(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.”
I like Ron Paul, but he isn't going to win a single nomination contest. The question is, why not? Why isn't Ron Paul accepted as a Republican?
Wow......now some conservatives are finally understanding what liberals have been saying for a decade. This reinforces my belief that conservative thought is about 10 years behind progressive thought because it's more dictated by emotion than reason.
So, if the US helping the Afghans to defeat the Soviets led to: 1) the arming with weapons and tactics of Afghans who would eventually call jihad against the US, 2) the attempt to liberate Afghanistan from forced Soviet communism upon them, leading to the strengthening of their Islamic core, 3) the installation of a government in Afghanistan of a government which is pro-Islam (anti-american) and pro Pakistan (more anti-american), 4) the enabling of Pakistan to strengthen their intelligence agency (shadow government) and their nuclear weapons program while we looked the other way as they facilitated the shipping of weapons and funds to Muhajedeen during the Soviet/Aghan war, 5) the strengthening of Saudi Arabia, their intelligence service and the funding of more severe variants of Islam as these nations placed much of their funds into the Islamic effort. What would a non-failing American policy look like? It appears that we have had the best intentions over the decades with our policies and covert action but, it also appears that we have simply been about the business of minimal enemy elimination and maximum new enemy construction. Maybe an overhaul of our policies and covert actions / wars is in order.
I don't support Paul but he's absolutely correct on this issue. I also add that our misguided ME policy, arrogance and Bush muscle flexing acted as a catalyst to 9-11. I would also suggest Saudi Arabia was the largest funder of Al Queda and still is a major funder of potential terrorist activities against us in the ME. Frankly, they may not have a choice; it's an issue of survival.
Claims? This is what al Qaeda put in their declaration of war against you. It was a pillar of their recruiting and ideology for a decade. This is a "claim" like tectonic plates being responsible for the Haiti quake is a "claim".
WOW, Paul just won my vote. I had no idea he was this intelligent and honest of a man; I knew he was consistent, but this is just amazing.
We need more politicians to be like him.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. Look up the difference. He wants to cut the militaristic, interventionist, foreign war starting militaristic budget, not the national defense budget. You better believe he is right about 9/11. Listen to our brave men and women in the military! More active military have contributed to Ron Paul than all the other Republicans COMBINED! And they have given him more money than Obama as well. Bob Schieffer should be ashamed as it was pretty obvious he was trying to counter Ron Paul's answers with his own beliefs. I really look forward to more media interviews, reporters giving him the third degree, so he can answer them just the way he did with Schieffer and get his word out.
Why surprising. That situation has been obvious. The fact that we don.t want to believe it doesnot make it untrue
Ron Paul is right. What do you think is gonna happen if you interfer on other peoples land. What would you do if you lived in another country and America invaded your land ? Think about it. It's called blowback and as Ron Paul said the CIA came to this conclusion in their 9/11 reports.
The guys who planed 9/11 said they did it because the USA was so supportive of Israel
I want to register as a republican just so I can vote for ron paul, on the condition that he never actually wins.
There is a big difference between isolationism and non intervention. For the person who asked when Ron Paul started speaking out about 9/11, he predicted the blowback and terrorism that our foreign policy would cause before 9/11 and he's been speaking out about it ever since. He was right then and he is right now. It would be arrogant of us as a country to ignore the implications and consequences of our foreign policy. Maybe if we stopped occupying other countries and used diplomatic approaches there would be no war on terror.
Finally a Republican who admits that you should be able to criticize our government without being called 'Un-American' ... he's right on about 9/11 as well... damn I may be voting Republican for the first time in my life if Ron Paul is the person running. Not sure the GOP will let him though... doesn't seem like someone they can easily control... and he seems to be sane!
It is heartening to see growing support for Dr Paul even in the face of the massive and blatant MSM campaign against him. He will get my vote, hands down. At the same time it is quite scary to see all the other candidate puppets lined up beside him. It's sad that in a country of 300+ million we can only come up with a single man who speaks the truth. More sheep need to wake up...and fast.
kuewa: He's not a senator, he's a congressman. And what has he done? Well voted consistently against sending our troops to pointless wars.
Let me make a cynical guess – they will let the cuts happen and then the GOP will vote to reinstitute defense spending but not the cuts to the safety net and once again, the poor and the vulnerable will be screwed by the GOP. What's up with this country – no longer of the people, by the poeple or for the people.
This idea that non-Interventionism is some how Isolationism is a cry for politics. Isolationism is what someone like North Korea is.
At least get the terms correct- Isolationism is not talking to your opponents, not talking to nations in general, not willing to negotiate, putting sanctions against countries, and bombing nations you don't agree with is more Isolationist than Ron Paul's views.
A little education goes a long way.
ThinkAgain: Oh he was speaking out. It's just no-one was listening back then.
Paul is correct. There are people out there that think they attacked us because we are rich and free but most of those people possess an extra chromosome.
Ron Paul is the only man running I would trust this country with.
An article on CNN about Ron Paul? Never thought I'd see this!
I still find it surprising how often people confuse Ron Paul's non-interventionists policy with isolationists policy.
Unlike isolationists, a non-interventionist wants to continue free trade but stop acting as world police which is what angers all these other countries and incites so much hatred against the US. If we stop messing with all these other countries (bombing, sending in troops, economic sanctions, supporting rebels with guns & money, etc.) than maybe they won't have as much of a reason to hate us and threaten us with terror attacks. Just an idea because what we've been doing for the last 10 years certainly isn't working.
Hey JohnP, your favored republican President and Senators were also busy voting for the Patriot Act.. let's not play a shell game about that fact. And those who support the war like me and Ron Paul were being called UnAmerican and told to get out if we didn't like the way things were. Ron Paul's very appeal to most people is that he does NOT talk the same game as other Republicans such as yourself.
We have bailed out on all our friends over there – no one will trust us. Didn't Nasser make that claim?
As a republican leaning towards Ron Paul in the primaries, I was worried when I read the headline about his controversial stance regarding 9/11, as I thought he may have accepted some of the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists that say that our government blew up our own buildings and killed our own people. I would certainly not continue to support him if that were the case. Then, I read the article and his viewpoints were consistent with what any reasonable person would believe and has nothing to do with the 9/11 consipracy theorists. Where are the controversial remarks from Dr. Paul referenced in the headline of the article? Even Osama bin Laden admitted that the presence of American troop in Suadi Arabia motivated his desire to hit America on its own soil. God Bless all those who lost family members on 9/11.
* those who did "not" support the war...*
Boo! Ron Paul hates America – he's one of those Blame-America-First liberals.....What? He's a Republican? Oh, then he's couragous in speaking truth to power. Sorry, i forgot to check which letter he had in brackets after his name.