RSS 2.0 Feed
Ron Paul And The 9/11 Truthers
Let me start out by saying that I support Ron Paul. But when he does stuff like this, I really start questioning my support for him:
Presidential candidate Ron Paul says the U.S. is in “great danger” of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation while also warning that a major collapse of the American economy is on the horizon and could be precipitated by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian Gulf.
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan’s recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.
“I think we’re in great danger of it,” responded the Congressman, “We’re in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that’s in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense.”
“Every day we’re in worse shape and right now there’s an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that’s gone wrong in Iraq and we’re quite concerned that the attack will be on Iran and that will jeopardize so many more of our troops, so I would say that we’re in much greater danger than we even were four or five years ago,” asserted Paul.
Let’s leave aside, for the moment at least, the merits of what Congressman Paul said and talk about where he said it.
Alex Jones is a radio host/commentator who runs a website called Prison Planet that, to put it nicely plays host to some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories that I’ve ever seen. He is a 9/11 truther who clearly believes that the United States Government had advance knowledge of, if not involvement in, the September 11th attacks despite clear evidence to the contrary. He is among those people who perpetuates the lie that there was no airplane that crashed into the Pentagon that day (and in case there’s any doubt about that, I could refer you to a friend of mine from law school who lived blocks away from the Pentagon in 2001 and saw and heard the plane before it crashed).
Alex Jones is, in a word, a nutjob.
So why is Ron Paul appearing on his program ? And what does he think of Jones’ bizarre theories regarding September 11th ?
Frankly, I think those questions need to be answered.
As far as the merits of what Paul said, Rojas at The Crossed Pond, makes this excellent point:
But there’s a major problem with both the Gulf of Tonkin scenario and the much more ludicrous prospect of a staged attack. And that problem is timing.
Why now? In order to buy that some sort of provocation for War with Iran is coming, you’d have to accept that the administration chose not to engage in that provocation when doing so would have provided a far, far greater political benefit.
(…)
Why now? The President is no longer even pretending that he needs broad public consent to exercise the powers of the Presidency; he’s the decider, and that’s that. The President has sufficient military jurisdiction to provoke war with Iran on his own and without provocation. He can bomb Tehran tomorrow if he chooses. Why, exactly, would he seek political cover for such an operation? In order to build international support? Please. In order to “protect his legacy?†If he engages in this operation, it will be because he thinks the operation ITSELF is something history will remember fondly; he’d gain nothing historically from being forced into it.
And there’s a broader point, and it’s the main reason I generally don’t believe conspiracy theories. To believe the conspiracy theorists version of history — whether its the Kennedy assassination, September 11th, or some supposed future terrorist attack — one has to also believe that a large number of people in government, each with their own agendas, ambitions, and axes to grind, would be capable of agreeing on a plan, executing it with such perfection that it looks to the outside world like someone else did it, and keep it a secret before, during, and after the operation.
All my experience in dealing with the government tells me that such people simply don’t exist in government.
But that’s beside the point. When Ron Paul does things like appear on the Alex Jones Show, or associate himself with remarks by a wacko like Cindy Sheehan, he does a disservice to his campaign, and to the people who support him.
What’s more important about Alex Jones, the (lack of) validity of his theories or the freedom to express/investigate them further?
I don’t see what the problem is about Ron appearing with Jones. Ron is in the neighborhood down there in Texas and whether you like it or not he appeals to people who are very skeptical about the honesty of our government on a wide range of issues. Alex and Ron agree on one key issue, that government should leave us alone. An appearance by Ron is not an endorsement of all of the theories that AJ throws out there.
Comment by Chris — July 13, 2007 @ 3:01 pmChris,
Alex Jones has every right to believe his paranoid, delusional theories and broadcast them to America.
Ron Paul has every right to appear on his show if he thinks that’s wise.
I am simply questioning the wisdom of someone who would go trolling for votes on a show that (1) clearly only appeals to fringe groups and (2) promotes bald faced lies about one of the worst days in American history as truth.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 13, 2007 @ 3:03 pmThis is the message I post on every truther youtube video who tags Ron Paul on their video:
Comment by joshuabrucel — July 13, 2007 @ 3:09 pm“Please do not associate your videos with Ron, you might as well be neonazis for all the general puclic cares. If you want him in office be realistic. Please dont hurt our chances my mom and sister are looking at Ron Paul videos tonight.” or something similar. The reason (in my guess) he goes on the Alex Jones show is that the millions of listeners were some of the first passionate “spammers” who created a buzz on the internet. I however found out about Ron via Antiwar dot com, which is anything but conspiracy oriented. I also must say that the Bush administration is so decietful that hardly anyone believes a word they say, so it is easy to understand why the public would believe it was an inside job. I do not think it was an inside job but I wouldn’t put it past BUsh, and frankly I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out it was an inside job. That is how much Bush has radicalized America. Paul has stated that he believes it was 19 hijackers with boxcutters who did it. He has even called Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, a definate taboo to truthers. Either Paul believes the conspiracies and pretends to be mainstream, or he believes the official story and is using the Alex Jones crowd for exposure and their energy (boundless) I don’t know. But I must say he is still the most rational realistic candidate hands down.
I dont buy these baseless dismissals of something simply because your emotions and current worldview cant handle it. Its time to see beyond the haze of biased emotion and take a brutally honest look at reality. If you want an honest investigative explanation then be responsible and do your homework. Go read “Crossing the Rubicon” By Mike Ruppert and then get back to us.
Comment by Eric Kuhlmann — July 13, 2007 @ 3:10 pmEric,
I dismiss the arguments of the 9/11 truthers because they are nonsense.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 13, 2007 @ 3:14 pmWow, well I guess that closes all debate, eh?
I’m not a truther, I don’t think our completely, shall I be blunt, fucking inept government could pull off that kind of conspiracy. But I’m sure they are hiding something - CYA, after all. Hang the lot of them, and we’d be at a much better starting point, sez I.
So, since Ron Paul doesn’t cut the mustard here, as I have noticed several times, who’s your big messenger, eh? Or are you just going to continue to throw darts from the cheap seats?
Comment by bret — July 13, 2007 @ 3:19 pmNo doubt about it, associating with the 9/11 “Truth” movement is a definite loose/loose for Dr. Paul.
Comment by James — July 13, 2007 @ 3:19 pm“Frankly, I think those questions need to be answered.”
And they have been, in many forums and interviews. He thinks those theories are “silly”.
Comment by Bill Westmiller — July 13, 2007 @ 3:20 pmRon takes advantage of every opportunity to discuss his ideas and is *only* responsible for what he says, not the ideas of his host.
At worst, Ron could be faulted for excessively diplomatic responses to loaded questions. But, don’t invoke the Association Fallacy to fault him for the views of others.
