The Ron Paul Smear Campaign

By now, it is painfully obvious to most people in the freedom movement that Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, has been targeted for elimination—by his own Party. The politically-connected elite within the Republican Party, along with allied organizations and operatives, are working overtime to make sure that Ron Paul is burned at the stake for daring to speak the truth and defy the Good Ol' Boy system.

In all honesty, Dr. Paul should have known that he would be set up in the second debate—after he scored so high in poll after poll, following the first debate—and after he made it clear that he would not tow the neo-con, police-state, Giuliani-style "war" on terror line. Everyone from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, so-called "conservative" news websites and columnists, and even local talk radio shows have done everything in their power to define Ron Paul as a "nut-job," "dope," and "moron," calling for his removal from the debates because his views are supposedly "dangerous" for the country.

Glenn Beck even went so far as to repeatedly label Ron Paul a "libertarian"—because there is always some kind of negativity associated with it, when Beck uses it—and then used that as a vehicle to beat up on Libertarians, in general, masterfully trying to kill two birds with one stone.

It's very telling, and very sad, watching these elitists attempt to exterminate those who favor increasing freedom by reducing the size and scope of government. The latest and most sickeningly obvious attempt to discredit Ron Paul, called "Big Outrage," is coming from Fox News.

Fox News anchor, John Gibson, recently stated that the second presidential debate got a little "spicy" after "Paul suggested that the US actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks." He even went so far as to attempt to link Paul to the 911 Truth crowd and Rosie O'Donnell—whose picture they flashed, twice, during the five-minute segment, along with the tagline, "ROSIE O'DONNELL STRONGLY BELIEVES IN 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES." Gibson said that the 911 Truth movement has "infected people like Rosie O'Donnell, and one in three Democrats, and many other Americans—evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul." To make matters worse, he brought columnist and Fox News contributor, Michele Malkin, into the segment and said he would have expected to hear something like this from the Democrat debates. In perfect neo-con newsperson style, Malkin stated, "Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a representative of Republicans," apparently because of the 911 Truth "virus." She then went on to further drive the point about 911 Truthers being mainly democrats, and mentioning something about a mental illness that typically affects people on the Left, called "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

I have lost no love on Democrats, either, but anyone who is even remotely familiar with Ron Paul knows that Malkin's attempt to link Paul to Democrats is laughable. If you look closely, you will see that Ron Paul's statements had nothing to do with the 911 Truth movement, but Fox News is spinning it in that fashion.

In so many words, Paul stated the obvious and basically repeated the findings of the 911 Commission's report:

Meddling in the affairs of others often fosters animosity and a desire for retaliation, and we would never allow other countries to do to us some of the same things that the US is doing to them—and it amazes me to see the scores of people who cannot seem to grasp those facts. The 911 Truth movement seeks to discover whether or not the Bush Administration had foreknowledge about, or actually had a hand in, the September 11th attacks—and that has nothing to do with Ron Paul's statements. 911 Truth deals with conspiracy, but Ron Paul spoke of consequences from our brand of foreign policy—two very different things.

Being an anarcho-capitalist, I do not care for government—small or otherwise—but Ron Paul is a step in the right direction, and he is certainly the most freedom-oriented and fiscally responsible candidate in the Republican stable—and it says a lot about the Republican elites who are using character assassination techniques to discredit and silence him, instead of debating the issue.

During a radio interview, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) once said, "The hallmark of the Republican Party has always been freedom," but everything I've seen lately further confirms that his statement couldn't be further from the truth. I've always known, but this is just icing on the cake.

I've heard Republicans invite Libertarians to join the Republican Party, to work within a bigger, established Party, but this situation should serve as a warning to Libertarians, and any other freedom-loving types, that you should resist the temptation. Freedom has no place within the Republican Party (or the Democrat Party).

Doug Kendall is the host, scheduler & Webmaster of The Dangerous Doug Kendall Show. Listen to live streaming of the show at www.DangerousDoug.net.

“This is not a vision. It is carping from the sidelines, really no better than Nancy Pelosi.”

Your version of what they would do is a wonderful straw man, but it’s not reality. How many times has Dead Corpse posted Ron Paul’s response to 9/11?

Even Petraeus only gives Bush’s latest ‘surge’ plan a 1 in 4 chance. Hoping that the big lie will stick if you only repeat it enough ain’t a vision, either.

Osama Bin Ladin hates us for what we do, but also for who we are.

I don't know where this "because of who we are" claim has ever been backed up. Bin Laden issued his 'fatwa' or declaration of war, or whatever it was and spelled out his grievances.

