Posted on 08/05/2007 5:34:39 PM PDT by Lovebloggers
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER NOW WITH THE DEMOCRATS NOW IN CHARGE OF OVERSIGHT. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Which do you want me to do? Be honest, or agree with that BS?
Do you even realize the irony of that statement? That's exactly the same thing the Bushbots tried to use to scare people into voting straight GOP. Invoking the "real world" is funny as well, given that RP is lucky to get more than a few percentage points in any GOP poll. The blogosphere is the only place that he seems popular, which is still a very small fragment of the voting populace.
That, however, does not therefore mean that the 9-11 hijackers were incapable of pulling off 9-11 on their own. Nor does it mean the FBI and CIA let it happen. The flaws with the 9-11 Commission were political in nature. The basic facts of how 9-11 transpired are not in significant dispute by any sane person.
Thanks. Growing up with a lot of brothers, I’ve been called many things. But “coward” is a new one.
I want you - nay, all FReepers - to debate, to argue, to reason, to show me logically and rationally why I’m wrong.
No, not at all. Petronski and i have been pounding away at each other for quite a while now.
Still, the colloquialism of "Coolaid" or "Koolaid", isn't really a direct reference to Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple mass suicide any more. Rather, it's come to mean somebody who unquestionably accepts the statements of those who they would consider to be authority figures, or heroes.
i speak, read, and write a few languages, including New Testament Greek. Often words in the Greek New Testament have derivations that are not directly related to what the writer is saying, and to place the word or phrase in the context of it's derivation is to loose the intended meaning of the word or the phrase.
i certainly do not think of Jim Jones when i see the phrase "Koolaid" used in the context of political discussion.
see post 366.
Sorry, didn’t see your reply when i made the post.
Yes, dirtboy, many sane people who are not believers in wild theories do dispute the facts that are contained and omitted from the 9/11 Commission report.
Not ironic at all. I don’t expect Ron Paul to win. I do think, however, he has the best chance to advance the ideas of liberty in public discourse, just like the Socialist party did so 100 years ago with its ideas. Again, I’m all ears if you have an altnerative who can do the same or better. Who is she/he?
Okay. I find that incredible, but if you can disconnect the two in your mind, well, there it is.
Oh, I have issues with the 9-11 Commission report - especially when Jamie Gorelik was asking questions instead of answering them.
But nothing that leads anywhere near Trutherville, like where you have gone. The basic facts stand - 9-11 was committed by well-financed al Qaeda operatives who exploited gaps in security and were not detected largely because of Clinton-era information sharing walls.
The global category "Truthers" is a convenient broad brush, but it certainly isn't accurate. I am one who has questions but I don't belong with those who chant "9/11 was an inside job."
I’m still not quite sure it has to be an all-or-nothing proposition for some people.
I'm sorry, but the insinuation that the government either made 9-11 happen or let it happen is absurd and toxic to the body politic. Truthers are internet maggots, as far as I am concerned.
In other words, I've made my mind up (with some help from the other kooks) and won't rest easy until I get "official" findings that agree with my conspiracy theory!
These fools are masters of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
I’m still looking for one who isn’t a crypto-socialist, globalist, islamist appeaser, or doesn’t pander to truthers. I’m not going to hold my breath. I guess I’ll just have to wait and see how it shakes out after the primaries, then hold my nose like a good little sheep.
I will agree with you about the egregious problem of Gorelick and the Clinton-era "walls" between agencies, but the basic facts as you sketch them are a result of 2+2=5 mathematics.
I’m still not quite sure why it has to be an all-or-nothing proposition for some people.
I think this means I need to call it a day, LOL.
On the one hand, you are hyper-critical of Ron Paul (though you say that you are anti-big government) even though he has supported action against AQ and denied that he supports the Truther theory.. On the other hand, you plan to act like a "good little sheep" (e.g vote for a candidate who supports far bigger government than Paul) when the time comes. If that isn't contradictory, I don't see what is.
That's rich, coming from a truther.
Your theories cut their throats on Occam's razor. You would have us believe that the US government is so competent that it could either make 9-11 happen, help it happen, or let it happen and NO ONE INVOLVED (and it would take a lot of such involvement) would never tell.
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.