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 9 of 22)
121. Wow, you are seriously naive. #1 Dr. Paul has stated numerous times he does not believe there is any evidence the Administration had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. #2 Have you already forgotten how Bill Clinton bombed a medicine factory (which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of children), just to take the focus off his Lewinsky scandal? #3. Have you ever read about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where President Johnson flat out lied to the American people to escalate Vietnam? #4 Remember late 2002, when Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, every news organization was saying "we have proof of WMD, absolute proof, no question" AND THERE WAS NONE!! And you don't believe these criminals are capable of lying us into a war with Iran now? Look, we all know Mary Cheney is an executive at AOLTW. You probably aren't free to write what you really believe. You need to decide whether you're an American or a Socialist, Scott. Are you with the People, or with the Government? If you're with the People, support Ron Paul. If you're with THEM, stay home or vote for their puppets.
Cameron at 11:44AM on Jul 14th 2007
122. For any of you that do not believe that the Bush administration is willing to stage and attack, or let an attack happen I would refer you to "The Project For The New American Century," which was devised by Dick Cheney and other top officials. I would also ask you to read about Operation Northwoods, in which all of the joint cheifs of staff under the Kennedy administration agreed to stage terror attacks in order to gain civilian support to invade Cuba.
TexasHawk333 at 11:33AM on Jul 14th 2007
123. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvAGAkseh1w
Zbigniew Brzezinski says the same thing about blaming terrorist attacks on Iran to the Senate
PBS, February 1, 2007
Brzezinski before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "The plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a, quote, unquote, "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran, that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
TWM at 11:44AM on Jul 14th 2007
124. Scott,
Tonkin!!!
Mr Bush doesn't have much time, he and the Neo-con pundits have been trying to bait Iran for over 2 years now. How stupid do you think Iran is? We will never be told the truth. Patriotism is dead in the thinking people. And this governmet has cried wolf once to many times. The lives of our citizens have become to precious to support American Imperialism any more.
Jim D
Jim D at 4:18PM on Jul 14th 2007
125. What a crock of shit. Is this acceptable standards for journalism these days? You should be ashamed of your ignorance!
Rat King at 12:02PM on Jul 14th 2007
126. It's funny how this article while trying to de-bunk mr. Paul does not even mention the very pointed statements made by military/ political advisors, the head of Homeland Security, and Cindy Sheehan that more Attacks are "feared" and are necessary to bring around the "unbelievers".
These people know what is going to hapen. Even if 911 was not staged, these people will do anything in thier power to control the populace...
How the hell do you explain this????
"Bush is saying he doesn't care what the people want, the war will continue, they've set up the Military Commissions Act, they've set up the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, he's signed PDD 51 making himself literally dictator, he gave himself that power"
all heil Bush!!
They must be stopped now, your freedom that so many of you feel is being secured by these fearmongers is being taken out from under your noses!!!!!!
Your fear tactics don't work on me!!! at 12:22PM on Jul 14th 2007
127. Scott eats Bush flakes for breakfast with a side of Victory toast. Anyway, Scott is the History Channel a conspiracy theorist? When the history channel tells us that the Gulf of Tonkin was staged to get us deeper into vietnam? Are they a conspiracy theorist when they tell us that Hitler burned his own parliament in order to carry out his plan for the holocaust? HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF IF IDIOTS LIKE YOU BOW DOWN AND SERVE THE TYRANTS. Bush says the Constitution is just a piece of paper, so why would anyone trust the administration especially when the main questions of 9/11 have never been answered satisfactorily. People like Scott will always be enslaved by the bullies, because he is too afraid to admit that tyrants have seized control, so he will continue to lick their boots even as he is being arrested for breaking curfew after martial law is imposed.
Jake at 12:17PM on Jul 14th 2007
128. When we have people like Rick Santori saying we need another attack on U.S. soil so everyone will support the President, why is it so unusual for a candidate to agree that there's a danger of a staged attack? Such false flag attacks have been staged countless time and they always work! Read your history books.
But there's something I don't really understand. If foreign terrorists do pull off another major attack here, why would people start supporting the President who let it happen? The Mexican border is wide open, making all Bush's claims of "protecting Americans" not only a blatant lie, but a huge slap in the face. People aren't as dumb as our leaders seem to think.
Ed Chambers at 12:31PM on Jul 14th 2007
129. "We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther..." False.
"or at least supported by those who are)"...Huge difference - he is not in control of the beliefs of his supporters. Ignoring his beliefs while pointing at some of his supporters is dishonest.
"Now he's agreeing that conspiracies that have not yet happened will in fact come to pass:" False - he acknowledged the possibilty, as should you, given the facts of history.
"Besides his hypocrisy on earmarks" It is not hypocrisy to get benefits for those who pay the taxes. His only choice is to benefit his voters or someone else's voters. He votes AGAINST the spending bills, but when they pass anyway, his voters get their fair share of beneefits. That is justice, not hypocrisy.
Quit lying about Ron Paul. It makes you look silly.
