Ron Paul: Bush administration reacted with ‘glee’ after 9/11

Has anyone mentioned PNAC yet? His bro was involved in that think tank, and so of course Bush was happy. As for being prepared, I mean its easy to be pepared when you see it coming... They got their pearl harbor.. Here to 100 years of US dominance, so they say.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You sir are spot on.

reply to post by Nite_wing


I'm with you on that. The guy scares me a little bit.

Personally, I think his son would be a better choice.

This is being spun to imply that the Bush admin was happy about the attacks...

But yes, of-course they were happy. Doesnt matter which administration. They are all a bunch of war mongers at the behest of the war-for-profit industry, oil companies and Israel.

Funny, all these mainstream indications like... the plan to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, the whole PNAC document signed by those in charge, the civil liberties stripped, the speed at which Homeland Security and the Patriot Act were put in place... Soooooo shady.

Hell yeah, Bush Admin responded in glee. They wrote a year before in their PNAC how an attack was the only way to boost defense spending in a big way and get public support for multiple wars in the middle east. So, yeah, put two and two together... It's not like the administration hasn't proven themselves to be shady liars.

I mean, I understand the American people don't want to accept grandpa is a pedophile, or mommy's an alcoholic... but I think most people see at this point that 9/11 is super shady, even though they might not want to face it.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


I agree with Nancy Pelosi on the farm dust bill but that doesn't make me a Nancy Pelosi supporter.I agree with Ron Paul on some things but that doesn't need to make me a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul has the support of a vocal and prolific minority of people. The polls are heavily swayed by a prolific showing of Ron Paul supporters when the rest of us have not made up our mind. Those of us who have not made up our mind outnumber Obama and Ron Paul. His statistics mean nothing at the moment. We will participate when the time comes and we have made our decision. Ron Paul cannot beat Obama in a debate. Obama generally remains cool. When Paul gets excited, he blathers. I cannot support a blatherer who cannot win. As we saw in 2008, this country is excited only by people who speak well and will not delve into the issues. Ron Paul cannot remain cool so no one will listen to his issues and ideas. We want a leader and Ron Paul does not have the presence of a leader. He will be seen in international forums as weak just as Obama is now viewed as a dolt. Ron Paul is simply not strong and has no presence. It is going to take someone with balls to fight the established powers in our government. At this point I see there are 4 who have the appearance of being a true leader. One dropped out. One was destroyed by the press. Two remain. You will have to guess which ones.

The totally unsupported statement that Bush was glad the United States was attacked and 3000 people died on his watch is totally absurd. There is no evidence to support such a fact other than the Paul parrots spreading unsupported fabrications and inuendo. Bush loves this country. Paul loves this country. Obama, I am not so sure so I want him out.

reply to post by Nite_wing
Thanks for your response, Nite wing.

First off, I'll say I agree about Obama's speaking. I watched him, and I just don't get it either. I don't think it was anything more than WHAT he was saying, and the fact that some people merely like having things blown up their behinds (?), as watching him without a teleprompter or getting him off his talking points was simply painful for me.

As to Paul's views on Iran, it's definitely not uncommon and is an issue he'll have to work on trying to get people to shift gears on, and more understanding on it is warranted. Iran is one of the oldest nations on earth, and they have, in recent history, never been an aggressor. It does us well to consider the history of Iran for us to understand where they are first off, everything else aside (PS - video has nothing to do with Paul, title aside):


That out of the way, an unbiased look at the commonly-marketed perception of Iran is also due. So many people like to appeal to Iran threatening Israel and wanting to "wipe it off the map," but we've got a problem here: Ahmadinejad's consistent issue is with the political ("zionist") regime in control of Israel, and not jews or the nation of Israel itself. Given the general arabic/muslim view of the plight of the 'palestinians' in Israel, this is understandable. It's also telling that Iran has the largest jewish population of any muslim nation (who tend to get along pretty well), is a generally-progressive nation as compared to most other muslim countries (including those we're allied with), and is an avowed enemy of al Qaeda. And, for those worried about Ahmadinejad himself - the Iranian president is essentially a figurehead with no real power as he's dominated by the supreme council.

