Video: Michelle takes on Ron Paul and the Truthers on The Big Story Update: Correction

posted at 5:50 pm on May 16, 2007 by Bryan

***Update: See corrections and further commentary here***

The boss appeared on John Gibson’s show this afternoon to dispatch Rep. Ron Paul and the growing cancer called Trutherism, which not only affected one batty Libertarian on that debate stage last night, but it also infects 1 in 3 Democrats.

That tells you something about why the Democrats are so weak in the war on terror: A big chunk of their base doesn’t believe the war is against a real, external enemy. Trutherism is more comforting than the inconvenient truth that there’s an imperialist and very determined enemy out there that wants us dead or enslaved, and there’s nothing we can do to placate that enemy. Trutherism gives them the false belief that they have some power to end the war against the real enemy — Bush — by either weakening or impeaching him.

As for Rep. Paul, he’s just a blame-America-first loon. We “bombed Iraq for 10 years” to keep Saddam in check against his neighbors, Muslims all, whose countries he had repeatedly invaded. Bin Laden wanted us out of the Middle East because we’re dirty infidels and he wants to turn the region into his own private caliphate on the way to world domination for his brand of Islam. But we’re the bad guy in Paul’s mind? He shouldn’t get within miles of the White House if that’s the way he thinks.

Click to play.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If Ron Paul checked history, he would’ve known that Islamic terrorism started in the 30s by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood created by Al-Banna. He would’ve also known that the Muslim Brotherhood had a thing against Western influence within the Middle East. Ayman al-Zawahiri was part of the Brotherhood at age 14 and was involved in the assassination of Egypt President Sadat. This is the same al-Zawahiri that sits next to Osama Bin Laden in Al-Qaeda’s chain of command.

Perhaps if Ron Paul did that research, he wouldn’t have made such an ignorant statement.

MarkyX on May 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM

I like how Gibson refers to the Truther movement as “infecting” people while Michelle calls it a “virus”, both giving it the disease-like status that it so truly deserves.

thirteen28 on May 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM

I spent twenty years as an Air Force officer defending America, which apparently is comprised of a large number of fools who primarily vote for Democrats. They have gone from merely a political opposition to part of the enemy. Nearly all military members feel this shock and betrayal of the Democrat party, as well.

liberty on May 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM

What did Ron Paul say in that debate that makes him a Truther? He’s a Blame American Firster clearly, I don’t remember any Truther comments. Has he said something elsewhere that makes him a Truther?

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM

One thing I didn’t pick up on last night; Rudy looked like he wanted to smack the Paul outta Ron.

- The Cat

MirCat on May 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Actually the very koran Keith Ellison took his oath on for U.S. Congressman of Minnesota tells a different story.

Thomas Jefferson’s first English language translation of the Koran proves we have been fighting Islam since the 1700’s. Correction, they have been at war with US.

abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM

I’m wondering what Ron Paul’s angle really is? But no matter what it is, Michelle framed it pretty well, left wing truther sites = cesspool. Well said.

Zorro on May 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Keljeck, it’s a borderline thing. That he claims we brought 9/11 on ourselves is just as batty as the “real” truthers. No, it isn’t identical to people who claim we did it to ourselves, but it still calls the U.S. the bad guy, instead of the murderous islamists.

His comment that we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years is incredibly moronic. After we ejected Iraq from Kuwait, we identified and enforced a no-fly zone. When Iraqis violated it, we shot them out of the sky. In the meantime, Iraqi ground missile placements attempted to shoot down our aircraft. We bombed those placements whenever they becamse known to us. There is no way to connect dots like that and get to Paul’s conclusion that we were asking for 9/11.

Excellent comments, Michelle.

Freelancer on May 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Yeah, Jefferson and his dealings with the Barbary pirates creates all kinds of problems for Ron Paul.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Yeah how exactly is this trutherism? Paul is an idiot, but what he said wasnt trutherism.

Dash on May 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Oh, if you’re Ron Paul, you especially cannot connect the dots between the U.S. enforcing a no-fly zone between Iraq and Kuwait, and Al-Quaeda attacking the U.S. on 9/11. That is, no way if you are also standing by the theory of no connection between Iraq and AQ. The one should have nothing to do with the other. In which case, he can’t claim that us doing the one brought upon us the other.