Oh please….wasn’t it Michael Chertoff who JUST YESTERDAY said that even though he has no proof, he feels that we are about to have some sort of terrorist episode?
Well I ask you, just how in hell does he know this?
There have been people in the mainstream who have actually said in public ‘what the R’s need right now is a good attack’.
I am no ‘truther’ because I feel that is a waste of time no matter how much fun it is to watch videos of the WTC and wonder what happened, but Dr. Paul, and I’m with the Doc a lot since that first visit in Feb to NH as BW knows because he was there too, is not one of them.
He has said many times, a few of them while standing right next to me, that he is not into those theories.
So no matter how interesting it is to wonder if the WTC wasn’t just the Reichstag, it isn’t an issue in this campaign so stop trying to make it one.
Comment by NH — July 13, 2007 @ 3:29 pmAgreed. We even had to ask one of our meetup group members to leave our group because he showed up a county GOP straw ballot event wearing a ‘911 was an inside job T-shirt,’ and didn’t seem to understand why that was a bad thing.
To Paul’s mind, he is just trying to get his name out there in whatever format he can. Look at http://www.ronpaulaudio.com and you can see he has been very busy on the local talk radio circuit. However, I think those who listen to to AJ regularly already know who RP is. The campaign needs to make sure their focus now is GOP voters or GOP-leaning voters. Those are the people that he will have to persuade to make a dent in the primaries…not Alex Jones’ audience.
Peace be with you.
Comment by cfountain72 — July 13, 2007 @ 3:32 pmI like conspiracy theory because it’s a flag that says, TRUTH is missing and this info (conspiracy) makes sense. I was told that the North American Union was a conspiracy theory, and yet 14 states have had congress write resolutions against it. What’s the truth? Now some will say, we are not told the whole truth for our own good. But I like truth. I can handle it, and for those who can’t, well there’s plenty of fiction, medication, alcohol, and TV shows with canned laughter. I’m curious, if you don’t vote for RP, who would you vote for and why?
Comment by Jeanette Doney — July 13, 2007 @ 3:34 pmHow to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.
Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.
- Moderno Machiavelli
Comment by John Howard — July 13, 2007 @ 3:34 pmSo, where does the cia fit into this view of government you have? if their recently released family jewels tell us anything, its that they can, and do, conspire to deceive the public, with no oversite or consequences. Additionally, any black-ops project would be contracted out to the private sector, where your views on the balance of public service do not apply.
Comment by sudo — July 13, 2007 @ 3:36 pmI do believe that the headline of this article is misleading. BTW Ron Paul has long been associated with web sites such as Prisonplanet and infowars: not sure it will hurt his popularity or credibility- he has a sound record.
Even though I think Alex Jones is over the edge, similar to Jeff Rense. I will say that Alex Jones presents more plausible and credible evidence that 9-11 was allowed to happen (stand down), like the Gulf of Tonkin and Pearl Harbor.
I do not consider myself on the fringe and if me believing that we know absolutely nothing more about that horrific day than we did within the first two weeks, and disbelieving the line they hate us for our freedoms puts me on the fringe, I am okay with the label. There is a growing percentage of Americans that believe we are being mislead with 911-including those directly affected. Actually we are all affected; the Patriots Act implemented in 6 weeks (when does any law pass that quickly). Perhaps the fact that were mislead into the Iraq war, lends credibility to the various theories??
Blow back has its cause and effect, so does standing down.
All the patriots rally and scream America is the best and strongest nation on earth. All these mistakes and mismanaged events do not support this sentiment. What does?
Comment by Amy — July 13, 2007 @ 3:38 pmDoug Mataconis writes:
“[Alex Jones] is a 9/11 truther who clearly believes that the United States Government had advance knowledge of, if not involvement in, the September 11th attacks despite clear evidence to the contrary.”
Doug, are you not familiar with the concept of a false-flag operation? Wikipedia entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
I doubt the U.S. government had any direct involvement in 9/11, but I don’t find it hard to believe that they would allow attacks to happen in order to increase the size and power of the federal government. There is strong historical evidence that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to draw America into the war.
I think it’s naive and Manichaean to assert, as you appear to, that anyone who doesn’t believe 100% in the official 9/11 report is a “truther” and therefore shouldn’t be listened to.
Note how entertaining Orwell would find it that “truther” is a term of derision.
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 3:42 pmNo Conspiracies? Do you believe in organized crime?
Comment by ab ny — July 13, 2007 @ 3:43 pmBlaming RP for some of his followers is so lame and childish, it is amusing that his supporters seem so frightened of that tactic.
“Let’s not speak the truth because our enemies will make fun of us” is not a very noble stratedgy.
As for 911, anyone claiming to know what happened is lying. Investigation is rational and calling the investigators crazy is dishonest. And only the supporters of the offical line are using that tactic. How come, one wonders?
Comment by John Reading — July 13, 2007 @ 3:44 pmDoug Mataconis–
Here’s a classic false-flag operation as a pretext to war, extremely well-documented.
Hopefully you won’t be too shocked by “Finnish Truthers” to believe such a thing could actually happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 3:47 pmDoug Mataconis writes:
“I dismiss the arguments of the 9/11 truthers because they are nonsense.”
Doug, let’s get specific, if you’re inclined to engage: if I were to say that I believe it’s a serious possibility that some arm of the Bush Administration allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen
because, among other reasons, they could use it as a pretext to war with Iraq, would I then be a “truther” or a “nutjob” in your view, a person whose views should be dismissed a priori?
If you say “yes” to this, I really will have to wonder about your naivete, since it’s well known that Bush wanted to take out Saddam from the day he took office (as Paul O’Neill famously noted from an early cabinet meeting). And again, I hope you’re not unfamiliar with the concept of false-flag operations. Cui bono? usually takes you closer to the truth.
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 3:52 pmi listen to AJ every day. you need to listen and then research what he reports. he is simply reporting the NEWS. Dr. Paul has been on AJ many, many times for years…as far as what he said… in order to understand what he means, all you need to do is go back in time to a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the house on July 10, 2003, entitled “Neoconned”, wherein he lays out the people responsible for war and what they said they “needed” to get us into it.
here is an excerpt. you can find this speech in print and at goog video…i suggest you look into it before you wrongly conclude that history is an accident. hopefully this is not over your head
“Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.”
“Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):
…”of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”
Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky†event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event†that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.â€
Recognizing a “need†for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky†are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.
Comment by todd kobylarz — July 13, 2007 @ 3:54 pmBuckwheat… you point is well taken. What people do not fully grasp is that, with the internet access to and the speed of information is phenomenally quicker. We no longer need to wait 20 yrs to find out what happened. We have access to international news, which is usually months ahead of the U.S. MSM.
The list of advantages is far too long.
