FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Madison reports: "The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. 'Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home,' he said. Besides, he added, 'Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense.'"

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas campaigns for the 2012 presidential election, 07/01/11. (photo: Jim Cole/AP)
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas campaigns for the 2012 presidential election, 07/01/11. (photo: Jim Cole/AP)



Ron Paul: Flawed Policies Helped Lead to 9/11

By Lucy Madison, CBS News

21 November 11

 

epublican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."

Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."

But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."

"I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said ... That's what a lot of researchers have said. Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."

The longtime Texas congressman, whose popularity has recently seen an uptick in the GOP presidential polls, suggested that American military presence abroad fostered anti-American sentiment - which in turn led to actions against the American people.

"You talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, 'Yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don't like the intervention that we do in their nations.' So to deny this, I think, is very dangerous - but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."

When asked if he was saying "it was our fault" that 9/11 happened, Paul said, no. "That's a misconstruing of what I'm saying," he replied.

"America is you and I," Paul told Schieffer. "We didn't cause it. The average American didn't cause it. [But] if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.

"I'm saying the policy-makers' fault contributed to it," he added.

Paul, who has long been vocal in his opposition to sending American troops abroad, argued that America should use diplomacy - not the military - to deal with countries like Iran.

He also decried sanctions as "the initial step to war."

"We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact. This is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof. There's no new information, regardless of this recent report. For us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous."

The candidate said he doesn't think there is any place in the world where it "helps" the United States to have forces stationed - not only because "we can't afford it," but also because, he said, "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.

"I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."

The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.

Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+6 # Martintfre 2011-11-21 23:20
Democrats - consider this - If you believe in peace and real change.

Since your party has already gaurenteed you have no choice with presidential candidate your primary vote is wasted - re-register republican and vote for Ron Paul that will sink the NeoCons in the republican party (the rest of the republican candidates - sans Gary Johnson) and send a message to Obama that Peace is actually important.

In the general election you will have a choice - but only by changing to republican and (hopefully voting for Ron Paul) can you influence your choice for the fall election
 
 
+14 # pernsey 2011-11-22 01:01
Quoting Martintfre:
Democrats - consider this - If you believe in peace and real change.

Since your party has already gaurenteed you have no choice with presidential candidate your primary vote is wasted - re-register republican and vote for Ron Paul that will sink the NeoCons in the republican party (the rest of the republican candidates - sans Gary Johnson) and send a message to Obama that Peace is actually important.

In the general election you will have a choice - but only by changing to republican and (hopefully voting for Ron Paul) can you influence your choice for the fall election


Sorry, but there isnt enough money in the world that would ever get me to register as a republican...an d I dont think Ron P is going to fair any better then the rest of them. Everything has to go through congress and the senate, thats where the changes need to be made.

NEVER EVER VOTE REPUBLICAN!
 
 
-3 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 11:36
Ah - so you unabashed support for more wars, more corporate bail outs, more corporate favoritism, making the patriot act permanent... ya know -- all of those things that Obama did when he has total control of house,senate and white house.
 
 
+3 # feloneouscat 2011-11-23 10:20
The Republicans had SIX YEARS of control of the House, Senate and White House and not ONE YEAR did they ever reduce the size of government. NOT ONCE did they ever talk about austerity programs.

Not Once.

In fact Cheney even bragged that "Reagan proved the deficits don't matter". You want to blame someone, it isn't the current man in the White House. And Ron Paul is just as ignorant as Bush.
 
 
+11 # Glen 2011-11-22 11:00
Martintfre, you might want to hold off a bit until you have seen of list of what Ron Paul supports other than this piece of military reduction.

Paul supports selling off federal lands, gutting the EPA, and so on. Of course, he won't get the support of the most powerful or the wealthy due to his attitude toward the military, but do be careful what you wish for.
 
 
-12 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 11:39
Ok - where in the Constitution is the power granted to the federal government to own half of the country?

The EPA is passing such ridicules regulations as to force my university to convert from coal to gas because no equipment exists to test down to the levels of dioxins and flurons they demand...they are nuts.
 
 
+8 # Glen 2011-11-22 14:37
If there were not such as the EPA there would not be one animal or one stick of wood in forests left in this country. You have certainly seen what clear cutting and strip mining does to the environment. At least the EPA pushes folks to consider the situation and attempt to reduce atmospheric and environment pollution. We all breathe the air and drink the water.

Federal lands were set aside to preserve them, not possess them. Would it delight you to see oil rigs in the Grand Canyon or for mining to eliminate maybe half of Yosemite? If there were no regulations and these lands sold as Paul recommends, that is exactly what would happen.

I work for a game and fish commission and have seen what people are capable of in killing and destroying randomly, not to mention corporations.
 
 
+5 # ABen 2011-11-22 15:36
Your university? Did your education not teach you how to spell the word "ridiculous" or does the word hit too close to home. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the air and water born pollution that was destroying lives and futures before the EPA. Perhaps you should read less Ayn Rand and try Adam Smith.
 
