're six years from 9/11. And, that's the best Ron Paul can do?

The "deserving" part is just silly. We were attacked by the Saud's, who were motivated to destroy us. They use their money on one end. And, their lunatic religion on the other. Will Wahabbism win?

Well, it's six years later, so why not ask?

Posted by convivialdingo | May 16, 2007 2:12 AM

I got the feeling that all the questions directed towards Paul were in the line of "How can you be a Republican?"

Isn't this the Republican party - the party of conservatives?

How can you, on the one hand say "I believe all life is sacred" and on the other hand say "We need to kill more people to make the world SAFER?"

We're not any safer - it's foolish. It's a toxic response to fear. What makes America great isn't fear - it's Crossing the Patomic. It's the battle of Midway, the War of 1812, and the defeat of Hitler.

The Iraq War has nothing to do with those wars - they're not even in the class. It's an unreasoned response, based on lies. It's not a Just War, in any reasonable discussion. That's not to say Iraq was a haven of peace - but our tactics of an all-out war are only leading to a larger threat of growing terrorism. Our own CIA has recently come to the same conclusion.

I supported Bush when we attacked Afghanistan - it was the right thing to do. But where are we headed now?

The only thing that makes us as a People safe is our liberty and freedom. The more we vote against these two inalienable rights the less safe we become. We are safer because we demonstrate to the world that WE THE PEOPLE will die for these ideals. Not just the Army, but all of the Republic. And that means sacrifice.

It's the American way. We may have to die for freedom, but our famlies and children will reap the benefits.

Which brings us about to Islamic Fundamentalism. We can't ignore this - but at the same time a War in Iraq is not the solution. We can't win this battle on foreign soil. And in all honesty I believe the only way to win is to stand for Freedom, respond to threats and attacks, and most of all leave Iraq.

We should leave Iraq because there is no principle reason to continue. We have no further obligation to the people of Iraq, because we have already won their chance for freedom. The operation is complete. Sadaam is gone. Let them win their own freedom now.

And lest we forget - we did not win the Cold war by winning in Vietnam, nor North Korea. We won by sharing our freedom and liberty foremost to the Soviet people. We won by having a strong defence, and extremely prudent use of our offence.

All people respond to freedom and liberty with joy. All people respond to war with hatred and revenge. You can't defeat human nature.

Lastly, Dr. Paul is right - our foreign policy is one (of many) of the causes for 9/11. That doesn't make it any better - but let's at least be honest. Osama stated these same reasons in his 1997 Fatwa against the USA.

Be a Real Conservative.

Posted by DL From Heidelberg | May 16, 2007 2:25 AM

But the Buffoon Of The Year award goes to Ron Paul. His contention that America deserved the 9/11 attack should end his political career.

Not really. The Dems will welcome him with open arms.

Posted by KendraWilder | May 16, 2007 2:28 AM

Totally distracting for me was listening to Brownback, and watching his face, as he answered the questions put to him. I could swear, from his facial expressions and voice inflections, that he must have been cloned from Al Gore.

And can anyone tell me how the heck the good, solid, earthy people from Texas managed to elect one of the dimmist bulbs in the box? Ron Paul came off as though he were a graduate from the Ross Perot school of mangled Libertarian political wannabes.

Romney obviously practiced long and hard to polish his debating skills, and just as obvious was the fact that no one bothered to clue McCain into the annoying aspect of his answering the questions directly to the camera rather than the moderator. Very rude, but an obvious ploy to appear to be speaking directly with the American public.

Giuliani would have been better off just letting things stand. But no, he had to remind people later of his having thrown the Saudi millions back in their supercilious faces, and why. Yes, he was the Man of the Hour during the 9/11 crisis, but reliving those experiences doesn't exactly qualify as resume material. Crisis management is derigeuer for the POTUS, usually executed in Trial by Fire scenarios. Just ask GWB. His liberal social policies are of far greater concern to me.

Jeepers, am I feeling snarky after watching that debate. Are those our only choices?

The big winner was FNC, as others have mentioned. Chris Wallace, Wendell Goler, and Brit Hume were professional and sharp moderators, with well thought out and well asked questions. One of the best Presidential Debate productions I've ever seen.

Just wish there'd been fewer "contestants" so that we could have heard more from Huckabee and Hunter. Maybe next time the Also Ran's will be gone from the picture, freeing up more time for the serious contenders.

Posted by Rose | May 16, 2007 2:43 AM

One of the Fox commentators said this debate shows - BECAUSE NO SECOND TIER CANDIDATE "BROKE THROUGH", IN THEIR OPINION - it is time to trim the debates to the top tier, 3 candidates, and cut off the others, including Ducnan Hunter.