Couple all this with the fact that Iran's military spending is less than that of Greece, Singapore, or Poland, and that even our own National Intelligence Estimates and others have consistently advised of no serious indications that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (and even if they were...could we blame them, given the way we ourselves treat non-nuclear nations as compared to those with them, and that they're surrounded by us and our allies - some also nuclear?), and it seems indicative of exactly what we saw before the war with Iraq - which has been a needless waste of lives and money.

Many won't like it, but Glenn Greenwald over at Salon said a lot of it well in his article here. The Iran situation is well-overblown, especially when Israel has one of the toughest militaries on the planet and a nuclear arsenal of unknown size, and we've frankly egged it on anyway. Our own national security experts have admitted before congressional hearings that China and Russia are a greater threat to our national security.

But, back to Ron Paul - some consider him naive, but he's a student of history, and his views have been vindicated by the CIA. He rightly called the animosity we were engendering and predicted terrorist attacks against us before they happened - and no one else was yet doing the same - just as he did with the economic crash, the housing collapse, and the increasing governmental intrusion and loss of our liberties here at home.

As to him not being a leader - I do have to smile at that somewhat. I view a leader as someone standing strong for what's right, even when it's not popular and directly works against him, and Paul's been doing that for decades. He's also had hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the US gladly following him for many reasons for years now, and that is the hallmark of a leader. As to his debating skills, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one - when someone can stick to issues without retreating to mere rhetoric or jingoism, and be right...I have to say they are a great debater. I believe it would be easy enough for the differences with Obama's dissembling to shine through.

As to a 3rd-party run, well - Paul's carrying (on the average low end) about 10% of registered republicans at this point, with HIGH loyalty, in addition to having a lot of draw with independents. I think you might be right about Obama losing next term, but for the wrong reasons - I think if Paul's not the republican candidate, the only real issue for Obama will be an economy that worsens significantly by then - and then, I am much afeared of the distractions the administration may try to utilize to deal with this.

All that out of the way...I see no significant differences between Obama and any republican other than Paul. I can almost guarantee you continued big government, spending, intrusion, unnecessary war and loss of life (including all too many civilians), just...sad.

All that done...thanks for listening, if you do. Take care

reply to post by Praetorius


Thank you for your straightforward and eloquent reply. I read it and I will watch what you have have suggested. I am not swayed but I will try to keep an open mind.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Thank you for your straightforward and eloquent reply. I read it and I will watch what you have have suggested. I am not swayed but I will try to keep an open mind.

Welcome, of course, and fair enough, friend - a truly open mind goes a long way (if it doesn't make you crazy first, anyway...), and there's a lot that's marketed to us through various channels that should be scrutinized to avoid unnecessary heartache and unwise actions, even if they may seem right and justified on the face of things.

And I'll be the first to admit, if Paul's message and consistency came in a more easily-marketable package, I would probably be supporting them. I definitely like Paul for so many reasons, but it's not about the man. I just want the world as I think it should be to have a chance.

reply to post by Praetorius


I watched the debates tonight. I feel Ron Paul came on stronger than I have ever seen him. He does not have the presence of the other candidates and we need that against Obama. I still don't think he can stand against Obama on the same stage. However, I still have an open mind. I don't think Romney can stand against Obama either. Of all of them, as of tonite, I think Newt stands the best chance. I actually think he could embarrass Obama in public. I am not going to give him my endorsement yet. I certainly wish Ron Paul could work on his presence. He looks like a doddering old man but his statements, at least tonight, made him a much stronger candidate than he has been in the past. I would not be too upset with him as a President but I would be unhappy with him as a candidate if that makes any sense.

I was not too pleased with George Stephanopolis tonite. it seemed that 2 out of three questions he posed, were aimed directly to embarrass Gingrich. I think Gingrich got through it well. Michelle is smart but just keeps saying I did this, I faced that, etc, etc, etc. Gingrich is giving solutions, standing tall and is direct. Whether or not he would carry them through is yet to be seen. Ron Paul just doesn't explain himself very well. Perhaps the issues are simple to him but he just can't explain the details to the rest of us dummies.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

I keep seeing these posts saying something like "I'm by no means a Ron Paul supporter, but [man do I agree with him on most issues]"... How the hell does that make any sense? Would you rather see Obama or Newt Gingrich in office? Jebus! I can't tell what would be worse for this country, and indeed the world! I might be able to understand this stance if we had a guy like Kucinich running for POTUS, but until then, Paul is the only logical choice for the informed to even BRIEFLY consider.

