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 2 of 22)
16. Scott,
You cannot distance yourself from your blog. You said: "We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul IS [emphasis mine] 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."
Then, when someone calls you on it, you say: "Here come the Paulites. I said his supporters are 'truthers.'
No, Scott, you said Ron Paul IS a 'truther." You cannot fall back on your qualification "...or at least supported by those who are..." when your assertion is proven false.
Ron Paul's various positions aside, or the vociferousness of his supporters, you need to go back to LOGIC 101 and learn how to construct a proper argument. Why should we take you seriously when you can't even keep your assertions straight?
THEODEN at 5:26PM on Jul 13th 2007
17. It's amazing how this guy can twist the truth so much.
Are you looking for the truth or are you trying to twist whatever you hear and see to fit your belief?
wbbgjr at 5:27PM on Jul 13th 2007
18. Ron Paul is not a 9/11 Truther.
Why would he have voted to go after Osama bin Laden if he was a truther? He has stated in all the debates that Muslim extremists murdered 3,000 American citizens. He has stated that these extremists are our enemies, and he has sworn that he will hunt down Osama bin Laden.
Scott, you are either intentionally spreading misinformation or you have not done you're research. I seriously hope that it is the latter.
Tim at 5:27PM on Jul 13th 2007
19. great piece Scott, I think you'll make a great president
Scott/Malkin '08! You rock buddy, just keep fighting the good fight against all these worthless paulite meme truther conspiracy theorist tin foil hat wearing nut jobs !!!
Freedom and Fascism, AOL ... we report, we decide.
er-ban at 5:28PM on Jul 13th 2007
20. "9/11 Truther", "hypocrisy", "polling at 0%", "conspiracy theorists", "Heavens Gate", "tin hats".
This article is a conspiracy of words. It's the familiar sound of the people who start the wars lying to the people who fight-in, die-in, and pay for them. A good man like Paul --a man who served his country-- is being misrepresented to the public. People, wake up! You are being lied to by old-media.
Of course the lies that got us into Iraq --the same will get us into Iran-- are not criticized by this article's writer. I wonder what his angle is?
JTaverner at 5:29PM on Jul 13th 2007
21. What are we supposed to do, wrangle up the truthers and tell them "stop supporting Ron Paul?" They have to vote for SOMEBODY. To try and establish a link between a candidate and a conspiracy group, when the candidate has never endorsed such claims, is shameful. If NAMBLA endorsed, say, Giuliani, would it be fair to label Rudy a pedophile? I think not. That's just bad logic.
When Ron Paul takes a stand on an issue that is unrelated to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you peg him down and say it's more of the same. On the contrary, you should be applauding him for standing against corruption. He's the only candidate who seems to be willing to admit the government might not always be kind and loving, which is far more realistic than the whitewashed nationalism others are spouting.
Parker at 5:32PM on Jul 13th 2007
22. Ron Paul has support of Democrats, but is not a Democrat. He has support of women, but is not a woman. If you believe that elements within the government are incapable of commiting such an act, you need to study history some more, and research "false flag" operations.
Bradley at 5:36PM on Jul 13th 2007
23. Scott is a moron! This is all fiction! enough said.
wbbgjr at 5:34PM on Jul 13th 2007
24. Scott writes:
"Of course none of you respond to the fact that Saint Ron actually believes that the Bush administration would gin up a fake terror attack to gain power to invade Iraq."
Scott, are you unfamiliar with the military concept of a false flag operation? Here's the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
I doubt the 9/11 attacks were planned per se, but I don't have a hard time at all believing that some arm of the Bush Administration allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen as a pretext to war in Iraq. As Paul O'Neill noted in an early cabinet meeting (and to his shock), Bush had wanted to take out Saddam since day one of his administration.
Note how entertaining Orwell would find it that "truther" is a term of derision.
Buckwheat at 5:33PM on Jul 13th 2007
25. Scoot are you aware of Presidential directive 51? Maybe you should make yourself aware of it. When you do, you will see the ability for the Bush administration at the presidents sole discretion to postpone the elections and create a plenary style of rule.
