Ron Paul reissues claims on American policy and 9/11
November 20th, 2011
12:26 PM ET
7 years ago

Ron Paul reissues claims on American policy and 9/11

(CNN) - Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul reiterated his controversial stance Sunday that some policies of the United States contributed to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Speaking on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Paul said his views were consistent with analysis from various groups.

Programming note: GOP presidential candidates face off at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday, November 22, in the CNN Republican National Security Debate in Washington, D.C.

“I think there's an influence,” Paul said. “That's exactly what the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DoD has said. That's also what the CIA has said. That's what a lot of researchers have said.”

Paul said American intervention in foreign nations was a trigger to potential terrorists, who he said were sending the message: “We don’t like American bombs to be falling on our country.”

He cited withdrawing a military base from Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11 as an indication that U.S. military policy was partly responsible for the actions of terrorists.

Paul has previously said that the military presence in Saudi Arabia was a motivator for terrorists, who were angered by American troops in the Islamic country.

The Texas congressman made clear he did not think America’s form of government and economy were to blame, but rather the specific foreign policies pursued by the United States.

“To deny this I think is very dangerous, but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous I think is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true,” Paul said.

He continued, “You're supposed to be able to criticize your own government without saying you're un-American.”

Filed under: 2012 • Ron Paul • Terrorism
soundoff (538 Responses)
  1. Skruface

    Ron Paul is the only man for the job 2012. Why is the Media drowning him out with Cain, Perry, and Romney nonsense? They say Ron Paul is "unelectable". We the people will show them who is "electable".

    November 21, 2011 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  2. Daniel from the Bronx

    Ron Paul is absolutely right on this issue. Our blind support of Israel is another reason terrorists hate this nation so much. There isn't much difference between Nazi Germany and American foreign policy right now. Sad but true. I am an independent who will vote 3rd party this year by the way. Obama is just like Bush. Both are traitors to this nation in my opinion.

    November 21, 2011 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  3. Topcat

    Number one reason for the attack; non mulims in their holy land, this includes us troops and israel. two; stealing their natural resources (oil). three; propping up dictatorships to support our foriegn policy. This is hardly "controversial" it's a fact, but our government would like to convince you it's because they hate our freedoms. None of these things are going to change in the near future, so we"ll be there until the oil is gone, so will our support for Israel.

    November 21, 2011 12:18 am at 12:18 am |
  4. Hec Jervae

    The enemies of Ron Paul are a sorry lot.

    November 21, 2011 12:21 am at 12:21 am |
  5. voice of reason

    I wanted to vote for him long before now. but he wont get the nomination because he's telling the truth. America can't handle the truth. and how on earth is what he's saying controversial? its common sense

    November 21, 2011 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  6. j

    The Libertarians are correct about a lot of things but are delusional about what year we live in. This is not 1776.

    November 21, 2011 12:30 am at 12:30 am |
  7. J Sledge

    He's right. There is a reason Al-Qaeda attacked the United States and not Slovenia, or Indonesia or Mexico. Its blow back from US policies.

    November 21, 2011 12:37 am at 12:37 am |
  8. SteveCHNC

    To think that the motivation for terrorists to strike any country is independent or not conditional of their foreign policy and military campaigns is ignorant. However, just because a country's foreign policy makes a terrorist attack on its own soil more likely, it does not mean that the attack can be blamed on the policy. But in the US, it might actually be correct to blame the policy, as it is not clear that our war mongering is especially beneficial to us in other ways.

    November 21, 2011 12:39 am at 12:39 am |
  9. Kenyon

    He is absolutely correct!!!

    November 21, 2011 12:44 am at 12:44 am |
  10. M.K.

    Why didn't he speak up while his Republican buddies Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 were creating this mess we are in? Oh well, the right will just blame it on Carter as they do everything else and that will be the end of it. Clinton was in the middle so to speak so he should share some of the blame also.

    November 21, 2011 12:48 am at 12:48 am |
  11. AgrippaMT

    I rarely agree with anything Ron Paul says, but this time he is right on the mark.

    November 21, 2011 12:52 am at 12:52 am |
  12. Mike

    Nothing controversial or surprising about these statements. What is surprising is that there are people out there that do not understand this is the case. The terrorists acts are reprehensible and unforgivable, but there are valid reasons why they are angry with our government. We have practiced a policy of interference in foreign governments when it suits our government or our corporations needs starting all the way back to the late 1800's with Hawaii.

    November 21, 2011 12:52 am at 12:52 am |
  13. AgrippaMT

    Occasionally, Ron Paul hits the nail right on the head. Not that I will ever vote for him, but he is correct this time.

    November 21, 2011 12:53 am at 12:53 am |
  14. Berell

    Libertarianism doesn't work? We're in a hybrid socialistic/capitalistic society currently and have proven that it will not work. And with Ayn Rand taking government benefits, with in a society you must take every advantage afforded to you to be able to stay ahead, if you don't it will be very difficult to compete this is simple capitalism. But government programs artificially inflate the cost of the programs. This is true for every program including the military, but this is also an argument against capitalism not libertarianism. Under a libertarian government it would be theoretically possible to provide social programs. Libertarianism is instead just a society in which the liberty of the individual is protected... ie: privacy, freedom of personal choices and generally being left alone by the government in personal matters.

