Unlike a lot of Libertarians, when Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani had their little "dust up" at the Republican (non)debate a couple of weeks ago, I cringed at the Congressman's comments.  I didn't think he was wrong, but I sure as hell thought he *said* it wrong.  Bad, bad, bad.  And the pundits ate him alive for it. 

Now, maybe I'm not so sure.

Today I happened to catch Congressman Paul on a Fox News interview.  As expected, the topic of Iraq and his debate comments came up.  And, also as expected, the interviewer was not a little bit condescending.  The Congressman's answer was right on target as he made it clear that he wasn't blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, but that he was pointing out that we have to understand the motives of our enemies, and the ways in which we can unintentionally contribute to those motives.

In other words, he said what I was wishing he'd said in the debate.

So, why am I thinking maybe I was wrong about the debate performance?  Consider this - *BECAUSE* of his presentation gaff (and it WAS a gaff) at the debate, he has gotten more airtime than he possibly could have purchased, and gotten more chances to elaborate his position than he could ever have hoped for.  It helped him a great deal.  It didn't help him a bit in the debate itself, other than to bolster his standing in the eyes of those who already agreed with him, but it got him a limelight not otherwise available to him.

Play it as it lays, Ron.  You're doing the right thing.