Ron Paul Deals With "Trutherism" accusations
Google Blogs Alert for: 9/11 inside job
Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero
By dweigel@reason.com (David Weigel)
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation? Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I ...
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run - http://www.reason.com/blog
==============
Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero
David Weigel | May 22, 2007, 11:41am
Right after that Ron Paul interview session I followed Paul to ask about his encounter with 9/11 "Truth" campaigners and Eric Dondero's planned primary challenge.
Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?
Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.
Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.
Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
Reason: But he says he's running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?
Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn't be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they're popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They've been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they're doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don't have a lot to worry about.
Reason: What Dondero's said is that "there are essentially two Ron Pauls. There's the national liberal media (and libertarian blogosphere) Ron Paul. And then there's the South Texas good hometown doctor, red, white, and blue Ron Paul." And he's said you talk a good game about supporting veterans but they don't know your positions.
Paul: All one would have to do is go to the veterans part of my website. I win so many awards; we have so many people who call us from around the country because of the work we do for veterans. My biggest beef is that the veterans get shortchanged because of our war spending, and we end up with Walter Reed problems. So that statement makes zero sense.
There you go.
UPDATE: Ryan Sager posts part of a McCain conference call transcript where the senator's asked about Paul and trutherism. He's notably easier on Paul than he is on Romney, moving the McCain-Paul unity ticket from "unlikely" to "inevitable."
- Caveperson's blog
- Login to post comments
Wow, this is very very
disappointing.
Is this a nail in the coffin for any hope that Paul will come out for 9/11 truth? Seems like it.
Doesn't look good...
Why would Ron Paul deny that there is any evidence? This just isn't true.
i think ron paul gets the
i think ron paul gets the support because he is a conservative that actually believes in a small federal government and government accountability, but i havent seen him say anything close to kuccinich when it comes to 9/11.. not that i am advocating kuccinich, just saying that ron paul is not a 9/11 candidate, and i think it is sorta messed up that so many people think he is.
check this out...
I don't think he is a 9/11 truth candidate by any means, but check this out... he said he would at least consider a new investigation...
yeah, i mean hands down he
yeah, i mean hands down he would be better than any republican or democrat on the ticket right now.. (except maybe kucinich - at least for the 9/11 aspect).. im just afraid that we are putting things on him which arent necessarily true.. i dont think 9/11 would be a priority by any means for his administration.. but at least we would have a better shot.
i find it pretty funny that his suggestion of blowback was such a big deal, you would've thought he said that cheney did it the reaction he got from the media - that was very telling i think.
I totally know what you
I totally know what you mean...
In my opinion he is the people's champ. I even registered as republican just to help get him through the primaries. Whether he has looked into the questions surrounding 9/11 or not I don't know, but I think he will eventually. To me his track record on voting gives me hope for America!
Among other things...
He voted against the Patriot Act
He voted against regulating the Internet
He voted against the Iraq war
I would say those are steps in the right direction!
9/11 Candidate
He never struck me as a 9/11 Truther 'per se', but he did strike me as a straight shooter who called it like it is. Now he's waffling and parsing words like all the rest. I'm not asking him to embrace the 9/11 Truth movement, but don't slam it by making false statements like "there is no evidence" of goverment complicity.
He's smart enough to know that intentional lies of omission (willfully witholding the truth) is "evidence" of complicity. It's also known as "obstruction of justice". One glaring example of this is the absence of any mention of WTC 7 in the official government report a.k.a "The 9/11 Commission Report". That IS smoking gun evidence of Goverment complicity. It also justifies having a 9/11 investigation. Why would Paul ignore this?
I'm disappointed with these statements (if in fact he made them).
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
I'm not so sure about these statements . . .
A good friend of mine who is in the know and is friends of a staunch supporter of Ron Paul (who is also from the same general area in Texas) said that he keeps hearing through the grapevine that Ron Paul knows 9/11 was an inside job but that it's just too risky and unrealistic to take a position in support of that view and maintain any hope of gaining the presidency. IMHO, Ron Paul doesn't need to embrace 9/11 truth publicly to the degree that we have in order for us to have confidence in him to sometime in the future pursue an investigation based of insurmountable facts and evidence. In other words, he doesn't strike me as someone who would be willing, as a president, to turn his back on a new investigation of 9/11 just because it might be unpopular within the Republican party. Nonetheless, I am a little crestfallen at his somewhat turning his back on us. It sucks the way politics work sometimes.
Well, there's a big difference
between avoiding talking about something and saying "there's no evidence" and "I don't believe that".