    November 21, 2011 12:56 am at 12:56 am |
  15. stranger in an increasingly strange land

    If he was a viable candidate this might be meaningful. As it is Ron Paul couldn't get elected President if the election was held in his house. The gentleman from Texas has alienated both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats would love for him to be the candidate. He is intellectual and has the charisma of cardboard. Both would alienate huge sections of the voting public. And his desire to cut almost every program that helps people in need and social security and medicare would cost him the votes of the very young, the old, the poor and anyone who has a family member that needs some government help to avoid being a berden on their own children or family. The Republicans on the other hand just seem to think he is impossible to elect and still help the ultra rich rape every other group for their benefit.

    November 21, 2011 12:58 am at 12:58 am |
  16. dave

    I see a lot of people agreeing with Ron Paul. Sure on the surface it sounds fabulous and logical. I don't profess to know much about US policies on the Middle East but I do know there is much history behind the policies. Various conflicts over the last few decades involving many countries contributing to the situation today. Policies change. One day we're with Iraq and then we're against it. That's just a fact of life dealing with differences in the world at any given time. To say US policies are wrong in the grand scheme of things is very naive. There's always give and take in any policy. Have you guys think about the ramifications if we didn't have these policies ? What makes Ron Paul so sure that the consequences may not be even more serious ? That"s precisely the reason why I can't take him seriously. What he's saying really has no substance behind it.

    While I don't qualify to argue the validity of US policies, I just can't agree that thugs like Al Qaeda has the right to attack the way they do. They do not represent a country or a religion or a People. If they're Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or any soverign nation, they can declare war on the US and that would be acceptable.

    November 21, 2011 12:59 am at 12:59 am |
  17. Leschiguy

    On this item, he is right. Bin Laden said, paraphrased, if we hated you for your freedoms, we would attack Sweden.

    It's all about our supporting oppressive regimes.

    November 21, 2011 01:09 am at 1:09 am |
  18. John Brown

    This is securing our future generation. As long as oil is the core of world economy? We have to have base over there. With or without 911 wherever oil are exist underground we have to secure that. Its not a matter of Republican or Democrat! It's about securing your nation and your people! It's okay to Ron to say anything he wants but once you become a US President you have to look the other way around!

    With Islamic Terrorist? They just hate west. They will find any excuse to kill us. It's not about you have base in any Islamic nation but because the see other non Islam as infidel!!

    If you are Islam? We shake hand! If you are non Islam? Heck with you. You are infidel and you are enemy! And I have the right to eliminate you!!

    So good luck if you want to vote for Ron!! The guy looks so creepy! lol. And grumpy old man!!

    I would vote Republican if Hunstmann win primary other than that? I stick with Obama!

    November 21, 2011 01:16 am at 1:16 am |
  19. MA

    CNN ticker says " Paul's surprising 9/11claim.
    Why CNN thinks it is a surprising claim ? It is US's overall, including too obvious pro-Israel policy in the middle east, the root cause for anti-American sentiment in the region. But the U.S government, supported by media do not want it's citizens to know the truth. Instead, the U.S government engages in the propaganda by saying some Muslims are against their way of life and freedom. Media should also be responsible promoting unsupported propaganda over the facts.

    November 21, 2011 01:18 am at 1:18 am |
  20. Benny

    Wow. I wrote a post blaming it on Israel and it's taken down. What is this Soviet era Russia?

    November 21, 2011 01:25 am at 1:25 am |
  21. wtc?

    i wondered if we were bombed by the pharmaceutical industry for changing our trade policy. (It was evidently discussed in Qatar meeting that same year.) Bush went along with it, but they didn't like that decision and one person said they wouldn't stand for it. And they have more money than anyone else. Plus, look what happened after that...I wouldn't be shocked.

    November 21, 2011 01:25 am at 1:25 am |
  22. VegasRage

    Controversial to who? You CNN and the other main stream media outlets? He's 100% correct, our foreign policies have gotten us to this point. You have to be pretty naive to not understand this; but then the truth rarely sells the news as well as ongoing spin and media stirred controversy.

    November 21, 2011 01:26 am at 1:26 am |
  23. wtc?

    i guess that's not "we" so much as i thought originally. that's a specific group.

    November 21, 2011 01:28 am at 1:28 am |
  24. Matthew Markowicz

    The only controversy is who is controlling our "newsmen and women" and making them try to marginalize one voice of reason in our government today... Ron Paul 2012, *From an ex-Dem/disillusioned Obama voter

    November 21, 2011 01:28 am at 1:28 am |
  25. Joe Colorado

    His comments are controversial w/ whom ?

    November 21, 2011 01:29 am at 1:29 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22