Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero
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."
Chucklehead|5.22.07 @ 12:04PM|#
"... if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry
about, then I don't have a lot to worry about."
Bwhahahah!
As they say: pwnd!
|5.22.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Jesus Christ.
If Dondero is so gung-ho to help libertarianism go mainstream,
you'd think he could find another district in which to run for
office, instead of doing his best to oust the only libertarian
voice in the house.
I'd much rather have one libertarian with some kooky ideas and one
libertarian who's willing to talk compromise than just one or the
other.
|5.22.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Cue Dondero to tell us why libertarians should all be republicans in 5... 4... 3...
|5.22.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I hate the idea that this Eric Dondero is getting publicity,
because he sounds like a self promoting parasite from the posts I
have read by him and about him.
I am glad to see Ron Paul making some definitive statements on this
silliness.
VM|5.22.07 @ 12:14PM|#
File this under rank twaddlenockery.
Jake - Agreed! Listening/reading some of his views makes it hard to
see any connection between ED and libertarianism.
Maybe Mr. Steven Crane could explain.
ED could always join the ZOD campaign. I hear they need someone to
clean out the stables.
|5.22.07 @ 12:14PM|#
"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."
Why say "there's no evidence of that"? Why not just say "I
disagree". Or, better yet, "anyone who believes that 9/11 was
executed by the US government is a certifiable moron devoid of any
and all common sense. You can not have an IQ north of 50 and
believe that bullshit. It makes me sick to my stomach to think
anyone would believe me capable of holding such a disgusting,
moronic, imbicilic belief".
|5.22.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Okapi obviously ignoring the next answer Ron Paul gave...
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.
|5.22.07 @ 12:20PM|#
To clarify, I don't have a huge problem with Dondero's claims that the Libertarian Party needs to be willing to bend a bit on principle in order to win political office. From my standpoint, I'd rather have someone who's 70% libertarian and holding office than someone who's 100% libertarian and completely incapable of making any political headway.
CLS|5.22.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Dondero is a clown. He spent most of his time establishing his "credentials" by going on about how he was a former Paul staffer -- gee, Ron Paul's history of picking staff members has been very iffy to the say the least. What is hilarious is that this war loving Dondero pretends that Ron Paul's positions on these matters hasn't been well known. When Dondero was talking his connections to Paul he absolutely knew Paul's positions. So when it was useful for him to be Paul wannabe he was one and when he thinks he can use opposition to Paul for his own good he does that. Dondero isn't interested in mainstreaming libertarianism but in promoting his own sad little self.
|5.22.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Okapi-
Funny, that's just what I thought; there's no reason to weasle out
of answering a quesetion 75% of the population agrees with
(remember, 1/4 of the population is retarded)
What part of Ron Paul's beliefs here was Rudy G complaining about?
From what I've heard about the Republican debate he seemed pissed
at Ron Paul, but if something similar to this is all he said, it
doesn't sound all that inflamitory. Or did he say something
different that cheesed off Rudy?
|5.22.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I didn't ignore the next answer - I just think it's telling of something (I don't know what) that he would answer the first, direct question in a such a couched manner. Maybe it just means he's incapable of being a good politician. Maybe it means he's naturally predisposed to think ill of the US government. I don't know what it means, but I do know that that one answer indicates that he is not ready to be treated as a serious candidate.
|5.22.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Okapi -
Funny, I was thinking that Mr. Paul consistently expresses himself
very clearly, with carefully chosen words, and that the words he
chooses shows him a precise thinker. Of course, this probably does
indicate his unfitness for today's political arena - and so much
the worse for all of us.
highnumber|5.22.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Please don't ask Ron Paul any more questions about that clown. ED is an attention-whore who should be ignored.
|5.22.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Paul fired Mr. Dondero?
Eric claims that he quit!
Hmmm. whom to believe, whom to believe....
|5.22.07 @ 12:50PM|#
tarran: "Paul fired Mr. Dondero?
Eric claims that he quit! "
It appears Ron Paul is taking off the kid gloves. He's probably
getting a clearer picture about ED's self promotion and
characterizations.
In an earlier comment when asked about ED's decision to run for
office, Paul made a fairly gracious comment about ED being a
"credible opponent" or something like that. Hmm, I can't recall
where I read that quote. :/
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:56PM|#
So, the attacks were not an "inside job". I don't remember
anything Paul was quoted as saying before that indicated he thought
that, but glad it is even more cleared up.
Still sounds like we "invited" the attack by not staying home like
the Swiss. Kind of like some 'slut' in a bar 'inviting' rape.
|5.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#
I recently attended a get-together for a newly engaged friend.
Excluding the Mrs (who was good enough to come along), there were
three people there I knew before I met them out of about 20. The
three I knew all talked to me like adults.