One and one half YEARS before the Election, they want to ARBITRARILY DECIDE FOR US that WE need to choose between only Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

If the GOP stands for that, the GOP will LOSE in 2008.

Good grief!

Posted by Rose | May 16, 2007 3:01 AM

Posted by: HA at May 16, 2007 12:55 AM


LOL! Then explain Paris, peaceful nights being a MINIMUM of 400 cars being burned by "discontented youts" (yeah they want jobs - ON THEIR OWN TERMS - job GUARANTEES in their won languages and at the pay scale THEY demand, without having to prove themselves on the job or earn th eir pay or job security! - plus they are illegal and polygamous in a nation they deliberately infiltrated in order to spread their Muslim faith's DOMINATION) - and some of the Westernized European nations who are friendliest to the Muslims being plagued by illegal alien muslim rape gangs.

Posted by Rose | May 16, 2007 3:14 AM

And can anyone tell me how the heck the good, solid, earthy people from Texas managed to elect one of the dimmist bulbs in the box? Ron Paul came off as though he were a graduate from the Ross Perot school of mangled Libertarian political wannabes.

&&&&&&&&&&

Ron must be from Travis County's district.
Austin, Texas

Posted by don jones | May 16, 2007 4:35 AM

To me, Ron Paul won hands down. He had the GUTS to say that AND factually what he said is very true.

Posted by abwtf | May 16, 2007 5:11 AM

I did a short post of Osama telling us the reasons to attack the United States.

Congressman Paul has a valid position. We can just ignore the Middle East and let whatever happens there happen. Or we can continue to fight for a Middle East that isn't dominated by shira law.

Yes, the terrorists fight us because we are in the Middle East. The same way the Communists fought us in dozens of countries during the Cold War. We stand in the way of their conquest.

I long for the luxury of the 90s when we felt we could ignore fanatical Muslims. I wish I could believe it doesn't matter what happens in the Middle East. I'd love to take the easy way out and say to hell it, let them kill each other.

But I know the price to pay will only be higher.

Posted by Keemo | May 16, 2007 6:27 AM

Don't be surprised by the comments posted here by Liberals. A key component to the Liberal mind-set is to blame America; blame America for everything deemed bad going on around the world. To blame GW Bush for everything is only a temporary dynamic; Bush will leave soon and Liberals will immediately go back to blaming America. Riots in France, blame America; starvation in Africa, blame America; change in weather patterns, blame America; worldwide acts of terrorism by Muslims, blame America....

I know it's hard to believe that these simpletons could be that stupid, that simple minded, that ignorant, that anti-American; just keep reading & listening to their words...

Posted by dano | May 16, 2007 6:36 AM

I don't agree with Dr. Paul but we shouldn't drum him out of the party after all he has many good conservative values on other issues. I'm a Rudy guy because now more than ever I firmly believe that he is our only chance to keep a Republican in the White House

Posted by Lightwave | May 16, 2007 6:38 AM

Hell, even NPR picked up on how Ron Paul is a complete moonbat this morning. Rudy won hands down because Paul turned the debate into "Which GOP candidate has the best national security cred?"

I would have liked to see the Dems asked the same shopping mall attack question. They'd be falling all over themselves trying to say how we'd of course "do whatever it took to save American lives." If they were serious about that, they need to apply the same logic towards staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. But since the Democrats are not serious about anything other than lining their pockets, voters won't take them seriously.

Passing up on the FOX debates will hurt the Dems far more than facing the tough questions. They aren't serious Presidential candidates, which is why the GOP debates are vitally important. They will help determine our next President.

It's important to note that Romney made an excellent point that we need to *expand* Gitmo, not close it. There will not be *fewer* terrorists captured as a result of the war and our increasing effort to defend the US from terror attacks. That's a serious and realistic response on national security. Does anyone think a Democrat would call for more funding for Gitmo?

Of course not. To the Democrats, terrorists are either justified in seeking "redress for grievances" or don't exist at all.

Posted by tommy1nut | May 16, 2007 7:14 AM

lightwave is stoned. The next president is going to be a donkey. after all the screw-ups lies and incompetence the 43 Admin has proven to the general American public people are ready for a change period.

Posted by Immolate | May 16, 2007 7:29 AM

I find it interesting that those who are advocating Ron Paul's point of view are those who seem least likely to be eligible to vote in the Republican primary, and who would almost certainly vote against him if he did win the primary.

That doesn't, in itself, invalidate their opinions, but it does reduce the relevance of their opinion to noise level.

Posted by Instapunk'd | May 16, 2007 7:31 AM

Interesting... you call a win for Rudi, but on what basis?

The Fox poll currently has Romney the clear winner, Paul second and Rudi a way back in third.