Comment by Amy — July 13, 2007 @ 3:54 pmAlright it’s official, Doug Mataconis is a biased RP hater.
Comment by brody — July 13, 2007 @ 3:59 pmConspiracy theories develop when people are not given all the facts, or the facts don’t add up. This is the case with 9/11. The goverments own actions following that tragedy, such as the Patriot Act, the presidental directive laying ground work for martial law, adoption of a pre emptive war doctrine, attempts to ridicule, marganlize, and silence dissenting voices.
With all of this, how can you not be skeptical? Ron Paul would make a far more responsbile canidate. He listens to the concerns of the everyday citizen, and adresses them. Even if he doesn’t believe, he doesn’t ignore. Should said goverment be more like that, we wouldn’t have so many theories about current events.
Thus we have three possiblites. 1 The goverment is dumb, and unable to realize the need to listen to concerned voters. 2 They want people to have conspiracy theories, since they won’t work for fair and open investigations. 3 The theories are true in some part. They try to smother investigation for fear of being held responsible to an angry public.
Comment by James — July 13, 2007 @ 4:03 pmI think Jones is a lunatic, but Paul has been on there many times over the years, and I see no reason why he should shun them now. What good would it do? If he gets close to nomination, the media will use his old appearances against him whether he still speaks there or not. He might as well keep going.
As to 9/11, I too heard the plane that hit the Pentagon and saw the explosion. More to the point, it flew directly over my head on Columbia Pike in south Arlington, VA, while I was waiting for a bus. I don’t consider it beyond the pale that it was allowed to happen, although I think bureaucratic stupidity is probably the best answer. But I’ve certainly seen no “clear evidence” to contradict the idea that it was allowed.
Comment by Joshua Holmes — July 13, 2007 @ 4:05 pmDoug,
You start out EVERY single one of your articles with “I support Ron Paul but…” and then launch into negative smear campaigns. Every article I have read from you has been negative or critical of Ron Paul. So why do you ’support’ him? Are you fucking idiot? If you don’t like him, don’t support him. Go vote for Hillary or Fred Thompson. You look like a complete idiot trying to pretend people are stupid enough to believe that you support someone that you only write negatively about.
Are you messing around with mind-altering drugs or something?
Comment by Scott McDonnell — July 13, 2007 @ 4:07 pmYou make rash claims yourself without providing any evidence to back them up:
1. “despite clear evidence to the contrary”. (Show us this evidence)
2. “perpetuates the lie” (Show us the evidence that this is a lie)
3. “I could refer you to a friend of mine … (who) saw and heard the plane before it crashed (into the Pentagon).” (Yes, please refer us! Once again, don’t just say you have evidence - show it to us!)
4. “Alex Jones is a nutjob.” (Saying this makes it so? Prove it. No, really. You make claims without evidence.
5. “To believe the conspiracy theorists version of history … one has to also believe that a large number of people in government (are involved)”
(Sounds kinda reasonable - but is it true? Dark secrets are best kept among a few people at the top. Most of the participants just have to believe that what they are doing is legitimate - like engaging in a mock drill - that, just co-incidentally (what are the odds) happens to be taking place at exactly the same place at exactly the same time.
Keep an open mind on this. Be neutral and consider the evidence. At best there are many questions unanswered. How about demanding some answers for them?
Comment by James D — July 13, 2007 @ 4:07 pmWhy bother with a smoke alarm in the barn? After all, around here barn fires are rare. Because losing the barn will hurt real bad.
Comment by Thomas — July 13, 2007 @ 4:07 pmKeep in mind, early in the campaign, that people like Alex Jones were the only ones who would talk to Ron Paul. In the position he was in several months ago, he needed to get all the press he could get.
He has repeatedly stated that he didn’t buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He’s nice to “those people” because they were nice to him when he needed it most.
Even if you disagree with the truthers on 9/11 - which I do personally - there is a lot of other common ground upon which we do agree (abolishing the IRS, for example). When you agree with someone 75% of the time, they’re not your enemy!
I personaly don’t care what Michelle Malkin or the Faux News staff thinks of Ron Paul’s appearances on Alex Jones or any other fringe shows. He is who he is, he’s been the same guy since was first elected in the 1970’s, and neither the truthers nor the neo-cons are going to change him.
Comment by Chris in NJ — July 13, 2007 @ 4:09 pmGood post, Todd. The Ledeen quote about Pearl Harbor is classic — I don’t know how much more clear the neocons could be about their goals and what they’re willing to do to achieve them.
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 4:09 pmI agree Ron Paul needs to dissociate himself with conspiracy theorists. Although, one of the strengths of the man is his ability to communicate with all types of people and in fact that is part of the job description of being a doctor. Most of the radio/TV interviews he does are great.
Comment by Thomas — July 13, 2007 @ 4:10 pmI really cannot understand how a libertarian torch bearer like this site proclaims itself to be, will go to extraordinary lengths to sabotage it’s own man. You people are garbage. End of story.
Comment by AD — July 13, 2007 @ 4:10 pmJoshua Holmes wrote:
“I don’t consider it beyond the pale that it was allowed to happen, although I think bureaucratic stupidity is probably the best answer. But I’ve certainly seen no “clear evidence†to contradict the idea that it was allowed.”
Doug Mataconis wrote:
“[Alex Jones] is a 9/11 truther who clearly believes that the United States Government had advance knowledge of, if not involvement in, the September 11th attacks despite clear evidence to the contrary.”
So Doug Mataconis must think Joshua Holmes is a truther. Right, Doug?
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 4:12 pmI don’t quite see how Ron Paul could lose the election no matter who he associates with:
1. END IRAQ WAR - POLICY OF NONINTERVENTION
2. TRUE BORDER SECURITY
3. ABOLISH INCOME TAX
Am I missing something here? The Ron Paul campaign is growing exponentially and giving the American people what they want - a leader with common sense.
Comment by TOONCES — July 13, 2007 @ 4:13 pmDon’t bother responding to these Doug Mataconis hit/slander pieces with the assumption that he has a single crumb of credibility. I mean who are you trying to fool Doug?
Comment by brody — July 13, 2007 @ 4:13 pmBuckwheat,
Funny. Also completely ludicrous. Doug’s right, the amount of secrecy involved in doing something on that scale would be astronomical and there’s no way that the government would be able to keep the wraps on government agents blowing up two buildings, or that they’d be able to find a sufficient-sized team willing to carry out a terrorist attack against their own country on both a civilian target and the Pentagon.
