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 4 of 22)
46. Which of the main stream Republican candidates campaigns paid you to write this retarded and patently obvious smear piece?
Gary Tatro Jr. at 6:43PM on Jul 13th 2007
47. this is a response to Scott in message #6
"Typical Paul responders, you never explain your boys actions, you defend him blindly even when he says things that are completely idiotic"
you need to read some history
he can defend himself, thats what you dont like about him...so lets see if he can do it with a few excerpts from what was perhaps the greatest warning speech ever given that no one heard...it was given by none other than Dr. Paul, on July 10, 2003
if you do not know the people Dr. Paul is talking about here look them up and see what they stand for...or better yet, read the entire 50 minute speech yourself...its entitled "NEOCONNED"
"There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.
Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.
In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
"Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):
…"of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality".
Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.
koby at 6:43PM on Jul 13th 2007
48. "We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther" (or at least supported by those who are)" ----- Wow, what a credibility destroyer to set the tone for the entire article. Great work! (insert sarcasm) Be sincere and admit we were all duped and got the ole' bait and switch from this crooked and corrupt administration. These guys are gangsters folks and they need to be put in jail asap!
jason at 6:46PM on Jul 13th 2007
49. I know that there are 9/11 Truthers that support this blog. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy, and you are guilty of it. Congratulations. You fail at life.
Isis at 6:50PM on Jul 13th 2007
50. You might want to look up a speech that Dr. Paul made in Congress six months ago when he warned of a possible "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw
The basis of his remarks have nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
He simply reads history.
It has happened before. It will happen again.
Michael Wagner at 8:28AM on Jul 14th 2007
51. What's the opposite of a "911 Truther"? A "911 Denialer"?
Pete at 7:04PM on Jul 13th 2007
52. The truth is,if he criticise terrorists for what they've done to our people on 9/11 and abroad then what the hell is he criticising the Bush Administration for,this is nuts on his part.I think some people turn off their headlights and rather crashed and destroy themselves just to vent their frustration because of their shortsighted view of the real threat from extreme Islamist shadowing us everyday.The very reason we in the Western World enjoys Freedom is because we took upon ourselves Christianity and its author which is Christ Jesus.He even was crucified in order for us to be free.Are we rather not do something to continue defending this same freedom our Lord and God died for? All this yaping yaping Bush this Bush that is all thoughtless.Ok,no offense to families and Honorable men and women that lost their lives for defending our freedom,just as Christ died for the same cause these valiant and honorable service men and women offer their lives for us all American and the whole world so these Islamist practices and barbaric behaviour will have no place in our societies.Ok,we say to ourselves lets not do anything to the terrorists leave them alone and they're talking among themselves lets dominate the world and to do that lets get rid of all christians and zionists and Americans whatever they refer to us.People leave your politics aside and come to some real senses.Back to the point,any candidate that doesn't take upon himself the war on terror seriously is not worth running for this position period.
Jor at 11:56PM on Jul 13th 2007
53. Alex Jones: Congressman Ron Paul, we believe that reptilians from Theta 12 are conspiring with the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to steal superficially raise the price of tinfoil and keep us from making hats that prevent them from stealing our thoughts.
Ron Paul: Well, if I lowered taxes, you could afford more tinfoil, regardless of price fluxuations.
Alex Jones: You heard it here first, folks! Alex Jones is ONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US....
Blogosphere: Ron Paul is a total conspiracy nutcase!
Mainstream Media: Paris is out of jail!
Rich DeYoung at 7:47PM on Jul 13th 2007
54. On January 29, 2003, Ron Paul gave a speach in which he said, "We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West...". How is this related to conspiricy theory?
Al Dove at 7:39PM on Jul 13th 2007
55. Oh, please. Paul was simply agreeing with part of the quote (that we are in danger of attack), not every word of it (that we are in danger of an attack staged by Bush). You would know this if you paid attention to his words in which there is no hint of him believing that the administation would stage an attack.
San Diego Thinker at 1:13PM on Jul 16th 2007
56. "29. The truth is,if he criticise terrorists for what they've done to our people on 9/11 and abroad then what the hell is he criticising the Bush Administration for,this is nuts on his part.I think some people..."
The truth is, Ron Paul has criticized the terrorists for what they did. He has also criticized the Bush administration when they have deserved it. He criticized Bush for dropping the ball on bin Laden to attack Iraq, which has become the quagmire that he predicted, yet still bin Laden and the Taliban are there to cause us more trouble.
Pete at 7:49PM on Jul 13th 2007
57. C'mon Paulites, he did in fact say he agreed with Cindy Sheehan. Ain't no spinning this one.
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.
Short answer, he's not a legitimate candidate and didn't slam those who espouse such garbage.
Your boy blew a huge opportunity to get some respect, but instead he's, as I've said before, Larouchian.
Scott at 7:54PM on Jul 13th 2007
58. I find it hard to believe that this hit piece on Ron Paul is not a ploy by "Scott" to get more web traffic.
Paul is not a 9/11 Truther, and the fact that they approached him is of no relevance.
As for the government staging or misinforming people about events to bring us into war, all I have to say is such deceit is old hat for governments, including this one. After all, the Gulf of Tonkin fraud DID occur. Why would this government be more trustworthy than it was 40 years ago?
Paul voiced a legitimate concern regarding possible war with Iran and people should listen.
The Vich at 8:03PM on Jul 13th 2007
59. You say "conspiracy theorist" like it's a bad thing!
http://www.conspiracytheoristclothing.com/areyou.html
Conspiracy Theorist at 8:08PM on Jul 13th 2007
60. "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"
Reason magazine asked him, and he said exactly this. Have a nice day.
Matt C at 8:20PM on Jul 13th 2007