And yes I will take you to task for your ascertations that Ron Paul is a 9-11 "truther" or a conspiracy theroist
Here is the EXACT transcript of the important part of the conversation Ron Paul had with the 9-11 "truthers" that so many like you Scott try and smear into Ron being a tin hat wearer.
“Student: …we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.
Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.”
Nothing in those statements accused the government of lying, rather it calls attention to the OBVIOUS fact that in the past there have been numerous government cover ups and so why should he treat the 9-11 report any different?
Is it not the job of a good politician to question the government?
Or Scott, should he just blindly have faith in their perfect superiority over us?
I challenge you Scott, to provide us here with one Congressman other than Ron Paul whom has voted in accordance every time with the law they SWORE to uphold when they took office.
You cant.
And further "explain his actions" I just did, and his actions to restore liberty, freedom and reduce the size of the government don't need explaining, unless of course you don't understand those concepts Scott, and if that is the case I suggest you start with the Deceleration Of Independence, followed by the Constitution and then finish up with the Bill of Rights...those three documents sum up Ron Paul's campaign in its entirety.
Unless of course you would like to provide us with some proof that he has violated any of those documents......
We're waiting...
Disabled Vet at 3:06PM on Jul 14th 2007
26. and from the guy who claims "Fred Thompson ... what's that about fear in the hearts?" riiight.
"Deficit Shrinks More than Estimated"
When did we start paying it off? Oh you mean now we will run less of a deficit than the fudged estimates first suggested. Haven't the kool-aid sipping bushites come out with this one every year in office... certainly close to every year.
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Scott you make this so easy for them. Certainly you don't buy into all this yourself, not anymore?
What is AOL paying these days by the way?
er-ban at 5:38PM on Jul 13th 2007
27. Why so easily dismiss that 9/11 was an inside job? Have you even done some fact checking and research? Do you think the terrorists on those planes took the hundreds of millions of dollars in armored cars beneath the trade center, cars which were found later emptier than your tiny head? Maybe it was the terrorists that immidiately sold the metal from the buildings to China. It must have been the terrorists exact targeting to hit the outer layer of the pentagon which was under construction in which caused damage to the building far smaller than the wingspan of a massive plane. The terrorists must have warned many of those prominent people at the WTC to not go to work that day. THE FUCKING MAYOR OF NEW YORK CANT SPEAK ONE SENTENCE WITHOUT SAYING TERROR!!! Safety, terror, fear, alert, scare, these are words that our leaders use to put fear into us. It's not a conspiracy theory anymore, theories aren't near as proven as this, its just a conspiracy and if you don't believe than they are doing a good job at it, jackass.
Scott at 5:42PM on Jul 13th 2007
28. Ron Paul is not a Truth-er. He is a FACT-ER! He just thinks someone should look at the facts we do have and that guys like Bush and Rudy who have been profiting fom 911 should be some how responsible for negligence inside of their administrations which allowed for these things to happen in the 1st place. He is not a "conspiracy" guy but he knows the truth of history and what could happen if there were artificial scares like those we have seen before from the Bush administration just prior to the election. Google "Directive 51". If someone thinks these powers would be used or not matters not. This kind of power should not exist for the president and Ron Paul is the only one runing who would end this kind of stretch of powers.
PS Why write the article if you believe the low poll numbers? Ron Paul should not matter to you. Just vote for your next keeper and keep your head in the sand about the truthS that are being told.
jwerner929 at 5:43PM on Jul 13th 2007
29. "We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther""
Yeah, you didn't call him a 9/11 truther AT ALL.
The problem with Prison Planet is that they will construe any comment critical of the administration as an endorsement of their own views. That quote with Dr. Paul, it's responding to recent articles by conservatives that have been practically praying for another terrorist attack to hit us,and that is what Dr. Paul was responding to.
Jesse at 5:46PM on Jul 13th 2007
30. "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."
It would be helpful if we knew exactly what --it-- referred to. Is it the possibility that something will happen that will trigger Bush to declare martial law? Is it a staged attack by our own government within our borders? Is it a Gulf of Tonkin provocation?"
Once that's established, we can discuss the issue.
Willem De Wit at 11:41PM on Jul 13th 2007