Do I believe Bush was looking for an excuse to go into Iraq? Sure. Do I believe Bush lied, exaggerated, distorted and misrepresented the intelligence on Iraq to justify the invasion? Absolutely. Do I believe Bush murdered over 3,000 Americans in an attempt to create that reason, and that he’s been this expert in covering it up? I’ll accept that he took advantage of the crisis to justify what he did in Iraq but if you think he was able to pull a secret op like that off and not get caught you’re out of your goddamned mind. He couldn’t even run secret detention centers in Eastern Europe without the press finding out about it. There’s no way that 9/11 was a government op or that Bush is that competent.
Bush was a “C” student from Harvard, a piss-poor businessman, a mediocre to poor military officer, a reformed drunk, and a mediocre state governor. What do you think he was doing all that time? Biding his time? Pretending to be an underachiever for 50 years so he could set off an evil terrorist plot to justify fighting a losing war in some Middle Eastern shithole? The guy’s got a high school freshman’s comprehension of world affairs, a massive insecurity complex, and an inability to learn from his mistakes and his foreign policy gaffes and miscues have always reflected that. His biggest asset is that he’s got a VP who knows how to work and abuse the system…and that’s all. An evil criminal mastermind Bush is not.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:14 pmUCrawford - Of course the puppet (Bush) isn’t the criminal mastermind. Puppets have puppet-masters. They like to hide behind the stage and let the audience (you) believe that the puppets are acting on their own.
The puppets aren’t real UCrawford. They aren’t real.
Comment by James D — July 13, 2007 @ 4:18 pmUCrawford…. come on!! Bush at worst, is a Manchurian Candidate and at best dumb like a fox, surrounded by a pack of wolves, which I will add are at the top of the ecosystem and often invoke fear in the hearts of the animals they stalk. Thus, are able to carry on with their dirty deeds.
Now is that a conspiracy theory or reality?
Comment by Amy — July 13, 2007 @ 4:21 pmUCrawford–
I doubt it was planned per se, but as I stated upthread, it wouldn’t surprise me if evidence surfaced that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen (likely not by Bush himself, for the reasons you note, but Cheney…? A little more likely, no?). And I’d like more journalists to ask more questions on this topic. I must be a truther!
There are literally thousands of historical precedents for this kind of operations, I noted the Shelling of Mainila above, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.
And do you doubt certain people in and around the Bush Administration would be very pleased indeed to see another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, as it would allow them to seize more power? I don’t see how you can read the Michael Ledeen quote above and not come to that conclusion.
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pmOne more thing, UCrawford: notice how little effort the Bush Administration puts into securing our border with Mexico, over which hundreds of thousands of people pour every year. We have no idea at all who these people are, and it’s an obvious route a terrorist would take if he wanted to enter the U.S. without detection.
Do you think these are the actions of an administration that wants to prevent terrorist attacks?
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 4:24 pmJames D.,
Oh yes…obviously this is true. And the utter lack of any physical evidence of a conspiracy on your part is only further proof of how well the puppet-masters cover their evil crimes. (sarcasm off).
Show us the guys who claim to have planted the explosives, have them confess to it and present clear evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they did so, and maybe I’ll consider your position. Otherwise you’re just a whack-job with a computer who went off his meds.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pmBuckwheat,
I think these are the actions of an administration that realizes the immigrants help our economy more than hurt it. And it’s one of the few positions where I find myself in grudging agreement with Bush.
Maybe I’m being too naive though…after all, look at all the Mexicans who were among the 9/11 hijackers.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:27 pmDoug,
I’m not a truther, and I don’t believe in many conspiracies, but I think Paul has a point. Our government has done it before, and they can do it again. LBJ wasn’t as bad as Bush in some ways, and we know Bush wants to attack Iran. He’s lied to us before, and anyone who does much research on the internet knows the administration is lying to us now about Iran’s WMD plans and capabilities (they also seem to forget that Israel can easily take care of itself).
However, I don’t think Bush would need a Gulf of Tonkin operation. I’d imagine we have plenty of people pissed enough to attack us for real :(
Comment by G — July 13, 2007 @ 4:28 pmPaul is correct on the dollar and that there really are two options.
1. Let it sink into oblivion, causing an inflation depression.(the cousre we are on)
Comment by Johnnyb — July 13, 2007 @ 4:30 pm2. Hike rates and stop the endless printing(13% ms growth) and stop inflation and let the economy recess? The correct course.
Obviously Bush is going to keep printing and obviously real Amercians are losing buying power. I could care less where he states it because MS Media will not mention it, they report the ridiculous 2 percent inflation garbage. And yes with a rat Cheney nearby any sort of false flag operation is not far behind.
And “thousands of historical precedents”? Fine, I’ll call your bluff. Name the first thousand examples of 9/11 scale covert ops perpetrated by the U.S. government. I’ll accept the Gulf of Tonkin as one…since the U.S. government was good enough to admit to it.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:30 pmWe are ripe for an attack, because us little people are not buying their booga- booga approach any longer. (Michael Chertoff could use some Rolaids) The war support is tanked and Congress, hell all three branches of government, have been hijacked.
We are restless.
Just watch as we all are clued to the TV watching D.C. Madam - Jean Palfrey’s list unfold.. Poof, Kapowwee, ZAM
Comment by Amy — July 13, 2007 @ 4:30 pm1. To the author: I have a difficult time respecting the opinion of anyone who can not express themselves without calling people names like “nutjob”. Just because someone believes things that you don’t, does not mean that they are in some way defective. I strongly urge the author and others to actually study the people and events discussed in the interview. Look into the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Look into the USS Liberty incident and cover-up. Then you will understand the basis for their discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Of_Tonkin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
2. About Ron Paul: If you haven’t noticed, Ron Paul will discuss almost anything he feels qualified to discuss, with almost anybody, at any time. He is accustomed to his views and methods not being “mainstream”, and his happy to have a chance to discuss them, especially without being badgered (like he typically is on FOX and CNN, on TV and radio shows, large and small. I mean, he did that interview in that guy’s dorm room! If you want to talk with him, he’ll talk with you. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t matter to him whether or not he was running for office or not, he’d talk with you. See if you can get that from your “bought and paid for” corporate politicians.
3. Alex Jones might be a bit coarse, and over the top, and you may not believe things that he does, but…Alex Jones predicted 911 would happen several months before it did. Look into it for yourself. On his radio show, he predicted that there would be an attack, on a high profile target, and Osama bin Laden would be blamed of it. Again, look into it for yourself.
4. If you haven’t figured out by now that our federal government is more best up than anyone could have ever imagined, you must be hiding in a cave. Hats off to those digging in the dirt to try to figure out what in the world they are doing.
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2007 @ 4:31 pmDoug~
There you go again. This is the second time in as many days where you devoted an entire article to bashing Ron Paul. Why?
If the worst thing Dr. Paul does in his career is appear on a ‘fringe’ radio show, then we really have nothing to worry about.
I think guys like Rush Limbaugh are ‘nutjobs’, but if Ron Paul decided to appear on his show, I couldn’t judge him for it.
