Video: Rudy smacks Paul over 9/11; Update: Full exchange added

posted at 5:42 pm on October 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

A little payback for that episode on the ferry. K-Lo asks a good question. Has America’s Greatest Patriot really been so blinkered by his Truther entourage that he believes 9/11 had “nothing to do with a country”? It would seem so. How come he voted for this, then?

Update: I replaced the clip with an extended cut showing Romney’s and Paul’s responses to the same question about congressional approval for an attack on Iran. Mitt’s getting lambasted at the Corner for his point about attorneys, a line so weak that even Paul scored off it in following up. Rudy’s being challenged by the media, meanwhile, on his claim that 23 plots have been foiled since 2001. We’ll hear more about that tomorrow, I’m sure.

Update: Tough day for Paul supporters.

Update: Rudy’s staff moved fast to produce the numbers — 14 domestic plots, 10 abroad.

Link: sevenload.com

Update: Romney’s camp e-mails to object that I didn’t include his full answer. I don’t think it changes the context or people’s problems with his remark about attorneys, but for the record here it is:

ROMNEY: You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people — leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available. But the key thing here is to make sure we don’t have to use military action against Iran. That’s what you hope to be able to do and that’s why we’re going to put a lot tougher sanctions on Iran — economic sanctions, credit sanctions.

We’re also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad like the rogue and buffoon that he is. And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country. It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university. This is a person denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out.

And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have he control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening. And I think each person on the stage, certainly in my case, I would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What was Paul thinking? Rudy hit him hard, and rightfully so!

Pam on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM

While I strongly affirm the value of free speech, because we don’t know what idea may turn out to be right. And, also, I’m quite aware that my ideas are eccentric (while simultaneously centrist). Still, why the hell are cranks like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel invited to presidential debates? The public has little enough clue about the real issues of the debate that the election will fought over without being distracting by these cranks. Seriously, a well-informed will have to be spoon-fed–which isn’t so bad since the people with the spoons are in competition.

thuja on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM

the best part of that was how giuliani brushed aside paul like his comment meant nothing and just corrected him as if it was part of his original answer. unlike the confrontation at a previous debate.

score for giuliani here.

lorien1973 on October 9, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Paul is Rudy’s whipping boy in these debates consistently. RonPaul seems to keep going back for more.

Bad Candy on October 9, 2007 at 6:02 PM

That was hard to do. And Ron Paul’s comment:

“It was 19 thugs” was priceless.

On-my-soap-box on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM

I’m sure RP and his cult-like followers thinks he wins these exchanges. It’s actually pretty sad.

lorien1973 on October 9, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I agree lorien.

He is strutting right now claiming he stood out from the crowd. He did and the crowd was laughing at him!

On-my-soap-box on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM

To further RP’s point. He said we’ve never had an imminent attack on this country or whatever.

He needs to go back to his truther buddies and be reminded that they think FDR knew about Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. He’s not winning friends there either :/

lorien1973 on October 9, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Is Ron Paul a puppet?

americaslaststand on October 9, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Still, why the hell are cranks like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel invited to presidential debates?

thuja on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Because every sporting event needs cheer leaders.

Darnell Clayton on October 9, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Is Ron Paul a puppet?

Something is up his backside right up to his neck and it is not a spine.

On-my-soap-box on October 9, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Who’s Paul Ron?

fogw on October 9, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Ron Paul is under the influence of his nutty followers. He now believes what the unwashed miniscule “masses” tell him is the truth because they shout his name on high

Which is ultimately why Hillary and other dems are so dangerous. They listen to Kos and moveon and their filthy garbage.

Bush is vilified in democratic cirles not for 9/11 but ultimately for the 2000 election. That hate at losing so closely has filled the dems with self righteous anger to the point they willingly trash this country just to vent their hatrid of Bush

BDS isnt about Iraq. It has ultimately always been about democrats being upset that they lost elections

William Amos on October 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Guiliani is actually controlling Ron Paul with a chip embedded in his tiny brain.

TexasDan on October 9, 2007 at 6:24 PM

RP’s tiny brain. Not that I’ll vote for Rudy.

TexasDan on October 9, 2007 at 6:24 PM

His very voice is self-discrediting.

Jaibones on October 9, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Actually, Ron Paul may be a Muppet, really.

americaslaststand on October 9, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Mitt wants lawyers to say when we should to to war!!

What a dolt.

