Posted on 03/04/2010 6:05:43 PM PST by 1pitech
Ron Paul doesn't.
From "The Alex Jones Show" (1/17/2007):
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?
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.
(*Notice that nowhere in Paul's response does he deal with his crazed supporter's assertion of "bogus garbage about terrorism"... if anything, he feeds into it with his talk of a government "cover-up".)
He's as clear-as-mud. I've already said he's too smart to outright endorse the "inside job" theory. What he does is calls for investigations into "9/11 truth", accuses "neocons" (Zionists) of wanting a Pearl Habor-type event to advance their agenda, appears with and endorses all manner of outspoken truthers (Jones, Ventura, Kokesh), and actively courts truther support, as seen HERE. He's very deliberate in the way he solicits the support of young, energetic, often drug-addled truthers, and he's very careful not to alienate them when denying that he's actually one of them (which I don't think he is, as I've also already stated). It's all very nuanced, very Clintonian.
The bottom line is, if you publicly reject this vile school of thought while promoting those who actively support it, you're one of them. All the nuance in the world doesn't change that. It may fool some people, but it doesn't change the reality. But since Paul's supporters are divorced from reality, his strategy works like a charm with them.
Ron Paul is a looney-tune fruitcake.
You keep ignoring the fact that Paul did NOT endorse Mendina. What gives with that? You seem to have the view that Paul should rudely and personally denounce on an individual basis every truther that supports him? Is that your view? If it is, do you believe that Palin and other GOP candidates have obligation to rudely and personally denounce all birthers on an individual basis?
Wow....is that the best you can do?! Pathetic. The fact that Paul wants to investigate who the government 9-11 doesn’t make him a truther. Paul has made it crystal clear that he thinks Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.
Let me repeat my question. Do you believe that Palin has obligation to reject all support from the kooky birthers?
That’s “investigate how the government responded to 9-11”).
And Paul certainly did "tout" Medina in the gubernatorial primary as the link notes in his own words.
Ron Paul did wholeheartedly endorse Adam Kokesh, however. Lovely.
If "birtherism", the belief that the President is concealing something because of his failure to release common documents and records, was even slightly comparable to "trutherism", the belief that George Bush plotted an attack on U.S. civilians and landmarks to advance a Zionist agenda, you might have a point. But they're not, so you don't.
The fact that you think they're comparable is telling though.
See #69. Equating “birthers” with “truthers” is a leftist tactic straight out of Podesta’s playbook. It’s not at all surprising to see that you’re fully on-board with it.
Do you believe Barack Obama’s life story as it’s told in “Dreams from My Father”? You don’t question anything in his past?
Of course he does. Regularly. On "The Alex Jones Show".
I give up. I answer your questions and you evade my questions. You obviously don’t want a serious discussion.
A birther kook!!!
So that’s a “yes”. You buy the Obama package entirely. To the surprise of absolutely no one.
Which question did I evade, Truther?
As I said before, I’m not a “truther?” I think both truthers and birthers are loons. They actually have a lot in common in terms of methods of argument. Both are oblivious of facts.
You have some facts about Obama’s mysterious origins you’d like to share? You’ve seen the long form? You’ve seen his college records? Are you privy to some explanation as to how his mother was attending school in Seattle two weeks after his birth? Or are just accepting the “Dreams” life story on faith because he’s been so honest and forthright throughout his political career?
The man’s the biggest liar to ever occupy the office. But don’t worry, nobody with even a passing familiarity with your history here expects you to entertain any ill thoughts about Lord Zero. After all, you’re on the same team.
Scratch a Paultard, find an Obot.
Didn’t the “intelligence” come back as shaky at best? Or is that just part of the lie? I’ve heard (likely a liberal lie) that it was basically all based on only one source that couldn’t be confirmed by anyone else.
I always thought that this criticism wasn’t one that Bush should have taken on the chin as he famously did with his other detractions.
Some of what was listed, such as the camp at Salman Pak (we have photographic evidence of the camp and the plane used to train hijackers) and the case of 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin aren't based on intelligence, but are known and irrefutable facts.
The "lone source" you're referring to was the man known as "Curveball" (Iraqi defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan), who did provide some questionable and some outright false intelligence. But that was regarding Saddam's weapons program, not his extensive al Qaeda ties. Another reason why Powell's insistence on emphasizing a weapons program that had been dismantled and relocated to Syria in the 18 month "rush to war" was such an utter disaster. Saddam's direct links to AQ should have been the casus belli for an immediate invasion of Iraq in the days after 9/11. Instead, they played nice with the U.N. for a year and a half and tried to take Baghdad as liberators rather than avengers. Tactically, it seems to be working out pretty well. Politically, it was a cataclysmic miscalculation.
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.