Spreading a message takes time and it takes exposure- you have to be willing to reach every American.
Now, if you wanna talk about 9-11, which I know you do because you wouldn’t have written this article otherwise, there are plenty of intelligent people out there who can find evidence of a conspiracy, just like there are plenty of people out there who can find evidence it WASN’T a conspiracy.
The simple fact is, there are a growing number of Americans that distrust the Bush administration because of Iraq, which makes believing the 9-11 conspiracies much easier. So it’s not fair to condemn Ron Paul for being smart enough to notice that.
To be fair to you, I know you are just writing these ‘Fox News’ style articles to get attention, and that’s your right. But if you want people to take you seriously, you’re gonna have to come up with some REAL dirt for any Ron Paul supporters to start to question the man.
0 for 2, Doug. Try again.
Regards,
Comment by Kyle Sanders from Salem Oregon — July 13, 2007 @ 4:31 pmKyle Sanders
Yeah, as Amy just mentioned, Chertoff says he has no facts, but has a “gut feeling” there will be a “terrorist” attack this summer.
We should all be seriously intrigued by Chertoff’s gut, and wonder how his gut can see the future…
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2007 @ 4:33 pmYeah Doug, why not write about something more worthwhile like Chertoff’s magic gut? Just a thought.
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2007 @ 4:42 pmUCrawford
No need to get nasty - we are discussing what is true here. People can have conflicting ideas of what the truth is without assaulting the messengers. This is not Troy.
(the) “utter lack of any physical evidence of a conspiracy”. Really. Here is one tiny piece of evidence:
The 47 storey WTC7 building collapses into its own footprint after the recent new owner (who took out an insurance policy just 6 weeks before - and collects $5,000,000 after) tells the firemen that they should ‘pull’ the building (see the PBS documentary for this video clip evidence).
This huge building falling down into the heart of a major city is not even MENTIONED in the 911 report. Why? Don’t you wonder why? No, wait, don’t do that. Just call anyone who does a “conspiracy nutjob”.
Comment by James D — July 13, 2007 @ 4:42 pmProbably the same “gut feeling” that made Bush administration officials say there’d be 9/11-style terrorist attacks every year since 2001…followed by pretty much nothing happening. It’s simple fear-mongering by a presidential administration prior to an election year. It makes all the nutjobs who think Bush is doing a good job rally behind him to bang the wardrum and all the nutjobs who think Bush is planning to conduct secret terror attacks against his own country come up with ridiculous “theories” to discredit themselves and any candidate they affiliate with.
If the “truthers” really want Ron Paul to have a chance at winning in 2008, they’ll keep their mouths shut and quit tying him to their ridiculous conspiracy theories before the primaries. And if Ron Paul is trying to make a serious run at the presidency, he’ll quit going on the shows of loons like Alex Jones and tying himself to them. I agree with Doug, it was a very troubling misstep for Ron Paul’s campaign.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:44 pmWho are the nutjobs again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=847J99MkUdk
Comment by TOONCES — July 13, 2007 @ 4:45 pmIf you want a list of false-flag operations, one should understand our foreign policy. I recommend reading the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. Here is a link to a 3 part interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARBdBtGenM
Comment by Amy — July 13, 2007 @ 4:45 pmUCrawford–
“Maybe I’m being too naive though…after all, look at all the Mexicans who were among the 9/11 hijackers.”
Bad faith argument, my point was obviously that potential terrorists can use fake IDs, general laxity of immigration law enforcement, underground economy, etc. to enter the U.S. and then conceal their existence here. Many of the 9/11 terrorists used these systems to overstay their visas and carry out the attacks. These systems wouldn’t exist if Bush, Chertoff & co. enforced our imigration laws, which they actively flout.
“And “thousands of historical precedentsâ€? Fine, I’ll call your bluff. Name the first thousand examples of 9/11 scale covert ops perpetrated by the U.S. government. I’ll accept the Gulf of Tonkin as one…since the U.S. government was good enough to admit to it.”
Not necessarily U.S. operations, but major false flag operations. You can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Examples_of_false_flag_attacks_as_pretexts_for_war, but they don’t even mention the USS Maine.
Are you really arguing with me that false flag operations haven’t been a constant feature of military history for thousands of years? You remind me of Giuliani’s lack of familiarity with the blowback concept.
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 4:47 pmI’ve just got to say that those who are here obviously have access to the same information I have seen. The same videotape of Building 7 collapsing in the same fashion the Twin Towers did which is eerily similar to controlled demolitions of buildings. I’ll leave stand that some are willing to belive that the Twin Towers were felled by the planes, I’ll allow you that thought, albeit foolishness, take it. But to witness the collapse of Building 7 which was not hit by a jet, was not substantially damaged by the collapsed towers, nor was it visibly weakened by fire, for it to collapse as it did, there is absolutely NO explanation for other than it was a controlled demolition to destroy evidence of a greater crime.
Wake Up America!
WAKE UP!!!
And then you still have to explain to me how NORAD didn’t respond to the hijacked airplanes flying way of course, explain that one to me?
As for Ron Paul and what he stands for - don’t tell me you are interested in the US and the Constitution and tell me you are supporting anyone other than RP, there is no other choice than him.
Humble thoughts from a humble American.
Comment by Bill — July 13, 2007 @ 4:49 pmUcrawford writes:
“It makes all the nutjobs who think Bush is doing a good job rally behind him to bang the wardrum and all the nutjobs who think Bush is planning to conduct secret terror attacks against his own country come up with ridiculous “theories†to discredit themselves and any candidate they affiliate with.”
Well, I think you’ve labeled >50% of the U.S. population as “nutjobs.”
But again: what about us people in the middle, those who don’t think the Bush Admin planned the attacks per se, but who believe it’s highly possible that they might have allowed it to happen to seize power and as a pretext for war with Iraq? I personally believe that, and in fact find the possibility self-evident and rather obvious, and would like mainstream journalists to ask questions about this.
I must be a truther!
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 4:52 pmBelieving that the Government is 100% incompetent, just because you’ve never seen any is naive at best. Their competent people are likely not on public display. But hey if you believe this, then the rest is history because no matter what you learn your incompetence theory will always win be default. Your just like most Americans who get their facts from MSM. So in that regard, I don’t like what Alex did. And while I’ve spent a fair amount of time checking his facts, which were for the most part accurate, I think mentally he is a loose canon and he probably did that to suffice his own ego. He should pray to his god for some help with that. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that Dr. Paul is not stable. I know integrity when I see it and hopefully most other Americans will too.