Warner Todd Huston on October 9, 2007 at 6:27 PM

thuja on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM

I think they could switch parties and no one would know, hell it might even be a good thing

abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 6:27 PM

I’m a Romney supporter but answers like “I have to check with the lawyers” is just pathetic

VinceP1974 on October 9, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Matthews’ question was about the War Powers Act. I’m surprised that it wasn’t finally brought up until Thompson mentioned it that round. Seems to me that the answer should have been that in regards to a limited strike on Iran, the President does not need Congressional authorization.

rw on October 9, 2007 at 6:31 PM

William Amos on October 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM

If you ever read some of the wild ramblings of the Paul supporters they have just as much Bush and republican hate as any of the Kos Kids. Ron Paul also wants to impeach Bush which he does not mention often.

Complete7 on October 9, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Deja vu all over again.

I really am not sure what is worse.

Having to put up with him at these debates.

Having to look at “Google Ron Paul” signs drawn in markers draped over San Diego overpasses.

Or the fact that this man is in our party.

I feel like I have to hose off the Republican Party every time he opens his mouth and defiles everything we stand for.

Hawkins1701 on October 9, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Deja vu all over again.

I really am not sure what is worse.

Having to put up with him at these debates.

Having to look at “Google Ron Paul” signs drawn in markers draped over San Diego overpasses.

Hawkins1701 on October 9, 2007 at 6:33 PM

HAHA!!

I hate those signs.

Theworldisnotenough on October 9, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Is Ron Paul a puppet?

americaslaststand on October 9, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Pod Person

- The Cat

MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:36 PM

I’m surprised that Paul, a Jew-hating b@st@rd, didn’t suggest that 19 Zionists perpetrated 9/11. A$$hole.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 9, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Looks like Barney Fife was getting his cackles up.

TheSitRep on October 9, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Who else thinks Paul sounded like Jim Mora in that clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdUr5hF0yGc

lorien1973 on October 9, 2007 at 6:52 PM

aaaaaarrrgggggghhhhhhh!!!

Gentlemen PLEASE! Stop saying “eminent attack”. You are talking about an “imminent” from Iran.

Unless of course you are praising an Iranian attack as notable, of good character and high standing…which I doubt.

America will never elect a president with poor command of the English language.

Oh.

Hold on….

uptight on October 9, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Ron Paul! What about Pearl Harbor?

Jay on October 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM

uptight on October 9, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Ha ha! That really annoys me too.

NTWR on October 9, 2007 at 7:05 PM

lorien1973 on October 9, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Many years of him coaching the Saints, your right!

abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 7:06 PM

This is journalism?

More on 23
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:29 PM by Domenico Montanaro
From NBC/NJ’s Matthew E. Berger
Another terrorism expert, speaking on anonymity, also said he was not confident in the idea of 23 thwarted terrorist attacks. He points out that President Bush declassified aspects of several thwarted terrorist plots in May, but mentioned only about a dozen. He notes that it would have been in the White House’s best interest to discuss more if there were so many others.

One knowledgeable source reminds us that 23 is also the number of tax cuts Giuliani has claimed to have provided as New York mayor. Did he trip up on the numerals?

It’s also Don Mattingly’s retired number, FYI.

(from the link provided by AP above).

First of all, this guy readily admits that there were “about a dozen” mentioned, so why is he questioning whether there were really 11 more? Oh, that’s right, because Rudy’s a Republican, so there must be something suspicious about the claim! And is the exact number really that important? I suspect Rudy’s camp could provide a specific list which would likely include the various plots busted up in the UK, Germany, and across Europe, in which the targets were Americans. But the fact that they’re trying to harp on this is just par for the course for how the GOP is treated in the media.

Really NBC, you can’t think of something better than questioning if 23 is exactly right (and you can’t friggin’ ask his camp to back it up, before you post that online?)

RightWinged on October 9, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Ron Paul would rather wait until Iran developed some nice, long range nuclear missiles before America’s next president would be justified in going to Congress, letting Congress debate it and hopefully (some time later) reach a decision.

By which time, of course Iran will know that it’s coming. Ahmadinejad doesn’t have to debate his apocalyptic plan to resurrect the 12th Imam. He just has to PUSH THE BUTTON.

Israel didn’t go through arduous democratic shenanigans when deciding to blow up Saddam’s nuclear facility. If they had, then the element of surprise would have been lost.

Permission to attack Iran in the future, should be obtained NOW. It should hinge solely on Iran’s immediate cessation of its nuclear program.

Should Iran continue with its nuclear program de facto permimission should be granted to President Bush or any future president to destroy Iran’s nuclear capibility.

Preparing for this now sends out a strong deterrent to Iran and, should they choose to ignore this warning, allows for a sudden surprise attack at a later date (without “progressive s” peeing their pants about it).

