(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.”
To John P,
Ron Paul has been on the right side of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. But so was Dennis Kucinich. In fact, when it comes to issues of war and peace, Ahmedinejad, a total madman, is on the right side of these issues compared to any mainstream U.S. politicians, right or left.
So what's your point?
Ron Paul is not incorrect in his statements. We have given money and training to the terrorists who attacked us from our decades of attempting to shape Afghanistan in our influence and away from the Soviet and Islamic influences. We built the terrorism networks up during the war against the Soviets. We have placed trust in Pakistan and Afghanistan to rid us our enemies but, in doing so we have placed trust into nations centered on anti-american, anti-west and anti-non-believer sentiment. These nations may be about the business of helping us to rid the world of some of our enemies but, behind the scenes they are about the business of their nation building and the continued building of extreme versions of Islam. There is a point at which Ron Paul is wrong: In 1979 Iranian students and Pakistani students alike took turns taking American diplomats hostage or destroying American embassies in Iran and Pakistan. The reasons were two-fold: 1) The Islamic revolution had new air in it's lungs from the return of the Shah to Iran so followers of Islam desired the world a message of it's new found zeal to announce it's presence. 2) Just prior to those attacks Muslims were killed by followers of a failed student at Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The leader of this cult was a saudi arabian. Saudi Arabia did not give the world the details of the event for what it was. They withheld information. The result of the information being withheld lead to the other reason for the Iran/Pakistan embassy attacks. Muslims blamed Israel and America for muslim bloodshed which was actually done by muslims. My point? Some of our policy shapes Muslim hatred towards us but, in many cases it seems that we do not need to do things to provoke attacks from people who hate us and blame us in every instance they can whether we did it or not.
@kuewa – He's a Representative, not Senator. Also, what he has done is continually spoke, and voted, in opposition to all of this foreign interventionism.
@ThinkAgain – He spoke out. Why ask that question when you can just as easily google it? He fought against 99% of Congress in opposition to the wars.
Most people don't realize, he didn't just take this position after 9/11. Ron Paul said, from the late nineties all the way until mid 2001 that our presence in these countries were inviting terrorist attacks on us. He not only is right in his foreign policy views, but he tried to WARN and STOP the militarism.
Apparently historical fact is now a controversial position. This country is done for. I only laugh because if not I would cry.
Rep. Ron Paul is a bright individual who brings something which most others fail to bring to the Republican debates: historical facts and substance. Although many try to discredit him for being "isolationist," I must ask, isn't that when America was seen as the most free and prosperous society?
Many of these Republicans who advocate an aggressive foreign policy are extremely hypocritical when they also praise Jesus for teaching peace and tolerance.
Our founders would not be proud of us today for allowing politicians who spew rhetoric to gain more votes than those who speak of truth, peace and tolerance towards other nations.
If Iran is to get a nuke (highly unlikely), Israel has already stated that they would wipe them off the map. Let Israel do it, just let Israel deal with the ramifications without Uncle Sam coming to the aid of the aggressor.
So by Ron Paul's insane logic, if I go up to someone on the street and punch them in the face, and then they have the nerve to punch me back, he's saying that me getting punched is somehow MY FAULT?!
Every comment is praiseworthy of Ron Paul.
He speaks franlkly and truthfully. WHy is Truth controversal? It must mean that Lies are now the accepted American way. Why does one wonder why things are so bad, the truth is so clearly evident.
Im loving the fact that people are waking up and actually listening to Dr. Paul. But I can still tell that there are nay sayers out there that still don't like him because of the (R) after his name. They don't do there research. Don't purposely be blind please. It's not isolation when you want to trade, talk, travel and work with other countries. I mean, if ending wars and bringing troops home from other countries that we have no business being in is isolation, then maybe I'm wrong. Has Dr. Paul spoke out on foreign policy before? Yes! Way, way, way before Bush's time in office. Heck, you are on a computer look it up. It's just a click away and truly not hard to find at all. It all over the place.
I agree with Ron. It sure did not happpen because they like our troops there.
