124 votes

Nov. 22, 2011: CNN Republican National Security Debate - Ron Paul Highlights

Thanks to SaveOurSovereignty3 for the YouTube:

http://youtu.be/eZAW2spbZys

CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate a Republican presidential debate on Tuesday, Nov. 22 from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. (ET) live from the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.

The debate is a partnership among CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The focus will be national security, foreign policy and the economy. It falls on the eve of the deadline for the so-called congressional super committee to create a plan for at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

More info here.

Wolf in the Hot Seat

Streamed live at CNN.com/live



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whats wrong with this?

BLITZER: Thank you very much. And let's get right to the questions.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Our leadoff question is from the honorable Ed Meese, the former attorney general of the United States, who is representing the Heritage Foundation.

ED MEESE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists.

Shouldn't we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?

The question is misleading because it doesn't say but trys to associate that the Patriot Act is what is causing terrorist attacks to be thwarted. Things like the shoe bomber were not "thwarted" at all by any portion of the government they were stopped by passengers. Can anyone find where at least 42 terrorist attacks where thwarted?

BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?

An alleged terror plot?

GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.

I think it's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it's a matter of criminal law. But if you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.

The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities.

Newt adds legitimacy to this flawed question here and sounds reasonable, however the problem with this is that the Patriot Act does not specify that it is only for "national security" use. Largely The Patriot Act isn't used to "thwart" terrorism, but instead to investigate and prosecute drug crimes.

BLITZER: So, Speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn't change the Patriot Act?

GINGRICH: No, I would not change it. I'm not aware of any specific change it needs. And I'd look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great. And again, I've spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?

And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. Criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.

I think that is something we can use against Newt. He wants to strengthen the Patriot Act. Keep in mind this is a very unpopular law. There were 47,221 requests by the FBI in 2005 for National Security Letters.. how many terrorists were caught in 2005? Clearly they are using this for other law enforcement means.. that or we got a shit load of terrorists running around. Also how many were for a nuclear threat? Clearly Newt is trying to gin up the fear here.

Straight to Paul on the first question, a historic first in our history.

BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I suspect you disagree.

PAUL: I do.

BLITZER: Tell us why.

PAUL: I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it. --cut--

I find this uncharacteristic of Paul to bring this up in the first paragraph. Campaign what is going on, was there a earlier interview about this?

BLITZER: I want to bring others in, but do you want to respond.

GINGRICH: Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you.

Idk guys.. there is a lot wrong with this and it just doesn't sit right with me..

Sounds Like This Was A Set Up-Newt Was Given the Questions

Ahead of Time. This is the first question and they go to Ron for his response. They never have before. I think they are trying to do everything to discredit him now because he is in the top tier if not ahead in the Iowa polls. The establishment is behind Newt now since everyone else has failed to retain the lead.

A.Hansen

Well said. Romney has painted

Well said. Romney has painted himself into a corner and has no way out. His Foreign Policy Doctrine alone will do him in. He wants to increase spending for our military empire by billions, if not trillions, of dollars. That begs the question: Where are you going to get the money Mitt? Borrow it from China or print it out of thin air? What part of "the United States is broke" does he not understand? Hopefully Ron Paul will ask all of the candidates that have a blood lust for war that very question.

Presidential Candidates

Just be aware! RP will go nowhere with these two guys...(Tom Wơds and Peter Schiff). Remember 2008 election? Wait and see.

Lou is totally faked. No blame on him. No body can resists ten of million dollar salary. He sold everything of his. Country and American people mean nothing to him so don't be mesmerized by his smooth talk! Keep going with RP.

You mispelled Woods my friend..

Ron Paul will go nowhere with people like you..shape up and fly right..

We will restore America with or without you...

Truth will always reign

Truth will always reign supreme. No Lie Can Live Forever.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Go Ron Paul!

A friend of mine told me a new term: bamfiful. It means bad-a**-mother-****** -iful. She used it to describe Neville Longbottom (of Harry Potter) and John Casey (of TV show "Chuck"), but I think it can be applied to Ron Paul too. And they call him weak. They are the weak ones.

ecorob's picture

Dr. Paul is READY!

Just at the time when many, many American people are waking up and asking, "Who is this man"? He comes charging through this debate like a knight riding upon a magnificent stallion and wielding an uncompromising lance. Covered and protected completely in his constitutional armor, he is running through his adversaries like a hot knife through butter.

I saw the "spirit" of Dr. Paul in this debate. The passion of Ron Paul, the drive that has carried him to this point in his life, they were on spectacular display here tonight. IMHO, his best performance for the American people to date! Even the "hall" of money, power, and 1%'ers that he spoke before was given to cheer a politician that even they realized was finally speaking the truth to the American people.

They can NOT stop him now. Even so, the "heavy" artillery is showing itself and trying. Paul Wolfowitz? Are you kidding me? He authored the 21st century destruction of America in the PNAC document. Kissinger will probably be next to ask irrelevent questions. He will try to defend the abandonment of the gold standard which he, personally, instructed Nixon to do in that worthless administration.

