I don't have the transcript but I don't think Ron Paul was trying to 'blame' US policies. He was simply saying interventionist US policies have 'blowback'. Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. His GOP peers support an interventionist policy and deny ANY effects of blowback.

Rudy's problem is that 9-11 is all he has. He knows that he is completley out of the Republican mainstream on the all-important issues of guns, gays and God (abortion and three marriages) so he has to make 9-11 the only issue. The best way to do that is by beating the Democrats over the head with it, which is something the Republican base loves. Will it work? Probably not.

The best response Democrats could give would be something like. "While we disagree with Rudy about the war in Iraq, we are glad to see that he agrees with us on abortion, gay civil rights, and gun control." That would remind the Republican base that Rudy is trying to appeal to, exactly who he is and why he's really doing this. It would also make him less likely to keep on doing it.

This response is right on target. I hope the Democratic candidates take note of how to rebut his claims and to make him answer for them.

I hope Rudy Giuliani goes on the Stewart show and gets slammed for comments like this.

And isn't that sad? That the best chance for a well-deserved slapdown lies in a late night comedy show?

Tim Russert? Are you listening?

The Republican response to 9-11 isn't based in reason, it's grounded in pure emotion and fear, and because of that Bin Laden's strategy has been completley successful.

It's amazing with all the empty talk about "validating the strategy of the terrorists", that Republicans haven't yet figured out that their unreasoning fear is exactly what they were aiming at. That's why we are now bogged down in the bloddiest mistake in American history and Bin Laden is still alive. But they will never understand that, or be able to overcome their unreasoning terror. It is rather for we who can still think and reason - and a few Republicans like Paul - to save our country from their terror and stupidity.

really? wow. american so-called liberals are every bit as clueless as their republican counterparts. rudy has it wrong: america DID cause 9/11. it's absolutely amazing to me that there is such an intense and inclusive history of brainwashing among the general american populace that you people believe that you're somehow immune from governmental intrustion into your political beliefs. americans are apparently the only people in the world who don't recognize the extent to which their political thinking has been influenced by the selective dissemenation of knowledge by the national media in collusion with powerful elements of the country in question. the big problem that faces americans (and i was born a white upper-middle class american who left at the first opportunity i had) is that you cannot see the myriad ways in which american policy hurts people around the world. i've lived in ecuador, where the national news would broadcast daily images of the damage done to poor farmers through america's crop-eradication schemes in colombia. i've lived in taiwan, where mindless american anti-sino policies have resulted in a dangerous game of brinksmanship with the chinese over an island that the chinese are willing to leave alone for the time being. american cruise missiles have destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in sudan and deprived the people who live there of essential medicines and may have cost over 10,000 lives. every individual american deserves a piece of the blame for sitting idly by and funding such atrocities. as far as i'm concerned, you so-called democrats bear more of the responsibility than the republicans do. at least they're honest about their polciies and everyone knows their murderous ways. you wolves in sheep's clothing are by far worse - you pretend to subscribe to decency and liberal values, and then applaud when clinton orders sanctions that kill 1,000,000 iraqis and he bombs sudan and pakistan to divert attention from his dalliances. you people make me sick. have fun pretending to fight.

Do we still get attacked on 9/11?

Robert Pape would say, "absolutely not."

Paul meant it as an explanation, not as an excuse.

It was depressing to me in the aftermath of 9-11 how few people honestly tried to answer the question of "Why do they hate us?" The Bush Admin rushed to reassure us that we were only hated because of our freedoms, and anyone who suggested anything more nuanced than that was either ignored or loudly shouted down as an "America-hater".

Hmmm...

I wonder when Rudy found out (was told) that Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

This is simply another "broken" line of reasoning that Republican politicians continually use to support their positions. The recipe is simple: one part truth, 5 parts manure then spin until thoroughly confused.

We were definitely attacked for our policies abroad. There are many countries in the world with the list of reasons Rudy gives and none of them were targeted as we were on 9-11. And even if the Republicans want to ignore it, the targets that were chosen offer additional evidence that it was for our policies. There is of course more to it than that but to suggest that we were attacked because of those simplistic and utterly ridiculous reasons is embarrassing. And to simplify the idea that policy reasons means "America" so as to paint the Democrats as self hating is a transparent and childish gimmick.

