Don't worry about Captain Kirk. He's still got his girlfriend to keep him company.
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.
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.
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.