We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther" (or at least supported by those who are)--one who believes that 9/11 was done with the knowledge or complicity of the Bush administration. Now he's agreeing that conspiracies that have not yet happened will in fact come to pass:
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.
"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."
He believes that a terror attack will be staged to allow the evil Neo-cons of the Bush administration unimpeded access to attack Iran.
OK, I've had serious issues with Ron Paul's campaign. Besides his hypocrisy on earmarks and other issues, he's pretty much been...well, sane. Now, I'm not quite sure.
Here we have a presidential candidate (sure, one who is polling at 0%) who is saying on the record that he believes the current administration is capable of faking a terror attack, which will kill people, simply to advance their ideology. That's not campaigning, that's in the realm of JFK conspiracy theorists and Heavens Gate.
I was a huge critic of Bill Clinton and his policies -- including his non-action when the embassies and the USS Cole were attacked. I would never, ever, suggest that Clinton was capable of staging an attack to push his policies through. Maybe I'm naive in that assumption about any government official, but for Ron Paul to even consider this -- let alone say it out loud and on the air--is inconceivable to the average American.
Ron Paul's campaign has attracted a large Internet following, one that is boisterous and vocal (watch the comments to this post), but to think that they could defend this is preposterous and downright scary. The thought of the Ron Paul Brigades in tin hats is, of course, amusing though.
Reader Comments ( Page 10 of 22)
136. Hmm. Scott, you seem to have been completely flattened. I have to admit I was expecting a lot of brainless Ron Paul ranting, but what I see instead are contributions which demonstrate a much better understanding of history and political science than the article does.
However, the one thing that no one can seem to do on the internet is respond directly to an opinion. So instead of telling you mine, I will respond to yours:
"C'mon Paulites, he did in fact say he agreed with Cindy Sheehan. Ain't no spinning this one."
He did in fact say that he agreed with her. So I guess the impact of this statement depends on whether Sheehan herself is right or wrong. Sheehan’s assertion was based primarily on documents showing that some Republican officials had discussed a terrorist attack on the US in a favorable context. So this comment, while true, does not address the point: Are we truly in danger of this type of attack?
I agree, though, that it is unfortunate that Paul chose to associate himself with Sheehan like this, because Sheehan does not have a polished image and may hurt his sense of legitimacy. On the other hand, polished images in politics are losing value fast these days, and I think we are near the end of the time when legitimacy is measured in terms of stage presence and bland acceptability (Look what happened to Kerry in 2004).
"Again, if he were a legitimate candidate, he'd have taken the opportunity to slam "truthers" and the idea of a "Gulf of Tonkin" type attack."
This is true, given our current definition of legitimacy. Truthers and ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ theories have no place whatsoever within the political status quo, and there is no reason for change unless the status quo somehow fails the people. However, if the status quo does fail or is widely seen to have failed, than this statement would become false.
There is possibly an interesting assumption hidden in this statement, which I would like to clarify. Do you think that Paul should have taken this opportunity to slam ‘truthers’, regardless of whether he agreed with them? Your statement seems to suggest that his opinion should not determine how he answers a question. That is an interesting point of view, if I read this correctly.
I would very much like to hear your comments on this post.
Paul at 2:22PM on Jul 14th 2007
137. The real message Ron Paul is putting out is the federal reserve must be put out of business in order to end the need and greed of the world bankers causing all these wars. Wake up morons, follow the money and the power and you will find the truth. Become a real American and turn off the TV brain washing.
mike at 12:00PM on Jul 16th 2007
138. I would just like to ask the person who wrote this sloppy(and obviously agenda driven) article to respond to Paul(at 2:22pm). Respond to all of his POINTS and FACTS please. This should be good.
Chris R. at 2:33PM on Jul 14th 2007
139. This is a pathetic attempt by a corporate blogger to link Ron Paul and Crazy conspiracy theorists. Dismissing all of them as "Paulites" nevermind they all make valid critical points and past examples of staged terror. "they are crazy. Tin foil hat wearers" well, judging from all the action going on and the lies this administration repeats, a tin foil hat might not be a bad idea.
