Giuliani's attempt to capitalize on Ron Paul's honesty.

Looking back on the infamous debate issue where Wendell Goler suggests that Ron Paul
thinks we invited the 9/11 attacks, and reading transcript and listening to it on
Youtube, I can see better what happened.

It does seem to me that Goler really did try to set up Dr. Paul by leading him down the
trail of what he already knew was going to be bait for the other candidates. Bait for them
to try to embarrass and discredit Ron. Let's look:

The end of Ron's first answer:

(Goler asking why Ron wants the nomination)

"....There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the republican party,
it is the constitutional position, it is the advice of the founders to
follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stay out of entangling
alliances. Be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and
trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement of
relationship with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men, we came home in defeat,
now we go over there and we invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of
merit to the advice of the founders and follow the constitution.
My argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end."
(Can anyone argue with this? And isn't this what everyone agrees Bush did?)


So Goler goes on and tries to lead Ron somewhere really bad to most everyone:

Goler: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attack?"

Paul: "What changed?"

Goler: "The non-interventionist policies"

Paul: "Non-intervention [ meant to say "intervention"? ] was a major
contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked
us. They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing
Iraq for ten years. We've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was
right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern
politics. Right now We're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger
than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say
here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico?
We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the
perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."
(Again, can anyone argue with this? Can Rudy? Is it not true?)

So now the kicker:

Goler: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"

Paul: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us
and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we are over
there cause Osama Bin Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand
because we can target you so much easier' They've already now since
that time killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary"

(Now let's look at this statement VERY carefully because Rudy is about to pounce on what he KNOWS is a chance to try to bury Ron AND gain credibility off of the backs of 911 victims. Did Ron agree with Goler? I cannot see how this answer agrees with him in ANY way! Ron's previous answer actually
answers THIS question...)

Guiliani (interrupts): "Can I make a comment on that? That's really an
extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of
September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking
Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before and I've heard some pretty
absurd explanations for September 11th. [ applause ] I would ask the
Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean
that. [applause]"

(OK, so Rudy pounces! He is no dummy; he sees a chance to leverage his 911 "credibility" and notice how he waits for the applause to die before adding a suggestion that Dr. Paul withdraw the statement. Note that the applause is not what I would EXPECT if the I were in the audience and I did not hear some truth in what Dr. Paul was saying. I would expect roars or outrage; it wasn't there. And yes, it is an EXTRAORDINARY statement to a guy like him; the truth always is..
Of course, Rudy selectively mentions a sliver of the Ron's whole reason; Iraq attacks.)

And Ron fires back; deadpan with no fear THE TRUTH:

Paul: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach
and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed
the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking
of our hostages and that persists. If we ignore that, we ignore that at
our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and
not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to
attack us cause we're rich and we're free. They attack us cause we're
over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were
doing that to us"

At this point, everybody on stage wants to gang up on Ron over this, but I believe he would have handled them all simply by pointing out the fact that his answer said nothing like Rudy's insinuations. But, to Fox's credit, they tabled it and prevented all of it. Rudy was chomping at the bit; literally begging for another 30 seconds.

Folks, these guys are smart. We may hate them and think they don't work in our interest,
because they don't. But we CANNOT underestimate them or we lose. Ron learned it from
this debate. The September debate was nothing like this. He ate them alive there!
I think he did just fine in this debate also, but allowing Goler to put that question (inviting 911)out there
without at least insinuating that the answer was no in some way was just an easy under hand
lob pitch for Rudy. And he jumped on it...

Powered by ScribeFire.