Posted on 03/04/2010 6:05:43 PM PST by 1pitech
Question? Whats worse, some folk that may support Ron Paul being 9/11 truthers, or retard Palin saying Iraq actually were responsible for 9/11.
Whats th epoint of your question ?
Sarah Palin never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, any more than Ron Paul ever said that the US Government was responsible for 9/11.
And if Sarah Palin was a "retard", she wouldn't have been smart enough to endorse Rand Paul for US Senate. The mouth-droolers are lining up behind Trey Grayson; all the smart kids (Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Dick Armey, Gun Owners of America, Concerned Women for America) are lining up behind Rand Paul.
Don't stoop to the Paul-haters tactics of trumpeting bald-faced lies. Palin's one of the good ones. (IMHO)
I hope you’re right. She needs to be more careful with her endorsements. Ron Paul’s kid should have been thoroughly vetted before she supported him.
Missteps we can handle. Carelessness is another matter. This is two very bad endorsements for Sarah.
Saddam was absolutely involved in the 9/11 attacks, you fool. And there’s a mountain of evidence to back it up.
Go ahead, give me a snappy comeback. I love this game. Obliterating the “no connection” lie is one of my favorite pastimes.
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
Not fighting the "no connection" lie is what cost us our majority and eventually the White House. Not spending, not borders, not Katrina... Iraq destroyed us in 2006 because we, for some inexplicable reason, refused to answer the left's most important lie about Saddam's longstanding and documented relationship with al Qaeda. In the process, we got a lot of coalition soliders needlessly killed.
I haven't seen that he claims that but I understand that he has associated with people who have.
Probably got the rabies by being bitten by one of the barking moonbats he hangs out with.
He doesn’t outright claim it, he’s too smart for that. But the messages he sends to the Truthers by regularly appearing on Alex Jones’ agitprop show and the language he uses in the links in Post #13 are unmistakable. He probably doesn’t believe anything of the sort, but he’s actively soliticing Truther support in a big way.
I think it’s very likely that he believes it. He’s certainly never hesitated to consort with kooks.
Possibly. But I think he’s really just a duplicitous, self-serving slimeball trolling the depths of humanity for supporters. He’ll take soliders for his rogue army from any dark corner he can get them from. Islamists, Truthers, anti-military stooges, marijuana cultists... Jihad Ron doesn’t care who they are or where they come from, as long as their bank cards clear on “Money Bomb” day. As far as I’m concerned, the little man stands for nothing but himself.
You make a good argument.
That Saddam was responsible for 9/11? No, Sarah Palin never said that, because it isn't true. That would be like saying that Mussolini was "responsible" for the Pearl Harbor attacks.
Politically connected to the attackers (just as one could say that Mussolini was "politically connected" to the Pearl Harbor attacks), yes. But it's not like he actually planned and ordered the attack. Which is why Sarah Palin never said that he did. (And just as Ron Paul has never said that the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, although his detractors like to lie and say that he did -- just as some of Sarah Palin's detractors apparently like to lie about her).
And yet, curiously, Ron Paul has never been accused of using campaign funds for personal remuneration of any kind.
Well, except by you, just now -- but you present no evidence of your claim, just grousing.
Unless Mussolini offered aide, financing, safe harbor, weapons and weapons training to the Japanese Navy, no, the comparison is absurd. The mealy-mouthed and willfully vague "politically connected" tag doesn't come close to covering the relationship as we know it.
Did the Japanese make an official declaration war on the United States, citing our treatment of Mussolini's country as the casus belli, as OBL did on behalf of Saddam's Iraq (among other things) in his 1998 fatwa?
Did Mussolini train Japanese fighter pilots in the years preceding 12/7/1941, as Saddam trained Sunni terrorists in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak in the four years preceding 9/11/01?