Dinesh D'Souza is a Democrat?!? Who knew?

These GOPers live in some sort of Time capsule that life as we know it has only occurred during the clinton era up to 9/11....I liked it when Ron Paul explained how Republicans used to be the anti-war party and how Reagan cut and ran with lebanon bombing in 1983....I think it put a little reality into their almighty egos. BTW, it sickens me to hear McCain talk about that if we don't fight them there they will follow us here, and then refer to some alleged pizza delivery plot last week at FT Dix...I almost think any of these guys could be worse than Bush, especially if they have similiar cabals. These guys portrayed one thing to me last night, that they are trigger happy for terrorists, Iran, China, and North Korea and that,in my view,is a very dangerous thing.

Yo RUDE-Y!

Just name the fucking date and time you have spoken with one evil DEMONcrat in the last five and a half years about any fucking thing . . . You inbred piece of shit.

I think that if you had spoken to an actual member of the Democratic Party, he/she/it would have told you that there is a crap-load of reason that SAUDI FUCKING ARABIA had something to do with 09/11/01 . . . AND only Americans that might have had involvement with that attack have with direct and personal involvement with their royal family . . . and they are all REPUBLICANS.

A Democrat may recognize that America has been screwing around with the political, social and ecomonic affairs of that region for near a century now and that we have made a faux pas or two during that period BUT the link between America and the causal link of the attack happening begins and ends in the same place that Saddam and Iraq's involvement exists . . . NO WHERE IN THIS PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

Shame on any press member that does not call this fuck on his 09/11 'credentials' shit ever again.

Oooh missed that one - do tell... What business has Rudy been doing with the Saudis then?

Advice for Paul--anytime Rudy says he will keep us safe you should say "well, we certainly would not be safe if Bernie Kerik were in charge of homeland security".

I'm sure McCain is bummed that all his tonguing of Falwell's ginormous ass crack came to nothing... Jerry won't be around to campaign for him.

Russert appeared on The Daily Show this week.

The answer to this nonsense is easy:

"The first people to blame America for the attacks, and to do it the most vocally, with the biggest broadcast venue, were Jerry Falway and Pat Robertson. So when did they become Democrats, Rudy? Any guesses?"

If you want reasons...Frontline had an insightful program on bin Laden in the late 1990's detailing his anger at U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia. Some Muslims consider all of Saudi Arabia to be holy, not just Mecca, so having U.S. troops there is an affront to bin Laden and many other Muslims. Bin Laden said he'd attack the U.S. if we kept our troops there.

Bin Laden in 1996: "Muslims burn with anger at America. For its own good, America should leave [Saudi Arabia.] ... There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and pushes them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land. ... Due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e. using fast-moving, light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other words, to initiate a guerrilla war, where the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it."

One can argue whether our military presence there was needed so long after the Gulf War - I don't think so, but I never heard any discussion over bin Laden's threats to the U.S. if we didn't pull out, before or after 9/11. It would have been useful to debate whether having our troops present was worth the risk, but the media and policymakers didn't seem to care about that.

After 9/11, bin Laden gave the U.S. inspired U.N. sanctions against Iraq as another reason for the attacks. The Nation cited a study by Columbia University's Richard Garfield estimating 350,000 more deaths of Iraqi children under five years of age during the 1990's. Most of these deaths were due to the U.N. sanctions, though some were due to Gulf War bombing of Iraqi infrastructure. The Nation article split the blame for these deaths between the U.S. for pushing the sanctions, as well as Saddam Hussein's reaction to them.

Perhaps Rudy Giuliani is completely ignorant of these facts, or would rather bash the Democrats than deal with the problem. Or, perhaps Giuliani doesn't think that Muslims really care about keeping holy sites holy, or if hundreds of thousands of their young children are killed. Perhaps Giuliani believes that the 3,000 Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks dwarf these other issues.