Of the other ~17, I got introduced to 12. They all worked in
politics (staff or campaign types.) Of those 12, two were capable
of having a reasonable conversation for longer than 2 minutes. The
other ten popped the "So are you in politics" question on me within
2 sentences of meeting me and when I indicated I wasn't, they
uniformly gave me a look (ranging from "Oh, you poor thing" to
"Well, YOU'RE not important") and ditched me within another
minute.
So even if Dondero wasn't being a dick about ousting Paul, he's
clearly a dick.
And yes, that's some pretty specious inductive reasoning, but it's
a Tuesday so f'ing deal with it.
stephen the goldberger|5.22.07 @ 1:02PM|#
i'm going to move to paul's district so i can vote against
dondero.
then i'm going to abstain in the general election since i disaprove
of Paul's voting for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. proof that he's
not a true libertarian.
|5.22.07 @ 1:04PM|#
"He's notably easier on Paul than he is on Romney, moving the
McCain-Paul unity ticket from "unlikely" to "inevitable.""
Inevitable? That's a tad bit overstated isn't it?
|5.22.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Still sounds like we "invited" the attack by not staying
home like the Swiss.
You put "invited" in quotation marks as if Paul said it, when he
never did. Giuliani was the one who (in a dense, reflexive, and
opportunistic manner) confused the accepted notion of blowback with
"inviting" consequences of sloppy and arrogant foreign
policies.
But what can you expect from a guy who said,
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness
of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great
deal of discretion about what you do."
He's the Republican even communists can love!
|5.22.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Guy Montag | May 22, 2007, 12:56pm | #
So, the attacks were not an "inside job". I don't remember anything
Paul was quoted as saying before that indicated he thought that,
but glad it is even more cleared up.
Still sounds like we "invited" the attack by not staying home like
the Swiss. Kind of like some 'slut' in a bar 'inviting'
rape.
No person or country has a right to perform risky behavior with the
expectation they will not be hurt. But that does not mean that the
rapist/enemy should go unpunished or be punished less severely.
|5.22.07 @ 1:35PM|#
I must confess that I wouldn't have been bent out of shape if
Mr. Paul had used the word invited. It still doesn't mean
"justified".
The women that knowingly walked naked into the alley filled with
escaped rapists invited the attacks. Does that mean the rape was
justified? No, but there is the matter of responsible behavior to
consider.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Still sounds like we "invited" the attack by not staying
home like the Swiss.
You put "invited" in quotation marks as if Paul said it, when he
never did.
No, I put it in quotes for the people who argue about it. Plus, it
WAS in the premise of the question and Mr. Paul accepted that
premise in his answer.
Still sounds like we 'invited' the attack by not staying home like
the Swiss. Feel better now?
BTW, from the statements from Al Queda representitives, we are
'inviting' attack just from existing. Not, per Ron Paul, by being
over there.
|5.22.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Still sounds like we "invited" the attack by not staying
home like the Swiss. Kind of like some 'slut' in a bar 'inviting'
rape.
Actually, it sounds more like saying someone invited an ass kicking
because they went around acting like a hard-ass.
David McElroy|5.22.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Does anybody know why Dondero used to go by "Eric Rittberg" instead of his current name? When I met him at an LP state convention about 15 years ago, that was the name he used. While I liked the idea of the Republican Liberty Caucus, he came across as something of a used car salesman who wasn't quite trustworthy. It wasn't anything overt that he said or did, but more of the "air" he projected. I wonder if anybody else felt that way about him. The fact that he's using a different name now adds a little bit to the feeling that there was something shady about him. Does anybody know why the name change?
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 1:41PM|#
The women that knowingly walked naked into the alley filled
with escaped rapists invited the attacks. Does that mean the rape
was justified? No, but there is the matter of responsible behavior
to consider.
In this case, think more of a woman not covered in a tent, who
dares to wear makeup, maybe even a skirt that shows calf.
|5.22.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Well, Al Queda doesn't speak for the whole Arab world. Al Queda
may indeed have a blind hatred now toward us, and like any
political organization I don't doubt that they say things for
domestic consumption. Yes, we are all infidels, so are the Swiss,
but our country is the one that get's singled out for "special"
treatment from Al Queda.
So, I think we can say that Al Queda is simply wrapping up 60 years
of interventions by the USA under a banner of religious outrage.
Not that shocking, our pols do it all the time.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Actually, it sounds more like saying someone invited an ass
kicking because they went around acting like a hard-ass.
Yea, all that withdrawing from europe stuff, but we did help kick
the Soviets out of Afghanistan, then we left there too. Such brutes
we are!
Then we stopped a bunch of Muslims from being slaughtered more in
Eastern Europe.
Oh, you must be talking about our no-fly-zones after the first gulf
war, the same ones Ron Paul is talking about, where we were
"bombing Iraq for ten years". Too bad some good Democracy took root
under the northern no-fly-zone. Stopped a lot of the further
slaughter of Muslims in the south too. OH THE HUMANITY!