 
+11 # michelle 2011-11-22 11:16
Lest we forget, Ron Paul is anti-choice and would set women's rights back well as far he could. He is anti civil rights, social security, medicare, government safety nets, any notion of community and would drive us into an Ayn Rand 'utopia'. Sorry, I am not ready to shoot myself in the foot just yet.
 
 
-8 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 11:54
Learn the proper role of Federal government - it matters not what his opinion is since that is a state not a federal issue.
 
 
-8 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 12:06
Ron is very civil rights - Rights are inherent and they belong to the individual.

Legitimate role of government is to protect those inherent rights and otherwise stay the hell out of the way.

What the leftist mantra on Civl rights is stupid of history and biased towards absolving government of any blame. The vast majority of civil rights legislation was good because it ended government enforced bigotry - Jim Crow laws were LAWS that enforced bigotry at the end of a tax collectors gun. The small part of the civil rights legislation that was not good was reversing the pendulum trying to blame private property owners for a century of bad government enforced laws.

Remember Rosa Parks broke the LAW when she bravely refused to move from her seat.
 
 
+4 # Glen 2011-11-22 14:58
Martin, you have too much faith in human beings. Also, you are comparing eras that are very different. Also, you are not cognizant of true left/right, liberal/conserv ative philosophies. Both have changed mightily. There is no "absolving government of any blame". You do know it was leftists that have pushed the government to change laws to benefit citizens, don't you.

Certainly, the Jim Crow laws were stupid, but who do you think pushed the hardest to reform them? Do you think there would have been change in human attitudes if the federal government had not stepped in?

There are over 300 million people in this country today. Do you honestly believe they are capable of being sane and working together? What are your answers other than stating libertarian views? Have you truly seen what powerful lobbies and religious groups are capable of in their efforts to control others?

If you believe folks don't need a bit of help in living in civilized times, and if you get the government you wish for, we will return to the good ole days of yesteryear.
 
 
0 # feloneouscat 2011-11-23 10:15
Quoting michelle:
Lest we forget, Ron Paul is anti-choice and would set women's rights back well as far he could. He is anti civil rights, social security, medicare, government safety nets, any notion of community and would drive us into an Ayn Rand 'utopia'. Sorry, I am not ready to shoot myself in the foot just yet.


Aside from being anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-social security, anti-medicare, anti-government safety nets and anti-government -should-spend-m oney-on-anythin g.... doesn't he seem like the IDEAL liberal candidate?

My point is the Ron Paul has only ONE concern: money. And that too much money comes out of his pocket in the form of taxes.

If you want to know the REAL Ron Paul, just understand what he is talking about is HIS pocketbook. That is the real Ron Paul.
 
 
+9 # cadan 2011-11-21 23:23
Well, on the Democratic side, Dennis Kucinich talks this kind of sense also. But unfortunately, many Democrats don't talk this way, or are afraid to.

So the net effect is that it is very difficult to cast a vote against the war unless you live in one special district in Ohio, or one special district in Texas, or maybe a very small number of other places.

There's a regular poster here who says that if you do not live in a swing state your vote is "free", and i think he means this in the sense that the "mainstream" incumbent candidate will win no matter what, so you at least have a chance to make a clear statement by voting for a third party.

I think he has a point.
 
 
+17 # chick 2011-11-21 23:55
How come he didn't speak up when Bush was Pres.
 
 
+5 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 11:40
Ron Paul did speak up - he voted against the Bush wars - he voted against the Bush Budgets.

The republican hierarchy despises Ron because he wont go along to get along.
 
 
+1 # feloneouscat 2011-11-23 10:10
Quoting Martintfre:
The republican hierarchy despises Ron because he wont go along to get along.


And he is kind of an idiot too. But he was my Congressman WAAY before he started running for office so that may have me a little biased.
 
 
+16 # PABLO DIABLO 2011-11-22 01:50
Ron Paul did. He was the first politician to call for Bush's impeachment. And, he's from Texas. All honesty is good, but some of his "policies" worry me.
 
 
-1 # antineocon 2011-11-22 03:00
I guess the question is how do we take our country back. If we can not elect Ron Paul then it is our own fault. I am a life long republican who voted for Obama but after he sold out now I am going for Paul. Lets do the impossible and if not lets at least try to do it.
 
 
0 # Charles3000 2011-11-22 05:14
Ron Paul has something else to recommend him. He understands and criticizes the Fed. He would support I am sure stopping the Fed from printing money and giving it to banks and print for government to either spend or lend at interest. That would really fix our debt problem.
 
 
+5 # mwd870 2011-11-22 07:07
Foreign policy, defense and ending the wars is probably the one area where I agree with Ron Paul.

This does not make him a good choice for President - remember, he had no problem letting the hypothetical coma patient without insurance die.
 
 
+4 # MidwestTom 2011-11-22 07:17
Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party not owned by Wall Street. The major media is doing everything possible to hide him from =the public.
 
 
+6 # Pufferly 2011-11-22 09:15
Paul makes a lot of sense in some areas but is inconsistent. Yes, our presence abroad makes enemies-that's what the neocons want--"We can create enemies as needed"--Paul Wolfowitz
What Ron Paul missed is that 9/11 was an inside job. The corporate media "missed" or buried the biggest story of the 21st century. Anybody wonder why?
 