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

Other snippet - McCain scored a massive 4% of the votes... not sure how that can be considered an improvement on the first debate.

Which begs the question... Does the Right consider you a serious pundit?

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 7:38 AM

Excepting the embarrassing Ron Paul (why didn't someone drag him off of the stage and stick him in a strait jacket?), the Republican candidates once again showed themselves to be head and shoulders above the piddly, unqualified, unaccomplished lightweights offered by the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

Whomever the Republicans nominate, we need to back him to the fullest. We cannot afford to have Ms. Rodham, Shyster Fop, Esq. or Borat O'Maddrass in the Oval Office.

Posted by Immolate | May 16, 2007 7:44 AM

Liberal 'activists' have rendered any unscientific poll that they are aware of and interested in invalid. While that is chuckle-worthy, it also makes debates regarding the results of these polls pointless and disingenuous.

Posted by Captain Ed | May 16, 2007 7:50 AM

Punked,

They'd take me a lot less seriously if I waved website polls as evidence.

Posted by Terry Gain | May 16, 2007 8:45 AM

You can count the number of likely Republican voters who text-messaged for Paul on one hand.

This is obviously the work of the koskids and the Soroscratic party.

The majority of those likely to vote Republican think Romney won and he did.

You know he was impressive when his opponents' supporters say he was too polished.

Romney - articulate, photogenic (even without a $400.00 haircut), strong and intelligent on what needs to be done to combat Islamofascism and protect the borders, experienced at governing, and a conservative who will appeal to independents and conservative liberals.

Comparing Romney to Kerry is like comparing Ike to Murtha.

Posted by mrlynn | May 16, 2007 9:58 AM

This of course was not a 'debate', but a sort of joint press conference. When we get down to two major-party candidates, I hope we can have some real debates: at least two hours of one-on-one, no questions from anyone.

That said, the Fox News guys did a fabulous job. The questioning was sharp, articulate, fair, and interesting. They sure made the performance by the clownish Chris Matthews and MSNBC look amateurish by comparison. Brit Hume of course is a national treasure, and Fox by now may have the best news time in TV news, period.

No one can 'win' in a show like this, but all except the foolish Ron Paul performed well. I agree with the poster above who noted that the qualities of character and thoughtfulness were head and shoulders about what you will find in a comparable Democrat 'debate'.

While I like Duncan Hunter a lot, I suspect his somewhat dour aspect would hurt him in a TV campaign. Tommy Thompson is full of good ideas, and should be in any Republican cabinet. I would vote for any of these Republicans (except Paul) over any Democrat, but I'm still waiting for Fred Thompson to stick more than his toe in the water.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by mrlynn | May 16, 2007 10:03 AM

Correction: The phrase in my post above, "Fox by now may have the best news time in TV news, period" should have read, "Fox by now may have the best news team in TV news, period."

Oops!

/Mr Lynn

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 10:09 AM

Mr Lynn,

You're correct about this not being a real debate - why don't the Republicans do something about it?

Is there some sort of law mandating this format?

in the general election, whomever the Republicans nominate, should challenge whatever unquailfied lightweight the Democrats offer, to a REAL debate.

No prefabricated, biased and tilted questions coming from a clown like Chris Matthews or some other former Democrat staffer clone.

An actual debate. The sort Democrats flee from screaming, like frightened little girls.

Challenge the Democrat to a REAL debate and call them cowards if they decline.

Posted by Maverick Muse | May 16, 2007 10:55 AM

Sound bite mentality pervades.
Emotional knee jerks automatically dismiss objectivity.
If anyone speaks rationally with historical contextual perspective, that voice gets drowned out by abbreviated mistranslation. Conservatives have pointed the finger at the MSM for this very fault, accepting only sound bites and misquoting in order to ruin the speaker's message and integrity.

Captain, bandwagons may be fun to ride; but popularity rarely if ever aligns with prudence.

BTW,
HA
"The post-9/11 crackdowns on Muslim charities have effectively ended tithing, which is one of the five pillars of Islam"

What about a Muslim tithing to the Red Crescent? Is it your position that a true Muslim may only contribute their tithe to a Muslim charity, not to a non-denominational charity? What of international malaria or aids prevention for CHILDREN at least? What of the March of Dimes or United Way?

Obviously, the disturbing inclusion of jihad as a holy pillar of Islam leads to this criticism:
for Muslims to claim theirs a religion of peace, they must abandon the concept of jihad as a holy pillar upon which they must base their lives, and furthermore, they must stop jihadists themselves. THAT is their responsibility. Those who refuse self-discipline abandon peace.

Which is more precious, peace or jihad?

Long before Bush ran for office, America was stuck between a rock and a hard place. International complications are not understood or solved by sound bites.

Americans at least understand jihad to have eery similarities with ultra fascism. Most Americans realize that the oblivious days of ignorance are GONE as terrorism is today's reality. It would be no surprise in 50 years to read newly de-classified documents showing the Bush offense following 9/11 included notifying jihadists that our reaction to any subsequent plot during the Bush Presidency would be the total annihilation of the perceived/known source of terror. Rumsfeld inevitably carries the burdens for his failures, particularly for pushing our forces faster than outposts were secured. But to his credit, Bush manages yet to prevent another 9/11.


Posted by jay k. | May 16, 2007 11:38 AM

i'd love to see a transcript because I watched and I don't remember Paul saying what you say he said. then again so much of what gets posted on this site is fiction. but i love the comment above about fox, an admitted progandist, being a news organization. what bunk.

Posted by KD | May 16, 2007 12:28 PM

I think its kinda funny to watch the response to Hukabee's comments about Edwards without anyone addressing the core problem of Republican overspending which was the seed problem driving the Huckabee quote.

Overall, the responses from all candidates were poor with respect to the economy, budget, fiscal constraint, and spending issues. They all seemed to be practicing their "war leader" routine instead, merely 6 months after the election day arse-whooping by the majority of voters in this country over war issues.

RIP for the GOP

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 12:31 PM

"i love the comment above about fox, an admitted progandist, being a news organization. what bunk."

So what exactly do you consider a "news organization"? MSNBC - where Democrat Tip O"Neil's Chief of Staff puts forth the questions during these debates?

Or ABC - where former Clinton staffer George Stephanopolous works as a "journalist"?

I'm sure if Republicans in similar positions in network "news" organizations would elicit no howls of outrage from Democrats. No, Democrats would just act on shutting them down, like they do with anyone with the temerity to dissent from Democrat orthodoxy.

Face it - Democrats have monopolized 95% of the media and they are scared to death of the 5% they don't currently control.

The Democrat message is far too weak, unstable and irresponsible to stand up to any sustained scrutiny. That's exactly why Democrats are so petrified and outraged by Fox News and conservative talk radio - they have no confidence in their arguments because when properly examined. the Democrat agenda is too irresponsible, immoral, illogical and too far left to win elections.

Posted by Gloria | May 16, 2007 1:49 PM

Paul certainly didn't say what you or Giuliani are saying he said. That makes you both look pretty dumb.

The CIA's former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, told CNN, "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."

Is the CIA wrong? Is the 9/11 Commission Report wrong? Ron Paul stated the consensus view and Rudy said he'd never heard of it. That shows him to be living in a dream world at the best, really, really dumb at the least.

The facts are on Ron Paul's side, even if the idiots will now vote for Rudy.

Posted by Gloria | May 16, 2007 1:49 PM

Paul certainly didn't say what you or Giuliani are saying he said. That makes you both look pretty dumb.

The CIA's former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, told CNN, "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."

Is the CIA wrong? Is the 9/11 Commission Report wrong? Ron Paul stated the consensus view and Rudy said he'd never heard of it. That shows him to be living in a dream world at the best, really, really dumb at the least.

The facts are on Ron Paul's side, even if the idiots will now vote for Rudy.

Posted by jay k. | May 16, 2007 3:14 PM

nodonkey...
matthews may have worked for tip o'neil but he's no dem and if you watched his show you would know it. i can't speak for geo. stephanopolous because i've never watched his show. i think dick morris was a clinton staffer and he pews republican lies all night long on fox. and you seem willing to ignore that murdoch admitted to fox being a propoganda machine.
as for dems monopolizing 95% of the media. got any facts to back it up? or aren't you interested in facts?
as for messages that don't stand up to scrutiny i only have to refer you to the republican message made up wholly of straw-men, hyperbole, half-truths, outright lies and fear-mongering and the vast conservative leaning media that acts as it's stenographer...you know...like judith miller of the ny times or bob woodward of the wa. post..

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 3:32 PM

"matthews may have worked for tip o'neil but he's no dem"

Oh please. Matthews worked for one of the top Democrats in Congress, parlayed it into a media job, but he's "no Dem". Sure, and neither is Ted Kennedy. I'll buy that.

"if you watched his show you would know it."

I would rather be flogged than watch Matthews' show or any other news show on TV. They're produced by and watched by cretins, hate to break it to ya'.

"you seem willing to ignore that murdoch admitted to fox being a propoganda machine."

Because he never said that.

"as for dems monopolizing 95% of the media. got any facts to back it up? or aren't you interested in facts?"

Well, they have every single daily newspaper in the country, the three networks, PBS, NPR and most of cable news. That's a fact.

