Ron Paul no longer responsible for having to follow complex questions

posted at 2:00 pm on July 17, 2007 by Allahpundit

Tragically, The Only Man Who Can Save America once again finds his patriotic words twisted beyond recognition. Or does he? Read David Freddoso’s apologia and then read the transcript of the exchange at Politico. Actually, never mind — I’ll quote it right here:

Alex Jones: “Congressman, just out of the gates. Cindy Sheehan yesterday on my show went further than anybody has ever gone. She said, ‘a distinct chance of a staged terror attack or the government allowing that to happen it to happen.’ Bush is saying he doesn’t care what the people want the war will continue. They’ve set up the military commissions act; they’ve set up the John Warner defense authorization act. He signed PDD 51, making himself literally dictator…he ‘gave himself that power.’ How much danger are we in now, with the Homeland Security head feeling in his gut we are about to be hit. Republican memos saying they need terror attacks, they need Al Qaeda hit us to be able to continue the war, top military strategists saying it. How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?

Ron Paul: “Well, I think we are in great danger of it. We are danger in many ways – the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that is in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment, which endangers our troops and our national defense. So everyday, we are in worse shape. And right now there is an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq. And we’re quite concerned, many of us, that the attack will be on Iran and that will confuse things and jeopardize so many more of our troops, so I would say that we are in much greater danger than we have been even 4 or 5 years ago. Whether it is overseas or even by terrorists here at home, because I just think the policies are seriously flawed.”

Freddoso makes it sound like the only reference to a staged terror attack was in passing at the beginning of a hopelessly opaque, minutes-long ramble which no human could possibly be expected to remember. Transparently false. First of all, the question wasn’t “multi-part” as he suggests. Jones’s point, to suggest that Bush and company were conspiring to instigate a second national trauma they can exploit to expand the war and gain dictatorial power, was perfectly clear. “I think we are in great danger of it” came the dopey reply. Second, everything Jones says leading in to the question at the end about the Gulf of Tonkin has to do with a staged terror attack: the dark reference to Chertoff’s gut, the mentions of needing Al Qaeda to hit us, etc. If Paul thought there was some material difference between that and a Gulf of Tonkin scenario, why didn’t he say so? That’s the real objection to him — whatever he might have meant by his answer, he’s unusually comfortable with questions like these such that it never occurs to him to challenge people on statements that would have alarm bells ringing in your and my heads. A long, rambling question that began with a statement of Holocaust denial and then segued into criticism of Gitmo wouldn’t pass unchallenged by most of us. Why does Paul let the repeated insinuations of a staged attack pass here?

The answer, of course, is that he doesn’t find them that outrageous. If he had any big problem with Jones’s oeuvre he wouldn’t be on the show in first place, which brings us to the punchline of Freddoso’s post. He acknowledges that Jones is a “madman” but then says appearing on his show is the “only” thing Paul’s “stupidly” guilty of, as if to hint that Paul didn’t know what he was getting into. Hey, David: he appears regularly. He knows exactly what the show’s about. Stupidity or naivete has nothing to do with it. And the fact is, even in the most charitable interpretation, Paul’s still clearly assenting to his belief in a new Gulf of Tonkin. Freddoso has to try to show why that’s no big deal because, after all, appearing on the show is the only thing Paul’s guilty of. Here’s what he comes up:

As for the “new Gulf of Tonkin provovacation” suggested by Jones at the end of his question, and assented to by Paul, it is true that several paleoconservatives — including Pat Buchanan today — are starting to use similar language, referring to the minor military confrontation that was massively embellished to justify our official escalation of the Vietnam War. But the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a “staged terrorist attack” either.

Really? Every conspiracy theorist version of Tonkin that I’ve ever heard of goes way beyond “embellishment” in explaining what happened. Rosie wasn’t talking about embellishment when she floated it on “The View.” And Alex Jones’s website wasn’t talking about embellishment here:

Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years…

The August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam, yet Tonkin was a staged charade that never took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.

Paul himself hasn’t referred to the supposed impending Iran attack as “staged” but he has used a similar word. Fast forward to about :25 here if you’re counting down and judge for yourself if Freddoso’s spinning.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Not that I’m a Ron Paul fan. Far from it, in fact. Regardless, was there a question somewhere in that diatribe by Alex Jones? Good lord…no wonder politicians have become such skilled liars. You can’t honestly answer any question asked by a reporter in this day and age when the questions themselves are tremulous farces.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2007 at 2:09 PM

How much danger are we in now, with the Homeland Security head feeling in his gut we are about to be hit.

The whole problem here is Chertoff’s intestinal disorder from not consuming enough lettuce.

I say we revive the lettuce-for-Chertoff campaign for a long term solution.

