Excerpts from South Carolina Republican
Party Debate
May 15, 2007
Moderator: "Congressman Paul, I
believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who
would bring the troops home quickly...almost immediately. Are you out of step
with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If
either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination"
Paul: " Well I think the party has
lost it's way, cause the conservative wing of the republican party always
advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't
even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in year 2000 campaigning
on a humble foreign policy. No nation building, no policing of the world.
Republicans were elected to end the Korean war. The republicans were elected
to end the Vietnam war. 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."
( time bell)
[start of discussion on
blowback]
Moderator: "Congressman, you don't
think that changed with the 9/11 attack?"
Paul: "What changed?"
Moderator: "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."
Moderator: "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"
(time bell)
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]
Moderator: "Congressman"
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"
(time bell)
Giuliani (interrupts): "Can I have
30 seconds please?"
[ several candidates asking for time ]
Moderator: "I'm gonna return to
senator McCain and Change the subject if I will. I don't think we're gonna
solve this tonight gentlemen"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
