Do you think Giuliani actually read Ron Paul's foreign policy homework assignment?

Question

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul gave fellow candidate Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

The entire article can be found here... http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24342743.htm

Thanks for your responses... I wanted to clarify something, the reason I ask is that Giuliani and most of the candidates seem to lack the intellectual curiosity that I feel is a prerequisite for office (not for bring a stripper though as the first response illustrates).

You would think that a man who gained most of his popularity from 9-11 would have at least read the 9-11 commission's report, would you not? And you would think he would be interested in reading a book written by the CIA agent in charge of investigating Bin Laden, considering that he was responsible for 9-11.

Answer 1

There have been reports that said Giuliani did not even read the 9/11 commission report.. I doubt he read any of those books.. he was prb to busy getting ready in drag..

From the 9/11 Commission Report (As written on) proving Rudy Giuliani and blowback deniers wrong http://ronpaul.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_and_th.html):

•pg. 57- The Persian Gulf War, seen by many as perhaps the most effective military victory in American history, had unintended consequences that American policymakers could never have predicted. When Saddam invaded Iraq, the US gathered a coalition, based out of Saudi Arabia, to liberate Kuwait. At this time, Bin Ladin "proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait." The Saudis said no and jumped in bed with the Americans. After further protests, Bin Ladin was booted from his homeland and went into exile. This cemented Bin Ladin's hatred of both the Saudi monarchy and the US, as they were now in partnership desecrating the holy lands.
•pg. 59- Bin Laden's first fatwa against the US (1992) was first and foremost a protest against American occupation of Muslim holy lands, specifically Saudi Arabia. It was not a call to kill Americans because they were rich and free, it was a call to expel American troops from Arab lands.
•pg. 48- Bin Ladin's 1996 fatwa against the United States was not a blanket condemnation of America and a call to arms to destroy the American nation. The fatwa declared the limited aim of driving US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The American presence in Saudi Arabia, a byproduct of America's promise to protect the Saudis from Saddam during the Persian Gulf War and beyond, infuriated Muslim fundamentalist because in their eyes, infidels were occupying the holy land. Bin Ladin also spent significant energy condemning the Saudi government for allowing this occupation.
•pg. 49- In discussing the grievances aired by Bin Ladin against the United States, the 9/11 Commission Report specifically calls out "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War". Listen again to Guiliani's rebuke of Ron Paul over the idea of our involvement in Iraq playing in part of motivating al-Qaeda to attack America. If this is the most absurd explanation Guiliani has heard regarding the motives behind the planners and implementers of the 9/11 attacks, then I wonder (with dread) what he has been listening to.
•pg. 49- also lists American support of Israel as a major grievance of Bin Ladin.
•pg. 51- al-Qaeda's ultimate ambition is not specifically the destruction of the US- it's the establishment of the Caliphate to unify all Muslims. To Muslim fundamentalists, America's extensive involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign Muslim nations (the Shah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, etc) props us secular governments and delays the future ascendancy of the Caliphate. Attacking America is not an end in itself, just a means (one of many) to another end. If they hated countries just for their freedoms, you would expect enormous terrorist attacks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and dozens of other countries. You don't, there's a reason.
•pg. 147- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and the Bojinka Plot, attended college in the United States and lived here for several years. Obviously, someone who lived here and then later orchestrated a murderous assault on our country hated us because of the freedoms, pleasures, and raunchy behavior we enjoy? No, it was because he hated our strongly favorable foreign policy preference for Israel.
•pg. 362- The Report reiterates that Muslim fundamentalist's hatred for America stems from "grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world." These grievances are absolutely political- US military presence in Arab lands, favoritism towards Israel, and policies perceived as anti-Muslim. The 9/11 Commission Report does not list our freedoms or wealth as a contributing motive for terrorist attacks against our nation.

Answer 2

Generally Ron Paul is a crackpot loser but these books should be heeded in the case of the US foreign policy. So he may not be totally off the wall on everything. The question is what would Ron Paul do differently and would it be effective?

Here is an article I have found very interesting. Everyone should read this. It is very informing.

http://alternet.org/module/printversion/63632

It will confirm some things you already know and you will probably learn something new from it too.

Answer 3

Wow. ^^ There's actually an informed answer here! Thanks jessisbeautiful.

As you can see from a few of the first responses to this thread, there are still a lot of people who hold blindly to the Republican party and don't have a grain of macro-level insight in them. As long as people will be dumb enough not to research foreign policy, we will elect leaders who have a retarded foreign policy.

It doesn't matter whether Giuliani has read that literature or not, although I would bet he hasn't. He'll continue parroting whatever the uneducated masses want to hear (for example, the first, third and fourth responders), because that's how people get into office.

lordkelvin is another mouthpiece for the far right propagandists. "Islam will stop at nothing to see our total demise." What a load of crap. Any solid literature on those claims there? Did you really eat that spoonfed garbage, or are they paying you off?

Answer 4

I would have ignored those books by idiots, so I assume that Giuliani would also.... *ANYONE* that has been paying *ANY* real attention to what is, and has been, going on in the Middle East knows that the Islamist will accept nothing less than our total defeat and the conversion of the world to Islam.
His ignorance of that point is the one reason that I could never support Ron Paul.

Answer 5

No, because Giuliani is a pathetic person, he doesn't even belong in the political arena with Ron Paul.

Answer 6

Even if he did read it he would still continue spewing hatred from his pie hole. Giuliani is cut from the same cookie cutter as Bush was. He's just not as slick. Neither one are very articulate when it comes to English anyway. Ron Paul speaks the truth but I would also like to hear more about how he plans to end our dependence on foreign oil.

Answer 7

It looks like none of these people actually care to read it.

for those who cant read just you tube search
The shah or CIA blow back.

There are actually reputable documentaries to show what our country has done in the middle east.

Answer 8

Why would anyone pay attention to anything Mr. 1% (Paul) has to say?

Answer 9

Ron Paul is a crackpot loser.

Answer 10

ron paul is a crack pot loser.

its the terrorists fault u libtard loser.