Plus, he’s forgetting that Al Quaeda didn’t come into being just to oppose our actions in Kuwait. They had been conducting terrorist attacks for quite a long time before 1991. And I really want to be shown the nation that we have taken over soverignty of, that qualifies us as imperialists?

Freelancer on May 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Very much information on the whole barbary pirates thing. Including what the muslim ambassador said to Jefferson that’s eye opening.

Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

- The Cat

MirCat on May 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Yeah how exactly is this trutherism? Paul is an idiot, but what he said wasnt trutherism.

He recently did a radio interview hosted by a conspiracy theory type in which he stated he’d join Kucinich to investigate the WTC 7 collapse, and also suggested that the US would stage an attack in order to start a war with Iran. If he’s not a full-blown Truther, he certainly sympathises with them.

Wasn’t long ago; shouldn’t be too tough to find a link.

Hollowpoint on May 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM

I don’t really think what he said was trutherism either…but I’m going to stop splitting hairs about it…those people are so wrong and I’m definitely not a Paul supporter…

DCJeff on May 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM

I went to the Mariner’s game last night, and there was some old bastard outside the main Safeco Field entrance with a 10 foot wide truther banner. Granted, it’s Seattle, but they let the guy set up shop so close to the entrance that if I stood next to him and lit up, I’d be in violation of the nation’s toughest smoking laws. Baseball, as American as Mom, apple pie and now truthers it would seem.

rw on May 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM

What did Ron Paul say in that debate that makes him a Truther? He’s a Blame American Firster clearly, I don’t remember any Truther comments. Has he said something elsewhere that makes him a Truther?

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM

If you watch the clip, Michelle says near the end that Paul frequently appears with Truther groups on college campuses, and with chief tinfoil-chapeau wearer Alex Jones. Which would officially qualify him as being nuttier than squirrel poop, not to mention unfit to appear on the same stage with credible presidential candidates.

ReubenJCogburn on May 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Paul is more like Lindburgh’s “America First” crowd than the Truthers. But then Lindburgh went to Nazi Germany and let himself be used for propaganda.

Paul is doing the same thing. By blaming the US for 9/11 he LEGITIMIZES the attack. There is and can never be any legitimacy to 9/11.

The US and its people never deserved what happened.

William Amos on May 16, 2007 at 6:40 PM

If you watch the clip, Michelle says near the end that Paul frequently appears with Truther groups on college campuses, and with chief tinfoil-chapeau wearer Alex Jones.

Ok thanks. I knew he went onto Alex Jones, just thought he talked about the evil highway of doom and the Amero, not WTC 7. I never made it to the end, I got fed up with my slow college internet, thanks for the clarification.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Granted, it’s Seattle, but they let the guy set up shop so close to the entrance that if I stood next to him and lit up, I’d be in violation of the nation’s toughest smoking laws.

Sure, but do those tough smoking laws apply to lighting up a truther banner? I think it unlikely.

Hollowpoint on May 16, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Granted, it’s Seattle, but they let the guy set up shop so close to the entrance that if I stood next to him and lit up, I’d be in violation of the nation’s toughest smoking laws.

Sure, but do those tough smoking laws apply to lighting up a truther banner? I think it unlikely.

Hollowpoint on May 16, 2007 at 6:45 PM

He recently did a radio interview hosted by a conspiracy theory type in which he stated he’d join Kucinich to investigate the WTC 7 collapse, and also suggested that the US would stage an attack in order to start a war with Iran. If he’s not a full-blown Truther, he certainly sympathises with them.

Wasn’t long ago; shouldn’t be too tough to find a link.

Hollowpoint on May 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Hmm ok thanks I’ll look for it. Still what he said last night wasnt trutherism, but I see where it comes from now.

Dash on May 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Since Paul believes in blowback, maybe he should figure out that our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is blowback to the foreign policy of Saddam/AQ/jihadists … somehow I don’t think he’ll see it that way.

So f— him.

thirteen28 on May 16, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I certainly agree with Michelle and Gibson’s disdain for Truthers. But I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to lump Paul in with them based merely on these comments. To say we’re to blame for the attacks (while still wrong) isn’t the same as to say the attacks were staged or faked.