And.. for the short term solution we should send him pepto-bismal.

Mcguyver on July 17, 2007 at 2:14 PM

rho on July 17, 2007 at 2:18 PM

What’s your point, rho?

-We know Republicans are largely dissatisfied with the current field (which includes Paul).

-3% isn’t exactly something to be proud of.

-Obviously, military donations don’t make up a large percentage of total donations, or Paul would have a lot more money on hand.

And none of this takes away from the fact that Paul’s rhetoric is disturbingly ‘truthy’ at times.

Slublog on July 17, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I am not a Ron Paul groupie either, but then again I am not naive enough to deny the possibility, however remote, that the US could make a mountain out of a molehill with some insignificant event in order to initiate some action against Iran. Our history is replete with such instances, but I don’t really have a problem with that. Sometimes you got to do what you got to do.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 2:24 PM

You know, if the day ever comes that voters kick this wackatoon out of office, Ron Paul does have a promising future as a science-fiction/fantasy writer.

pilamaye on July 17, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Something about the “PDD 51” in the original quote struck me as odd. A quick search turned up this page: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/index.html. PDD 51 has no information, but the one that does that came most recently before it was signed in September of ’96, the signed one most recently after was signed in November of ’96. I’m no PhD, but I’m pretty sure Bush wasn’t the president in ’96, when this directive must have been signed. Guess ol’ Alex is playing fast and loose with the facts, once again.

corbettw on July 17, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Republican front-runner: “none of the above”

Ron Paul now polling at 3% at Gallup–yet he’s not on the PajamasMedia poll.

Donors who named the military as their employer are contributing to Ron Paul at greater than 50% of contributions.

Yes, I fear him. Will Alex Jones be at the inauguration?

I do enjoy the exquisite condescension of the criticism of this site I see from time to time at the Sparse Matrix coupled with your see-no-evil fanboy support for Ron “North American Union” Paul. It’s like chocolate and peanut butter: either is fine separately, but together? Delicious.

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:25 PM

This speach has been approved by Tommy.

Is that an R behind his name? YAK! Must stand for repulsive.

On-my-soap-box on July 17, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Moonbat bumper sticker:

Gulf of Tonkin, google it.

On-my-soap-box on July 17, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Pat Bucannon believes it: Tonkin Gulf II and the Guns of August?

bnelson44 on July 17, 2007 at 2:31 PM

rhodkill: Also tasty with chocolate and peanut butter.

RushBaby on July 17, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Paul is really not a nut. He has been around a long time, is educated and well read. He believes in a small government with a very small international footprint, except for trade. He does not like foreign aid or far flung aggressive and expensive military activity.

I get the feeling, though, that the 911 event and the war on terror really put a fly in his ointment. I don’t think he really has a firm belief or his mind around just how best to deal with it. In all honesty, I’m not really sure how best to deal with it either except follow the Tom Landry rule that the best defence is a good offence.

These extremists are irrational, emotional, and gullable beyond belief. I used to think the only thing they understand is a sharp stick in the eye, but they don’t seem to mind that either. so far, our present approach has kept off an attack here for years, but the radical Islamic movement seems to be growing. What an ugly problem it is, so be easy on Ron Paul. He is motivated by what he believes is best for the US.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Our history is replete with such instances, but I don’t really have a problem with that.

Replete? Our country is replete with instances in which we fabricated an incident/attack against our own people in order to justify war against someone else? Or, in which we made a “mountain out of a molehill.” And, the fact that Iran is actively involved in killing our soldiers in Iraq, ie, at war with us, is a little instance that we might exploit?

nailinmyeye on July 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Paul is really not a nut. He has been around a long time, is educated and well read. He believes in a small government with a very small international footprint, except for trade. He does not like foreign aid or far flung aggressive and expensive military activity.

so be easy on Ron Paul. He is motivated by what he believes is best for the US.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 2:36 PM

What? Did you read the post above? Be easy on Ron Paul? The dude is, to use Ace and Allah’s terms, a Bircheresque Crank, who has stated that 9/11 was our fault for being “over there.” The dude is “borderline” truther. I don’t care how many books a person has read – if they believe that crap, then they deserve all of the scrutiny and criticism that can be mustered.

Ron Paul is a nut, who does not deserve to be in public office.

nailinmyeye on July 17, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Paul is really not a nut.
saiga on July 17, 2007 at 2:36 PM

If it looks like a nut, feels like a nut and is found in a jar full of nuts- it’s a nut.

If it weren’t for his irrelevancy he’d be dangerous for the country.

Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Occam’s toothbrush in action.