It will also have the side benefit of showing the people of America who has the balls to protect the world from Iran’s nuclear apocalypse and who’s a pee-their-pants “progressive”. Something to bear in mind when its next time to vote.

uptight on October 9, 2007 at 7:14 PM

That was hard to do. And Ron Paul’s comment:

“It was 19 thugs” was priceless.

isnt that more like how you describe a gang rape rather than this massive scheme orchestrated throughout the Clinton BJ days.

malkinmania on October 9, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Ron Paul is a disgrace.

eanax on October 9, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Ron Paul’s new campaign song ought to be “I’m Your Puppet”…

eanax on October 9, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Texas must grow the best dope in the world, but there’s got to be a shortage–Ron Paul is smoking all of it.

Tennessee Dave on October 9, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Ron Paul! What about Pearl Harbor?

Jay on October 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM

As Ron Paul or one of his supporters might say, “Well, Jay, Hawaii wasn’t part of America in 1941; it wasn’t a state in our Union, so it doesn’t count.”

:rolls eyes:

Or something like that…

eanax on October 9, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Pearl Harbor? Yeah, I got my wife a necklace from there. Those pearl divers are hot!

R. Paul

On-my-soap-box on October 9, 2007 at 8:23 PM

I’m surprised that Paul, a Jew-hating

I’m aware of Paul’s criticism of our foreign policy with regard to Israel. Has he also made comments that were hateful toward Jewish people?

dedalus on October 9, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Has he also made comments that were hateful toward Jewish people?

Does calling terrorists thugs count?

On-my-soap-box on October 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

As Ron Paul or one of his supporters might say, “Well, Jay, Hawaii wasn’t part of America in 1941; it wasn’t a state in our Union, so it doesn’t count.”

In the clip Rudy was talking about a president acting without congress in an emergency. Most people agree that FDR didn’t know when or if an attack would take place. He did, though, push Japan into a corner, and some speculate he wanted to provoke the Japanese in order to get the country into the war to save Churchill from the Germans.

dedalus on October 9, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Does calling terrorists thugs count?

I don’t see how. Seems like a unwise understatement but not hateful toward Jews.

dedalus on October 9, 2007 at 8:39 PM

I’m not sure that I understand why its a bad thing to consult lawyers before taking military action… you need to know if you are acting within the law.

Bad form in a debate where people are looking for red meat, but not a stupid statement on substance.

DaveS on October 9, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Sigh. I’m going to get hammered for even thinking this, but Ron Paul is kind of right, isn’t he? Don’t get me wrong, he’s an idiot for saying it, but technically it was never sanctioned by a specific country, right? I know, I know, Afghanistan, but not technically. And I totally support the absolute destruction of the Talib savages. If there is something obvious here I should know about, please feel free to bury me for it (as if I need to give permission.) Disclosure: I agree he’s a total crank.

thuja on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM

To answer your question, because anyone can run for president and if you exclude the ones without hope, you may as well exclude Romney. (Zing!)

Plus, I wouldn’t exactly put someone in the centrist category that believes we should not really worry about Darfur cuz they are all Muslims anyway.

SouthernDem on October 9, 2007 at 8:50 PM

See, these debates are a joke while Ron Paul is allowed to be on stage.

Kini on October 9, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Pearl Harbor, and didn’t the British attack and burn Washington? Shouldn’t a Presidential candidate know more American history than this? And what about the muslims attacking our sailors and enslaving them which is why the Marines were invented by Jefferson? “From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli” All about the Barbary pirates aka muslims.

CrimsonFisted on October 9, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Dedalus – Ron Paul would eagerly hang Israel out to dry. Deny her any support because “it isn’t our business”. This may, of course, result in the destruction of the single Jewish state and countless Jewish people. Does this willful negligence count as “hateful toward Jews”. Yes. In my view it does.

uptight on October 9, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Pearl Harbor, and didn’t the British attack and burn Washington? Shouldn’t a Presidential candidate know more American history than this?

Yes. It was the War of 1812 and James Madison was president.

And, yes, a presidential candidate should know more American history than Ron Paul does.

eanax on October 9, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Does this willful negligence count as “hateful toward Jews”.

Most of what I’ve read from Paul, and it isn’t a lot, relates to AIPAC. If criticizing AIPAC is anti-Jewish would it also be racist to criticize an effort by the NAACP?