It wouldn’t entirely surprise me if Paul or some of the Democrat candidates actually are Truthers, and generally I think Truthers are going to find that kind of take-the-Islamists-at-their-word, blame-America stance appealing (if not entirely fulfilling). But guilt by association doesn’t quite cut it, particularly when there’s plenty of fault to be found with their actual stated positions, anyway.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM

If you watch the clip, Michelle says near the end that Paul frequently appears with Truther groups on college campuses, and with chief tinfoil-chapeau wearer Alex Jones…

Well, that would definitely serve as better evidence for his Trutherism than merely what he said in the debate.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 7:03 PM

No one believes the stories that 9/11 was an inside job, it is impossible to be willfully stupid.

The 9/11 truthers, Sean Penn, (((ROSIE))), Alec Baldwin, and the rest are using it as a vehicle to spew hatred, and smear anyone who disagrees with them.

Rode Werk on May 16, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Once again, a good point gets lost in a sea of idiocy. The good point being: America’s actions throughout the world can reverberate and have negative reactions.
Now, I don’t believe that in the current war on terror that it would apply at this juncture, nor that Paul has any reason to think so either, but it’s something to keep in mind as far as other hot spots, e.g. Africa, and how we execute our foreign policy pertaining therein.
Sadly, Paul didn’t have the intelligence to simply state “Of course America isn’t to blame for 9/11″.

SouthernDem on May 16, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Michael Savage says it best: “Liberalism is a mental disorder!”!!

SouthernGent on May 16, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Our foreign policy for Africa should be “stay out” unless a country genuinely desires our help and is willing to cooperate e.g. Ethiopia.

Rode Werk on May 16, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Thomas Jefferson’s first English language translation of the Koran proves we have been fighting Islam since the 1700’s. Correction, they have been at war with US.

abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Yes, and the Treaty of Tripoli, so very popular with the “we are not a Christian nation” crowd, was out first appeasement treaty.

Connie on May 16, 2007 at 8:22 PM

correction: our first appeasement treaty.

Connie on May 16, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Ron Paul should not be on the same stage. 

Kini on May 16, 2007 at 8:43 PM

It is absolutely absurd to accuse Ron Paul of any type of trutherism; not only did he not mention any sort of Bush-knowledge of 9/11, he doesn’t even say the U.S. is responsible for 9/11 as he is smeared. He simply says one of the reasons we were targeted is our involvment in the middle east, especially the bombing of Iraq. You know who believes the crazy theory? Osama bin Laden, you know, the guy who planned the whole thing.

Yeah turns out back in 1996 when he and al-Queda officially declared war on the United States he issued a fatwa outlining why he was going to kill us–the reasons why? Well mostly our involment in the middle east, especially our bombing of Iraq. Weird huh?

Attacking him, smearing him, purging him fro your polls…are Republicans afraid of big, bad Ron Paul?

JaHerer22 on May 16, 2007 at 8:53 PM

To Keljeck and others who may be wondering about Paul’s supposed Truther status…this video should help you to clarify things.

The Ugly American on May 16, 2007 at 9:09 PM

JaHerer22 on May 16, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Here’s what gets me though: Why, for the love of Pete, did he not just answer the question “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks?” with “Of course not!”? Instead, he tried to expound upon his point, without clarifying that. He may have done it afterwards, but too little, too late to stop a furor.

SouthernDem on May 16, 2007 at 9:10 PM

MM “I try not to spend too much time in those cesspools”. Well said.

I fancy imagining them happily swimming like rats in Turkish toilets.

Entelechy on May 16, 2007 at 9:49 PM

“To Keljeck and others who may be wondering about Paul’s supposed Truther status…this video should help you to clarify things. ”

The Ugly American on May 16, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Paul actually said this towards the end of that video: “Usually an investigation on almost any issue is a coverup.”

Now let’s talk about undergrads who label their organization “Student Scholars” for 9/11 truth (or whatever).

A student is NOT a scholar.

Get a sheepskin, grad level, first, kid.

See, if you can lie about what you are in the name of your organization, you can lie about anything. Even 9/11, kid.

.

The Machine on May 16, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Alec Baldwin is a 9/11 Truther?

aunursa on May 16, 2007 at 10:38 PM

The Dhemocrats are SO like the Nazi sympathizers of the 30′s. To hell with the truth we have our pet ideology.

Mojave Mark on May 16, 2007 at 11:05 PM

To Keljeck and others who may be wondering about Paul’s supposed Truther status…this video should help you to clarify things.

So he’s not a Truther?