Bob's Kid on July 17, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Replete? Our country is replete with instances in which we fabricated an incident/attack against our own people in order to justify war against someone else? Or, in which we made a “mountain out of a molehill.” And, the fact that Iran is actively involved in killing our soldiers in Iraq, ie, at war with us, is a little instance that we might exploit?

nailinmyeye on July 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM

nailinmysys has a bur under his saddle and after that comment. I am with you pal!

On-my-soap-box on July 17, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Well, I don’t have a problem with the instances that worked out well. But you are right, Littlerock, Wounded Knee, Randy Weaver, etc. etc. I do have a problem with. Examples like the Spanish American War worked out. What I mean is that I think conventional wisdom today is that the Maine blew up from coal dust in the hold, not a bomb. I could be wrong though.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Sundry comments/questions:

1. Is it that big a deal if Ron Paul is interview by Alex Jones? Granted, Jones is both retarded and annoying, but he’s a media outlet and politicians rarely turn down an opportunity to get their message out. Pat Buchanan has been on Jones’s show; are conservatives ready to throw Buchanan–who, by the way, also happens to share Paul’s views in regard to the Gulf of Tonkin incident–under the bus, as well?

Besides, other politicians give interviews to media outlets whose proprietors are just as looney as is Alex Jones. Case in point: Romney has been interviewed by CBN.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060626a.aspx

CBN was founded by Pat Robertson, who hosts its flagship program, The 700 Club.

I’d suggest checking the Wikiquote page for Pat Robertson if you have any doubts as to the status of his batsh*t insanity.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson

My favorites:

“If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that’s the answer.” (talking about the United States State Department)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/

“[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers.” The 700 Club, 1/18/95

2. Of all Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul has received the most money from those people enlisted in the Army, Navy, Airforce, as well as from Veterans.

[Note: this does not count Marines, as the Iraqslogger piece points out.]

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3609/Antiwar_Ron_Paul_Rakes_in_Military_Donations

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

The Federal Elections Commission searchable data:
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/

Any thoughts?

tad on July 17, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Republican front-runner: “none of the above”

Ron Paul now polling at 3% at Gallup–yet he’s not on the PajamasMedia poll.

Donors who named the military as their employer are contributing to Ron Paul at greater than 50% of contribution

– That would mean they don’t like Paul either. Remember (I know it sounds weird) but, he’s a Republican, too.

– Ralph Nader took 2.74% of the popular vote in ’00. Essentially, Paul is polling at the same level as a guy who runs as a “consumer advocate”.

-Yet, he only has 1/7 of the funds Giuliani does.

rho on July 17, 2007 at 2:18 PM

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

That should’ve been separate. In response to RHO:

– That would mean they don’t like Paul either. Remember (I know it sounds weird) but, he’s a Republican, too.

– Ralph Nader took 2.74% of the popular vote in ‘00. Essentially, Paul is polling at the same level as a guy who runs as a “consumer advocate”.

-Yet, he only has 1/7 of the funds Giuliani does.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Is it that big a deal if Ron Paul is interview by Alex Jones?

Hark, the cry of the Paul apologist, whose boy can do no wrong even when he breaks bread with one of America’s most shameless bottom-feeding cretins.

Any criticism of Paul at all, boys? His haircut? Sense of fashion? Be as superficial as you want. I’m curious to see if we can wring even a shred of doubt from your creepy, messianic fascination with this turd.

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Ok, lets get this straight……

Iran sponsors terrorism.

Iran is tens years away from a nuclear bomb or a delivery system.

We should wait until 9 years 364 days have elapsed to deal with it.

Riiiight Paul you loon! Iran will have enough nuclear material in a very short period of time, that they could sell to the highest bidding terrorist, and before you know it, we have a dirty bomb going off.

Mr Paul, you sir, are nuts!

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Republican front-runner: “none of the above”

Ron Paul now polling at 3% at Gallup–yet he’s not on the PajamasMedia poll.

Donors who named the military as their employer are contributing to Ron Paul at greater than 50% of contributions.

rho on July 17, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Yawn; the desperate antics of a crazy troofer.

25% of voters are undecided. Big deal. Nice of you to advance the MSM spin though- I’m sure they appreciate it. Somehow I doubt they’re going to swing to Troofer Paul.

3%? Within the margin of error. Given the behavior of his nutjob troofer supporters in cheating on polls he still doesn’t belong in the poll unless all the other candidates suddenly keel over and die, which might propel Ron Paul to double his support from 0% or 3% or whatever it is today.

Likewise, given the cultish nuts who regularly spam polls that form his support base I wouldn’t put it past them to falsely claim they were military.

Feel free to go back to prisonplanet or whatever conspiracy site you frequent.

Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 2:56 PM

It’s like chocolate and peanut butter: either is fine separately, but together? Delicious.

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Ha, so true, but you will grow tired of him eventually.