I understand your point, however I did not express my view all the way concerning Ron Paul and perhaps I should have. I do not support anyone that is running at this time, and probably never will. Most if not all are already corrupt because the system is now set up that way. I believe John F Kennedy was the last great President that the United States will ever see.

The fact is the world corporations owns most if not all politicians and they dictate what new legislation they want as long as they benefit from these bills. It’s not just the United States either, these corporations own most politicians around the world.

We have been witnessing legislations being passed in Congress that mostly goes against We the People.
We hardly see much regulations going against Wall Street, US Corporations, or the Banking cartels, this alone should tell us who is pulling the strings in Congress. The fact is greed has taken control of our politicians and Congress; it’s always about the money. Forget voting most of these scumbags out, we do not control the elections the corporations control the elections and you should believe me when I tell you this, the elections are rigged, it has been proven time after time again, there’s not a precinct where they find out later that one or many of their dilabolt voting machines have been tampered with. I have seen it here in my home town and there is always a discrepancy in the many vote counts.

reply to post by impressme


My state doesn't know how to count.

reply to post by Nite_wing
Thanks Nite wing -

I watched the debates tonight. I feel Ron Paul came on stronger than I have ever seen him. He does not have the presence of the other candidates and we need that against Obama. I still don't think he can stand against Obama on the same stage.

Honestly - I think we give Obama too much credit. Take away the teleprompter and force him to off-script debate, and...yeah.

However, I still have an open mind. I don't think Romney can stand against Obama either.

Agreed, but that doesn't speak to strength on Obama's part.

Of all of them, as of tonite, I think Newt stands the best chance. I actually think he could embarrass Obama in public. I am not going to give him my endorsement yet.

Again, not an uncommon perception (at the moment, anyway). He's definitely sharp. The problem is that Newt's his own worst enemy:
1. Notorius for shifting positions - supported climate change legislation (debatable), supported federal healthcare mandates, supported Wall Street/bank bailouts, and so forth.
2. Cheated on 2 of his 3 wives (marrying his two mistresses), reportedly had issues with first wife because of cancer and her age - reported by staffers to be cheating with (I believe) another woman as well, and I believe a new allegation now coming out.
3. Happy to make private-sector money working against the people.
4. Only speaker of the house ever charged with (64?) ethics violations, and fined $300k for it.
5. Pelosi supposedly holding more over his head if nominated.
6. Various others I'm likely forgetting at the moment.

And people think Paul would have a hard time with the newsletters!...at least those have easy explanation in-context & as ghost-written.

I certainly wish Ron Paul could work on his presence. He looks like a doddering old man but his statements, at least tonight, made him a much stronger candidate than he has been in the past. I would not be too upset with him as a President but I would be unhappy with him as a candidate if that makes any sense.

Agreed, polish helps but I think it aids his genuineness.

I was not too pleased with George Stephanopolis tonite. it seemed that 2 out of three questions he posed, were aimed directly to embarrass Gingrich. I think Gingrich got through it well. Michelle is smart but just keeps saying I did this, I faced that, etc, etc, etc.

*nod* Goobers.

Gingrich is giving solutions, standing tall and is direct. Whether or not he would carry them through is yet to be seen.

There's the rub, eh? His record doesn't help.

Ron Paul just doesn't explain himself very well. Perhaps the issues are simple to him but he just can't explain the details to the rest of us dummies.

Well said. Not a sound byte kind of guy and not simple issues for short explanation. In a two-person, longer-answer debate format, this problem likely goes away.

Anyhow, apologies in advance for sloppy post...doing this in bed from cell phone (cold and tired, leave me alone) Definitely a lot to think about, we all just have to stay open to all info & options.

Stay safe out there!