Similarly, would advocating neutrality in, say, Bosnia have been automatically anti-Islamic?

dedalus on October 9, 2007 at 9:42 PM

@uptight on October 9, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Um, Why ARE we still supporting Israel with GIGANTIC amounts of money and military aid? They are easily self sufficient now. Also, by just throwing money at Israel, it certainly isnt helping our relations with other middle eastern countries. So why should I, as an American citizen, give ANY of my money to a country which is certainly not in need, when there are SO many better uses for the money?? Can you answer that?

muyoso on October 9, 2007 at 10:21 PM

How is it even possible that Ron Paul appears to win these things on ANY poll?

ihavewebfeet on October 9, 2007 at 10:30 PM

@ihavewebfeet on October 9, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Could it possibly be because people agree with him?

muyoso on October 9, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Don’t get me wrong, he’s an idiot for saying it, but technically it was never sanctioned by a specific country, right?

I believe Bin Laden did get state approval from the Taliban (who were in control of Afghanistan) to set the plan in motion.

Also, given that the taliban leadership, after the US invasion, ended up wandering around caves with Bin Laden pretty much sinks that point.

lorien1973 on October 9, 2007 at 11:10 PM

I can’t wait until the Ron Paul Circus shuts down.

He hasn’t learned American History. He must think our response to 9/11 should have been a Police Action, even though we had a political body religion declare war on the US, and he’s not in support of establishing a working democracy in Iraq, thereby stealing a base of operations from the Islamists.

Has anyone ever heard him blame Islamists for 9/11 ? Or did he skip his classes on medieval history, too?

I will be very scared for this country should someone like Ron Paul be voted into the Oval Office.

Upside: he must have really p/o’ed the twoofers with the “19 thugs” statement.

desertdweller on October 9, 2007 at 11:20 PM

@ desertdweller on October 9, 2007 at 11:20 PM

He has said he approved 100% of the war in Afghanistan. He doesnt approve of the war in Iraq, as there was NO reason for it. Also, he is a stickler for following the constitution, where it says congredd must declare war, and not the more recent twisting of law which allows the president to basically declare war whenever he pleases.

muyoso on October 9, 2007 at 11:24 PM

BDS isnt about Iraq. It has ultimately always been about democrats being upset that they lost elections

Pure and simple.

All the smoke, anger, pouting and other assorted BDS related nonsense is all about Florida 2000.

Same as it ever was.

mylegsareswollen on October 9, 2007 at 11:49 PM

All the smoke, anger, pouting and other assorted BDS related nonsense is all about Florida 2000.

Do you think that Anthony Zinni’s criticisms of Bush and Rumsfeld fall into that category?

dedalus on October 9, 2007 at 11:58 PM

Ron Paul, the fishstick of candidates.

profitsbeard on October 10, 2007 at 12:07 AM

I love Ron Paul on domestic issues. But when it comes to Foreign Policy and him being commander in chief….what a NUT JOB.

msipes on October 10, 2007 at 1:54 AM

I love Ron Paul on domestic issues. But when it comes to Foreign Policy and him being commander in chief….what a NUT JOB.

Is it his isolationism? Do you think we should be more interventionist? Or is it another aspect of his foreign policy?

dedalus on October 10, 2007 at 1:56 AM

220 years?

What the hell was Pearl Harbor then… merely just 500 thugs?

How about the attacks on US Embassys? A nation’s embassy in a foreign country is standing on that embassy nations soil while that embassy is staffed and operating.

Ron Paul’s a putz, and a truther. He’s just a Defeatocrat shill to steal Republican thunder and Republican votes. When he doesn’t win the Republican nomination, he’ll still run for POTUS on a 3rd party ticket and will still steal some Republican votes.

I can’t decide who’s the biggest dumbass though, Ron Paul or the seemingly large number of people who actually worship that guy. What a scumbag.

SilverStar830 on October 10, 2007 at 2:01 AM

I was surprised when Rudy didn’t list Pearl and 9-11, in that order.

Rugged Individual on October 10, 2007 at 6:22 AM

Mitt wants lawyers to say when we should to to war!!

I’m a Romney supporter but answers like “I have to check with the lawyers” is just pathetic

That was a careless statement but what do you think “presidential advisors” are? They are mostly constitutional lawyers
telling the President what is and is not in is abilities.

I guess Slick Willy would not have thrown out a careless statement like that. I guess that’s the kind of politician most people want to vote for.

peacenprosperity on October 10, 2007 at 7:47 AM

19 thugs with boxcutters, 500 thugs with aircraft carriers, potato, patahto.

Oh, I followed the link in SLC to the Italian blogger’s page. Very well done. I have newfound respect for the Italians. That page alone almost makes up for that Fallujah propaganda piece.

BohicaTwentyTwo on October 10, 2007 at 8:34 AM

peacenprosperity:

That was not a careless statement. It is clear he did not have an answer to a simple question.

davod on October 10, 2007 at 9:49 AM