Bad Candy on July 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM

This is “cover-all-the-bases” politics. If Al-Queda sneaks a dirty bomb into Philidelphia and kills 10,000 people, Ron Paul can get up and say, “Aha! it was a set-up by Bush!” Regardless of what really happened, Paul and any other Truther has the benefit of prescience here and can then claim there should be an investigation to see if Bush/Cheney were really running a False Flag operation to get the US back on track with the war.

Regardless of how absurd it sounds, there’s enough people out there who believe the Federal Government could and would do this.

Now, if there’s no terror attack, Paul still wins because people would be focused on Iraq still and wouldn’t be focused on a new terrorism.

The only way this can’t work is if Al Queda detonates a nuke in Britain. We’ll all be incensed at the nuclear attack, and we know it wasn’t a US conspiracy to nuke England. France, on the other hand….

BTW, help me take over the Huffington Post.

Nethicus on July 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Gee wiz Allah,

Who is the one with all the emotion about Ron Paul?

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 3:00 PM

From the Gallup poll:

margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Ron Paul zombies are entertaining for awhile, but they get boring after awhile.

And tad, I’m not a huge fan of that anti-Semite Buchanan either, and I don’t throw that label out there lightly.

Bad Candy on July 17, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Methinks the Ron Paul army has invaded Hot Air. Sleeper cells, if you will.

nailinmyeye on July 17, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Who is the one with all the emotion about Ron Paul?

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Everyone who’s had to put up his apes**t crazy troofer fanboys.

Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

nailinmyeye on July 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Replete? Our country is replete with instances in which we fabricated an incident/attack against our own people in order to justify war against someone else?

Yea, you know replete…Like in 1814 when James Madison had the White House set on fire so he could blame it on the British, or when Lt Col Travis murdered Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett and Blamed it on Santa Anna, or when Franklin Roosevelt ordered Perl Harbor bombed and blamed it on the Japanese, or even when Boosh personally blew up the Twin Towers and blamed Bin Laden, you know replete…

doriangrey on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Who is the one with all the emotion about Ron Paul?

You’d have to ask some of the media organizations, like Politico, who get spammed endlessly after criticizing him about that, saiga. But I confess, I do have plenty of emotion about Paul. He’s a Bircheresque crank whose creepy little toadies are willing to overlook his fondness for conspiracy theorists simply because he’s against the war.

Gets annoying after awhile, you know?

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Wait a minute, I for one am not a Ron Paul guy, but he doesn’t drive me crazy. There is no doubt that he aint getting elected and would be a trainwreck if he did. But, he does have a unique point of view that he seems to believe. I don’t feel the need to silence him.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Ron Paul is a nutjob, and his supporters are hence, nutjobs themselves.

/ period

SilverStar830 on July 17, 2007 at 3:06 PM

tad on July 17, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Wow. So, Mitt Romney (A Mormon) was interviewed by someone on a network which was founded by Pat Robertson, who said something bad over a decade ago. I see your point. Clearly, that’s as bad as Presidential candidate Ron Paul saying there’s a chance the government would hurt its own people to gain more power.

RE: The Donations: Yet, he only has $2.3 million in the bank.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Hark, the cry of the Paul apologist, whose boy can do no wrong even when he breaks bread with one of America’s most shameless bottom-feeding cretins.

Any criticism of Paul at all, boys? His haircut? Sense of fashion? Be as superficial as you want. I’m curious to see if we can wring even a shred of doubt from your creepy, messianic fascination with this turd.

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

ROFL – I love it!

Now, tell us how your really feel!

On-my-soap-box on July 17, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Common sense dictates that we can’t just jump out of Iraq. The longterm consequences would be devastating to the US. Sure, I hate having our soldiers continued to be killed and injured in Iraq, but someone has to resist those murderous jihadists and no one other than us seem willing to do it.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 3:11 PM

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

If he doesn’t drive you crazy maybe you should go see a psychologist, cause you may already be there, which would explain why he doesn’t drive you crazy.

doriangrey on July 17, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Agreed. Saiga, just ask MSNBC. They did profiles on the candidates not long ago. You know what they placed next to Paul’s? “Please Stop Emailing Us”. Pajamas Media received a flood of calls and threats for removing him from the poll. PJM received over 200 votes for Paul, in just over an hour – from one IP address. Charles Johnson of LGF has it documented that RP supporters spammed his polls. Even a small poll on my own site showed several votes for Paul, from one IP.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Allahpundit,

I would point out that you didn’t actually provide, you know, a refutation to, nor even address, any of my points–settling, instead, for decidedly stale ad hominen attacks, though, in your case, ones of a particularly flaccid nature–but I prefer neither to point out the obvious nor to resort to cheap shots.

Any criticism of Paul at all, boys?