I am not sure what to think about Ron Paul re: 9/11
The guy is running for the President of the United States. He is currently at a precarious 1% and will be fighting to participate in future Republican debates. If, he even admitted that, when asked, he would demand/support a new 9/11 investigation, he would be skewered by the mainstream media, and in all likelihood be banned from any future debates. He would be labeled a 9/11 conspiracy nut and be blacklisted. Poof! Ron Paul becomes irrelevent
Do I believe that Ron Paul believes 9/11 was an "inside job"? Absolutely. No doubt about it. If a candidate can publicly express his views that the Federal Reserve should be abolished, that we should not pay income taxes, that the NWO is coming.... he is well aware that 9/11 was a "false-flag" operation. For publicly admitting the evils of the Federal Reserve, the guy automatically gets put on a "hit-list" by TPTB. Paul is between a rock and a hard place!!! So what if he says NOW that "there is no evidence" or "I don't believe that" regarding 9/11? I do sincerely believe that Paul wants to right the wrongs that are currently plaguing the U.S. government. He spurns support from lobbyists, he voted against the Iraq War. He is not beholding to any corporate interests (that I know of). If you are Republican and a true conservative (I'm not) Ron Paul is the only rational choice for POTUS.
I'm rambling... But put yourself in Ron Paul's shoes for a minute or two.
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey
I see your point but . . .
I got in touch with my source last night to verify what I wrote yesterday and my source swears its all true (and even said I could post this information here at 911Blogger.com). My source has emails (which I nor anyone else is privy to) wherein my source and someone previously very close to Ron Paul professionally (as anyone could have been at the time) were discussing Ron Paul, his campaign, and the whole 9/11 inside job issue. And the story is as I previously told you except for one twist: Along with not declaring himself a truther for the sake of his campaign, there was concern within his group that his life would be in danger if he put the political positions of "others" at risk. The bottom line: He should become President first -- and then move on to these harder issues. If you don't think so, think Kennedy.
um... Kennedy was killed AFTER he became president
this whole I don't feel safe argument is a non-starter. if you don't have the balls now, when will you? when, as Mark Twain said it costs nothing to be a patriot? Guess what? No one will EVER be safe so long as people are unaware. Ron Paul, simply put, is doing nothing for 9/11 truth except denying it. I don't care why he does it, but there it is.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Paul doesnt even give us the
Paul doesnt even give us the courtesy of pretending that he cares about 9/11 like Kucinich does. im really only half joking there.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
But again . . .
Kennedy was killed for basically the same important and controversial issues that Ron Paul is standing up for -- like the abolishment of the Federal Reserve System. The reality that some see is that if he were to go full throttle with 9/11 truth he might lose his shot at the presidency. But if it's of any interest for you to know, my source thinks just as you do: He feels that if Ron Paul were to go the all the way with 9/11 truth, his chances of winning the 2008 election would increase NOT decrease.
Either way, with respect to me my friend, don't kill the messenger . . .
The Paul campaign is growing....
....he is getting more and more media attention and supporters with the platform he has....why not see how far that takes him? Without the incredible risk of including 9/11 Truth to the mix? It would overwhelm the rest of his message, before the rest of the public has a chance to get to know him and what he stands for....all of a sudden, "Ron Paul: 9/11 Nutcase" is everywhere all over the MSM....
I hope he saves it for a political "Hail Mary" gamble....if and when he needs it......in the meantime (to mix metaphors), he keeps his powder dry....
The best thing that can be done is exposing more and more people to Ron Paul AND 9/11 Truth, separately....in preparation for that day....
i hate to be the resident
i hate to be the resident cynic again but he has no chance of being our next president. so to me that leaves him with 2 choices. use this rare platform that he has to make HUGE waves on a national level or continue to play it safe on 9/11 on the slim chance he gets elected. really not even slim though, sadly he has no chance at all. Ron Paul cant possibly believe that there is "no evidence" of inside help on 9/11 can he? thats what he recently claimed and to me Ron Paul seems to say what he means. i like that in him but that also means that he likely wont change his tune much on 9/11, elected or not. is he the best candidate out of the bunch? yes. does he really care about 9/11 and getting to the bottom of it? lets be for real, hes said that new investigation could be in order but he may have even back tracked on that a bit. do people here honestly believe that Paul will ever take action like a McKinney tried to? will he do it after he loses the presidency? and if so, what kind of impact will that have compared to doing it now? i like Ron Paul more than any other politician serving right now but i dont quite understand why people here are so sure that Paul sees 9/11 in the same light that many of us do. i understand 9/11 is not the only issue but the 9/11 truth movement as a whole seems to think that this guy is the next McKinney. hes just not. can you picture Paul having a conference with the likes of David Ray Griffin or asking a Myers or Rumsfeld about wargames etc.? thats somebody who clearly cares about the 9/11 issue. Paul cares about some important issues and has it right on most of the big ones that matter. 9/11 doesnt seem to be one of them.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
far as I can tell McKinney is alive and kicking...
