Ron Paul was not hallucinating. Here's a speech from the monster - whom Bush has failed to kill or capture - in October 2001, justifying the 9/11 attack:
Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins, and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa (religious decree) from the rulers...
When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya and Tanzania, where U.S. embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and Afghanistan was struck.
As I have said before, I don't believe this was a necessary or sufficient reason for al Qaeda to strike on 9/11. Their theology is sufficient. I don't believe that we did anything to "deserve" 9/11. But I do believe that in fighting enemies, we do well to listen to them, to understand their motives, in order better to defeat them. Let me quote someone who agrees with me:
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously.
That's the president. So should we listen to OBL in trying to understand the motivations for his actions? Or shouldn't we? I'm confused. And should those who listen be ruled thereby inadmissable to primary debates? It appears so.
(Hat tip: Anonymous Liberal).