He was enraged over our basing our infidel selves on sacred Saudi Arabian soil. He was angry that we support insufficiently pious Arab leaders, which is just about all of them in his view. There was no mention of our mere existence setting him off. It was our presence, our power projection in the Arab world.

As for Iraq, Bin Laden had approached the Saudis before Gulf War I and offered his services to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. He didn't have any love for Saddam, who was hardly a moslem cut from the Bin Laden mold.

I say he hates us for who we are because radical Islam is, by definition, at war with all non-Muslims, especially Christians. Allah is a god that makes comprehensive claims as being god of the entire universe. His followers are prepared to press those claims with a global jihad.

The long-term goal, by definition then, is the unification of the Muslim world in a civilizational conflict with the West, with the hope of establishing a global Islamist empire. They are far from this goal, and it seems fanciful, but we need to guard against it. That is why I say that the terrorists hate us for what we do and who we are.

He didn't have any love for Saddam, who was hardly a moslem cut from the Bin Laden mold.

But that certainly didn't stop them from working together, which they did despite the media's claims, or stop Zarqawi from setting up shop in Iraq. It wouldn't have stopped them in the future either. Saddam would have done what was in his interest, and his interest was in staying in power and sticking it to us whenever possible.

And what exactly do you claim they worked on together?

Several writers investigated Bin Laden and al Qaeda well before 9-11 and wrote books on the subject. It strikes me as significant that they found Egyptians, Yemenis, Saudis, and a variety of other Arabs among the Islamists but Iraqis were notably absent. I haven’t seen any verifiable claim that links Stalin-admiring Saddam Hussein to the world of Islamist terror.

I agree completely that Islam is inherently hostile to Christianity. A President who understood this wouldn’t encourage immigration from the Islamic world.

This President has allowed more moslems to immigrate to the United States than any President before him, and is hellbent on increasing that immigration dramatically. That is a far greater threat to the survival of the United States and the West than what goes on in Iraq.

So you're basing your belief entirely on Scheuer's book. Did he cite a source for his claim that this occurred?

It's significant that no one else writing on the subject of Bin Laden ever uncovered any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, back when there was no reason for either party to hide such an association. Bin Laden gave personal interviews prior to 9-11 and was open about his goals.

If he was an ally of Saddam's then why did he hide in places like Somalia and Afghanistan, when he could have trained much more effectively in a developed country like Iraq?

No, I do not base my belief entirely on Scheuer’s book. But what if I did? Is Scheuer not a strong source? He is militantly anti-Iraq war. He is militantly anti-Bush. Surely his opinion on an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection is worth listening to.

Here is another link that discusses the Iraq-al-Qaeda link more extensively.

http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/09/show-us-documents.html

Here is something else:

http://www.nysun.com/article/29746?page_no=1

I do not claim that Saddam and al-Qaeda planned terrorist attacks together. I do claim that they had worked and met together, and that this relationship was of significant concern to the U.S.

Scheuer is one source, and when other credible sources fail to support his claim that is significant. He needs to back up his claim with evidence that can be examined. A claim without evidence is just a hunch.

Your first link examines the question of whether or not al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion. The very fact that this is a real debate illustrates the problem of any hard evidence proving the idea. How is it that Saddam is such a master at deception? We didn't have nearly this much trouble finding real links between the USSR and terrorists back in the 70s and 80s. And they had the help of some real intelligence pros. Read some of Claire Sterling's work from back then.

The second link is Bob Kerry speculating that there might be something definitive in the documents released around March 2006. That's a year ago now- so where's the smoking gun? You can believe it's there if you like, but where's your evidence?

I much prefer some real evidence that we do have. Al Qaeda living and organizing in Hamburg, Germany, in San Diego, in Florida. We know where they plotted. Here. Because we had a sloppy immigration policy that acted as if everyone who comes here never means us harm. And George Bush has demonstrated very little interest in curing that situation, one that conflicts with his single-minded obsession with bringing millions of new immigrants to this country.

It is not speculation. On p. 188 of Through Our Enemies' Eyes Scheuer says the following:

...John Miller wrote in Esquire that by late 1998 "12 Iraqi experts in chemical weapons" arrived to work in bin Ladin's Afghan laboratories."

The accompanying footnote reads: "Riyad Alam-al-Din, "Iraq, Bin Ladin Ties Examined," Al-Watan Al-Arabi, 1 January 1999, 16-18; Miller, "Greetings Amerrica: My Name is Osama Bin Ladin."