Was there a first Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that we didn't know about? And did Mussolini issue the passports to the first attackers and provide safe haven, a government job and housing to one of the attackers upon his return to his country, as Saddam did for Abdul Rahman Yasin after the 1993 WTC attack?
Did the Japanese set up military bases in Italy after Pearl Harbor with Mussolini's assistance, as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did with Saddam's approval and assistance immediately after 9/11?
Was there a Grand Jury indictment citing a collaborative military relationship between Mussolini and Hideki Tojo, as the 1998 UBL indictment cites ("al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that... on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.")?
Did a Mussolini-controlled newspaper predict the Japanese Navy would attack Pearl Harbor two months prior to the event, as the Saddam-run "Al-Nasiriya" did on July 21, 2001?
Did a U.S district court ever find Mussolini complicit in the Pearl Harbor attack, as a district court in Manhattan did in 2003 when two 9/11 families were awarded $104 million in damages from Saddam's Iraq because the judge ruled that Saddam's "hijacking school" at Salman Pak played a "material role" in the 9/11 attacks?
Either you are completely ignorant of the facts surrounding the September 11th attacks, or you're ignoring them in pursuit of an anti-war agenda. Either way, your analogy is spurious at best. Even the absurd 9/11 Commission Report (aka, "The Gorelick Report") had no choice but to concede there was more than just a "political connection" between Saddam and al Qaeda. The report examined pre-9/11 intelligence almost exclusively and detailed what can only be considered a working relationship. What they didn't find was an "operational" link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. Well, duh. If the pre-9/11 intelligence pointed to a Saddam-sponsored attack, 9/11 would be just another day and the World Trade Center towers would still be standing. The idea that unless we have Saddam's voice on tape ordering the attack he's innocent is the kind of logic worthy of an OJ Simpson juror. His connection and support for the people who claimed credit for the attack in the days leading up to the attack is more than enough to merit invading his country and killing him.
Yeah, poor Ron. All he does is pay regular visits to the Grand Wizard of Truther Nation's radio show (Alex Jones), join forces with Truther lunatic Jesse Ventura, court Truther supporters, make thinly-veiled comments about "grassy knolls" and "cover-ups" when talking about 9/11 and support Truther/Code Pink candidates like Kokesh... all while waving around a pocket Constitution and painting himself as a new-age Founding Father. How dare anyone lie about the good Dr. Paul and try to tie him to Truthers.
It's not the least bit surprising that someone who can't see the obvious ties between Sunni, America-hating Saddam and Sunni, America-hating Osama also can't see the obvious ties between Jihad Ron and the Truther Nation useful idiots he actively courts.
What did I accuse him of, besides diverting weed money from his supporters into his own war chest? Does he not raise money? Does he not have a war chest?
Apparently, Paul's repeated and clear-cut rejection of the truther theory isn't good enough for you? Okay then, what would satisfy you. Are you arguing that Paul should cease all contact with kooky truthers? If so, for consistency sake do you demand that Palin and other candidates immediately cease all contact with the kooky birthers? If not, despite your purple prose you are not to be taken seriously because of a glaring double standard. IMHO, neither Paul or Palin have an obligation to to cease all cotact with kooky birthers or truthers....though I would not vote for either of them if they advocated these theories themselves.
I will have to somehow capture that "afraid" thing in my Paulbot Glossary, though.
Ron Paul Acolyte Glossary:
Neo-Con: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
Statist: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
Paul-Hater: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
RINO: Any GOP candidate who is not Ron Paul.
Small-government conservative: This only applies to Ron Paul or Ron Paul disciples such as Debra Medina or Rand Paul. Nobody else is allowed to claim this.
Big-government supporter: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
People who understand and support the Constitution: This only applies to Ron Paul or Ron Paul disciples such as Debra Medina or Rand Paul. Nobody else is allowed to claim this.
9/11: What the US deserved for refusing to roll over to Muslim terrorists in the Middle East.
I like Ron Paul and think Medina is a kook. So much for your simplistic theory.
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.