Comment by Jon — July 13, 2007 @ 4:54 pmYes, obviously a new insurance policy on a building by some unnamed individual and a random, cryptic quote on a PBS documentary is proof positive of a government plot. Was the policy holder George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Osama bin Laden? Or was it just some guy who took out an insurance policy on his building like in any other major city, in any other state, in any other month or year? I assume you’ve got actual proof of this…or do you simply assume that throwing out random factoids connecting nothing to nothing constitutes proof?
Nutjob.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:54 pmJames D.,
Oh yes…obviously this is true. And the utter lack of any physical evidence of a conspiracy on your part is only further proof of how well the puppet-masters cover their evil crimes. (sarcasm off).
Show us the guys who claim to have planted the explosives, have them confess to it and present clear evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they did so, and maybe I’ll consider your position. Otherwise you’re just a whack-job with a computer who went off his meds.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Wow, if only you demanded that level of proof from your own government when something like this happens, we would be in great shape!
I like your style, though, just wish you were asking the right people, since I am 100% sure that James has absolutely NOTHING to gain from his views, but the people you have chosen to believe DO and HAVE.
Like it or not, even if 9/11 happened exactly as the official story says, it was a conspiracy theory. Linking Iraq to 9/11 in order to NOT finish the job going after Al Qaeda is a conspiracy fact.
Comment by Scott McDonnell — July 13, 2007 @ 4:55 pmThe argument that the Gov. was responsible for staging 9-11 in the strong sense is nonsense simply from a probabilistic view, BUT its pretty easy to let things slip through the cracks, and is indeed probable. So I’d say there’s a .0001% chance the Gov. staged it, a ~20% chance it was forknown by the high levels (Bush et al.) and suppressed, a 50% chance it was suppressed semi-malicously by lower level Neo-con ideologues in the CIA (or at least not actively pushed) and a 29.9999% chance that is was just straight buerocratic ineptitude that allowed documented, clear warning signs to be ignored.
Comment by Patrick — July 13, 2007 @ 4:55 pmDismissing a person without exploring the ideas is called an ad hominem attack, contempt prior to investigation. Ron Paul has stated that we should have a real 9/11 investigation and see what really happened. Anyone here think we got the whole story from the Bushies? So lets have a new investigation so I can find out how the BBC reported that WTC7 (third building) had collapsed 20 minutes before it did. The official story is for morons (ad hominem).
http://www.truthcult.com
Comment by Alexjonesfan — July 13, 2007 @ 4:58 pmUCrawford:
You make plenty of assertions without evidence.
These words and phrases you use are NOT evidence:
“Probably”
“It’s simple fear-mongering”
“nutjobs”
“ridiculous “theories—
“loons”
But since this is the language you seem to understand, let me convince you of my point of view by using similar language:
‘You are probably a simple fear-mongering loon engaging in a conspiracy with your nutjob looney friends to promote the ridiculous theory tha 911 was carried out by a tall skinny guy in a cave masterminding the takeover of US aerospace, several civilian aircraft by peasants with box-cutters, standing down NORAD, disabling missile defences (and cameras) at the Pentagon and then evading capture for 6 years while being chased around the world by 160,000 professional soldiers and the most sophisticated intelligence system the world has ever know.
Take your looney conspiracy nutjob case to your doctor - you need to triple your meds now!’
Comment by James D — July 13, 2007 @ 4:58 pmBTW, that’s the point. People don’t support Ron Paul because of 9/11, even the ‘truthers.’ Why? Because Ron Paul doesn’t believe the government was involved in the attacks. Truthers just happen to ALSO, obviously, mistrust our present government. Right or wrong, they are a patriotic bunch.
I support Ron Paul because I am troubled by what we are seeing happening to our country from ALL of Government in the last 100 years, not just the Bush administration (that just made this election all the more important.)
Comment by Scott McDonnell — July 13, 2007 @ 4:59 pmWait a second..
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the justification for Lyndon Johnson to war in Vietnam. However, the incident was at best embelished and at worst fabricated. Many now say that the Johnson administration lied about the entire thing.
Is this the first and only time the US Govt has lied to the people? You’d be naive to say no.
So then why are you a “nutjob” if you suspect that the Bush administration (one of the most secretive admins) might do the same thing?
The argument then is…
The Government has in the past done XYZ.
Comment by J.P. — July 13, 2007 @ 5:02 pmYou’re a nutjob if you think the Government might do XYZ.
“So I’d say there’s a .0001% chance the Gov. staged it, a ~20% chance it was forknown by the high levels (Bush et al.) and suppressed, a 50% chance it was suppressed semi-malicously by lower level Neo-con ideologues in the CIA (or at least not actively pushed) and a 29.9999% chance that is was just straight buerocratic ineptitude that allowed documented, clear warning signs to be ignored.”
Patrick YOU MUST BE A TRUTHER NUTJOB!
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 5:02 pm“and would like mainstream journalists to ask questions about this.”
Problem is, the mainstream journalists tend to label anyone who questions the government’s official 911 account, in any way shape or form, a “nutjob”.
“False flag” events are probably the oldest trick in warfare. Calling people derogatory or antagonizing names whenever they try to discuss something that you don’t want discussed, is probably the oldest trick in propaganda.
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2007 @ 5:06 pmBuckwheat,
Sorry, you want me to care about your position, then you can go ahead and name the first 1000 of the “literally thousand of examples” you claimed exist. You want to make ridiculous claims about “literally thousands” of evil conspiracies by the U.S. government…you can do your own damn work backing your claims up.
And no…if you believe that the government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place, you’re not in the middle. Believing that Bush took advantage of the war on terror to justify an invasion of Iraq is one thing. Believing that members of the intelligence community (and there would be dozens who would have to have taken part) would allow a terror attack to hit U.S. soil and kill thousands is completely different. There aren’t dozens of people who are both that unstable and that discreet serving in positions that high in the intelligence community. Government workers are no more or less patriotic than any other Americans and they’d be just as horrified and opposed to such actions as anyone else.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 5:07 pm“Believing that members of the intelligence community (and there would be dozens who would have to have taken part) would allow a terror attack to hit U.S. soil and kill thousands is completely different. There aren’t dozens of people who are both that unstable and that discreet serving in positions that high in the intelligence community.”
Yes, there are!
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 5:11 pmUCrawford
What’s wrong dude?
I’m STILL waiting for YOUR EVIDENCE to prove your ludicrous (new word for you!) nutjob conspiracy theory about the 7 foot giant and his 16 little dwarves with their tiny knives who brought the most powerful empire the world has ever known (USA) to her knees on 911.
Here is your story so far (don’t laugh until you reach the end):
‘One day, not too long ago, a tall skinny guy in a cave masterminded the takeover of all the US aerospace, several civilian aircraft by peasants with box-cutters, stood down NORAD, disabled missile defences (and cameras) at the Pentagon and then evaded capture for 6 years while being chased around the world by 160,000 professional soldiers and the most sophisticated intelligence system the world has ever known.’
