Posted on 12/10/2011 3:53:36 PM PST by mnehring
I’ve been waiting for quite a while for Ron Paul to just come out and admit he’s a 9/11 truther. Frankly, I thought it would happen a long time before now. It has taken so long, in fact, that I had started to doubt whether he would ever do it. However, I guess his Iowa polling numbers must have him feeling his oats, because he finally let slip (apologies to those who cannot view the video in IE, we are working to fix the technical issue. Original video may be found here):
And it’s… just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq. So the war drums beat…
Perfect. Just great. Remember that the less crazy truthers out there don’t get bogged down in scientific nonsense like “fire can’t melt steel.” They don’t necessarily believe that the Bush administration actually put bombs in the WTC to help it come down (although they’re not precisely ruling it out). What they DO believe is that the U.S. government was warned by the Israelis/Saudis/French/whoever that the attacks were coming and deliberately ignored it because they wanted 9/11 to happen so they could go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ron Paul has now moved from saying that 9/11 was our fault (which was despicable enough) to now saying that it’s something our government actually wanted to happen. Put this up there with Ron Paul’s belief that Southeast Asia got much better after we left Vietnam (a viewpoint doubtless shared by millions of massacred Southeast Asians – but hey, at least we trade with Vietnam now) on the all time list of Ron Paul’s contemptible and publicly-expressed beliefs. Add to this the fact that Ron Paul is a liar and a hypocrite on spending, who has built a career larding up appropriations bills with pork for his home district and then casting meaningless votes against their final passage, and I have to confess that I don’t really see the appeal of Ron Paul to Iowa voters. Well, the Republican ones, at least.
Bump to reply to later. After I calm down and don’t go off on the zombies who’re celebrating the loss of a good man here.
That’s a piece of cake, you moron! Saddam’s minions trained hijackers on a Boeing mockup SE of Baghdad. Al Queda also had an active outpost in NE of the country that Saddam allowed to operate. Saddam cooperated with Al Queda and provided financing although he didn’t trust them not to attack him...kinda like protection money!
JC
Don’t let the door knob catch you in the @## on the way out!
JC
“Some more examples- Falsely claiming that the only way the Constitution allows the use of the military in our interest is through a formal declaration of war (specifically worded as he expects). This contradicts Article 1, Section 8 which gives three specific ways the military can be used for force (1. Punishing piracy and offenses against the laws of nations, 2. Formal war, & 3. Quelling insurrections). He has been screaming for a decade how the WOT is unConstitutional yet this falls under category 1 in how the military can be used.)...
...How about his claim that the Constitution says that only ‘gold and silver coin’ are legal tender. This is again false. (albeit a decent practice). The Constitution limits States to only issue gold or silver for payments of debts but Article 1 specifically gives Congress the power to both mint currency and set the value, something they couldn’t do if it were a commodity currency like gold where the value is set by the market...
...How about his opposition to the Defense of Marriage act and saying the government has no role in recognizing any marriage? Again, this flies in the face of Article 1 that does give Congress the authority to set standards for ‘weights and measures’. How does that apply? Federalist 42 discusses how ‘measures’ include definitions that apply to contracts and laws (ie what defines the parties in a Marriage Contract).”
Great points. I used to contend that Paul is fairly ignorant about the Constitution with his zombies, but they debate like liberals, so I just let them circle themselves, flailing about.
Paul is a mere political charlatan, there are lots of those, but his zealots are far more ignorant.
Capt. Kirk got the zot? HAPPY DANCE!!!
Not a Ron Paul fan, but the gold coin I am looking at says $20. The silver coin has $1 on it. Sure, I would not give it to you for the stated price...but the government sets the price. If you did a search, you could find the old PM standards for our currency.
The sad part is the followers constantly repeating and programming themselves with the mantra ‘he is the only Constitutionalist, he is the only consistent one, true to the founders.. yadda, yadda’ without having a healthy skepticism of his actual record.
You have an entire movement and generation who aren’t judging what is happening on the actual Constitution along with the Federalist Papers as a guide for meaning and context. Instead, they are weighing it all on what Paul says it is.
That is putting way too much trust in someone ‘from the government who is here to help’ instead of stepping outside what someone from the government says and being skeptical of them.
It is almost like religious cultists who follow the cult leader’s statements on the Bible versus the actual Bible.
It is the antitheses of rationality.
This is a dishonest post.
A truther believes that the government was involved in the plot to murder thousands of Americans.
The comment in the article does not indicate that Ron Paul believes that. He might believe that, but the comment doesn’t prove that.
His isolationist foreign policy positions are certainly open to criticism, but this post is not honest criticism.
Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Paul is discussing Motive.
It may not be an overt Make It Happen On Purpose truther, but he is generally in line with the Let It Happen On Purpose side, even if he keeps his language ‘political’.
“Walter” you’re not funny anymore!
Walter has been sympathizing with Achmed too much and smoking some of Peanut’s stash.
Thank you, and as I recall, Saddam also had an Al Queda liaison officer who attended a finance meeting in Malaysia (I think) to coordinate their mutual efforts. He also provided the monies ($25K per) to reward Palestinian terrorist suicide bombers’ families after successful bombings of Israeli citizens/facilities.
JC
Maybe not glee, but definitely a sense of not letting a good crisis go to waste. And there were definitely people who wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 and viewed this as their big chance. So Paul is basically right. And saying this doesn't make him a "truther".
9-11 Sept 2001
Afghanistan Oct 2001
Iraq March 2003
Two of these make sense together, one doesn’t.
“So Paul is basically right.”
No, he is basically incorrect.
