Comments on: The Second “Debate” http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/the_second_debate/?source=rss current events, culture, faith, science and more Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:40:35 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: JohnS http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/the_second_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10007 JohnS Thu, 17 May 2007 17:07:27 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/the_second_debate.html#comment-10007 The 9/11 attack did not come out of nowhere or because of excessive, irrational hatred on the part of binLaden and his followers. They had very specific goals they wanted to accomplish with them. Ron Paul suggested that we would have been smarter if we had listened to the terrorists' reasons for the attack. He then repeats what bin Laden has openly said before: that bin Laden was hoping to do exactly the same thing to the U.S. that he/we did to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- draw us into a long protracted war in Afghanistan that would drain our treasury and wear down our military. Bin Laden gambled that the 9/11 attacks would be an irresistable lure for Bush. Except that at first, Bush fooled bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then the president proceeded to walk right into Bin Laden's trap in Iraq. Why? Bin Laden's reasons for doing all that had nothing to do with his hatred of us, or a hatred for democracy. His original stated goal for al Qaeda was to bring down the corrupt gov'ts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In order to do that, he had to first get their biggest backer/protector out of the Middle East. That, of course, would be us, and he hoped that a bankrupted America with a decimated military would accomplish that. Ron Paul did not say we invited the 9/11 attack, that was how the questioner chose to mis-frame Paul's first answer. Rudy used the questioner's mis-frame to demagogue Ron Paul in true GOP fashion. The 9/11 attack did not come out of nowhere or because of excessive, irrational hatred on the part of binLaden and his followers. They had very specific goals they wanted to accomplish with them.
Ron Paul suggested that we would have been smarter if we had listened to the terrorists’ reasons for the attack.
He then repeats what bin Laden has openly said before: that bin Laden was hoping to do exactly the same thing to the U.S. that he/we did to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — draw us into a long protracted war in Afghanistan that would drain our treasury and wear down our military. Bin Laden gambled that the 9/11 attacks would be an irresistable lure for Bush. Except that at first, Bush fooled bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then the president proceeded to walk right into Bin Laden’s trap in Iraq.
Why? Bin Laden’s reasons for doing all that had nothing to do with his hatred of us, or a hatred for democracy. His original stated goal for al Qaeda was to bring down the corrupt gov’ts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In order to do that, he had to first get their biggest backer/protector out of the Middle East. That, of course, would be us, and he hoped that a bankrupted America with a decimated military would accomplish that.
Ron Paul did not say we invited the 9/11 attack, that was how the questioner chose to mis-frame Paul’s first answer. Rudy used the questioner’s mis-frame to demagogue Ron Paul in true GOP fashion.

]]> By: Gregory Travis http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/the_second_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10006 Gregory Travis Thu, 17 May 2007 12:07:52 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/the_second_debate.html#comment-10006 I think Giuliani is right. There is no way we invited Iraq to attack us on 9/11 and Ron Paul is disgusting when he suggests that we invited Iraq to attack us on 9/11. I think Giuliani is right. There is no way we invited Iraq to attack us on 9/11 and Ron Paul is disgusting when he suggests that we invited Iraq to attack us on 9/11.

]]> By: wahoofive http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/the_second_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10005 wahoofive Wed, 16 May 2007 20:37:20 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/the_second_debate.html#comment-10005 <blockquote><i>A roundup of libertarian reactions to Giuliani's hit below the fold.</i></blockquote>Is that like a hit below the belt?

A roundup of libertarian reactions to Giuliani’s hit below the fold.

Is that like a hit below the belt?

]]>