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 5 of 22)
61. Scott is not interested in the truth. He is only interested in twisting it to attempt to discredit Ron Paul. A few comments of explanation might be helpful to those reading what he wrote. Any more is a waste of time.
Cathy at 8:31PM on Jul 13th 2007
62. Scott,
I listened to the entire interview in which your outlandish comments are based and I find that he (Ron Paul) said nothing in which any objective person after looking at the current state of affairs in the Persian Gulf region could derive that either Cindy Sheehan's statements or Ron Paul's statements are without factual basis. My question to you Scott is two fold:
1. Do you believe that the United States may be attacked by foreign or domestic terrorists precipitated by covert factions of the U.S. government in order to bolster support for the war in Irag and hatred towards Iran?
2. Would you emphatically state publicly that the present U.S. administration is NOT involved in a systematic escalation of troop buildup in the Persian Gulf region to provoke an attack on our armed forces in order to justify a retaliatory strike against Iran?
webrunner53 at 8:40PM on Jul 13th 2007
63. People blindly obedient to whoever is in charge are amusing. Nice article, just made me more likely to vote for Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul 2008, because the government is there to server the people, not the other way around.
Robert at 8:44PM on Jul 13th 2007
64. Ron Paul on 911:
Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Second if you listen to the response to Jones' question, it seems fairly obvious that Dr. Paul is saying that Americans are in far more danger in general--not necessarily because of a government attack on us. In fact, the only attack he says he's worried about is us attacking Iran...
Micah at 8:46PM on Jul 13th 2007
65. This article is rediculous. He was asked, directly, by the organizers of "Scholars for Truth," a group that believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, if he believed that the US had a hand in the attacks (directly).
Ron Paul replied (and I quote) "No, I don't believe that there is any evidence of that."
This article is a horrible piece of journalism. He supports everyone's right to believe whatever they want. Just because I believe that people have the right to eat dirt doesn't mean that I enjoy eating dirt myself.
"He believes that a terror attack will be staged to allow the evil Neo-cons of the Bush administration unimpeded access to attack Iran." - Scott
You're as bad as John Gibson, or you're just delusional.
Paul at 8:48PM on Jul 13th 2007
66. Scott, the jokes going to be on you when your $ isn't worth crap anymore.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=worldwide&sid=aLaColVYu5LA
Joe at 8:50PM on Jul 13th 2007
67. 9/11 was a False Flag operation. No doubt in my mind. And administration is at the center of it.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
BTW Vote Ron Paul 2008!
That is if we haven't experienced yet another False Flag terror attack to indeed invade Iran and also (worse yet) for W to declare martial law and seize all branches.
Josh at 8:53PM on Jul 13th 2007
68. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Watch it! Learn it!
Josh at 8:54PM on Jul 13th 2007
69. "One surprising development has been the online strength of a Republican longshot, Rep. Ron Paul, of Texas, who has spawned fierce devotion online and been able to sustain his campaign in large part from Internet donations."
Michael Luo
New York Times News Service
The quote cited above was the 14th paragraph of a 14 paragraph article in today's newspaper.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi
jeff22 at 9:03PM on Jul 13th 2007
70. You can't start out an article "I always knew he was a truther" and then balk on the second sentence saying
that all of his supporters are. The very first line of this drivel contradicts itself. Generalizing in any sense is for the ignorant and just because "some" not "all" of his supporters may believe in conspiracy theories, that doesn't have much merit in regard to the candidate himself. On a side note, what do you think happened to people who thought JFK was a conspiracy and voiced, yes they were called crazy. Fast-forward 40 years and more people believe that more happened there then they did when it happened. This is not to state I believe in the 911 truth theory but think about how theories work from a historical standpoint and what happens over time when more information is actually learned. We do not have a society of free-flowing information and that's the unfortunate truth, but that is nothing new and only future findings can play the true judge in what happens and what actually happens. Remember that when you classify anyone who may think something different than you as nut-jobs.
D Reed at 7:24AM on Jul 16th 2007
71. "32. C'mon Paulites, he did in fact say he agreed with Cindy Sheehan. Ain't no spinning this one."
I'm surprised by the number of folks on here who don't know what they are trying to talk about, including the person who wrote the article.
So he agrees with Sheehan that he fears the extrememly secretive Bush administration, which has recently slipped in laws that will allow them to declare marshal law at any time for almost any reason, might pull a flase flag event as an excuse to attack Iran, Syria and Pakistan, and clam down on an unhappy population. That doesn't mean he thinks the Bush admin were responsible for 911. I, as one who reads up on things before I write, have read where Ron Paul said that govenments tend to try to cover up things that show their ineptitude. That's right, all he accused the Bush admin of in 911 is being inept. And if you haven't figured out by now that they are INEPT, you aren' looking.
Pete at 9:34PM on Jul 13th 2007
72. Was there even an attempt to practice factual/investigative journalism in this post? I can understand CNN or FOX suggesting and dropping hints at these fallacies but not a blogger. You have total accountability and credibility at stake when you post anything, I would think you'd want to be proud of your work and strive for accuracy.
I think the only accurate statement you made was "...or at least supported by those who are" in regard to the 9/11 Truth fanatics and crazies in my opinion. We can't really hate somebody because of there supporters though right? The logic seems flawed. If leaders were hated based on the merit of there supporters then we could with prejudice hate the pope because some of his supporters are convicted child molesters. That seems like a stretch to me and deeply menacing to hear from people who are at least intelligent enough to find home row (assuming you did put that much work into this).
senatesk8r16 at 10:06PM on Jul 13th 2007
73. With all due respect, reporting facts and truth is part of responsible journalism.
Regarding Mr. Paul: He does not endorse the 9/11 truth movement. Check your facts, please, and take time to do the research before you post an article.
Regarding 9/11 truth people: Everyone, including the 9/11 truthers, are entitled to support any candidate they choose. It's a sad day in America when fellow Americans are ridiculed for questioning the government, and automatically branded "conspiracy theorists."
It's insane to think that a candidate is supposed to choose the right "kind" of supporters, rather than the other way around.
The Ron Paul supporters comment on blogs because they are educated and informed on the issues, and support their candidate with passion, yet we are ridiculed for standing up for freedom.
Suzan at 10:27PM on Jul 13th 2007
74. So Scott, after reading the comments and noticing that pretty much everyone disagrees with you and many aren't even Paul supporters, do you still believe your own drivel?
Your really making yourself look bad...if your such a great journalist, what other dirt can you dig up on Ron?
DisabledVet at 3:06PM on Jul 14th 2007
75. You say "Maybe I'm naive in that assumption". So you cant be that naive.
The word "conspiracytheorist" is a fascist statement. You should not use this word rahter address the topics. It's never correct to blame anyone for looking for the truth. You should respect peoples freedom of speech and it also doesn't hurt to listen to them before you talk about the subject. Taking about the person is always wrong.
The US has the biggest army in the world and you are using it against woman and children? OMG?
It took Hitler 30 days to take over Germany, there is your naive. That's what you should be afraid of if you so desire to be afraid of things.
A new world war? And you want to sit there and let it hapen?
gaby de wilde at 11:13PM on Jul 13th 2007