Certainly.

At the Republican debate, when candidates were asked to raise their hands they thought English should not be the offical language of the united States, Paul didn’t raise his hand, thus signalling that he did, in fact, agree that English should be the United States’ official language.

I don’t think that’s a very constitutionally sound position, as there does not exist, to the best of my knowledge, any suggestion that the United States should have an official language.

Another one, perhaps?

When asked about “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” Paul responded:

“I think the current policy is a decent one. The real problem is that we see people as groups instead of individuals. We don’t have rights as gays or women or minorities; we receive our rights from our Creator as individuals. If homosexual behaviour in the military is disruptive it should be dealt with; but if heterosexual behaviour in the military is disruptive it should be dealt with too. Apply the same standards to everybody.”

But then he did not raise his hand when asked if gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

I think the position he voiced was correct, but I disagree with his not raising his hand. I found that to be contradictory.

There are other points, but those are two that I could recall off the top of my head.

tad on July 17, 2007 at 3:20 PM

The thing that bothers me the most about Ron Paul is his supporters. He knows that the majority of his support comes from these lunatic truthers. When most of Alex Jones audience supports him, there is something wrong. And also the dirty tricks that they play in order for him to seem more popular then he is are despicable. I’ve heard them say that all polls are manipulated or that all Ron Paul supporters use cell phones. Sending out email blast so that they can spam some online poll, then use it to say that he has massive support. I even remember one person admit that they search for his name every day on technorati.com so he can seem popular in the blogosphere. Ron Paul, himself doesn’t really bother me but a responsible candidate would distance himself from these nuts and tell his supporters to act civil.

Complete7 on July 17, 2007 at 3:21 PM

I would point out that you didn’t actually provide, you know, a refutation to, nor even address, any of my points–

The points in which you attempted to smear Romney with an extremely weak association to Robertson?

Slublog on July 17, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Wait a minute, I for one am not a Ron Paul guy, but he doesn’t drive me crazy. There is no doubt that he aint getting elected and would be a trainwreck if he did. But, he does have a unique point of view that he seems to believe. I don’t feel the need to silence him.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

I pretty much agree with that. Also there is a sort of irony in complaining (perhaps that’s too strong a word) that certain treads denigrate into echo chambers and then being irritated that others don’t.

Spirit of 1776 on July 17, 2007 at 3:29 PM

If Rosie O’Donnell were straight she would be this guy’s “Trophy Wife”.
He is my congressman and I unfortunately know people that support him and his wackiness.

TheSitRep on July 17, 2007 at 3:31 PM

The thing that bothers me the most about Ron Paul is his supporters. He knows that the majority of his support comes from these lunatic truthers. When most of Alex Jones audience supports him, there is something wrong.

That I agree with too. But he is no different then all other politicians who play to a specific group to try to gather enough momentum to jump up to another, broader level.

Spirit of 1776 on July 17, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Any criticism of Paul at all, boys? His haircut? Sense of fashion? Be as superficial as you want. I’m curious to see if we can wring even a shred of doubt from your creepy, messianic fascination with this turd.

Yeah.. He is the perfect example of a political troll…
sucking away precious time, energy and attention from real valuable debate on real issues.

Suggestion: give him no troll bridges to hide under, ie: HA space

Better yet, block any further debate on this article. Even better, yank this article from this site.

see if we can wring even a shred of doubt

Job done.

Mcguyver on July 17, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Ron Paul is a loon. His few supporters are loons, too.

He should be “disinvited” from the any future Republican debates.

georgej on July 17, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Why exactly would this (or any administration dating back nearly 30 years) have to gin up a reason to go to war with Iran? They been at war with us for that long and the fact that they are killing American servicemen and women in Iraq today is reason enough to bomb the shit out of them.

Now, if we were to go to war with say Brazil tomorrow over some incident Paul might have a point. But Iran? They are baiting us on a daily basis fairly well secure in the knowledge we aren’t going to punch back.

Drew on July 17, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Ron Paul is a loon. His few supporters are loons, too.

He should be “disinvited” from the any future Republican debates.

georgej on July 17, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I actually saw not one… but two Ron Paul supporters when I was on vacation in Charlottesville, VA last weekend. Up till then I thought they were just characters from the computer game The SIMS that got loose and were running around the Internet spamming polls.

mundayr on July 17, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Wow. So, Mitt Romney (A Mormon) was interviewed by someone on a network which was founded by Pat Robertson, who said something bad over a decade ago. I see your point. Clearly, that’s as bad as Presidential candidate Ron Paul saying there’s a chance the government would hurt its own people to gain more power.

I think you’re misunderstanding.