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM

The good point being: America’s actions throughout the world can reverberate and have negative reactions.

How is that point particularly good? Clearly, actions taken by America can incite other nations to react negatively. When America attempted to limit Japan’s supply of oil in response to its invasion of Manchuria, Japan reacted negatively by bombing Pearl Harbor. When we invaded Normandy, Hitler reacted negatively by launching the Ardennes offensive. When we drove North Korea to the brink of annihilation, China responded negatively by mounting a massive counter-attack on their behalf. When we started the campaign to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, he reacted negatively by lobbing Scud missiles at Israel.

That list could go on for quite a while, and cover subjects ranging from trade to diplomacy, because the point is simply obvious. And in no way does it ever constitute an argument that the actions in question shouldn’t have been undertaken, save, in some cases, when indulging in hindsight.

I’m not sure we’ve been reduced yet to the level that a trivial point should be considered a good one.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Since Paul believes in blowback, maybe he should figure out that our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is blowback to the foreign policy of Saddam/AQ/jihadists … somehow I don’t think he’ll see it that way.

I alluded to this before; the assumption is that they are mindless automatons who react to our actions, but that only we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

This is what President Bush calls “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Basically, it says that Those People are just animals, and aren’t responsible for their actions, and we have to make sure we don’t make them angry, because we wouldn’t like it if they got angry….

The Monster on May 16, 2007 at 11:59 PM

So he’s not a Truther?

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM

I guess should’ve left out the word “supposed”, because that video makes it pretty clear that Paul has gone off his nut.

But this is all a moot point really, as I don’t think he’s got a chance in hell now.

The Ugly American on May 17, 2007 at 1:41 AM

Rode Werk on May 16, 2007 at 8:00 PM:

Our foreign policy for Africa should be “stay out” unless a country genuinely desires our help and is willing to cooperate e.g. Ethiopia.

We have several hundred airmen, soldiers and marines in Djibouti. They have engaged Al Qaeda in Somalia and they are also present to insure that the Red Sea (i.e., the Bab el Mandeb, a natural “choke” point) and the Gulf of Aden are kept out of jihadi hands.

I do not agree with your rationale concerning our African foreign policy. It has been the policy of the United States government to engage the jihadists where ever we find them. We are doing so in Africa, too. If we stay out Africa, we allow the jihad to establish themselves there, they way they did in Afganistan (until we invaded) are trying (but failing) to do in Iraq.

georgej on May 17, 2007 at 2:44 AM

Next up for the Truthers: the “international Jewish conspiracy”. And after that: an open (as oppsed to today’s tacit) alliance with Islamofascism. You just know, that’s where they want to go.

Halley on May 17, 2007 at 6:41 AM

If Ron Paul checked history, he would’ve known that Islamic terrorism started in the 30s by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood created by Al-Banna.

MarkyX on May 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Ummm, no slam intended, but Islamic terrorism against the US started in 1794 with the Barbery pirates plundering our merchant shipping and taking crew and passangers as slaves, per Islamic teaching and tradition, agains Infidels. Islamic terrorism itself started with its founder and has been a tool used throughout the ensueing 1350 years. Ron Paul isn’t just showing his lack of knowledge of American history, but of world history as well.

P. James Moriarty on May 17, 2007 at 8:04 AM

Islam has been at war with the non-Muslim world since its birth. This 13 century long war against the world only slowed down in the 1600s when Islam ran out of steam. It has been revived by petrodollars, largely from Saudi Arabia, the enemy of the West and particularly of America. It is the inherent venomous religious bigotry of Islam which drives this murderous Muslim hatred.

The ultimate solution to Muslim terror is to sever the connection between Saudi oil deposits and the Wahhabi death cult. That connection is the Saudi princes. The Saudi must be separated from the Arabia. That means Saudi Arabia must be destroyed and remade into a country or countries that do not export religious terror. The Wahhabis must be sent packing back into the desert to preach their poisonous faith to the scorpions.

Tantor on May 17, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Attacking him, smearing him, purging him fro your polls…are Republicans afraid of big, bad Ron Paul?

Afraid of? No. Disgusted by? Yes.

He has exactly zero chance of winning the nomination or presidency, and he’s marginalized himself enough that he lacks influence to even bring his favored issues up for debate. He doesn’t belong at the table with the serious candidates.

Hollowpoint on May 17, 2007 at 2:27 PM