Now all we need is the EVIDENCE for this. It is so easy to demand evidence from others. Now it is your turn to PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
We’re waiting…
Comment by James D — July 13, 2007 @ 5:16 pmKnow a lot of those intelligence operatives personally do you? Or at least their names? Because if you do, I’m assuming that you’ll be able to cough those names up, as well as offer definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt that ties them to 9/11 in some way, shape or form. Because if you don’t have any of that, you’re really just validating my point.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 5:19 pmJames D…seek help.
Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 5:22 pmAhhh, the infamous psychotic innuendo and name calling when you play stump the chump!!
UC you can do better than that!!
Comment by Amy — July 13, 2007 @ 5:26 pmUCrawford
This is your response? I AM seeking help! YOUR help, UC, your help! Oh god how we need your help in understanding this looney nutjob conspiracy theory of yours.
Here it is again. Please, please, PLEASE UC! Give us the EVIDENCE for your looney theory! We’re not just asking you. We’re BEGGING you! You have all the answers.
(by the way, you had me at “looney nutjob conspiracy” - man! I couldn’t even BREATHE after that!)
Our (official) story continues:
‘One day, not too long ago, a tall skinny guy in a cave masterminded the takeover of all the US aerospace, several civilian aircraft by peasants with box-cutters, stood down NORAD, disabled missile defences (and cameras) at the Pentagon and then evaded capture for 6 years while being chased around the world by 160,000 professional soldiers and the most sophisticated intelligence system the world has ever known.’
Comment by James D — July 13, 2007 @ 5:34 pm“I’m STILL waiting for YOUR EVIDENCE to prove your ludicrous (new word for you!) nutjob conspiracy theory about the 7 foot giant and his 16 little dwarves with their tiny knives who brought the most powerful empire the world has ever known (USA) to her knees on 911.
Here is your story so far (don’t laugh until you reach the end):
‘One day, not too long ago, a tall skinny guy in a cave masterminded the takeover of all the US aerospace, several civilian aircraft by peasants with box-cutters, stood down NORAD, disabled missile defences (and cameras) at the Pentagon and then evaded capture for 6 years while being chased around the world by 160,000 professional soldiers and the most sophisticated intelligence system the world has ever known.’ ”
You know, I watched a translated video of a retired German intelligence officer, who put it about like that. kind of hard to argue those points. Of course you could just dismiss him as a “nutjob” (you know I always thought a “nutjob” meant…well never mind), but those are are very solid points.
My question… is that working from his “command cave”, bin Laden must have had an opperative very high up in the US government, who managed to be able to make NORAD stand down while those guys were doing there dirty work with box cutters on the airliners. This operative was said to be in his command bunker, in its “undisclosed location”, on the morning of 911, before anyone else of importance arrived, and before it was known that we were under attack. Who could that “operative” have been? hmmm…
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2007 @ 5:42 pmPlease note that the following is based on my recollections of a conversation that occurred almost 20 years ago. It is NOT my intent to quote Dr. Paul. This is MY recollection of the conversation.
I had the opportunity to spend some time with Dr. Paul during his 1988 campaign. He told me, during a one-on-one conversation, that bills had been written that contained provisions which, looking back now, seem to me a lot like the USA Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. (He did not give the bills any names, just a quick review of the contents.) The “powers that be” were just waiting for a good excuse to bring these bills forward and ram them through Congress.
Comment by Michael Wagner — July 13, 2007 @ 5:43 pmThe attacks of 9/11 provided the necessary excuse. Dr. Paul knew in advance, decades in advance, that these laws were just waiting in the wings. It seems to me that with his foreknowledge of the content of those bills, the 9/11 attacks must have seemed too convenient. It is no wonder he voted against those bills.
We all know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a staged event. While Alex Jones is a bit off the deep end sometimes, he is right on target when he talks about “false flag” incidents.
Having absolutely no evidence that 9/11 was in any way an “inside job,” I am still very suspicious of the event and would like to see a real investigation.
I’m sure that Dr. Paul would like to know the truth also. Saying that you would like to know the truth, does not mean you already know what the truth is.
If that makes Dr. Paul a “truther” I guess it makes me one too. So be it.
This guy is worried about Ron Paul using Alex Jones show as a media outlet, because he believes alex is a “nutjob”.
Where has he been for the last 20 to 30 years in politics?
How many “nutjobs” who have visited the “Bohemian Grove” have been elected and left America in shambles to the tune of 60 trillion, with every failing social program under the sun in those last 20 to 30 years.
Alex Jones is a nutjob for believing the government is corrupt. ?????
Comment by Davy C Rockett — July 13, 2007 @ 5:45 pmso if im getting this he said yes….something like the golf of tonkin could happen again…right?
if it happened once why is it out of reason that it could happen again.
Comment by jason — July 13, 2007 @ 5:46 pmQuit squabbling.
READ… THIS… BOOK….
http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9171192-9395913?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184367171&sr=8-1
There - I even linked it for you. Now all you have to do is read it. Im not holding my breath though.
Comment by Eric Kuhlmann — July 13, 2007 @ 5:55 pmThe 9/11 Truth movement is awfully large to be calling it a “fringe” group. Isn’t it over 30% of the American public that has serious doubts about the official conspiracy theory involving 19 al Qaeda hijackers?
Why not seek votes from such a large voting block, particularly if advocating an honest investigation is enough to win their support? Even if there is nothing to their claims, it might help turn up more instances of government ineptness to improve upon.
As for the audacity of suggesting that a Gulf of Tonkin style fake incident might be staged — doesn’t the fact that it has happened several times before lend substantial credibility to the assertion? It’s called a “Gulf of Tonkin style incident” for a reason.
As for doubting whether some shady group could carry off a significant conspiracy, because it would have to be done perfectly to work at all — huh? If there are obvious flaws in the official explanation, there will be millions of people pointing them out online and at various conferences, but their objections will simply be ignored by labeling them “fringe groups” and “conspiracy theorists.”
Comment by Lex — July 13, 2007 @ 6:09 pmI think you are missing 1 important thing.
It is the possibility that such an event could happen because of the extreme amount of powers taken by the executive branch, some of which is for some reason classified.
The reason so called truthers support Ron Paul, and the reason Ron Paul goes on such shows, is because Ron Paul stands for limited government, and a return of powers so things aren’t centralized and in control of a few people.
Across all the major failures, nobody was fired or anything, yet the American public has lost rights over it. And again, that is why he has their support, and the support of many others.
Because we all realize this isn’t about who believes what, it’s about restoring the constitution to it’s role of limited government.
Ron Paul could be Ru Paul for all I care, the only thing that matters to me is restoring the constitution.