“And saying this doesn’t make him a “truther”.”
It makes him a conspiratorial nutcake and at the very least, a Truther Lite. Probably more, since he hangs with Alex’s Truther Calvacade.
Maybe not glee, but definitely a sense of not letting a good crisis go to waste. And there were definitely people who wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 and viewed this as their big chance. So Paul is basically right. And saying this doesn’t make him a “truther”.
__________________________________
Is it just me, or do I feel another Paulbot ZOT coming? JimRob? Still there??
Yeah, FR needs more Truther input....... /sarc.
I take it you had some run-ins with him as well ?
I, for one, was looking foward to this day for a while.
Don't worry about Captain Kirk. He's still got his girlfriend to keep him company.
The Unitardian Party? Paul/LaRouche 2012?
Maybe we'd all get lucky, and they would end up killing each other over who would get top billing on the ticket.
I know articles are sometimes deceptive, but I don’t like Ron Paul. That can’t be changed. If his foreign policy was tempered and his overall attitude..the same...I wouldn’t mind him at all.
Paul was one of the 5 Repubs voting to repeal DADT. He thinks homosexuals in the military are fine, they have rights, etc etc.
No freaking way would I ever vote for him. I’d choke to death on my own vomit.
I’d rather gouge out my own eyes than vote for RuPaul, Defender of All Things Homosexual.
Well, Paul is at at an all-time high on Intrade.com. Meanwhile, your RINO is slipping. Just saying...
Paultards have a forum.
StormFront
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed they were all of the Rosie O’Donnell moonbat species.
You’re welcome!
Hey, Joe.
You have your list of potential zottees? You’re not the only one, LOL!
I stand corrected. [smiles]
[nodding, smiles]
Yeah, but in CK’s case, I guess this was a sort of last-straw thing. Eventually he just put enough strain on the tripwire and the Admin’s claymore went off...
}:-)4
The Constitution stays! It’s ours and were keeping it. Ron Paul just goes away.
Quite the opposite from my perspective.
You should read Douglas Feith's book, War and Decision. It's the book historians will study to understand the Bush administration's reasoning on Iraq after 9-11. Feith was Rumsfeld's undersecretary and considered to be near the center of the "neocon" cabal by Truther types and leftists. The book includes lots of internal memos by Rumsfeld himself where he boils his arguments down to a few bullet points (one of the interesting things is that you see what a master of concision and ordered thinking Rummy was -- his memos rarely went over a few hundred words, even the really important ones). What is obvious is that the administration didn't use 9-11 as a pretext to go to war, and certainly didn't rely on the argument that Saddam was responsible for 9-11.
Instead, the reasons for war were primarily 1) a concern that Saddam would supply WMDs to radical Islamic al Queda types who would be willing to deploy them against the US homeland, and 2) a concern that a second attack involving WMDs would necessitate internal security measures that would seriously infringe individual liberties in order to prevent further attacks. The administration felt that aggressively taking the war abroad while implementing sensible security measures at home would minimize the risk to liberties at home.
Right, all the way up to 8!
Unfortunately for the Paul squad, Newt is at 37.
LOL!
I hope you're not actually expecting this crowd to read something, are you?
They already know everything because they are on FR.
There is probably a website sponsored by them that will shed more light on what they believe.
Love the Pac Man thing. Pac Man was actually my nick name shortly following my Army ETS.
Nice to see you out here.
Hope that all is well. I have been away for a while.
Ron Paul. Everyones crazy uncle.
Iraq was like a killing field in a way, it drew out the extremists from all over the middle east and we fought them on foreign soil instead of here. In that single regard the invasion worked like a charm, it may have solidified some support for Al Qaeda against us but it did far more good than harm. Where we blew it was after the invasion was of course not having enough troops in country and disbanding their military too quickly. I know its not a popular belief, but I still think we should have tuned north and toppled Iran's leaders also. Yes the world would have been pissed had we done so, but in the political atmosphere after 9/11 had we moved quicker and with more force the world would be in a much better place right now.
Hindsight is always 20/20...
Iraq was like a killing field in a way, it drew out the extremists from all over the middle east and we fought them on foreign soil instead of here. In that single regard the invasion worked like a charm, it may have solidified some support for Al Qaeda against us but it did far more good than harm. Where we blew it was after the invasion was of course not having enough troops in country and disbanding their military too quickly. I know its not a popular belief, but I still think we should have tuned north and toppled Iran's leaders also. Yes the world would have been pissed had we done so, but in the political atmosphere after 9/11 had we moved quicker and with more force the world would be in a much better place right now.
Hindsight is always 20/20...
Iraq was like a killing field in a way, it drew out the extremists from all over the middle east and we fought them on foreign soil instead of here. In that single regard the invasion worked like a charm, it may have solidified some support for Al Qaeda against us but it did far more good than harm. Where we blew it was after the invasion was of course not having enough troops in country and disbanding their military too quickly. I know its not a popular belief, but I still think we should have tuned north and toppled Iran's leaders also. Yes the world would have been pissed had we done so, but in the political atmosphere after 9/11 had we moved quicker and with more force the world would be in a much better place right now.
Hindsight is always 20/20...
You might be surprised to know how much more tempered it really is. Go ahead and check it out firsthand.
There are those who should be shown the door.....and I will be more than happy to hold it open for them....
Captain Kirk was definitely on that list. His personality was even more repulsive than mine, and that’s saying quite a bit.
Good man?
He was a moron who couldn’t take a hint.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2818714/posts?page=17#17
Take it up with the site owner if you want.
Radix, old man, welcome back! Haven’t seen you in a god’s age!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.