But boo hoo, Democrats can't control Fox News and talk radio. If not for that, everyone would be a Democrat right? It's just that 40% of the country are being lied to, right? We'd all swallow higher taxes, the surrender strategy and the welfare state, if it weren't for those meddling kids, right Scooby Doo?

Posted by PAULQX | May 16, 2007 3:49 PM

The right wingers have gone so far off the deep end that truth is now a bad thing to them. "Truther" is an insult for people who just want to be left alone to beleive their own violent fantasies in peace. Thus the negative reaction to anyone writing in with a difference of opinion who are "trolls".

Posted by jay k. | May 16, 2007 3:50 PM

nodonkey...
you are full of irrational rant, completely devoid of rational facts. but that's the way of the so-called conservatives these days.
asked if fox had managed to shape the agenda on the war in iraq answered; “no, i don’t think so. we tried.”

Posted by jay k. | May 16, 2007 4:00 PM

paulqx...
the funny thing is that the so-called republicans have become so free of independent thought that they all have to use the same insults. it's hard to believe how programmed they have all become. it used to be a pretty good party.

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 4:09 PM

Ok jay k, you are the picture of rationality, once you get past all of the misspelled/misused words, atrocious grammar and maintaining that a guy who was the Chief of Staff for the House Democratic Majority Leader, could not possibly be biased.

Yes, Fox News is SO much worse than the other news channels. Completely different. Utterly different. Because you say so.

"asked if fox had managed to shape the agenda on the war in iraq answered; “no, i don’t think so. we tried.”

What exactly is this saying? Do you even read (or can you even read) what you cut and paste from your little leftwing cabal websites?

Posted by jay k. | May 16, 2007 4:20 PM

i didn't say matthews isn't biased. i said he leans republican. most people change...in his case, for the worse.
and fox isn't worse because i said so, they are worse because murdoch himself said so. "asked if fox had managed to shape the agenda on the war in iraq MURDOCH answered; “no, i don’t think so. we tried.”

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 4:34 PM

jay k,

I noticed you have no actual link.

That's because the only place where your "quote" exists, is on far left web sites.

Strange that no major media decided to pick this "quote" up. Because it would be a real story. But it's not, because it's a lie.

Matthews is a far left Democrat. He was completely distraught when Kerry lost in '04, I remember being gleeful over how obviously upset he was. Every question he posed the Republicans during the debate, came from the left.

I'm not saying that Fox is any better than the rest of the media - just that they're not any worse. They are all about the same, and that Democrats so vilify Fox just proves that they are intolerant of anyone or anything that questions leftwing orthodoxy.

So do you think Fox should be banned from the airwaves, like most Democrats?

Posted by Lightwave | May 16, 2007 4:35 PM

And finally, Hannity decimated Ron Paul's arguments after the debate last night. It was pretty disturbing. Even if you agree with the insane notion that somehow "We deserved to be attacked" because of our post-Gulf War sanctions, nobody can honestly say 9/11 was justifiable in any logical way.

And certainly not any Republican primary voters are going to vote FOR Ron Paul for that reason. It might have been the "Stockdale moment" of 2007.

Posted by Alex | May 16, 2007 4:36 PM

OMG Ron Paul must love terrorists!!! Because, as we all know, saying that something hapenned for a particular reason is the same as 'justifying' it. No, no, our policies in the Middle East had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the 9/11 attacks, because as we all know, the terrorists are pure EVIL and attacked us because they hate our freedom. Because, as we also know, we're the only free Western democracy in the world.

You're right about one thing - Ron Paul is a fool for running on the Republican ticket. Better to let the Kool-Aid drinkers dig their own hole and embrace permanent minority status. Keep it up.

Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 4:42 PM

"Ron Paul is a fool for running on the Republican ticket. Better to let the Kool-Aid drinkers dig their own hole and embrace permanent minority status."

You're right, unless we nominate some dandruffed, insane, tinfoil hat truther, we're sure to be condemned to minority status. Ron Paul is so very electable. Like Gary Coleman. We really missed the boat on him too. Let's not make that mistake twice.

But wait, the Democrats have a well-coiffed, $400 haircut shyster fop, truther candidate to offer.

Shouldn't at least one party NOT put forth the notion that 9/11 was an inside job and all of our fault? For an alternative?

Posted by Qwinn | May 16, 2007 4:50 PM

"No, no, our policies in the Middle East had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the 9/11 attacks, because as we all know, the terrorists are pure EVIL and attacked us because they hate our freedom. Because, as we also know, we're the only free Western democracy in the world."

Hahaha... again, proving my point. No, we're not the "only free Western democracy in the world". And if we were the only free Western democracy in the world suffering from terrorist attacks, you might have a point. But it's precisely the opposite. Virtually every free Western democracy in the world -is- getting hit with terrorist attacks. What does that do to your argument?

