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 11 of 22)
151. >>Why did Paul not say something akin to "no, I don't believe that and I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job", we'd respect him more. Sadly, the reason he doesn't say that is he believes the opposite.
Tom at 5:15PM on Jul 14th 2007
152. Down with corporate media (FOX, ABC, CNN, We The People Are Watching You). You shills will pay one day for selling out the American people.
Hopefully your kind will pay the price in the form of a mass mob of pitchfork wieldin' conspiracy "nuts" that ram down your doors and burn every single fascist, sell-out scumbag institution that dare promote such warmongering, disinfo. garbage like the article we have here.
Have a good day.
jo at 5:18PM on Jul 14th 2007
153. My initial post only showed the first paragraph so it makes no sense.
Bottom line. Dr. Paul HAS spoken to these issues and questions and any serious journalist would know this by doing his homework.
You'll have to do better than this. A man of Rep. Pauls charecter, stature and credibility won't waste his time dignifying the rantings of a man of yours. Try THINKING though, it might help you to avoid wasting your time as well.
Tom at 5:39PM on Jul 14th 2007
154. Poor example of journalism but all to common these days.
The Soviet Union disintegrated more than 15 years ago
but you'd never know it from reading this hit piece.
This is a typical mainstream media attack on Ron Paul and the Patriot movement - uninformed, ad-hominem, baseless and desperate with an overarching, total, unquestioning blind faith in the government.
How do you know it's a Soviet style hit piece? Well your first clue is the inevitable aspersions cast on the targeted individual's mental health.
These ad-hominem accusations are, by definition, a substitute for careful examination of the evidence, a willingness to fairly and properly debate the issue. They are backed up with no data, no facts, save the fact that the writer merely disagrees with, or finds the target individual's views unpleasant, inconvenient or threatening.
Does Scott have any qualifications in clinical Psychiatry or Psychology? If so, how does he apply his training and method to Ron Paul? If he has no qualifications in either of these fields, on what basis, is he attacking Ron Paul, and why is he doing so with admittedly no relevant qualification and experience. Why should the reader take Scott seriously if he is speaking on this issue with the status of less than rank amateur?
Does Scott call everyone names that he disagrees with? Does Scott feel that name calling is an appropriate substitute for civil debate?
If Scott wants to convince an informed audience of his position, Scott needs to to more than throw loaded categorical references out to his audience, words like "conspiracy theorists" and Heaven's Gate, for example. Again using this references, just like ad-hominem attacks, are a substitute for legitimate, credible examination of the issue. Scott feels that psychological warfare terms like "conspiracy theorist" (apposite of course to "conspiracy theory") will do his work for him. Scott still feels or hopes that people are still cowed and impressed enough by these psych warfare terms that they will retreat from independently studying the issues mentioned in his article. If Scott can throw mud on Ron Paul and others without having substantiate his accusations, or his arguments, such as they are, then Scott wins.
It's a crappy, dishonest way to play the game but what else can you do when you're playing with the hand Scott and his mainstream media colleagues are playing with?
Scott makes another false argument, sets up another smokescreen, by appealing to credulity which, as with the rest of Scott's article, is a substitute for intellectual activity.
Scott states he would categorically never accuse Clinton or any government official of a false flag attack against his own country in order to pursue political goals, as though there virtue or substance to this line of thought alone. However, before we continue here it's important to note that, like a blade of grass pushing up through the concrete, a ray, a glimmer of truth fights its way into Scott's thought process. Scott states "Maybe I'm naive in that assumption " as though with this concession he is proving his authenticity, his earnestness.
Well Scott, if you are not naive then you are dishonest and at best uninformed to a remarkable degree, such that I question AOL's judgment in letting you scribe in their name.
U.S. government officials were openly thinking about false flag attacks against the U.S. more than 40 years ago - Operation Northwoods, a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of simulated or real terrorism and violence on US soil
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
Have you not heard of Operation Gladio, while not specifically attacks against the U.S., CIA assets were involved in the terror attacks against western European citizens?
We know from the incredible efforts and research of Robert B. Stinnett that Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to attack Pearl harbor and made sure the attack happened:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44354
Governments lie their citizenry into war all the time. Google "Lie of the Century"
See also the Soviet shelling of Mainila at Wikipedia.
As regards, 9/11 truth; who do you think carried out 9/11? We know the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to indict Bin Laden for it:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060611155014535
Saddam Hussein didn't do it. So who did do it?
Oh yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. You think 19 guys with box cutters did it. Well Mr. conspiracy theorist, where's your proof?
By the way those polls you cite are frauds. They don't match the big popularity of Ron Paul's website and his overall internet popularity, nor his success in fund raising - he's currently third behind Romney who would be third behind Paul if he hadn't lent himself a few million dollars.
In some of these polls Paul is not even included. And just so you know, polls can be manipulated. They can be targeted to to specific demographics which will give you the answers you want.
Besides how can you expect an indication of big mainstream success when the mainstream media is treating him so unfairly.
With few exceptions Paul is either degraded or ignored by the mainstream media and its operatives.
I challenge you, Scott, to rewrite this piece to accurately reflect the facts and to discuss, honestly, every issue you have mistreated here.
Daniel Richards at 5:42PM on Jul 14th 2007
155. Good job Scott on having absolutely no evidence to support anything you say, while delivering complete falsities!! BRAVO!!
jo at 5:49PM on Jul 14th 2007
156. First off for you to suggest that our government would never use false flags or fear tactics to promote their agenda is ignorant. Read about the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, and prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor from previous administrations. Then read about Downing Street memo, New American Century project, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, John Warner Defense Authorization Act, North American Union, and Real ID Act from this administration. These aren't conspiracies they are facts that can be researched anywhere. Check Wikipedia for the info.