Yea, such bully behavior should not be tolerated and we ought to
expect to be attacked for being such bruts?
lol
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Yes, we are all infidels, so are the Swiss, but our country
is the one that get's singled out for "special" treatment from Al
Queda.
Since when were Spain, Indonesia, Bali, Lebanon and others part of
the US?
|5.22.07 @ 1:51PM|#
David McElroy: "something shady about him"
I noticed that he goes by several "aliases" as well. And, there is
a shady feel to him because isn't intellectually honest in his
stances and gets pretty ugly in his online rants.
&tc|5.22.07 @ 1:52PM|#
All Ron Paul, all the time.
The last bastion of neutral, unbiased political news is C-Span.
Everything else is partisan.
|5.22.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Call me crazy, but I thought Reason had been openly
libertarian since the beginning. How surprising that a libertarian
magazine with a high percentage of libertarian readers would be
interested in the Ron Paul campaign!
Of course, Paul is no Zod; then
again, who is?
|5.22.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Guy Montag: "Since when were Spain, Indonesia, Bali, Lebanon and
others part of the US?"
The USA joined their club looks like to me. If we hadn't spent the
last 60 odd years farting around in other nations and regions of
the world, I daresay the outcome would be different. The whole of
the Arab world didn't wake up one day and decide to hate the USA.
It was a volatile enough situation without us injecting ourselves
into the mix.
And yes, our support in carving out the state of Israel in 1947
didn't help matters much. But, all our interventionist policies are
well intended.
thoreau|5.22.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Ron Paul would beat Guy Montag in a debate.
General Zod, however, wouldn't even stoop so low as to debate
Montag. He'd just summarily pwn him.
dhex|5.22.07 @ 2:17PM|#
thoreau: you're one of those capitulationist liberal types who
thinks actions have consequences!
fucking physicist.
VM|5.22.07 @ 2:19PM|#
What Kwix and Doktor T said.
wow. Mein Gott.
Ron Paul doesn't just beat people in the debate. He beats them
with the debate.
There is a sandwich named after him on every continent, too!
oh - those apply to the URKOBOLD. My mistake.
|5.22.07 @ 2:19PM|#
At the end of the day, it's not a matter of proving if blowback
exists, or if we do more good than harm.
The question is this:
Should the US Government get placed back into the Constitutional
Box and follow a non-interventionist foreign policy?
Our government can't become a world empire and remain a
constitutional republic.
|5.22.07 @ 2:23PM|#
No, I put it in quotes for the people who argue about it.
Plus, it WAS in the premise of the question and Mr. Paul accepted
that premise in his answer.
Still sounds like we 'invited' the attack by not staying home like
the Swiss. Feel better now?
My feelings don't enter into it. Putting quotes around "invited"
makes it seem like Paul said it and he didn't.
Bottom line is, our foreign policy has consequences. The notion
that we were attacked because of our freedom is childishly
simplistic and demonstrably untrue, if we take our enemies at their
word. The 9/11 attacks (or something like them) were inevitable.
And as long as we continue to ignore the wishes of the people we're
supposed to be helping, arrogantly staying in places where the
majority of inhabitants don't want us, we will continue to be
attacked.
|5.22.07 @ 2:25PM|#
"But, all our interventionist policies are well intended."
What policy isn't "well intended"?
Our interventionist policy sucks and Ron Paul is right, we should
mind our own business.
Instead in the middle ease we overthrew governments and installed
new totalitarian ones, put sanctions on certain contries, built
military bases and stationed troops in nearby countries, used
threats to enforce our will, provided weapons to dictators, and
more...
If irrational people didn't like us, then we do all those things,
that only gives them more reason to really not like us.
|5.22.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Dmitri | May 22, 2007, 2:25pm | # "What policy isn't "well
intended"?"
Preaching to the choir, lol. I put that "well intentioned remark in
my comment to underscore its irrelevancy to the consequences.
The road to hell is, indeed, well paved with the best of
intentions.
|5.22.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Should the US Government get placed back into the
Constitutional Box and follow a non-interventionist foreign
policy?
But, Ron, then how can we ever know if we're #1?? The government
has proved over and over again how efficient and competent it is at
being #1 and using tax dollars (and borrowed money) to force
foreign people to take our #1 kind of help (you know they only hate
us because we're #1). And you want to put an end to all that?
Wow. Just wow.
|5.22.07 @ 2:31PM|#
To partially clear up the Dondero name issue: He was adopted
(which I hear means someone loves him) and then switched to his
biological father's name at a later date.
I think that's right.
|5.22.07 @ 2:32PM|#
thoreau,
Did you sign the petition for
Zod? Even the son of Jor-El signed! Imagine that!