John Howard at 1:00PM on Jul 14th 2007
130. You're making things up if you are saying Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther". Ron Paul is not an eccentric. People excited about his views and his type of leadership do not warrant any of your name calling. False flag operations have been confirmed in the past as a way of escalating whatever the current political agenda. That is fact. If it has happened in the past, it is possible it can happen again. He is merely warning of the unprecidented acquisition of power that this administration has gained. I would like to continue this discussion.
These words still ring true:
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goring (Nazi 2nd in command) at the Nuremberg Trials
Mike B at 1:10PM on Jul 14th 2007
131. Since when is it UnAmerican to question the government? Can anyone tell me what proof they have seen not just what they say? Just do a little research and there are too many coincidences. More money was spent to investigate Clinton's little fiasco than 9/11. President Bush has lied to the American people more times than ANY other President in the history of the United States. I love this country and want my kids to enjoy some of the freedoms I did as a child. When they talk to their boyfriends/girlfriends on the phone, it would be nice to be private. It is fear the Administration is using to get the masses to say "ok" you can protect me when in reality all the money at the border supposedly for the fence, well where is it and the little portion that was built, illegals did it, look it up. If terrorism was so scary and dangerous for this country, why are the borders wide open? He first said Shiite and now it is Sunni and we are using Al Quadea to attack Iran , again look it up. It is time we stop worrying about other countries and focus on this beautiful country of ours. Why would anyone have a reason to attack us if we did not meddle in their affairs? Because we are supposedly free and have TV's and radio's? Sure I buy that, I also have a bridge for sale...If anyone attacks this country they should pay dearly but my grandfather fought the Nazis because of the things they did and now we are going down the same path, read the new martial law bill that leaves the President in full control with no recourse for congress and for any reason he determeins necessary. Don't forget the Military Commissions Act, that is a good one. Listen to Dr. Paul, he has never lied before and every candidate has tried to find some dirt on him and have failed, they are scared, he has more money than McCain. We can have this country back again for our children. No more illegal taxes, money back by something and actually owned by the government, actual border enforcement, no more DEA arresting cancer patients for following a law that was passed by the people. Finally as a once great leader said:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Drew M. Krycerick at 1:26PM on Jul 14th 2007
132. Read Operation Northwoods on ABC if you do not believe our government would do such things for money, war and power. Educate yourself, do not let them give you what they want you to hear, look whow actually owns the major media outlets, wake up America, look at the PROOF they are not theories, they put that label on anyone who ask questions they do not like, these are GOVERNMENT documents from the Joint Chiefs.
Drew M. Krycerick at 1:28PM on Jul 14th 2007
133. WAKE UP!!!!
The 'neocons' of their respective days have initiated or complicitly allowed conflicts throughout history in order to further their war profiteering and political control - the sinking of the Lusitania, the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, the bombing of the USS Liberty, etc. etc.
There is a great deal of evidence that suggests that 9-11 was basically the same thing. As opposed to the proverbial 'smoking gun' in regards to 9-11 there is more of a 'smoking arsenal'. There DOES EXIST evidence that would help to clear up the situation i.e. videos from 1000 different angles of flight 77 allegedly hitting the pentagon, black boxes from the planes, etc...but they are being kept from us by our government.
So whats wrong with asking questions about 9-11?
rjr7777 at 8:35AM on Jul 20th 2007
134. Hmm. Scott, you seem to have been completely flattened. I have to admit I was expecting a lot of brainless Ron Paul ranting, but what I see instead are contributions which demonstrate a much better understanding of history and political science than the article does.
However, the one thing that no one can seem to do on the internet is respond directly to an opinion. So instead of telling you mine, I will respond to yours:
"C'mon Paulites, he did in fact say he agreed with Cindy Sheehan. Ain't no spinning this one."
He did in fact say that he agreed with her. So I guess the impact of this statement depends on whether Sheehan herself is right or wrong. Sheehan’s assertion was based primarily on documents showing that some Republican officials had discussed a terrorist attack on the US in a favorable context. So this comment, while true, does not address the point: Are we truly in danger of this type of attack?
I agree, though, that it is unfortunate that Paul chose to associate himself with Sheehan like this, because Sheehan does not have a polished image and may hurt his sense of legitimacy. On the other hand, polished images in politics are losing value fast these days, and I think we are near the end of the time when legitimacy is measured in terms of stage presence and bland acceptability (Look what happened to Kerry in 2004).
"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."
This is true, given our current definition of legitimacy. Truthers and ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ theories have no place whatsoever within the political status quo, and there is no reason for change unless the status quo somehow fails the people. However, if the status quo does fail or is widely seen to have failed, than this statement would become false.
There is possibly an interesting assumption hidden in this statement, which I would like to clarify. Do you think that Paul should have taken this opportunity to slam ‘truthers’, regardless of whether he agreed with them? Your statement seems to suggest that his opinion should not determine how he answers a question. That is an interesting point of view, if I read this correctly.
I would very much like to hear your comments on this post.
Paul at 2:17PM on Jul 14th 2007
135. Scott doesn't seem to notice his own "Ron Paul Conspiracy" theory. Get the facts straight, and then retract this horrid piece.
aaron at 1:34PM on Jul 15th 2007