But unfortunately for these traitors, the American people, combined with its focused and "true" will, is now intently engaged in what it recognizes as its bleak future. This focus also understands who and what is responsible for this destruction. The duopoly of government and the selling of America is exposed now. These traitors, and others, will pay a heavy price for what they have brought to this country.

The internet has played a BIG part in that. Because we, as a people have ALL learned the truth.

Wolfowitz, Kissinger, Bush, Clinton?...they will be lucky to escape with their lives once PNAC, The USS Liberty, Nafta, and the CIA are exposed as being covert operations against the prosperity and sovereignty of the American people and their treasure.

We live in wonderful times people. Enjoy it now for we will surely overcome our oppressors in the CFR and the Trilateral Commission and destroy 99% of them or they will do that to us. So, either way, enjoy the ride. Put out good karma to your friends and good people. Be happy that we support Dr. Paul and know that we must work like we are 10 points behind.

But ask yourself what if the unspeakable happens? What, then, are you prepared to do to save your country?

Did I mention that we were steam rolling now!

RonPaul
2012

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Notice Romney's body language...

I've come to realize Romney's cliched mannerisms, which he seems to rely on to cover his dumbfoundedness or nervousness. What he does is, he'll slightly open and close his mouth, do a few rapid blink, and look down at the podium then up to his opponents with a slight little smile of unfounded confidence on his face.

I've seen the way Romney uses it when he is confident and unchallenged. But if you watch the debate highlight video, notice at the time periods between 9:21 and 9:32, right after Ron points out how Congress isn't really cutting anything. Romney KNOWS they're not really cutting anything, and was relying on the ignornace of the American people to get away with that bold-faced, propaganda lie. However, when Ron began to speak, and referred to the blatant spending lie, you can see Romney succumb to his cliched mannerisms again, but there's something different to them this time: they are marred by TRUE nervousness, especially with the crowd's approval of Ron's words.

Be afraid, Romeny, be VERY afraid...

Take the Red Pill at www.redpillphilosophy.com New Videos, Articles, and More!

Can someone please post a

Can someone please post a link to the full debate? Thanks

People should be satisfied with someone who has

a strong track record of honesty,integrity and most importantly
loyalty. Ron and Rand are two of a handful of representatives
ANYWHERE who display these characteristics consistently.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

Father and a son. This by

Father and a son. This by itself speaks volumes!

We have BECOME............ENGLAND.....the MONEY TYRANTS..

after all these years, we've finally become England, the very people who wanted to TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY as we are trying to take over the Middle East, the very people who governed us "without representation" as we no longer are represented by our Congressmen & Senators who represent the corporate cronies & the Federal Reserve owners.

And, who are the Federal Reserve owners? The Rothschild family from England, and who owns the BANK OF ENGLAND? The ROTHSCHILD FAMILY.

There are other families, but I think we get the point.

funniest part was how

funniest part was how santorums part was cut.. to i agree with ron paul..lol

CNN's Gloria Borger says Rick Perry is without any new ideas

Just a couple of minutes ago, CNN's Gloria Borger stated that Perry's Campaign is hopelessly void of any ideas. What that tells me is they have relegated Govenor Perry's campaign to the proverbial 'trash heap'. Soon CNN will be promoting another neocon loser in a desperate attempt to derail the 12 term congressman from Texas..

Bye bye, little Ricky..You make our disgusting liberal governor in California, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown look like a freaking genius..Ha!

Cain and Perry are done, Romney is going nowhere and Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet he can't shut the door.

It looks like in the end it will be flip flopping jack mormon and our guy Ron Paul..

We will be campaigning like we're 20 points behind.

Mittens better hope he wins New Hampshire or its over for him as well...Right now he has no ads running in Iowa and has Sen. John Thune stumping for him in a desperate attempt to make a run at defeating Paul..

Good luck Mittens..

ecorob's picture

Thune is stumping for Romney?

Will someone worth their salt send Thune home next election?

Please?

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Hey Romney, at the end, Ron

Hey Romney, at the end, Ron Paul wasn't talking about 9/11 and the recent occupation of the Middle East. He was talking about how they didn't attack us yet we still meddled back in the 50's and 60's. That meddling was the cause of the recent hostility between us, an example being 9/11.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

Ron Paul and Rick Perry

Ron Paul and Rick Perry should have swapped spots; after all isn't he polling much higher?

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

I Agree With You 100% - If They Could Put Ron On the End They

Would. The way he is running in the polls in Iowa & NH, I think he should be in the middle, Romney on one side and Newt on the other side.

A.Hansen

Ron Paul's performance disappointing


I hate to be the contrarian here, but this was not one of Ron Paul's better performances.

He usually excels at Foreign Policy and "Security" questions, but I found that his responses here were somewhat rambling, wandering, not as coherent, and missed points that would have helped embarrass and expose the depravity of the other Neocon-speak puppet candidates.

For starters, his opening statement was far too brief. Other candidates did a lot more with that opportunity and used it to highlight their biographies, their military service, accomplishments, and plug their campaigns. He should have highlighted his own military service and the lessons learned from it that will inform his Presidency.