Now Ron Paul has never suggested anything about 9/11 being an inside job, but he is also is not so naive to think that our government can do no wrong. How WMD's were found in Iraq anyway. Oh and what were those Al Qaeda connections to Iraq before we invaded. Nevermind I remember now, we changed our reasons for invading after those were wrong. What is it now? Promoting freedom or something about leaving would cause disaster. It is hard to follow when the reasons change so often. Our founding fathers wouldn't have wrote the Bill of Rights if they felt the government could be trusted with blind faith. Maybe you agree with Bush and think "the Constitution is just a Godd@#$ piece of paper". Ron Paul for freedom in '08
dan at 7:24PM on Jul 14th 2007
157. Whoever wrote this is clearly out to put the screws on Ron Paul.
The way I see it he is the only honest politician running and this poorly written hit piece will only serve as further evidence that our hidden masters are very concerned with Ron Paul's revolution.
The brainwashed moron that wrote this did not bother to check his facts and did not try to inform but rather tried to slander and insult Dr. Paul and his followers.
I only hope that when the next false flag comes along that its idiots like the author of this article that deal with the consequences.
David at 6:14PM on Jul 14th 2007
158. Its pure drivel- like this article -that makes
me glad I dropped AOL as my ISP...
www.ronpaul2008.com
Dr. Bombay at 6:16PM on Jul 14th 2007
159. Hi, i´m From Germany, and i can just say, that you must be carefull with terrorattacks and the hole Situation, because somme people of the Elite in the western wourld(especially in USA) will establish an dictatorship in the USA and the other countrys in Europe. I can only commend to the Amerikans, to look, how Hitler coult establish an dictatorship in Germany.I´m sure that in wikipedia is the history wery well descriped. He stage-manage a Terror Attack too, and said that the Jews have done the Terrorattack.So he could disestablish the rights of the Germans. So Amerikans be Carefull and kick Bush in his Ass!!! And Clinton and Obama too!! Go Ron Paul!!!!!!
Much Greetings from Germany
Alex
Sanja at 8:08AM on Jul 17th 2007
160. Just another high paid hit piece for the NWO. Look at AOL symbol. The all seeing eye inside a pyramid. Tragic hopeless liars. Also look at AOL Time Warner company symbol. Three 6's foring the all seeing eye. Wake up people! There are conspiracies in this world. If there weren't then why would we have federal and state laws against conspiracy?
Tim at 6:30PM on Jul 14th 2007
161. To all my fellow citizens. Those who find it impossible to even consider what Ron Paul is saying or research the history of events that lead to the Vietnam war are doing yourself and our a country a disservice. There are now declassified documents(Freedom of Information Act)and recordings of government officials that prove what he is saying is true.
Most prudent people, and there's hundreds of millions of us, have taken time to research the facts have come away with a new point of view. Our position is now one that supports Ron Paul's. Maybe we've just been fooled our whole lives to believe what the main stream media has delivered to us as news and truth. I have always voted third party because of the considerable malfeasances and derilection of duty on behalf of most elected officials in the two main parties. I have registered Republican because of Ron Paul and his constitutional message. Millions more are also changing parties.
People are going to be shocked when they find out the landslide is already moving beneath there feet. I know at least 30 people, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have heard him and are not only voting for him but becoming active in campaigning.
New Hampshire is Ron Paul country! So is California and the states in between for that matter.
I have no doubt Ron Paul will be our next president. On that day, the world will breath a sigh of relief.
Citizen Joe at 6:36PM on Jul 14th 2007
162. You have to love the first sentence, where this guy implies Ron Paul believes the government is responsible for 9/11(and then in parenthesis tries to cover over his terribly transparent smear attempt). Though I don't expect a sophomore who thinks 'non-action' is a word to be able to read and write above a 3rd grade level and manage a decent hit piece, if there were any dirt on Ron Paul, Fox would've be all over it already.
Christopher at 6:36PM on Jul 14th 2007
163. Alex,
Thanks for your comments and support. As an American who studies history in my free time, I'm well aware, as I described in my earlier comment (msg. 67), of the events leading to the downfall of the German Republic. Unfortunately, it looks to me as though we are following the exact same path. With NSPD 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html), Bush has the power to declare a national emergency and take control of the government. One can only hope (as futile as it might be) that he and his followers do not manage to fabricate an emergency to give him the power that he wants. We are definitely in dangerous times and it is good that people in and out of the country are realizing that.
Justin at 7:48PM on Jul 14th 2007
164. "Stop and think a minute...... Bush and his cronies fabricated a story about Iraq having WMDs. As a result of their deliberate lie"
Complete fabrications such as this is why the tin-foil hat crowd gets absolutely no respect.
Every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Iraq had WMDs as did virtually everyone in the Clinton administration. A simple google search will provide you all the quotes you like.
Bill Clinton and all of his cronies claimed such long before Bush ever took office. Clinton also signed an executive order making the removal of Saddam Hussein the official policy of the the United States in 1998.
When you make stuff up to support your claim, or you don't bother to look up the facts, you lose what little credibility your ridiculous theories may have had to begin with.
Michael at 9:23PM on Jul 14th 2007
165. this guy is a moron. took something ron paul said out of context. i wonder who payed him to write such a dull article? were about to invade Iran and he writes about 9/11 truthers. weak
walker at 8:16PM on Jul 14th 2007