I watched the Republican debate last night. I expected to see a bunch of tiered ideas and support for policies that just don't work. That is exactly what I saw, with one exception, Ron Paul.

Rep. Ron Paaul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. AP photo by Jim Cole.

by Frank James

For anyone who wants a good recap of last night's Republican presidential debate from Durham, N.H., Fox News Channel has a very good summary on its web site with some Fred Thompson coverage thrown in.

Many were calling Sen. John McCain the debate's winner. It wasn't the first time he's been declared the winner of a debate. It hasn't helped him improve his standing in the past and it probably won't this time either.

The debate's highlight was didn't even feature McCain prominently. Instead, it was when Rep. Ron Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee commenced to wailing on each over the Iraq War.

The shots the men threw at each other were so hard and riveting that at one point they seemed the only two candidates on the stage, an illusion that was furthered by a camera angle that captured the both of them in the heated moment.

The fireworks were set off by Chris Wallace, who asked the isolationist Paul a question that led to Paul delivering an answer that sounded to many in the Republican audience as though he were blaming the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks, a position anathema to many Americans, even beyond the Republican base.

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?

REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --

MR. WALLACE: So if --

(Interrupted by cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I'm saying -- (laughter) -- I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war, and it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)