How many times do they have to say that their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate for you to incorporate it into your never ending conspiracy theories?

Qwinn

Posted by ck | May 16, 2007 5:22 PM

Qwinn - you're out there buddy -
When you say this: "It amazes me that they don't see the flaws in their own arguments - to wit, if America is to blame as a result of their meddling in the Middle East, why did Spain get bombed? Istanbul? Bali? London? Cairo? Amman? Jeddah? Karachi?

France suffered several major terrorist attacks in the 90's. Even west China is having trouble dealing with Islamic terrorists."

You seem to be implying that spain et al did not get attacked for a particular reasons (e.g. meddling in the middle east) - Therefore, my argument that you are implying there is no set reason for the attacks seems to be valid -

Of course that could just be my "fevered brain" -

Then you go on to use a sarcastic tone (i think) in saying that all the other countries who have been attacked (which, by the way, only a small percentage of the world's countries have been attacked), really were only attacked because of fanatical Islam, instead of the terrorists trying to make some political point -

I think its a silly argument to believe that they only attack because of their fanaticism - Because their fanaticism is bred for political reasons usually -

And you also, and many peopl on this board, take the huge jump when you say that merely because there is a reason they attacked, mean that the people who say there is a reason are saying they were justified -

I have never, and probably will never say that mass killing is justified -

Anyway - yes, you're arguments did not follow any set standard of logic - you based them on nearly nothing except your apparent hatred of a different viewpoint - have fun with that -

But its alright - you are just a kid who wants to feel anger towards me - and that doesn't bother me - pwnt!

Posted by richard mcenroe | May 16, 2007 7:18 PM

ck -- Why have Muslims killed over 400 schoolteachers in Thailand? Why have Muslims detonated dozens of bombs in India? Is for their overwhelming presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by Neil | May 16, 2007 7:27 PM

The Dems support Ron Paul?!! Are you crazy!! Anyone who wants to dismantle the IRS, DHS, and the Dept. of MisEducation is not going to win Democratic support. Ron Paul believes we should stay out of other countries business.He is right, we would not tolerate for a minute a Chinese outpost in the US, our Territories, or in our neighbors countries.

Ron Paul is a solid Constitution following Conservative.

Posted by mark hansen | May 16, 2007 7:30 PM

unfortunately...Paul was voted higher than Rudy

the poll wasn't accurate i suppose, because you don't agree?

mark

Posted by Nick | May 16, 2007 7:55 PM

I wish Ron Paul would stop standing up for the rights of private citizens. He's talking like a politician who hasn't been compromised by special interests and embarassing private situations.

Could we please get some high-quality cocaine from Bush to give to Paul? Along with some of Limbaugh's pills? And maybe a few underage male prostitutes? And where's Blackwater USA and KBR with a few million dollars to prop up Paul's campaign? Let's make him a real neoconservative.

Why hasn't he gone through the same inititation process as the rest of the candidates? This needs to be fixed, Paul needs to be bought out or compromised.

I'm tired of hearing about his opposition to National ID. Have Verichip send him a few hundred thousand.

I'm tired of hearing his antiwar stance -- get a few million from CACI and Dyncorp.

And how dare he state facts that came from the 9/11 Commission. Doesn't he know how to assume general American ignorance and then have his expecations met over and over by Fox News viewers?

Posted by Neil | May 16, 2007 8:06 PM

Another point, anyone who thinks that the current crop of Dem candidates are not for more interventionand war ..just read their statements on Iran and particularly look at Obama's recent foreign policy speech. He even has leading neo-cons impressed.

Posted by Neil | May 16, 2007 8:07 PM

Another point, anyone who thinks that the current crop of Dem candidates are not for more intervention and war ..just read their statements on Iran and particularly look at Obama's recent foreign policy speech. He even has leading neo-cons impressed.

Posted by ck | May 16, 2007 8:20 PM

Richard McEnroe - Look into it yourself if you want to know - I guarantee you, though, that there was a reason besides just being a crazed lunatic - And that's all I'm arguing -

I'm not saying the reason they state is valid or justified, just that there is a reason, and its not 'because we're free' -

Until we can accept that they have reasons for what they do, we will never be able to stop them - Someone else posted on another blog that it's like playing chess - You can't play chess if you are only focused on your pieces - You need to turn the board around and look at it from their perspective, and that's all Paul was saying - It's despicable some of you guys railed on him for it -

Posted by Steve | May 16, 2007 9:08 PM

Wait, so let me get this straight. For all of you that say that Ron Paul was right:

He said in the debate that 9/11 happened because we'd been bombing Iraq for 10 years. That would be 1991-2001. During the majority of those years, who was President? Bill Clinton.