The inference was that Paul, by appearing on Jones’s show, is tainted by the host/proprietor’s opinions, and does not, therefore, need to be taken seriously, independent of what he (Paul) actually has to say on a particular subject.

My point, which you seemed either to have missed or to have misunderstood, was in asking whether this notion held true for any candidate appearing on a media outlet owned by an individual who has, irrespective of the time period, made controversial comments–ergo, the Romney/CBN reference. (Also, what does Romney’s being a Mormon have to do with anything?)

Clearly, that’s as bad as Presidential candidate Ron Paul saying there’s a chance the government would hurt its own people to gain more power.

Paul was speaking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, so I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say “hurt its own people.”

As for a government, U.S. or otherwise, lying to, or obfuscating the information provided to, a populace in order to justify a war, history is, in fact, replete with examples of just such an act.

American examples:

I would refer you to the Thornton affair, the cause of the Mexican American war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair

Also, Lincoln’s spot resolution, which asked Polk to verify that the U.S. dragoons had actually been slain on Mexican soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_Resolutions

Also, the Nurse Nayirah/Citizens for a Free Kuwait story about babies being stomped on hospital floors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4270014,00.html

The United States’ entire case for war in Kosovo:

First read the section containing the quotes-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war#Criticism_of_the_case_for_war

Then read the reality of the genocide claims-

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=4807&Cr=kosovo&Cr1=
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/09/news/nation/14_59_186_8_07.txt
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_45_15/ai_58050616
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1444140.ece

Non-U.S. cases would include anything from Nazi Germany or the U.S.S.R.; WW1 British claims that Germans in Belgium were crucifying civilians, bayoneting babies and cutting off women’s breasts (http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050824i/ponsonby.html); the Russian apartment bombings of 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings)

tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:21 PM

just take Paul’s appearances on Alex “The Jews did it” Jones show, his close Truther like comments and basically telling us IRan and Islam isn’t a big threat to us.

take that and contrast it to his quotes about Israel and his votes in congress against Israel.

jp on July 17, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Alex Jones: “Congressman, just out of the gates. Cindy Sheehan yesterday on my show went further than anybody has ever gone. She said, ‘a distinct chance of a staged terror attack or the government allowing that to happen it to happen.’

I assume that’s a typo, right?

‘Cause otherwise, this might be one of those incredibly rare situations where Ron Paul has an EXCUSE to be confused.

logis on July 17, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Paul has called Israel the most corrupt and ‘bad’ lobby in Washington…..I mean of all the lobbies up there and he is singling out the jews.

jp on July 17, 2007 at 4:35 PM

I was really curious about Ron Paul when his supporters first started talking about him. Then I listened to what Paul was saying, and watched his supporters trying to gloss over his lunacy.

Now, I agree with all who said he’s a nut, with nuts for supporters. He’s the 2007 equivalent of Ross Perot.

JannyMae on July 17, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Final question:

As noted earlier, of any Republican candidate, Ron Paul has recieved the most donations from members of the Army, Navy and Air Force, as well as from veterans. [Marines are not included, as the Iraqslogger piece notes.]

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3609/Antiwar_Ron_Paul_Rakes_in_Military_Donations
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/
(Federal Elections Commission data)

I presume that most Hot Air commenters (and readers, for that matter) support the troops. Interesting, the troops seem to support, at least in terms of donations, Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy.

1. What does it say about those men and women in uniform that they are choosing to donate to and support Ron Paul?

2. Are these men and women, who don military uniforms and serve their country even day, just Ron Paul trolls?

tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM

The inference was that Paul, by appearing on Jones’s show, is tainted by the host/proprietor’s opinions, and does not, therefore, need to be taken seriously, independent of what he (Paul) actually has to say on a particular subject.
tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Except that it’s a regular gig for him, and rather than spending his time refuting the looney idiocy of Jones instead tends to agree with the crazyness. Rather than debate them when they spout conspiracy crazy, he panders to them.

That he regularly chooses Jone’s show knowing full well what he stands for makes it clear that at best he’s pandering to the troofer nutjob crowd and at worst sympathises with him. You really think he couldn’t find a venue with a wider, more sane audience that would have him on?

He’s little or no different than the 9/11 “truthers” who publicly claim they’re not conspiracy nuts but are “just asking questions” and “want to know the truth”.

Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Paul was speaking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, so I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say “hurt its own people.”

I quote the interview:

Jones:Republican memos saying they need terror attacks, they need Al Qaeda hit us to be able to continue the war, top military strategists saying it. How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?”

Paul (after babbling): So I would say that we are in much greater danger than we have been even 4 or 5 years ago.

Also take note of what Paul says here:

And right now there is an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq.

There’s no intention of blaming everything that went wrong in Iraq, on Iran. Iran has inflamed the situation by arming and staffing insurgents. That can be proven, and has been said by other nations that just the US.