Scott is a pathetic shill who has gotten more attetion then he deserves.
bradmundo at 2:34PM on Jul 14th 2007
140. Ok , Just like Ed Failor in Iowa, you try to stop him and it backfires. You wait and see. Your hit piece will back fire also. I believe it is called blow back.lol
I have seen another interview where Ron says he does not believe it was an inside job. So you twist away to destroy a man with a clean record.
Is that all you got? That says it all for Ron's campaign if that is all you got. lol
So before you try and stop the one man who is best for this country I suggest you do your homework.
He doesn't dress in drag like Rudy. He believes in the Constitution and our God given rights. He does not have co-campaign managers running around trying to solicit sex from undercover cops like Mc Cains camp. Oh ,That's right , Ed Failor is on that camp...or was....lol.
So every time you mainstream pundits brake out a hit piece on Ron it gets better for Ron. Keep it up -we love it. Rons support grows.Thanks
Tammy Erickson at 7:59PM on Jul 14th 2007
141. "... that's in the realm of JFK conspiracy theorists..."
Excuse me, didn't E. Howard Hunt just give a recorded deathbed confession to his son, a transcript of which was printed in Rolling Stone ?
Madeline Duncan Brown?
Do you read or do you get all your info from Fox?
shelovesg at 2:48PM on Jul 14th 2007
142. Ron Paul has never claimed to be a 911 truther. Get your facts straight before you start off your article with slander.
Kim at 2:52PM on Jul 14th 2007
143. Hey Scott, you should try to send a resume to Rupert Murdoch because looks like you can lie, deny, and slander some propaganda with the best of them. Btw what would be amusing would be to see your face when the real polls start coming in and Ron Paul finishes in the top tier. Tell ya what, let's say if Ron Paul wins the Iowa straw poll Aug 11 then you'll donate $100 to Ron's campaign instead of eating a big batch of crow. Put your money where your mouth is pal.
Alex at 3:19PM on Jul 14th 2007
144. If Ron Paul or any other candidate believes there may be a staged attack in the works, we need to take it very seriously, not discount the person as a conspiracy theorist. I have a strange feeling in my Cherkoff gut that Cherkoff was litening to more than just his gut when he made those comments.
martin at 4:13PM on Jul 14th 2007
145. Yes Paul (^93), your closing point was my impression of the piece as well.
The implication is a type of blackmail. "We will stop slandering you with terms like conspiracist, tin foil hat wearing, truther, not credible, second tier, also ran, long shot, outsider, marginal, fringe, etc., provided you get in line with the way WE see the world. We might even give you favorable coverage. BTW, we can help get rid of some of that campaign money in your coffers. Part with enough of it and you just might make it to the upper tier. (And if you believe that, you may also be interested in this bridge we have to sell.)"
'I'm really concerned for Ron Paul, he doesn't seem to be picking up on these hints. The mainstream media is offering its political wisdom and benefit of the doubt and he keeps ignoring good sense. Well they TRIED to help him. I guess the people are better off without a candidate who won't listen to reason.'
We already know most Americans don't trust their government. As the media are finding out, the more they parrot the gov't position and deny Americans truth, the more they lose our trust.
The media are in kind of a bind because they can't bite the mainstream hand that feeds them until they are sure the alternative will continue supporting their gluttony. Ron Paul is not about any of this disingenuous quid pro quo so their position seems clear, but at the same time they can't really disenchant and alienate such a vast number of their customer base.
The answer that the media are too cynical to accept is that it is best to align themselves with THE PEOPLE where the power truly lies. Ever since 'Operation Mockingbird' the mainstream have convinced themselves THEY influence the public, not the other way around.
Keep your eyes peeled everyone. This is just the beginning of the cognitive dissonance that will tear old media apart. I'm not surprised they are attempting to hasten the corporate police state, for only in such a nation would their fate be certain.
