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 22 of 22)
316.
All these Naysayers against any possible conspiracy theory need to remember the lesson taught to us by the late Edgar Allen Poe. If you are going to indulge in perpetrating a conspiracy, the more outlandish and generally unbelievable it sounds, the greater its chance for SUCCESS!!
Wally Diem at 11:00PM on Aug 9th 2007
317. Scott, from now on you should be known as Libelboy.
Congressman Paul has said publicly and unequivocally that there is no evidence that the 9/11 attacks were carried off with the knowledge or participation of the U.S government. He's a doctor, and speaks in scientific terms, where "no evidence" means it didn't happen.
That some of the 9/11 Truthinessers still support him despite the fact he disagrees with them on their raison d'etre is evidence that they're not very bright, not that he's wrong.
Americans await your apology for calling him a Truther.
As for your assertion that he's a hypocrite on earmarks, he votes against the bills containing earmarks for his district, and everyone else in Congress knows he will vote against them. There's no hypocrisy.
As for your comments that he agrees with Cindy Sheehan, it's a rather dshonest method of argument to put someone's quoted answer in opposition to your own version of what the actual question was. Been watching The Daily Show and Colbert Report much?
Your lack of historical knowledge is also striking. Have you even heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Here's a primer for you: the U.S. government overstated, and may well have provoked, hostile acts against U.S. naval forces by the North Vietnamese. Congress was then convinced based on an inaccurate presentation of events to authorize what we now call the Vietnam War. IOW, the U.S. has already gone to war in the past on such reasons, so why would it be out of the pale to worry that the same thing could happen again?
No staging, no terror attack, no American civilians killed (although the concern animating Congressman Paul's comments is that an attack on American soldiers by Iraqi militants would be blamed on Iran) - and on your part, no clue.
NickM at 3:46AM on Aug 11th 2007
318. Scott, from now on you should be known as Libelboy.
Congressman Paul has said publicly and unequivocally that there is no evidence that the 9/11 attacks were carried off with the knowledge or participation of the U.S government. He's a doctor, and speaks in scientific terms, where "no evidence" means it didn't happen.
That some of the 9/11 Truthinessers still support him despite the fact he disagrees with them on their raison d'etre is evidence that they're not very bright, not that he's wrong.
Americans await your apology for calling him a Truther.
As for your assertion that he's a hypocrite on earmarks, he votes against the bills containing earmarks for his district, and everyone else in Congress knows he will vote against them. There's no hypocrisy.
As for your comments that he agrees with Cindy Sheehan, it's a rather dshonest method of argument to put someone's quoted answer in opposition to your own version of what the actual question was. Been watching The Daily Show and Colbert Report much?
Your lack of historical knowledge is also striking. Have you even heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Here's a primer for you: the U.S. government overstated, and may well have provoked, hostile acts against U.S. naval forces by the North Vietnamese. Congress was then convinced based on an inaccurate presentation of events to authorize what we now call the Vietnam War. IOW, the U.S. has already gone to war in the past on such reasons, so why would it be out of the pale to worry that the same thing could happen again?
No staging, no terror attack, no American civilians killed (although the concern animating Congressman Paul's comments is that an attack on American soldiers by Iraqi militants would be blamed on Iran) - and on your part, no clue.
NickM at 3:48AM on Aug 11th 2007
319. I have read many commentaries in my life and Scott I must give you credit. You far surpass someone in the intermediary academic range. With the obvious stealth you used in gathering your intelligence, I bet you didn't even tip off the jr. high librarian. When you were checking out "bambi does the world trade towers"did you also look at the DOD website and see Rumsfeld's docu-statement that a missile was used on the Pentagon?It is still there but Rumsfeld is not. Also the vid-inter where he said imagine if.....that some one shot down the plane over Shanksville. Want to see a close up of the military aircraft as it crashes into the 2n WTC?
Bill at 4:22AM on Aug 11th 2007
320. I DON'T KNOW IF BUSH&CO WERE COMPLICIT. MAYBE THEY KNEW SOMETHING BAD WAS COMING. IT TOOK PEARL HARBOR TO GET AMERICANS INFURIATED ENOUGH TO SEEK REVENGE. MAYBE THE SAME THING HERE? DO NOT RULE OUT ANYTHING.
Rhyno101st at 10:38AM on Aug 11th 2007
321. the iranians are up to thier necks in American blood in Iraq. it don't take a genius to see that the Iranians want an islamic theocracy next door and are arming shia militias like the mahdi. al Maliki is an agent of Iran. he hates Gen. Petraeus coz the General has a handle on things. he knows the Iranians are in Iraq. he knows he must destroy the mahdi and the cells trained and funded by Iran. if there ever is a strike against Iran, it will be massive, conducted by the Navy and Air Force. JSOC has been in and out of Iran i bet a hundred times. the greater danger in the long run is Iran, but right now a nuclear armed Pakistan is on the verge of an islamofacist takeover. NEVER RULE OUT ANYTHING. i would throw a party if P-stan got nuked. BY India or the US, the result is the same: hundreds of thousands of jihadi's on the way to 72 Virgin Street. wat do you think they will do if THEY had nuclear weapons? WAKE UP WEST!!!!!!!!
Rhyno101st at 1:08PM on Aug 11th 2007
322. I think this is just another Smear It on anyone that has support from the growing 9/11, Right, or Left side -- does it really matter? Some People will Never question their government? or Never want a Real Debate about the issues or handling of 9/11, the war in IRAQ, the loss of our freedoms.
You just want to take VOTEs away from Ron Paul. The only candidate who stood up and SAID No - Get out of IRAQ, get off TAXES/IRS, and took different direction then most on the panel.
What do U think Bush=Sr./Cheney R planning next? The DRAFT, IRAN and Venuzuela. Who thought up selling the Ports? Who is working towards $elling arms to the ARABs...Who I might add were in on 9/11. Do you ever chk what jobs/companies these guys had b4? Never let a Clinton/or/BUSH get in again.
Get someone who believes in the U.S. Constitution, and our Bill of Rights before we end up in a National Socialism society. You know the ones with ID Cards, Travel restrictions, Phone Taps, Security Alerts, mandatory FDA & Non-FDA Drugs for all Soldiers, mandatory FLU vacines for our children, WMD's 'depleted uranium' missles. Oh wait we already have them in place or just waiting to be put in place.
Vote for RON PAUL as a write in, regardless of WHO they get in the GOP.
Paranoid at 12:03AM on Aug 12th 2007
323. People! This guy is a 'plant'. Anything he says is
pure 'Bull'. Dont lower yourselves and argue with
this character. He is just doing his job and could
care less about your response to his 'bull' article.
It would be much better just to ignore this clown.
MaximillianIV at 6:01PM on Aug 15th 2007
324. Ron Paul is our Hope For AMERICA!!!! Vote to bring our loved ones home and protect us here in our own country NOT to take our father's, brother's, sister's, mother's and lovers away from us!
Mel at 12:28AM on Sep 6th 2007