Regarding Serbia: 1) the Kosovo conflict happened under Clinton – not Bush. 2) The last article you provide says:

However, Serbia, the first state to be tried for genocide, had violated its obligation to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and to punish those who had carried it out, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled.

It had also flouted the genocide convention by failing to arrest Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb military commander, even though he was hiding in the country, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, the court’s president, said. The court demanded immediate steps from Serbia to hand Mladic over to the UN War Crimes tribunal.

Oh, and there’s a difference between appearing on a network which was founded by someone who said something controversial a decade ago to talk about something else, and appearing on the show of a conspiracy theorist to say he thinks we’re in danger of a Gulf of Tonkin situation.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM

I presume that most Hot Air commenters (and readers, for that matter) support the troops. Interesting, the troops seem to support, at least in terms of donations, Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy.
tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Given the behavior of his supporters, it more likely it shows that Troofer Paul’s supporters are falsely putting down “military” as their occupation to create the impression that he has military support.

Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM

That he regularly chooses Jone’s show knowing full well what he stands for makes it clear that at best he’s pandering to the troofer nutjob crowd and at worst sympathises with him.

Let’s say you’re correct.

(And I should note that I have no problem criticizing Paul, as I merely agree with his ideology; I’m not devoted to the man himself, nor to the cult of the office of president, which Paul, rather quixotically, seeks to assume.)

Can you either quantify or qualify how Paul’s pandering to the truther or pseudo-truther base is any worse/different than many Republican’s pandering to the evangelical “left behind”, last days on earth crowd?

tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Given the behavior of his supporters, it more likely it shows that Troofer Paul’s supporters are falsely putting down “military” as their occupation to create the impression that he has military support.

Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM

I doubt hardly any portion of the Federal Govt. is going to support someone who talks about drastically cutting their funding and in many cases completely wiping them out of existence. This is why most people that work for the govt. are generally Dems, they promise them all sorts of stuff and provide protection.

jp on July 17, 2007 at 4:49 PM

I presume that most Hot Air commenters (and readers, for that matter) support the troops. Interesting, the troops seem to support, at least in terms of donations, Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy.
tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM

1. I support the troops, but that doesn’t mean I have to support their political decisions. If they decided to vote for Hillary, I wouldn’t join Team Hillary.

2. I can put down “Nuclear Scientist” on the donation form, as my occupation. That doesn’t mean I am one. The candidate doesn’t check up. We all know how much Paul supporters can be trusted to tell the truth 100% of the time. I mean, they vote in polls so honestly.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:59 PM

tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Let’s see. One is a religious group who believes in the Bible, as well over a billion people do. The other believes the US Government was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center and killing about 3,000 people.

amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I am not a Ron Paul groupie either, but then again I am not naive enough to deny the possibility, however remote, that should the Coyote accidentally miss a critical turn with his rocket-powered skates, there is a distinct possibility that he will skate off the edge of a cliff and, after remaining suspended in mid-air for a second or so, plummet to the ground, where, upon impact, his body will crate a coyote-shaped crater.

Cartoons are replete with such instances.

John from WuzzaDem on July 17, 2007 at 5:09 PM

note on that site, “*Note: These statistics include the contributions of employees who recorded or indicated their military branch. Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included.”

when you look at donations were they did not indicate employer Paul recieved $100. So many of his supporters are marking of ‘military’, i think we need some investigative journalism here. I want a list of the ‘military’ names giving money to ron paul.

absolute moral authority

jp on July 17, 2007 at 5:18 PM

If he doesn’t drive you crazy maybe you should go see a psychologist, cause you may already be there, which would explain why he doesn’t drive you crazy.

doriangrey on July 17, 2007 at 3:11 PM

No need. I’m a case hardened guy that has seen it all. It would take more than Ron Paul to drive me crazy. Maybe President Ron Paul would do it.

saiga on July 17, 2007 at 5:22 PM

my emotions about Ron Raul come not from the man himself but from the fact that troofers support him and he seems to openly welcome and endorse that support.

Now troofers do make me emotional. They piss me off. They highly piss me off. Everytime they open their mouth they insult and belittle the memories of the over 3000 who died and the pain of their families. So yeah, to me Ron Paul getting support from those foul disgusting degenerates is much much different to me then say, republicans getting support from evangelicals.

And the fact that Ron Paul refuses to denounce them makes him worthy of all ridicule and disgust, no matter what his stance on the ‘issues’.
k i’ll try to calm down now

Keli on July 17, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Keli on July 17, 2007 at 5:26 PM

exactly

jp on July 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM

At least Perot was entertaining. Paul and the Paulnuts just aren’t doing it for me so far.

