(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.”
Does anyone know who else said that the U.S. should always stay out of other countries? George Washington, 1st President of The Untied States.
Only Ron speaks the truth, the others speak to get them elected. Voters have been brainwashed. When historians look back 50 years from now, the concensus will be that the Bushes handed the reasons to Al-Qaeda to distory America.
I believe Mr Paul is way off base with many of his views, but I agree with him here. The only thing he is too scared to say in publc is that our defense of Isreal is at the heart of all of this. Think of the billions we spend to protect them, and they still spit in our face. The same is true with Iraq and Afganistan along with Pakistan... money wasted and troops put at risk for people who will eventually turn on us.
I'm no fan of Paul (the phony libertarian) but he's right about this. I would take him seriously if only he did not advocate government tyranny by wanting the government to force women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their will.
Ron Paul is the role model of what all politicians should be.
One of the few areas I agree with Paul
Well duh. This is one of those times when I completely agree with the guy.
Sorry but no matter what he says there is NO way he can be nominated by the GOP.
Ron Paul states the obvious and that is considered controversial? Of course there is always more than one chicken in the hen house for the wolf to attack so... there are other reasons for hating U.S. too. Being an independent voter that voted for Obama last time around, I would give Ron Paul due consideration for my vote if he can get the Repub nom. I doubt that this will happen so I will probably have no other option than vote Obama again. If it turns out to be Newt on the Repub ticket I will be donating to the Democrats. We don't need a Monty Python charcter in the White House.
Just like a stopped clock, Paul is dead on on this one.
It's sad that views with common sense are labelled controversial. Would someone be more willing to become a suicide bomber for their religion, or for the fact that we occupy their country and our bombs killed a few of their friends and family? Also, once again, Ron Paul is not isolationist. The people that throw that term around are ignorant of it's meaning. Isolationism means we don't get involved at all and we also have no economic ties with other countries. Also, would not going to war needlessly and regaining the respect of the world be isolationist? Or would it be engaging in an unnecessary war that kills thousands and incites the hatred of countless people? Which one would isolate us more?
What an awful, awful job done by Bob Schieffer. The whole tone was offensive, he even started with talking of 9/11 of all things and probing agitation in Congressman Paul.
Finally 8 minutes into the interview, Schieffer asks his first half-genuine question on the "interview." They were talking about spending cuts now and the question was so "what happens to the national parks?". Parks? Really?
The CBS agenda was clear. Ol' Bob had it all under control with his noninterest in any of Dr. Paul's defenses. In his words, "Well yes all right let's move on then."
As someone on the other end of the political spectrum, I have to say I agree with him. The US policy that we blindly support Israel no matter how it acts has gotten us to the point that we support the callous murder and oppression of Palestinians. If Israel has a rocket land in its territory, it starts shelling civilian neighborhoods in Gaza, and we just stand there and applaud. No wonder the rest of the world considers us bullies.
What? A politician who actually makes sense and faces reality? I think he's a little off in other areas, but so much of what this person says and thinks is more in line with reality than any other conservative, democtrat, liberal, republican, tea party, green party, GOP, or any body really.
This is what I hate about politics. This has been stated plenty of times and everytime the opposition party saw it as an opportunity to attack. We have only ourselve to blame though because we're the ones who continue to support the same politicians.
He is right about Iraq. That is not enough though.
His solution is isolationism, I would prefer smart engagement with the world. A la Clinton/Obama/ GBush Sr.
There's nothing controversial about blowback.
I don't mind going to war if congress votes for it and its necessary – but I do mind the way that 9/11 has led to the removal of our civil liberties and the destruction of our economy.
Like the war on drugs – you can't fight a war on terror. Paul tried to get a letter of mark and reprisal against Bin Laden which would have allowed private citizens to go in there and kill him. But rather than follow the constitution or listen to the wise words the founding fathers – we went the route of war mongering and empire building. It has failed. Time for the troops to come home and go back to what worked military-wise – speaking softly and carrying a big stick – that is why we won ww1 and ww2 – because were isolated from europe and can maintain peace and harness our productive energy...no globalism, no UN telling us what to do... – lets do only whats good for America and its people.
I watched the interview and lost a lot of respect for Bob Schieffer. Dr Paul's claims about Vietnam and Lebanon ring true. We were operating clandestinely in Vietnam before the Gulf on Tonkin incident, and people in the US didn't know it. When we meddle in other countries the people in those other countries know it and resent it. That makes complete sense. CBS pressed candidate Paul pretty hard in this interview and he stood his ground, defended his views well, and didn't have any trouble remembering what he thought or in putting his thoughts into words. I look forward to caucusing for him next spring.
Sometimes I just want to pull my hair out. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is a NON-interventionist. Please do your homework and learn the difference. Also if we stopped policing the world and brought our troops home, all their money would be spent here in the USA instead of the 130 countries where they are spending it now. Also, we'd have a much stronger NATIONAL DEFENSE if these troops were here on our soil. Who wants PEACE? Who wants SOUND MONEY? Who wanst a president who is not scared to tell the truth? Ron Paul's proposals will be like that bandaid you don't want to pull off. It will sting a lot when pulled quickly but the pain will go away faster than if you had removed it slowly like all the other candidates are proposing. I am a recovering democrat 100% on board for Ron Paul in 2012. Wake up people before the nightmare does not go away.
John P, the Patriot Act was crafted by the Right Wingers you moron. When anyone stood up to it they were painted as unpatriotic. I think Ron Paul speaks from the heart and doesn't have any other motive than to turn this country around. He's the best candidate, but not the most electable.
@ThinkAgain: Paul was one of Bush's most vocal critics in congress. He voted against the Patriot Act, against every cent of spending and every authorization of force in Iraq, and regularly spoke out against the president.
"I keep seeing how bag Isolationsiim is. WW1, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq,Afganistan,Iraq, Libya. Looks to me like so called gloablism is the problem. Oh I know corporations need cheap slave labor."
Ummm.... Isolationism caused WWI to last much longer than it should have and was a large contributing factor to WWII. Appeasement doesn't work.
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz agrees with Ron Paul:
“There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed–but it's huge–is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.”
Source: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair (09 May 2003)
Ron Paul will split the conservative vote, so Obama will get a second term. Good work.
If the GOP doesn't end up backing Paul, Obama's victory will be a virtual certainty. Paul's large group of supporters will not vote for any other candidate, and every vote is crucial. He also polls highest among independents which is critical for success. The media doesn't want you to realize this, in fact, they want you to believe the opposite is true.
Think about it. If they really thought he had no chance and was no threat to Obama, why would they go to such enormous lengths to silence him? Wouldn't they WANT him to run against Obama? Obviously not.