no mysterious plane crash, etc. if she ran for prez on a truth platform and the election were honest I think it would be quite a three way contest. think about it... Giuliani? Hillary? Or McKinney? at the evry least it would bring 9/11 to the forefront of political discussions. enough people would viote for her that it could throw the elction either way and that is exactly the kind of uncertainty we need to see for the truth to count.besides--Hillary is an honorary old white man and Paul is an actual one. aren't we bored with old white man presidents?? :)
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
yeah, but if you think Paul
yeah, but if you think Paul has no support from his party McKinney running for president would really put that into perspective. the Dems HATE her and the media certaintly hates her more than they hate any other politician for the simple fact that she does their job for them. i dont know what McKinney has been up to lately but i hear she wants to run for her old seat. i wish she would come back already.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
As we all know
there is a major disconnect between reality and reality as presented on TV. In case the polls we've all seen are somewhat accurate, there is widespread public support for outspoken 9/11 skepticism, so no matter how the MSM portray it, supporting 9/11 Truth is but a reflection of public opinion -- the very definition of representation. Of course, this is not taking into consideration rigged elections -- they could telecrucify Paul and make election results coincide with their reality -- which brings me to the bottom line:
Arguing PR strategies to win rigged elections is grotesque -- what are we, Daily Kos? If you want to make your voice count, take it to the streets -- anything else is illusory. This war will not be won by the 101st fighting keyboardists, nor by feeding Diebold ballots.
______________
interns < internets
Not that any of this is comforting...
... but Ron Paul is going for the jugular of the inequity beast... FRN/IRS.
It seems to me that a favorable argument can be made, that if Paul can pick up supporters along this line... (many more than 9/11 alone or even included, as we know less about 9/11 then we do about the FED)... and gains large popular support... I DO NOT need to hear from him about 9/11.
Repairing the money system reduces the favorable climate of ALL terror many fold, over JUST exposing 9/11 alone.
AND IF, we do not have a money system moving in the direction of repair... general exposure of 9/11 beforehand could spell out a particularly ugly circumstance.
I for one at least, deeply approve of RP's progression so far. One way of looking at this, is that by him throwing down such crash-cushions, he prepares an environment vastly more suitable for a culture (the American one, what's left of it) to address head on the conditions which manifested 9/11 in the first place. Repairing the money, will need to happen one way or the other. If I HAD to take my pick, I'd sooner give up the 9/11Quest, in exchange for an honest money system.
(Besides, honest money will always be able to hunt down the perps, even if they 'get-away' in this finite confusion)
Ron Paul on Maher, Stewart, and Colbert....
https://prisonplanet.tv/forum/index.php?topic=370.msg2118;topicseen#msg2118
doing the left gatekeeper rounds huh?
why am i not impressed?
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
no offense--i was aiming over your shoulder... :)
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
If I were running against Paul
in his home district, I'd be involved with this type of slanted hit piece as well, then I'd run right out and post it on all the blogs including 911Blogger.
Scumbags are always transparent.
All of the other candidates believe the OCT, and on top of it are going to help usher in the North American Union, and eventually a martial law police state under the NWO and the United Nations. Ron Paul is the one candidate that is against all that. Lets say he also believes the OCT, how are we better off without him? Who's a better candidate? Dennis Kucinich, who will tell you what you want to hear (vague references to mystical far off 9/11 "reated" investigations) while he grabs your guns?
Even if RP believes in the OCT, but also believes in getting to truth as a matter of everyday life, he would listen to the people and allow new independent investigations if we clamored for them, which we could - freely. Ron Paul is you best and only choice, regardless of what he says about 9/11. If you cant see that logic then something's very wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
hes still the best
i mean , hes against the new world order federal reserve. Hes the best out there. Lets say the international banks and the cfr carried out tons of sabatage against america, he knows that, and hell get rid of them.
I think he needs to play the official story game for now.
I get the feeling that he's a "closet truther", but has to keep his mouth shut for now
or they'll crucify him as a conspiracy theory nut case - especially that scum giulianni.
Only when he gets elected can he "come out of the 9/11 closet" and do the right thing.
I just hope that happens.
Totally agree...
...coming out now for 9/11 Truth now would be political suicide....the establishment candidates and controlled media would destroy him.....look how they tried to take his "blowback" (which is really OCT) and spin that into him being a Truther! This, even after challenging Guiliani to read the Kean Report.
Any action by Paul that can be taken, distorted, and magnified, will be....and used to eliminate him in the eyes of the masses.
We all have to keep pushing 9/11 Truth information out there to achieve the vast numbers of our citizens in the know, so that the climate is truly safe for an open 9/11 Truth candidate.
Ron Paul is playing the 9/11 Truth issue exactly right.....for the time being....
Read "Profiles in Courage"
Written by JFK prior to his presidency. It profiles many of his influences in politics.
You may gain some insight into playing the political game.
While we would love for Dr. Paul to come right out and promote a new investigation it would not be a very prudent stance at this time.
Consider yourself in his position. Consider what we are up against. Consider the level of media brainwashing that Dr. Paul has to overcome.
Many times baby steps are prudent in the political life.
Dr. Paul needs people to welcome the ideas he must promote in order to win this election.
Would you rather he throw bricks or whisper sweet nothings?
Eventually, people will welcome the bricks.
___________________
Together in Truth!