Jim Treacher on July 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Why does every reporter now have to make a speech before asking a simple question.
Do you think there is validity in a “Gulf of Tonkin” action with the current administration?

right2bright on July 17, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Can you either quantify or qualify how Paul’s pandering to the truther or pseudo-truther base is any worse/different than many Republican’s pandering to the evangelical “left behind”, last days on earth crowd?

tad on July 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

This is why logic should be taught in school. You shouldn’t have skipped class tad.

right2bright on July 17, 2007 at 6:08 PM

This is why logic should be taught in school. You shouldn’t have skipped class tad.

Apparently, you missed grammar class. In the English language, names in the form of a direct address are set off by the use of a comma.

tad on July 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM

tad on July 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM

You also missed the class on HA etiquette, it is the idea that is important, not the grammar. Read all the blogs the last two or three weeks and you will find one statement regarding grammar…yours.

The other blogs diss people because they just don’t know any grammer or speling. We diss blogs on ideas…get it? Now that was two classes you failed.

right2bright on July 17, 2007 at 6:48 PM

You do’nt have to prove to me that Ron Paul is an idiot. I already know. How did this guy ever get elected ? As A republican ?

SIJ6141 on July 17, 2007 at 7:21 PM

1. Is it that big a deal if Ron Paul is interview by Alex

Jones? Granted, Jones is both retarded and annoying, but he’s a media outlet and politicians rarely turn down an opportunity to get their message out. Pat Buchanan has been on Jones’s show; are conservatives ready to throw Buchanan–who, by the way, also happens to share Paul’s views in regard to the Gulf of Tonkin incident–under the bus, as well?
tad on July 17, 2007 at 2:51 PM

You may add Rosie to the list of peaople that lump Gulf of Tonkin and and the current administration together. Does it make it more believable ?

SIJ6141 on July 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM

At least Perot was entertaining. Paul and the Paulnuts just aren’t doing it for me so far.

Jim Treacher on July 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Now, see, that’s just sad.

John from WuzzaDem on July 17, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Wow, you guys are on fire over this Ron Paul thing!

As I write this, it is late afternoon, and I am sitting home reading this, and at the same time watching the absolutely stunning (pun intended) Michelle Yeoh rescue pandas from speeding trucks and generally kick-butt in Silverhawk, while you guys have your collective panties all twisted into knots over Ron Paul and his supporters.

While both are entertaining, I think I’m going to go back and chill with the Silverhawk and her motorcycle. She definitely has better legs,and a better set of wheels.

Ciao fellas.

Herikutsu on July 17, 2007 at 8:49 PM

I remember this guy when he ran as a Libertarian. That party probably wouldn’t let him run again. He says the only reason he’s running as a Repub, is for the airtime and publicity. I think he’s not telling the truther.

Any criticism of Paul at all, boys? His haircut? Sense of fashion? Be as superficial as you want. I’m curious to see if we can wring even a shred of doubt from your creepy, messianic fascination with this turd.

Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

I personally think he’s trying out for a third party run as Krazy Kucinich’s running mate. And I think he looks like a human Big Bird. That last bit was just for you AP. Hope you liked it.

PowWow on July 17, 2007 at 11:27 PM

What is it that you people have with Ron Paul? You go out of your way to critize him. During the debate with Rudy, I thought his response to why we are attacked by Muslims was much better than Rudy’s. His basic message is that he wants the government to leave us alone. No one else is saying that. As to the government manufacturing an incident. Like that has never happened. Lets see, Fort Sumter, Lincoln force the CSA hand and started a war. The Spanish-American war was the product of government and the newspapers. WWI the US was shipping munitions in passenger ship and appauled at the Germans sinking them. WWII, the US even admits that it provoked Japan into the Pearl Harbor attack. Korea was government idioticy as usual. And then we have the Gulf of Tonkin. But no, we have never manufactured an incident.

davidcaskey on July 18, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Lets see, Fort Sumter, Lincoln force the CSA hand and started a war.

Nonsense.

WWII, the US even admits that it provoked Japan into the Pearl Harbor attack.

What? Japan needed raw materials for it’s war machine and calculated it’s best opportunity to acquire them was to go to war with the US.

The Spanish-American war was the product of government and the newspapers.

Some validity here, perhaps, but the purpose of newspapers (and government in part) is to inform the public. You can blame people getting ‘stirred up’ on the newspapers, but that is their job.

Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 11:07 AM

His basic message is that he wants the government to leave us alone.

Exactly. Well, that, and to stop killing us.

John from WuzzaDem on July 18, 2007 at 1:01 PM

I think the Ron Paul supporter(s) are/is good for some laughs.

We’ve had a good run with them/him at IMAO anyway.

spacemonkey on July 18, 2007 at 4:13 PM