 
-5 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 11:43
Ron is NOT inconsistent. Ya better make an actual case rather then baseless stuff - Ron has been against our intervention in other countries affairs for decades - long before 9-11. Speculation that 9-11 was an inside job is exactly that - speculation.
 
 
+14 # John Locke 2011-11-22 09:58
closing even half of the bases around the world would probably balance the budget
 
 
-4 # Martintfre 2011-11-22 11:44
not really, the military is 23% of expenditures and we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar spent.

But over spending on global empire certainly is not helping - unless creating enemies is your goal.
 
 
+4 # Ken Hall 2011-11-22 20:31
Total expenditures on military, including VA, black ops, etc, takes up 50% of the budget. I don't know where you get your figures but you should dig a little deeper.
 
 
+2 # Douglas Jack 2011-11-22 12:36
As a lifelong socialist leaning fellow, I've looked at Ron Paul's platform. He's got all the right elements to make the system work for everyone in the world, but he doesn't have the details. We all know details are what counts. His anti-interventi onist record and strategy beyond Kucinich is the best we've got. Building an inclusive economy through promoting popular enterprise can work, but neither Paul nor the rest of us, all with huge self-defeating errors in our design. Our imperial colonial 'exogenous' (Latin = 'other-generate d') worldview which justified invading the Americas, then the world and in the process destroying human memory leading back to the edges of time in cultures with tens of thousands of years of heritage, leaves us all with great gaps of understanding. We are all originally indigenous peoples from every place on earth, but have lost this memory through continuous institutional indoctrination and alienation for our roots. Humanity can see as far forward as it can reach back. www.indigenecommunity.info
 
 
-1 # Activista 2011-11-22 14:06
We are spending $1.3 trillion per year on militarism - under Obama this spending accelerated.
Vote for Ron Paul - save America - all other issues are coffee money.
Hope that America Spring 2012 will change the system - end this Money Culture media/ election circus.
99% need to create their own democratic institutions.
 
 
+2 # rtrues54 2011-11-22 17:15
The ANSWER is to Support a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (Like KUCINICH)to challenge Obama for the Democratic Nomination. Why is everyone just taking it for granted that Obama is the nominee for 2012? That's why Obama is taking Liberals for granted. We can change that with a challenge for the 2012 Dem. Nomination.

NOW IS THE TIME!!!
 
 
-5 # futhark 2011-11-23 00:07
Winding down the American war machine is an ethical and economic imperative. I disagree with many of Dr. Paul's other positions, but he is the only candidate for president that has consistently placed military disengagement and respect for Constitutional rights and processes at the top of his priority list. He shames PATRIOT and FISA Act supporter Obama in his persistence in working to stop the military-indust rial and surveillance state machinery that dominates American politics. So mark me down as a registered Green Party Paulist. Besides, anyone who continually gets under the skin of the neocons and their manipulated media can't be all bad.
 
 
+4 # feloneouscat 2011-11-23 10:09
Ron Paul was my Congressman. I've emailed exchanges with Ron Paul. Do NOT consider him as a viable presidential candidate.

Here are the details of his economic policy: the government is too big and needs to be shrunk. We need to get rid of all social programs. We need to be isolationist.

As a liberal do NOT ASSUME HE IS LIBERAL. He is not. Do NOT ASSUME he will advance this country, he will not. His ONLY view is money.
 
 
+5 # Linda 2011-11-23 12:24
While I can admit I agree with Ron Paul in this area and his position on the Federal Reserve I think his other policies would not only be diasterous for our country but it would throw millions of the elderly ,disabled and poor onto the streets or at the very least make them suffer greatly .
I don't think its smart to vote for Ron Pauls because of a few policies which most of us agree with and not take a serious look at his other policies which would devastate so many people if they were inacted.
Being elderly on Social Security I can tell you in all honesty that if anyone on the far right which includes Ron Paul were elected and were able to cut or do away with Social Security , Medicare , Medicaid , food stamps ,fuel assistance and subsidized housing under HUD I would find myself homeless and these are all programs the far right including Ron Paul would like to do away with !
When I worked I had a family to support and my income didn't allow me to save money for retirement so its my only income as it is for many people .
I wonder how they would feel if I robbed their retirement fund and health care ,"that we the tax payers pay for ?
Now there is a big savings ! What job pays health insurance and retirement for life for working just 4 years in that job ?
 
 
+2 # Obwon 2011-11-24 07:57
Republicans have talked, talked and talked about things that were popular, things that were divisive, about things they had no proof of, and about things that were not true.

In practice they did none of what they promised and all of what they'd never even mentioned to anyone. They not only had no plans to get anything good done, they tried to prohibit anyone from talking about their short comings. They tried to prevent people from voting, and when people did vote, they sought to have those votes set aside.

So now what is there left for anyone to talk about in favor of the Republican Party? Nothing at all, except it's gross stupidity!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN