Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Come on, Theo North, didn’t anyone ever tell you that the guy who slaps a girl is automatically disqualified from winning?
Nonetheless, given all the controversy, a little Ron Paul follow-up may be in order.
Unfortunately, not even blog nerds, much less the normal population, have the time to delve into every single candidate’s viewpoint on every single issue in the presidential race.
This is especially true when being suffocated under the weight of ten candidates, most of them shoddy at best. So for Ron Paul and the rest of the candidates, the trick of the trade is letting the viewpoints come through in the debate. And, based on what came through this week, there were two things that Paul said that I can’t ignore and I can’t approve.
Because it can be argued that Giuliani twisted Paul’s words, I’d like to take them completely out of the context of anything Giuliani said. Before Rudy jumped in, Paul ended his statement by saying, as quoted in a previous post:
“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.”
Ron Paul believes in free enterprise and he believes that incentives affect the markets. And I think he’s right. However, he’s missing how dangerous it is to listen to terrorists, according to the very “marketplace” theory he supports. As Brandon said, we simply don’t negotiate with terrorists. If we allow terrorism to be a means for a voice to be heard, we will get more of it from people who want a say. It’s a kind of catch-22; perhaps we should have listened before attacks were committed, but we didn’t, and we can’t undo that.
The second statement followed the Giuliani outburst, after Paul was asked if he thought we invited the 9/11 attacks:
“They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they come and they attack us because we’re over there.â€
The issue here is not that Paul claims that the attacks were the result of our foreign policy; it is that he appears to be pegging it as the absolute and only reason. Undoubtedly, it is true that our intervention in different areas has caused resentment in the world that has led to terrorism.
But it is also true that terrorism stems from a religion and a culture that in some places is against freedom for all, and in some instances calls for non-believers to be killed. Terrorists have the popular support of people who see Western ideals as the downfall of the world. It is good to have a candidate that reads the 9/11 Commission Report and is looking at things from all angles. However, to exclude resentment of American ideals as a part of the equation is a mistake.
Ron Paul’s main problem, then, is that he either means to say these things that fault America, or that he says things he does not mean. I think this video from Michelle Malkin, featuring him speaking with and (almost?) agreeing with some 9/11 “truthersâ€, could be an indication of one or the other of these. Just a portion of the questionable commentary:
Student Scholar for 9/11 Truth: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich andhe says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate [a government conspiracy behind 9/11]. He would advocate for a new investigation.
Paul: Into 9/11?
Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.
Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.
Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?
Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.
In light of clips like this, I’m even less sure of what to make of Ron Paul. Does he think we might need to listen to the reasons our government committed 9/11? Does he think that there’s a possibility that things we have done throughout the world have caused us to commit 9/11 against ourselves?
Ron Paul has many admirable viewpoints and seems to be an intelligent man. Lower taxes, secure borders, and small government all sound great. But when it comes to terrorism and 9/11, somewhere in either a communicational failure or through a few backwards thoughts, he becomes someone who does not appear able to protect and direct our country.
In the end, Paul runs into trouble because whether he is mistaken or he is simply misspoken (or easily misconstrued?), either flaw would not serve him well in the White House.
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
I have to seriously fault Michelle Malkin for that factually incomplete piece. Not once did the student scholars for truth actually tell him their real position on 9/11 – that it was the work of elements inside the US government. So Ron, who is wisely critical of anything produced by the government agrees that perhaps another investigation may be good. Perhaps there was some kind of cover up to protect somebody’s butt or something. Ron Paul voted to for military action in Afganistan and voted for the funding of it. How can he be a “truther” if he decided military action in Afghanistan was the correct response to 9/11. I think this would only be possible if he had a darker, seedier agena which I highly doubt. I agree there were other reasons behind 9/11. They hate our detestable societal morals for example. They hate us because we are not Muslim. But we provide fuel for the fire by our interventionist policies. A democracy in Iraq will, I predict, fail to meet US expectations or goals. I think it will end up just like the Palestinean democratic elections where Hamas now heads the government. I think misspoken may be a problem, but then again he was up against a 30 second time limit. Even George Washington was better at writing and so is Ron Paul. It was said that Washington lacked eloquence as well. Paul needs a bit of brushing up but his ideas to me are fundamentally sound.
I’m glad that you’re willing to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think he needs it. Just because you can find a few weirdos that share some common ground with a candidate, doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the him or her. I’m sure you’d find plenty of polygamists in the boonies of Utah ready to support Romney. And I’ve met several communist types who’d back Hillary in a heartbeat.
“Mainstream” politicians occasionally talk to supporters on the fringe. It sounds damning. But we know the Congressman’s views, we know his principles, and we know his record. He’s in no danger of being corrupted by a couple of 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
Too many American’s have recieved their propaganda imposed history from corrupted, censored textbooks covering up treason from within the American Republic.
Ron Paul has widespread popular support.
As a lifelong Republican, I’ve found the Republican Party Establishment at the top (not the grass roots) sell us out. Alan Keyes who ran in 1996, and 2000 was awesome. However, in 1996 the GOP traitors had him arrested when he arrived at one Debate, the debate went on without him. No charges, for he was innocent, but merely a stall tactic to keep him out of view until the debate ended. Alan Keyes was speaking the traditional platform of abolishing the Marxist graudated income tax and the Federal Reserve.
You sorry suckers who think that G. W. Bush is conservative are idiots. True Conservatives find Ron Paul the man who stands with the platform—and more importantly the US Constitution—with not one other candidate of either party remotly coming close to him.
Perhaps you should Join Rudy Giuliani in a history Lesson from Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture (who today Sean Hannity and other non-conservatives would love to smear), as well as Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, best selling author, and true conservative, of “The Naked Communist and “The Naked Capitalist.”
http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/Giuliani.htm
I agree with the sentiment that the policies of our government brought on the 9/11 attack. However, please think about it, the fact they attacked us on account of our policies does not address if the policies are correct or not. Evil people hate good & just policies.
That said, Ron Paul is a nutter. There is an office down the road from my house that supports him and that is the National HQ of the John Birch Society.
First you quote Ron Paul:
“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.â€
Then you say:
“Ron Paul believes in free enterprise and he believes that incentives affect the markets. And I think he’s right. However, he’s missing how dangerous it is to listen to terrorists, according to the very “marketplace†theory he supports. As Brandon said, we simply don’t negotiate with terrorists. If we allow terrorism to be a means for a voice to be heard, we will get more of it from people who want a say. It’s a kind of catch-22; perhaps we should have listened before attacks were committed, but we didn’t, and we can’t undo that.”
Maybe you just aren’t very eloquent, but it sounds to me like you’re completely twisting his words. He’s saying that by listening to the terrorists tell us why they attacked us, perhaps we could better understand why they attacked us. Then, we could find some way to make sure there are less attacks in the future. He doesn’t say that we should negotiate or give in to their demands, simply that we fight a smarter war against them so we stop helping them recruit.
For years, Limbaugh et al have claimed that the democrats are being taken over by the lunatic fringe. Here’s the truth: Limbaugh, Hannity, Bush, Dobson etc are the lunatics and they’ve taken over the Republican party. We used to be the party of principles and sound policy; now we’re the party of stopping gay guys from kissing because it’s gross.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the race.
It’s all here waiting for you Fred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L92d0ioaArU
“now we’re the party of stopping gay guys from kissing because it’s gross.” isn’t accurate.
The Republicans in this matter have a ways to go but we’re getting better while many Dems (especially those at the top) are getting worse.
Just this year Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocked important pro-gay legislation offered by Republican Senator Gordon Smith and others that would allow self employed people to deduct the cost of health coverage for their domestic partners.
I am looking closer at Ron Pual too. He is a possibility and I’m willing to accept he is just not as clear as he means to be.
At least we can all agree that the Limbaugh Kool-Ade (”They hate us because we are free and rich”) is crap.
Ron Paul on Middle East Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
The big government conservative approach to the Middle East is to bomb a country and then subsidize it. All the while, refusing to listen or believe that a significant American presence in the Middle East fuels the Al-Qaeda sentiment of “we need to rid our Holy Land from western civilization/non-believers.” End result: Record levels of government spending, record number of Al-Qaeda recruits, fractured international relations and a melancholy future for Republicans in 2008.
The Ron Paul approach is that it is not our responsibility to police the world. We had all the necessary information to prevent 9/11 before it occurred without an additional unwieldy bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, the notion that “it is better to fight them over there then to fight them at home” is overstated because America’s significant presence in the Middle East is precisely what terrorists seek to end. End result:Smaller government, lower spending, the return of conservatism to the Republican party and optimism in 2008.
I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.
Meaning, Al-Qaeda tells us all the time why they attack. Rightly or wrongly, the Al-Qaeda sentiment is largely based on “ending American occupation” of the Middle East and not “hating freedom.” Listening only requires paying attention to Al-Qaeda videos and not an International Terrorist Peace Summit.
Ron Paul on Middle East Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
The big government conservative approach to the Middle East is to bomb a country and then subsidize it. All the while, refusing to listen or believe that a significant American presence in the Middle East fuels the Al-Qaeda sentiment of “we need to rid our Holy Land from western civilization/non-believers.” End result: Record levels of government spending, record number of Al-Qaeda recruits, fractured international relations and a melancholy future for Republicans in 2008.
The Ron Paul approach is that it is not our responsibility to police the world. We had all the necessary information to prevent 9/11 before it occurred without an additional unwieldy bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, the notion that “it is better to fight them over there then to fight them at home” is overstated because America’s significant presence in the Middle East is precisely what terrorists seek to end. End result:Smaller government, lower spending, the return of conservatism to the Republican party and optimism in 2008.
I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.
Meaning, Al-Qaeda tells us all the time why they attack. Rightly or wrongly, the Al-Qaeda sentiment is largely based on “ending American occupation” of the Middle East and not “hating freedom.” Listening only requires paying attention to Al-Qaeda videos and not an International Terrorist Peace Summit.
Ron Paul on Middle East Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
The big government conservative approach to the Middle East is to bomb a country and then subsidize it. All the while, refusing to listen or believe that a significant American presence in the Middle East fuels the Al-Qaeda sentiment of “we need to rid our Holy Land from western civilization/non-believers.” End result: Record levels of government spending, record number of Al-Qaeda recruits, fractured international relations and a melancholy future for Republicans in 2008.
The Ron Paul approach is that it is not our responsibility to police the world. We had all the necessary information to prevent 9/11 before it occurred without an additional unwieldy bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, the notion that “it is better to fight them over there then to fight them at home” is overstated because America’s significant presence in the Middle East is precisely what terrorists seek to end. End result:Smaller government, lower spending, the return of conservatism to the Republican party and optimism in 2008.
Ron Paul on Middle East Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
The big government conservative approach to the Middle East is to bomb a country and then subsidize it. All the while, refusing to listen or believe that a significant American presence in the Middle East fuels the Al-Qaeda sentiment of “we need to rid our Holy Land from western civilization/non-believers.” End result: Record levels of government spending, record number of Al-Qaeda recruits, fractured international relations and a melancholy future for Republicans in 2008.
The Ron Paul approach is that it is not our responsibility to police the world. We had all the necessary information to prevent 9/11 before it occurred without an additional unwieldy bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, the notion that “it is better to fight them over there then to fight them at home” is overstated because America’s significant presence in the Middle East is precisely what terrorists seek to end. End result:Smaller government, lower spending, the return of conservatism to the Republican party and optimism in 2008.
My comments are getting swallowed by the server.
Test
The big government conservative approach to the Middle East is to bomb a country and then subsidize it. All the while, refusing to listen or believe that a significant American presence in the Middle East fuels the Al-Qaeda sentiment of “we need to rid our Holy Land from western civilization/non-believers.” End result: Record levels of government spending, record number of Al-Qaeda recruits, fractured international relations and a melancholy future for Republicans in 2008.
The Ron Paul approach is that it is not our responsibility to police the world. We had all the necessary information to prevent 9/11 before it occurred without an additional unwieldy bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, the notion that “it is better to fight them over there then to fight them at home” is overstated because America’s significant presence in the Middle East is precisely what terrorists seek to end. End result:Smaller government, lower spending, the return of conservatism to the Republican party and optimism in 2008.
I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.
Meaning, Al-Qaeda tells us all the time why they attack. Rightly or wrongly, the Al-Qaeda sentiment is largely based on “ending American occupation” of the Middle East and not “hating freedom.” Listening only requires paying attention to Al-Qaeda videos and not an International Terrorist Peace Summit.
Ron Paul on Middle East Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
Let’s not forget that it was Ron Paul who offered an amendment to our current war on terror so that Congress would actually declare war, rather than “authorize the use of force” for an indeterminate amount of time and without goals or objectives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
Ron Paul on the Middle East
Sorry about the confusion chuck. The system is good but you were posting too fast or something I guess. Keep the comments coming
Michelle Malkin apologizes for factually inaccurate statements about Ron Paul
First paragraph
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007568.htm
Ron Paul has said numerous times that we were attacked by terrorists in the Middle East on 9/11, including:
Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. –Ron Paul, debate
“Truthers” attended an open house party for Ron Paul and asked him questions, because he doesn’t screen out people at public appearances. The most anyone can conclude from the video is that Ron Paul has tempered enthusiasm for the government’s account of anything and he has a working relationship with Kucinich.
In the end, Paul runs into trouble because whether he is mistaken or he is simply misspoken (or easily misconstrued?), either flaw would not serve him well in the White House.
Paul is undoubtedly the target of many Republican attempts to discredit his campaign to return the GOP to its traditional small government values. More than any other candidate in the race, Ron Paul stands on principles that cannot be misconstrued but have been misstated by party establishment.
Will Ron Paul earn the party’s nomination? Almost certainly not. Despite Paul’s small government credentials and a paradigm on the Middle East that resonates well with 65-70% of the country, too many Republicans are attempting to demonize him.
Heck, even CNN thinks the Ron Paul bashing is unfounded:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html
After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.
First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul’s rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.
Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.
The sooner people support small government candidates like Ron Paul, the sooner the Republican Party will return to conservative principles.
Chuck,
To be clear, the factually inaccurate statements by Michelle Malkin are not where I took any of my information from.
“In the end, Paul runs into trouble because whether he is mistaken or he is simply misspoken (or easily misconstrued?), either flaw would not serve him well in the White House.”
This is not meant to be a random attempt to discredit his campaign. It’s not necessarily his fault, but as I have pointed out, Paul appears to support 9/11 Truthers and appears (although this is certainly not his fault) to support negotiating with terrorists. It’s not what he means, it’s how he is perceived that becomes the problem. Either appearance is not reality (and I think it’s not), or Paul is making huge mistakes.
Finally, I don’t disagree with the above analysis of Giuliani. But, even if Paul was right in everything he said in the debate, it still turned out to be a softball (a “gift”) thrown to Giuliani, precisely because people perceived Giuliani to be patriotic and Ron Paul to be weak.
“Come on, Theo North, didn’t anyone ever tell you that the guy who slaps a girl is automatically disqualified from winning?”
Apparently, he also hasn’t been told that ladies do not start fights, but we can finish them!
I don’t think anything Ron Paul said was as bad as people seem to think it was. Our policies in the Middle East were really bad during the Cold War. That doesn’t mean 9/11 was our fault, but it is a “live and learn” moment. It’s way, way too late to smooth things over now, though, so I don’t see how talking things over with terrorists will help anything. That’s misguided, but it isn’t anti-American. Stupidity is still legal, right?
I’m surprised the Ron Paul posts keep going on and on… and no one has switched gears to the Immigration debate? This site doesn’t like my Ron Paul posts (as none of them are showing up since last week) so its time to move onto bigger more intense debates.
Jonathan Martin over at Politico.com posted John McCain’s comments today about Mitt Romney (including the audio– which I find interesting)… Sen Graham was booed at the S. Carolina GOP Convention and so was a Georgia Senator Saxby (audio). Seems to be a hot topic lately… even some Republicans are on the wrong side– I’m surprised no one is writing about it here??
Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that “the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups”?
Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who’s inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn’t a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.
Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I’d say there’s no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you’d be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don’t think there’s any evidence of [an inside job] and I don’t believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Exactly Chuck. We really aren’t disagreeing on this. I don’t necessarily think Ron Paul believes we committed 9/11. My only problem with him is that he accidently communicates this when he didn’t mean to at all.
If the terrorist acts were caused by religious beliefs as you say, isn’t it a little strange that they haven’t been happening all along? If it is religion how could the terrorists have worked for us in Afghanistan? Powerful people use religion as a facade for their activities and to muster manpower for their dirty work. Lets be realistic, just how many creators or Gods can there be? I have great faith but I am not religious, Christ wasn’t even a christian. Religious beliefs are so individual the fact so many can be squeezed into a building and told they must all believe the same thing really astounds me, add to that the fact there are so many religions offering such a different picture of the same subject makes me question the offerings of them all. Well this is getting off the topic and discussing religion is not what I intended to do tonight.
Ron Paul is much more intelligent and informed than you are may think or be aware aware of. Of course there is something about 9/11 that has been kept from the people of this country, read up on all the facts, not just those offered on Fox(I can’t possibly bring myself to say News), apply some logic, and you will see that something is askew with the whole thing. I personally don’t know what the entire truth is, but neither do you. The fact that Ron Paul is open to an investigation shows he has outstanding leadership qualities, like an open mind and the desire for the truth where ever it may lead.
You are so quick to make judgments about him for being honest and expressing his views on these 2 subjects as though you had all the facts. He is being honest and saying what he thinks, is this to be considered a bad trait for our next leader? I say it is far better to be skeptical than to be gullible, or to just glide along with the standard party line. You are talking about a man of great intelligence and integrity, he is offering to help return this country to the path our founding fathers started it on long ago, and a man that believes in the constitution, unlike our current leader who thinks it is “just a dam piece of paper”, how can this be construed to be a bad thing?
So what is the worst-case scenario, he is wrong and an investigation uncovers no new evidence, no harm in that, hardly a reason not to vote him into office. As far as the reason for the attacks well we already discussed that. He speaks with 9/11 truthers, are you condescending to all that harbor different views than yours? Tell me how is that a bad thing? It takes all opinions both left and right to reach middle ground, and I believe he is capable of listening to all sides of the issues we face today and able to make calm, rational and constitutionally based decisions. What is so wrong about that, its much better than the alternatives such as basing them on your campaign contributors wishes, lobbyists from big multi-nationals, your buddies from the oil patch and the big drug companies and polls like we currently do.
We are all individuals and have differing ideas about what is best for our country but we must not be lead astray by those who want to separate us into groups so defined that we do nothing in common, only point out what is wrong with each other. It is oblivious that the direction we are heading is not a good one; Ron Paul is the only step in another one. He is not the lesser of two evils he is truly a public servant wanting to help our country get back on the right path.
Remember the republicans last election, all the talk of morals, family values, the strong ties with the religious right, and the no nation building, well if you do why aren’t you questioning them about their failure to produce results on any of it instead of trying to beat down the only candidate that hasn’t promised us anything he truly will work to provide. The same can be said of the democrats; they are all sleeping in the same bed they just get out on different sides. Come on, think about what is best for this country, for the world, we are all one no matter what we think or believe or what we have heard or been told, humanity is us, we are pieces of the whole,
Do you believe your creator’s intention was that we despise each other for our differences or that we embrace our differences, do you think the intention was that a single mother working 3 jobs to support her kids in a minimal manner as paraded around by George Bush and proudly introduced as a great American was the creators idea of good family values, or that the most important thing after 9/11 as our president said was to get out our credit cards and spend was even a consideration of how people should react after an event of such sadness, I think not. We have become slaves to the greedy and that is sad. We are all miracles unfolding and we have a chance to unfold differently, that chance is Dr. Ron Paul. Think about it! Then vote for Ron Paul and tell every one you know to do the same. That is our only hope at the moment. Thank you Ron Paul for standing alone to shine the light for a nation blinded by generations of poor judgment and so confused by the constant barrage of lies and half truths that we no longer are able to discern the truth of what is good for us and what is important to our souls.
Steve
A couple corrections; Man, you’d think I was a politician, “hasn’t promised us anything he truly will work to provide”. thats a good one, I meant to say Ron Paul has promised us only what he will work to provide, he only talks out of one side of his mouth.
Ron Paul is much more intelligent and informed than you are may think or be aware aware of, I meant to say than you may think or be aware of.:)
S Adams, the terrorist worked for us in Afghanistan because we had common interest. to them and to us Russia was the biggest threat. Just because they are terrorist doesn’t mean they are stupid. Now that the USSR is out of the way, they now point their fanatical gun in our direction.
As for your comment on the using Credit Cards after 9/11. The terrorist can predict most the effects of a major attack like 9/11 and they, and us, know that the largest affect could have been the economy, not the immediate victims who died. In fact, i am willing to bet, that was a main goal in addition to killing people. By spending money, we mitigated the devastation from 9/11.
It appears others have already echoed my sentiments. You’re young, you’ll learn in time that he speaks the truth.
- Ron Paul is the best thing that could happen to the USA.
Did you see who they caught in the Dix terror attempt? Albanians.
When Clinton was bombing the Serbs, Giuliani corralled a bunch of
Albanians to protest at midnight resurrection services outside of
the Manhattan Serb Cathedral. TO their credit, even the Albanians were reluctant. What you get is the politicians who won’t tow the Vatican line on one issue have to toe it even more on other issues to make up for it. Giuliani was tied into the muslims because Saladjic lived near Molinari. But McCain had the soldiers write “Happy Easter” on the bombs. THe Catholics love the muslims, because they vote like them and hate democracy, commerce and Jews.
This is why 9/11 was definitely Rudy’s Yugo Blow Back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6pj5rASKDw
The only reason Ron Paul “appears to be associated with 9/11 Truth” is that Fox News is telling and repeating outrageous lies. The first part of the “truther” video, which Fox did not show, proves that Ron Paul did not know the “truther” man and was not familiar with the group that he represented. The last part of the video, which Fox did not show, proves that all Ron Paul agreed to was to talk with another congressman who is opening an investigation concerning “specific details” of the 9/11 report which he has not yet made public. Fox News is well aware of the fact that the blurb they quoted from the “truther” web site grossly mis-represents Ron Paul’s position.
They conveniently ignore the fact that in the Fox debate, Ron Paul clearly showed that he believes the US government’s 9/11 report is correct about who perpetrated the act: middle easterners, mostly from Iran.
It is true that Ron Paul could use a little work on stating things so that people with very poor comprehension can understand. However, it is probably impossible to weigh everything he says so carefully that Fox News or Sean Hannity cannot maliciously distort his meaning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6pj5rASKDw
“”Undoubtedly, it is true that our intervention in different areas has caused resentment in the world that has led to terrorism.”
Katie Wycklendt
You are absolutely correct, and so is Ron Paul.
There is no way in hell that I would vote for anyone in the election except Ron Paul.
“”They conveniently ignore the fact that in the Fox debate, Ron Paul clearly showed that he believes the US government’s 9/11 report is correct about who perpetrated the act: middle easterners, mostly from Iran”"
This statement is completely incorrect. None of the perptetrators involved in 9/11 were from Iran. NOT ONE. They were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul never said anything of the sort.
Ron Paul: More cash on hand than McCain? Third, overall?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpo.....ays-h.html
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. Dr. Paul received 182 of 294 votes cast, or 65 percent. In second place was Rudy Giuliani with 24 votes, or 8 percent.
“Today’s strong victory is further proof that Dr. Paul’s message is resonating throughout New Hampshire,” said campaign manager Lew Moore. “Dr. Paul is the only candidate in this race truly dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes for all Americans.”
CNHT is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to reducing the size of government at all levels, stopping judicial activism, providing students and parents with a choice of educational opportunities, expanding job markets, and protecting property rights.
Mr. Limbaugh, “They hate us because of our freedoms.” Freedoms??? Uh, read the Patriot Act lately?