Jasonik at 3:22PM on Jul 14th 2007
146. Oh, please Mr. vastly uninformed author. You know full well that Americans are starting to wake up to this very real possibility. Northwoods, Tonkin, etc., the documents exist in the public domain so maybe you should do some research yourself, Scotty. In actuality this is anything BUT inconceivable if people did a little research. It is only a small sampling of the crimes committed by our own CIA.
jo at 3:41PM on Jul 14th 2007
147. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a communist, or at least she is supported by people who are.
Alexia at 4:07PM on Jul 14th 2007
148. Propaganda like this was the reason I quit AOL years ago! Keep it up dirtbags and you'll find there are a lot of tuned in people not buying your crap! Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate worthy of the office of President! The rest are ass kissers to the NWO.
Buster at 4:07PM on Jul 14th 2007
149. You people at AOL make me sick. You spout things that are blatantly false. This is precisely why I quit AOL years ago. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate worthy to be president. Keep up the nonsense and you'll be losing more subscribers. Is Steve Case ( I think that was his name) still in charge there, or is it David Rockefeller? Maybe if you spent a little more time researching instead of ass-kissing, you'd know what was happening in this country.
Buster at 4:20PM on Jul 14th 2007
150.
The author of this misguided rant has failed to mention that the US has historically used terrorism against its own citizens to further a political agenda. One has only to examine the details of such major events as:
* RMS Lusitania
* USS Maine
* Pearl Harbor
* Gulf of Tonkin
* Operation Northwoods
* JFK assassination
* Waco
* OKC bombing
* 9/11
...to realize how relevant and credible Ron Paul's suspicions of another false-flag event. Countless millions Americans and people round the world share similar views; and in light of all the evidence, understandably.
When you hear Bush and his neocons voicing vacant repetitions of democracy and freedom for all nations of the world, say to yourself, BULLSH*T!!! ...look for the real signs ...the true indicators of why the U.S. invades, attacks and occupies another country.
The reasons are multifaceted, though simply put, the aggressive foreign policies we are seeing, the covert activities and the military strong arming used against other nations by the United States are by all accounts, actions used to coerce, intimidate and force others into submission ...in order to plunder a targeted nation's natural resources and to create a conduit for profitable illegal activities.
By scrutinizing hot spots of current, or past conflict in the world, you will always notice that any particular country that the U.S. challenges and/or invades is one where a unique situation exists ...a financial opportunity whereby an elite group of influential banking interests have identified a region as being ripe for enormous profit.
Though not an all-inclusive list, some of the most obvious which heartless profiteers use to identify and target a region, and to justify an invasion include the following:
> a country which controls, harvests, or has the potential to supply valuable natural resources such as oil, gas, timber, gold, etc.
> a country with a weakened economy, unstable political infrastructure, and/or a less superior defense system
> a nation of people and leaders who speak out against U.S. global dominance and who are opposed to American interference in their country's affairs
> a country with generally remote, inaccessible areas which can accommodate the cultivation and distribution of illegal narcotics
> a region that offers a strategic geographic advantage to further secure and police the area via U.S. military bases, etc.
> a nation which refuses to bend to the U.S. and its partners' demands, intimidation, or bribes
> a country where an opportunity exists to denigrate a people's culture, destroy their history, and/or impose religious beliefs upon them
> an area where projected profits will exceed the costs of invasion, occupation and exit ...an exit which would only occur when little remains left to be extracted
From plundering another country's natural resources and killing its people (the resistance), to loan manipulation, cooking the books, selling human body parts, the dope trade, and proliferation of weaponry and increasing profits from arms sales...
...preemptive strikes, invasions and war waged against other sovereign countries have NOTHING to do with spreading democracy and freedom to other people ...and EVERYTHING to do with greed, lawlessness, murder and theft.
# # #
notepad at 4:51PM on Jul 14th 2007