On page 192, the text reads:

...Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Ladin on CBRN weapon and acquisition and development. On the last point, Milan's "Corriere della Sera" reported in late 1998 that Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and former intelligende chief, Faruk Hidjazi, met bin Ladin in Khandahar on 21 December 1998. The daily said Hidjazioffered bin LAdin sanctuary in Iraq, stressing that Baghdad would not foregt bin Ladin's protests against U.S.-U.K. air attacks on Iraq. WhetherHidjazi discussed CBRN issues with Bin Ladin is unknown, but it is interesting to note that Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that in October 1998 the Iraqis "suggested to Bin Ladin to involve [in his search for CBRN weapons] elements from the Russian Mafia who were above suspicion.

I'd like to include the footnotes from my second block of text, but I'm afraid I must leave. Perhaps I will return to it later.

The connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been widely reported in multiple sources. If you want to claim that this did not warrant invasion, fine, but you cannot, I think, claim that no connections existed. It is just unrealistic, given that both parties had similar goals, similar hatreds, and similar terrorist ties.

It is not speculation. On p. 188 of Through Our Enemies' Eyes Scheuer says the following:

Not Scheuer. The speculation I mentioned is Bob Kerry's regarding the documents released last year. Nowhere in that link was there evidence provided to back up his guess. You haven't provided anything from the Kerry link.

If Corriere della Sera's report was correct, bin Laden didn't take up Hidjazi's offer and didn't locate in Iraq. What's that tell you about the alleged agreement between Iraq and al Qaeda?

The connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been widely reported in multiple sources.

So provide the evidence cited by those 'multiple sources' instead of more conjecture. It should be a piece of cake, seeing as there is so much evidence. The al Qaeda- Saddam link is looking about as substantial as the claims of the Kennedy conspiracy crowd. The grassy knoll shooter has had a 40 year run and he's still a ghost. People tend to believe what they want even when they can't provide evidence to back up their beliefs.

Ron Paul has always supported going after the actual terrorists involved in the September 11, 2001, attack. So your comments really do not apply in this thread.

My own beliefs hardly fit your characterizations, either. My approach to the War was spelled out in the fall of 2001: War On Terror. I would suggest that my strategy looks even better from hindsight--but it wasn't hindsight in October, 2001.

Bill Flax

I think, that the President has been sadly misled by those playing to his deluded thinking. I wish that it were otherwise--I wanted to like and respect him;--but how else can one describe his Second Inaugural Address, but "delusional." See George Washington Debates George W. Bush.

Unless, the Republican Party rapidly demonstrates independence from this Administration's thinking on foreign affairs and Immigration, we are going to be unelectable in most States. And, if that happens, I fear for our children.

Any of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates would be a disaster.

Bill Flax

The following is from October 2002. It is in the Congressional Record, and is a letter from Tenet to the Senate.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10154&position=all

“Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes
from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and
reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of
al-Qa’ida members, including some that have
been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida
leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.”

I am unsure what your standard of evidence is. Obviously I cannot show you a satellite photograph of Saddam and bin Ladin playing canasta. But the above statement echoes what I have read elsewhere, and what I have shown you. If you want courtroom proof, I cannot help you. But I doubt either bin Ladin or Saddam would have been so incompetent as to provide such proof.

We used to get all sorts of information from Soviet sources during the Cold War that were dramatic, and usually didn’t pan out. Sources will often tell you what you want to hear, for a variety of reasons, and you have be careful and look for verification beyond their claims.

As Tenet states in that testimony “Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability.” ‘Evolving’ and ‘varying reliability’ aren’t the signs of hard evidence.

‘Reciprocal non-aggression’ tells you what?- that they were discussing a sort of detente, not the characteristic of a harmony of interests. If they were asking permission for safe haven they obviously weren’t able to move freely in and out of Iraq.

The Tenet testimony is now 4 years old. It is certainly now beyond “evolving” and “of varying reliability.” Evidence of collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq which proved out will have been offered up by the administration to defend its decision to invade Iraq.

You are having trouble locating it, because as far as I’ve seen they haven’t offered any. I recall Bush being asked directly at a press conference if there was a connection between al Qaedea’s terrorism and Iraq and he replied ‘no’. Just one word, with no elaboration. The only ‘evidence’ I’ve seen is what gets kicked around talk shows, the Weekly Standard, and other such sources. The administration hasn’t seen fit to give its imprimatur to these claims. I assume the reason is that they don’t find them credible.

I think the Administration fails to defend itself out of a misguided assumption that the debate passed them by. That is true now, but it was not true two years ago. They made a mistake in dropping this matter so quickly.

You and I simply disagree on what constitutes dependable evidence. I think Saddam and al-Qaeda clearly had a relationship, that there was nothing ideological and philosophical keeping them from a further relationship, and that Saddam would have done what was in his interest.

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.