Ergo, Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11, at least according to Paul's logic. So, what you all are saying is that we should be blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11, correct?

Posted by ck | May 16, 2007 9:21 PM

Steve - lol - you're starting to get it -

I really didn't think this was that hard to understand -

Yes, in part, Clinton's foreign policy was responsible for inciting violence against America. But it was not just Clinton's foreign policy; It was the foreign policy we have been practicing and continue to practice. As is evidenced by the rising number of terrorist attacks -

But, if it makes you happy, yes Clinton's foreign policy has surely being a key in inciting the violence we are witnessing -

Bush's foreign policy, though, has not only incited even more violence than Clinton's, but also has turned popular world support into popular world hate. So, which one is good? Neither. Get it?

Posted by mrlynn | May 16, 2007 10:23 PM

Is it my imagination, or has this thread attracted more left-wing trolls than usual?

/Mr Lynn

Posted by largebill | May 16, 2007 10:24 PM

ck,

If you believe our having a foreign policy is the cause of 9/11, you are really mistaken. Actually, take some time to listen to the Islamist's. Their goal is nothing less than world domination. They did not bomb Spain because of Spain's support of our actions in the Middle East. No, they attacked Spain because those goofy b@$***** believe Spain is rightfully their land. You can feel smug in believing the nuts will leave us alone as long as we bury our heads in the sand, but those of us with more than half a brain understand it isn't that easy.

Posted by mrlynn | May 16, 2007 10:26 PM

Is it my imagination, or has this thread attracted more left-wing trolls than usual?

/Mr Lynn

Posted by ck | May 17, 2007 12:06 AM

Hey bigbill - Thanks for the insight - Fortunately I do have both sides of my brain - Also, fortunately for us, we do have foreign policy - Unfortunately for us, the one we are using seems to be inciting more violence than it's solving -

Let me make something real clear - Having a foreign policy is not the issue - lol - Having a non-working foreign policy is the issue -

In regards to the Spanish terror attacks - Something you guys don't pay much attention to, is that it was a collaboration between muslims and non-muslims - You can't pin this one squarely on being muslim. Also, I never attributed the Madrid bombing to our foreign policy - I don't know where you got that from - But you proved another one of my points (i.e. that they have a reason behind there attacks - whether it's valid or not I will not venture into) -

I would also take exception with you saying the 'Islamists' goal is world domination - I don't think that's the Islamists, rather the Islamic Extremists goal - And a pretty ridiculous one at that - It's kind of like evangelists wanting to convert everyone in the world - it's pretty silly - Fortunately evangelists don't terrorize people to do it - yet - )

I don't feel smug in believing that if we leave them alone they will stop - I feel disconcerted that what we have done thus far has created more terrorism than it has stopped. That's all -

Posted by Keemo | May 17, 2007 7:00 AM

A dose of reality.......

Pakistani Christians Seek Government Protection After Threats to Convert by Pro-Taliban Forces

Thursday, May 17, 2007

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Christians in a Pakistani town beset by pro-Taliban militants sought government protection Wednesday, the eve of a deadline for them to convert to Islam or face violence.

About 500 Pakistani Christians in Charsadda, a town in the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan, received letters earlier this month telling them to close their churches and convert by Thursday or be the target of "bomb explosions."

Several Christians, a tiny minority in the predominantly Muslim country, have fled town and others are living in fear, community leaders said.

This is how these people operate; convert to Islam or we will blow you up...

Posted by pacer | May 17, 2007 9:47 AM

First of all, Ron Paul didn't say America 'deserved' to be attacked, or that we 'asked' to be attacked. He simply stated that our foreign policy in the Muslim world has given local support to the minority of extremist Muslims who need someone to blame for why the region lags the rest of the world in virtually every measure of success. Likewise it has made America an easier target. Yes of course the extremists hate our way of life and the fact that we are recently a more powerful people. But this has been the case for hundreds of years. It was not until the 91 Iraq war and subsequent occupation of Muslim lands that folks like Bin Laden were able to convince their followers that the U.S. was in fact out to get all of Islam. Iraq was not the sole cause, but merely the tipping point for someone like Bin Laden to gain traction with a few of the least informed people in the region.

If any of you truly want America to be safe, to end the wasteful and self-perpetuating cycle of war begetting more war, you can't believe the way to achieve that is to continue provoking the masses of Islam. Most people desire peace until they feel threatened; the same is true of ordinary Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, et al. We have to stop giving them proof that we are a threat to their lives and property.

Guys like Giuliani make us less safe because he knows only how to call names and punch someone in the mouth. That wouldn't work in any neighborhood (bullies always lose popular support and are betrayed by the ordinary people who see themselves as future victims of the bully) and it definitely doesn't work in world affairs.