I hate to say it but Gingrich had the good line, that will be remembered, on the Patriot Act with: "Timothy McVeigh succeeded". Ron Paul missed the opportunity to expose the whole sham of The Patriot Act. He should have summarized how things like the government monitoring your library books, and declaring someone an "enemy combatant" with no proof ever being furnished -- does not make anyone more secure, and would not have even prevented the Timothy McVeigh attack. Much of The Patriot Act has nothing to do with security at all; it just simply guts the 4th amendment altogether, habeus corpus altogether, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and reduces our Country down to a totalitarian society.

On Iran, Ron Paul should have pointed out that the mere acquisition of weapons is not by itself an "Act of War". The Act of War is the actual use of weapons, and perpetrating bombing and violence (something only the United States is seeking, and has the awful track record of doing). In Iran's case, they don't even have any Nuclear weapons today, and they have no delivery system to ever attack the United States. We have no right to start bloodshed and commit atrocities without a prior act of war. It is a War Crime to attack Countries and to murder people that have never attacked us.

He also did not make make the financial burdern of the War budget argument with the necessary clarity and precision to be really understandable, responding to the budget question by just saying "it's a road to disaster and we better wake up".

On the drug war, he should have said that the policy of prohibition just creates an underground market that produces crime and violence that otherwise would not even exist.

Overall, he has done much, much better in other debates (particularly back in 2007-2008) on these type of questions. The Gincrich one-liner may hurt him, and he gets the big bump from this debate.

It will take a big Phone Bank and "get out the vote" effort in order to win in Iowa.

I hate to be the contrarian here

Yet you do it with such relish!

Free includes debt-free!

she/he/it does it all the

she/he/it does it all the time.

I think CNN set him up. I

I think CNN set him up. I don't even know why Paul would bring that up, he's spoken a lot on the patriot act and I've never heard him bring up McVeigh before on that topic.

Look at the setup, the questions was flawed "42 acts of terror?" Where? When? The ridiculous distinction between war courts and criminal courts? They bring it to Newt to cement the question's legitimacy. They immediately go from Newt to Ron and if you watch Gingrich face he looked like he knew it was coming then they go back to Newt without even mentioning him by name.

The rest of the the debate they kept showing Ron Paul's reaction, and if you know anything about TV that's always used to embarrass someone.

This was a SET UP and the Paul campaign needs to figure out why, and who told Paul it would be a good idea to bring up McVeigh on that question because CNN planed this little stunt. The media is scared to death of Paul because he's winning and we need to be extremely careful because they changed tactics on us and we fell for it.

This has fired me up tho.. I'm joining the phone from home project.

I Made The Same Comment As You - I Also Think Think CNN Set

This Up. See my comment above in reply to another person's comment.

A.Hansen

Agree With LibertyBaby

I completely agree with LibertyBaby. When Ron Paul made the comment about Timothy McVeigh, the first thing that came to my mind was exactly what Newt Gingrich replied. I think that will be true for many people watching the debate as well. Obviously, I believe that Ron Paul's stance on the Patriot Act is far superior to any of the other candidates, but he really set up Newt Gingrich with that one. Let's hope that Dr. Paul comes out stronger next debate!

"Timothy McVeigh succeeded"

"Timothy McVeigh succeeded" was a horrible comeback on Newt's behalf; it actually made Ron's point. Last time I checked, people have the freedom to do bad things. I don't want to live in a place where I'm constantly monitored for every action I do.

What's next preventing

What's next preventing someone from having multiple wives? Newt would surely hate that for sure. It's everyone's right to be immoral whatever his reason is.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

ecorob's picture

I respectfully disagree, LB...

we have to remember that time and space has been drastically limited and kept away from our hero in these debates.

I thought he did extremely well considering he is a lone voice against wolves and bears on that stage. Even seasoned veterans of lying and raping of the American public succumbed to his truths. They know the wrath of the American people will strike them down at a moment's notice if they misstep. That's why they are quiet when he makes a point!

It was good to hear bachmann laugh, at least once, at the good doctor's responses. She will be reminded of that for the rest of her life.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

RP got some good stuff in there

RP did well by setting himself apart from the others. It might not have been his best debate - there will be more to come - but one way it would have been much better is if effing BLITZ WOLFER had gone to Ron Paul in rebuttal when his name was raised by the other candidates. RP did get off a good line on the Patriot Act about no need to forfeit liberty for security. The warmongers wanted us to believe that by claiming we're at war, torture and assassination is permitted. RP pointed out that their definition of war is self-serving and not constitutional. RP has to set himself up as the one who will bring a peaceful interlude to America. Maybe 51% of establishment Republicans think that war with Iran and the "policeman of the world" role is the way to go, but the majority of voters want America put first.

Shoulda Coulda Woulda

Newt: "McVeigh Succeeded"
Ron, in my fantasy: "Yeah, and he was caught, tried, and prosecuted. Nobody went to war over it."

And maybe something about the 1993 WTC bombing which only took out a couple of levels of parking structure?

What caused/prompted that?

Freedom is my Worship Word!