CBS and Bob Scheiffer were incredibly disrespectful of Dr. Ron Paul. The questions were presented as if he had spoken that sentiment. It is very obvious, and it has been known widely, that government interventionism through military campaigns in countries of the Middle East incited deeply disturbed religious individuals to attack us on September 11, 2001. During my deployment, I spoke to many Iraqi nationals from remote regions of Iraq about the very issue. They are not jealous of us. They wants us out of there. I wonder if CNN feels compelled to ask Obama about his views on the reasoning of the hijackers.
"When Roosters come home to hatch".
Keith in Austin....Mr. Paul is a non interventionist not a isolationist.
The desire of the Muslims to spread Islam to territories / nations which are not Muslim is just as wrong as the Soviets invading Afghanistan because the Afghans would not bow to Communism.
Why did the Japanese attack us in 1941? Because the US occupied the Philippines and was an ally of Britain which occupied Singapore, Hong Kong, SE Asia, etc., and because the US and Britain were standing in the way of Japanese conquest of Asia, so they felt the strategic need to knock out the US fleet. Understanding the reasons for the attack does not mean that the US deserves blame for it. On 9/11, the US was attacked, again for certain reasons, and Ron Paul explains it correctly. He's not supporting the terrorists, he wants us to understand their motives.
While I'm glad he voted against the patriot act and the war, his beliefs are just as dangerous as those on the far left or right. You can not disengage from the world any more–and he want's that. I like some of his views but no, I will not vote for him. I am speaking from a vet experience. been there done that. I rubbed elbows with leaders and I know you have to engage in dialog with countries, and not just hide behind your boarders.
Keith in Austin: tell us what your foreign policy has accomplished the past ten years, how many lives have been sacrificed and how much hatred have these deaths invoked, how many trillion of dollars has it cost us and what makes you think we can continue to borrow forty cents of each dollar spent without any consequence, not only to our economy, but also our national security.
Ron Paul is a realist and brutally honest. The others will pay lip service to the likes of you. Deep down they know Dr. Paul is correct. Dr. Paul is right on everything, because he operates strictly in terms of Constitutional constraints. He doesn't have to pander or flip-flop. His positions all align with the Constitution. Our Constitution unites us. Divisions come when politicians breach the bounds set by the Constitution.
Congressman Paul as usual is dead on. And like many who see it, he is the only candidate running from either party that is being truthful with the American people on this and other issues.
Ron Paul rules because he doesn't stand on the Republican Platform. He stands on the Constitution instead. It boggles the minds of people who don't understand it. He would be a Great Supreme Court Justice too because I truely believe he understands the Constitution better than the 9 up there now do. You can't help but wonder what in the world the media is going to do when he starts winning the primaries? I believe he is going to pull off the nomination. I really do.
CHina is far more prosperous than the US and they're not being bombed. Sweden is more porperous and far more free and they're not being terrorized. Canada is way more free and ,more prosperous and they have socialized medicine and they're not being boimbed. Ron Paul is exactly right even if it hurys to hear it.
The Republican and the Democratic "establishment" would like to see Ron Paul out of the race. If he were POTUS, government would be more transparent; that's bad for those who like congressional insider trading, etc.
Status quo is not an option, therefore he should become a third party candidate if the establishment Republicans reject him.
I don't like so call conservatives! Not that there aren't any liars on the left, they're politicians after all! But this guy makes more sense than anyone else period.
Truth has become treason in the empire of LIES.
It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Ron Paul 2012
It is so unfortunate how the main stream media puts Mr. Paul on the side burner and hoists unintelligible meat puppets. I am not right or left wing. Mr. Paul may have some radical ideas, but at this time I am willing to take the chance that he may be on to something. The past 60+ years have lead us to where we are today. Time for a real change. But let's not kid ourselves, the corporations will never allow him to win the nomination. His ideas and principles directly affects their bottom lines.
To be the World's policeman we need aircraft carriers, planes and bombs, or we can do like we did in the 1960's and send in a CIA hit squad to remove any foreign leader that doesn't sing Yankee Doodle. How would any country react to being threatened with aircraft carriers and special ops.? Remember that all be two of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia.
JohnP actually the good Democrats were lied to just like the rest of the country. Even when it was proven that Bush and Company knew the truth, the people telling it were discredited and fired. So don't blame the Democrats blame your party the ones who are trying to blame everyone else for this mess.