And, not to mention, if we spend all this money on war, we won't have as much left to protect our own borders, educate our children, reduce our taxes or repay the massive debts we've incurred and continue to incur. Show me how we're safer spending hundreds of billions trying to install democracy in Iraq (and anywhere else they look at us funny), as opposed to spending the same money securing our borders, inspecting incoming cargo, or developing our intelligence gathering.

Any true Republican who believes America comes first must seriously consider what Ron Paul is saying and realize that he's the only one so far who has presented a coherent plan to restore our peace, prosperity and individual freedoms.

Posted by NoDonkey | May 17, 2007 10:12 AM

"Most people desire peace until they feel threatened; the same is true of ordinary Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, et al. We have to stop giving them proof that we are a threat to their lives and property."

That's incorrect. Radical Islamists have been fomenting terrorism for at least 80 years in Madrasses.

"provoking the masses of Islam."

If you read what the terrorists themselves say, they hate the inroads our culture has made upon their lives. How do we stop that? Iranian youths prefer our music to their cultural folk music, should we cut off access to our popular music and movies?

It's really simple to say we need to stop "provoking" them, but our existence pretty much "provokes" them. They've said as much.

They're provoked by our success, because they live in fetic dungheaps with no hope of getting out. The maddrasses and religious jihad are their only hope.

Bringing Democracy to the region is the only thing that will change that. Ron Paul believes they'll be content to stay in their stinking, corruption laden borders as long as we don't "provoke" them. That's just bunk.

Posted by patriot | May 17, 2007 2:39 PM

so wait... why do you think we were attacked on 9/11? is it because the terrorists are pure evil; they just attacked us because they thought it would be fun? while their response was atrocious and disgusting, they were responding to our actions. they had no right to do what the did but of course they have a reason. why is it somehow outrageous to suggest that the people who attacked us werent just acting on a whimsy. im not saying what they did was justified, violence is not justified, but that doesnt mean they didnt think it was.

Posted by NoDonkey | May 17, 2007 2:45 PM

It's official - Ron Paul is the Lyndon LaRouche of the right and his followers are the equivalent.

Just hope they don't take up the practice of standing on medians and trying to discuss Ron Paul when I'm in line to make a left turn, like the LaRouchettes do.

Because that would really bum me out.

Posted by jenkins | May 17, 2007 3:20 PM

Why don't you damned twoofers realize that jihadists want to kill us because we play baseball and have strip clubs, and let our women wear bikinis? Don't you get it? When you swill down some jack daniels tonight just think of how pissed off that is making some idiot hajji in saudi arabia! Dinesh D'souza is right. We need to become more conservative, stop drinking alcohol, and cover our women. Then, the jihadists will have no reason to strike. Come one people, it just makes sense.

Posted by Frank Johnson | May 17, 2007 3:54 PM

Ron Paul is correct about the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission essentially reached the same conclusion. In fact, the majority of Americans are beginning to wake up to the fact that a century of Western intervention and exploitation in Middle Eastern affairs has caught up with us. That's not to say 3,000 innocent Americans should have been killed on Sept. 11. It's simply an explanation of why it happened. And to ignore that fact is to continue to imperil this great nation, as the Bush administration has done with its war on Iraq.

Posted by Frank Johnson | May 17, 2007 3:59 PM

Ron Paul is correct about the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission essentially reached the same conclusion. In fact, the majority of Americans are beginning to wake up to the fact that a century of Western intervention and exploitation in Middle Eastern affairs has caught up with us. That's not to say 3,000 innocent Americans should have been killed on Sept. 11. It's simply an explanation of why it happened. And to ignore that fact is to continue to imperil this great nation, as the Bush administration has done with its war on Iraq.

Posted by Tom Shipley | May 18, 2007 7:33 AM

His contention that America deserved the 9/11 attack should end his political career.

I just watched the video for the first time. Paul DOES NOT say America deserved the attack.

It's amazing how often right-wingers put words in people's mouths so they can attack them. And it's amazing that so many people are jumping on this falsehood. It's a joke. Now a guy from Michigan wants to bar Paul from further debate. Again, a joke.

What Paul said was TRUE. US intervention in Mideast policy for the past 60 so years are what triggered the 9/11 attacks. That's pretty much a fact.

Now, I don't believe we deserved to be attacked. But I'm smart enough to look for a cause and effect relationship when looking for why we were attacked. And just looking at the situation rationally -- though there's a lot of irrationality involved -- we were attacked because of our foreign policy in the Mideast over the last half a century.

Posted by ghamal | May 21, 2007 10:18 AM

Ron Paul 08!