Comment by badmedia — July 13, 2007 @ 6:28 pmThis government has proven time and time again that it is capable of initiating false flag operations.
The Gulf of Tonkin is a pretty good example. But if you have any doubts Doug, google Operation Northwoods.
Comment by Rick Fisk — July 13, 2007 @ 6:56 pmGood evening,
Alex is a patriot who honors his country rather than worshiping government. He exposed Bohemian Grove in 2000 and shows that our government has actively sought, Operation: Northwoods, to kill Americans for an excuse to invade Cuba. Bush is a total fraud as a Christian with his 3rd generation membership in Skull&Bones and his claims that there are several “paths to the Almighty.” Let’s not forget that it was his father who popularized the phrase “New World Order.” To say that there is no conspiracy in the push for global government is bordering on denial. I love Ron Paul and I’m glad that you still plan on supporting him. By the way, can you please show me some difinitive photos from the Pentagon or maybe some video of the plane you claim hit it? Like most people I started out believing the official story but had to abandon it slowly over time. The alternative theory along with the Project for a New American Century and it’s call for a “New Pearl Harbor” is just too compelling. Take care and God bless.
Comment by Chad — July 13, 2007 @ 8:42 pmThomas Jefferson was a conspiracy theorist too. Very few things that continually take a countries liberties away are happenstance.
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.” Thomas Jefferson
Comment by L. Kline — July 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pmI second that, this wikipedia link ends this entire discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Comment by Buckwheat — July 13, 2007 @ 10:27 pmAlex Jones, Ron Paul and even The Wizard of Oz have more credibility than the person writing this blog. That’s why I comment without even reading this garbage. I recommend you do the same.
Comment by Truther — July 13, 2007 @ 10:44 pmThis piece is just bait, written by a CIA/Neocom hack who gets an hourly wage. To bad so many well-meaning people fell for it. Well duh.
Comment by zenpiper — July 13, 2007 @ 10:50 pmMajor General Smedley Butler on interventionism…
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Comment by js290 — July 14, 2007 @ 12:39 amThis is for Doug:
Comment by rob — July 14, 2007 @ 1:07 amI had the unfortunate experience of working as a first-(medical)-responder on the “pile” for the first several days, along with other firefighters, police,medics, and iron workers. What we saw, smelled, felt, and breathed only had minimal media exposure for the first 24 to 36 hours. Those memories of detonations before and during the demolitions were burned into our consciousness until we die The first question we all ask of you, Mr Mataconis,is this: “Four lumbering commercial airliners make U-turns over the northeasat corridor without a single interception?” How did this occurr, Mr. Mataconis? Incompetence? This is a routine event occurring 100 times/year and continuosly trained for on other days. A friend of mine, who is currently a Marine Colonel Fighter Pilot on the F-15/Strike Eagle-pilot, among other aircraft, said to me: “From claxon to wheels in the well in five minutes. We train over and over again year-round for just such an event like this.” Mr. Mataconis, you do not know what you are talking about. It’s obvious to us that you have not read the many analyses by professionals-mechanical, civil, and metallurgical engineers, of the events of 911. You have not even bothered to read the results of the analysis of the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 (the aircraft that allegedly hit the Pentagon) obtained by military & commercail aviation pilots by making a FOIA request from the NTSB. The NTSB had not only sent the requested data, but inadvertently attached a “raw .fdr file” required translation by expensive software that was provided by an anonymour individual in the aircraft/industry. There is a dvd available with a clear analysis by an aeronautics engineer. You may also hear prerecorded conversations about flights 77, 11, and 175 with other military and commercial aviation pilots, and a ATC, about what it’s really like trying to hit a small target at 400 knots. Hint: Not easy. But 19 shrimps averaging 5′4′, with barely the ability to fly a Cessna overpower guys like Capt. “Chic” Burlingame, former combat pilot, who is 6′5″, trained in anti terrorism, martial arts, and force him to quietly hand over control of his aircraft. And, I suspect, that you may not be aware that the biggest “conspiracy theory” put out there is the “Official Story” put out by the government and dutifully stenographed by the MSM. Oh, yes. You undoubtedly will refer to the 911 Commission Report for the “facts.” If you try, you will find that there is no answer to the above questions. Including the questions: Why Commission did NOT address NORADS three changes in their story? Why did they not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 into its own footprint in 6 seconds? It was not hit by a plane and had two relatively small fires. Why was Commerce Secretary Norman Minetta’s sworn testimony in front of the Commission ignored? Do you even bother to find out what Minetta had said? I really don’t think so. If you did a modicum of research, a reasonable person with average intelligence would pause and say “Something is not right here!” Google Minetta’s testimony to find out. I think they managed to scare the pants off you, quite frankly. You sound like you are frightened witless and have a hard time thinking for yourself. Oh, I have some news for you. The 911 truth movement is no longer a “fringe movement.” Latest polls show over half the country believes that elements within this government/pentagon were complicit in the events of September 11, 2001-a “catalytic event” the neocons depended upon.
Not just for Iowans: Watch this video and you will see Ron Pauls message to Americans.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2284724646717174405
Articles like this give writers bad names.
Comment by lilDeb — July 14, 2007 @ 1:52 amApparently about 20-25% of Americans suspect our government knew something about 9/11 before it happened. Even if it’s only 15%, are you people suggesting that every politician, including Ron Paul, should simply ignore them and pretend their votes and voices are worthless?
This is the administration that signed into law the PATRIOT act, which contained multiple constitution violations. The president has signed bills into law and explicitly said that he felt they were unconstitutional but he was signing them anyway.
Our entire political system was designed by paranoid skeptics, I really don’t find 9/11 truthers offensive, and I have no problem personally if RP talks to Jones and don’t see why people (other than his detractors) would make a big deal out of it. 9/11 truthers are major skeptics, but they aren’t crazy, and the politicians we have no do not help reduce Orwellian suspicions among Americans.
Comment by Mike — July 14, 2007 @ 2:07 amI know that there are “secret combinations” that are going on in this nation. If Hitler was elected by the people of his time and ended up the way he was then what makes people think that the same thing won’t happen to this nation today. Things that are going on today in this country are just so fishy to me and alot of things I just scratch my head and wonder about why certain laws are the way they are and I have a gut feeling that its just wrong. God is for freedom and Satan is for force. Anything that goes against our freedom is not of God which would make it exactly what Satan’s plan is. If they attacked us on 9/11 because we’re free then why haven’t the terrorist attacked or taken over other countries that are smaller and also have freedom. I have’nt seen this happen yet? you’d have to be narrow minded to not think about this things. I am for Freedom (God) not Force (Satan). Lets stand up for our Liberties. I am not for any party and I may not even vote this year but I am feeling that this Ron Paul is an honest man. Ron Paul seems to hav