I must say that I'm disappointed that conservatives aren't enjoying
Paul more. He's bringing back--for the first time in a while at the
national level--discussion of why limited government is a good
thing. The war in Iraq is a transient thing, but our philosophy
about what kind of political system we're going to operate under is
not. Or shouldn't be, anyway.
It's not crazy to say that we should have a reason for mucking
about in the Middle East. Paul's motive for saying that isn't the
same as, say, the Democrats' reasons for saying similar things, and
GOPers should take a little more time to understand his
point rather than responding with the standard arguments against
their points. For instance, the openly stated
doctrine of preemptive war has played no small role in getting Iran
to go nuke happy. Is that a good thing?
I'm no isolationist, and I still, for instance, support the
occupation of Afghanistan. But that's a consequence of policies and
actions that I think we should've never engaged in, not a statement
of some sort of ideal that we should invade first and ask questions
later.
|5.22.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Careful David, don't ask about Eric's name: he'll accuse you
of antisemitism.
Anyway, he
answered that question last week:
The controversy about my name?
Simple:
Dondero = Biological Father's name
Rittberg = Adoptive parents' name.
You gotta problem with that?
The more I think about, the more I see him as the Cynthia McKinney
of Libertarianism.
|5.22.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Dondero isnt even 70% libertarian. He supported Bush In 2004 ( in 2000, I may have given a pass) and he has been supporting Rudy Guiliani this time. He is a Rudy partisan and got pissed that his former boss got into it with his current lover.
thoreau|5.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Regarding what Paul said:
I can see how his "There's no evidence of that" statement sounds
weak. In some ways it is. But it also cuts right to the point. The
conspiracy theorists have no evidence.
It may not be an explicit denunciation of the "Truthers", but it
basically sums up the fundamental problem with their stance.
Because it isn't an explicit and harsh condemnation of the
"Truthers" it may sound evasive, but it's not the sort of evasion
that a person with "Truther" sympathies would give.
|5.22.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Republicans are all about getting a pound of flesh. If you advance a theory that they don't like, they go after you personally. In order to be a part of their club, a politician can't just negate the theory, they have to go after the proponent.
|5.22.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I don't think Ron Paul needs to vehemently denounce people that
believe in a 9/11 Conspiracy, it's a free country, last I
checked...I think. I think it goes against Paul's values to
denounce people for holding opinions.
We are living in a country today that if you say you can sympathize
with the Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver you will be called a nut
job.
Ron Paul is a uniter, not a divider.
hehe
David McElroy|5.22.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Thanks for the links, Tarran. The response from Rittberg/Dondero is a perfect example of Godwin's Law in action. :-)
Asharak|5.22.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Hey, Guy, you'll never be accepted by the lumpen Republicans you emulate and pathetically suck up to. As far as they're concerned, you're still a low-tax liberal regardless of how much of a hawk you are.
Dave W.|5.22.07 @ 3:02PM|#
I can see how his "There's no evidence of that" statement
sounds weak. In some ways it is. But it also cuts right to the
point. The conspiracy theorists have no evidence.
Then again, Paul is suggesting renewed investigation of events
around 9/11. I think the fear is that he would use the power of the
presidency to do an investigation and that new evidence would
emerge out of that.
That is why Paul seems like a closet Truther to so many people, why
he gives off that vibe. He hopes that he can trick we, the public,
into letting him investigate.
|5.22.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Besides agreeing with thoreau, I'll add that I find it
refreshing for a politician to stick closer to cold, hard facts and
shy away from emotional rhetoric.
The reason the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are wrong isn't because
it's just terrible, horrible to even suggest that our own
government could have a hand in such a thing. Our own government
has, in the last 50 years, had its hand in an assortment of
appalling atrocities, cooly assisting and sometimes even carrying
out the deliberate murder of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of
civilians. What's galling to some about the 9/11 theories is that
it suggests we'd do it to American civilians.
No, I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are wrong for the same
reason creationists are wrong, because they ignore evidence that
conflicts with their beliefs. In doing so, have created scenarios
that are bereft of factual and intellectual credibility, and
therefore useless on any practical level. They also seem very
silly.
|5.22.07 @ 3:05PM|#
robc,
The CIA aren't #1, so what do they know, anyway?
...lousy CIA...always badmouthing America...
steveintheknow|5.22.07 @ 3:05PM|#
There is a sandwich named after him on every continent, too!
-VM
Awsome, simply awsome!
Who was it again who boasts this most dubious distinction?
I, for one, always thought getting laid on all 7 was far
superior.
or smoking a joint on all 7.
..or playing a scratch off lotto ticket on all 7.
...anything!!!
...on all 7.
robc|5.22.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Les,
Good point about the CIA. After all, they made up the blowback
theory, then forgot to tell anyone just so Rudy wouldnt have heard
about it before the debate.
Just think how deep the conspiracy must go. Rudy has been studying
the Middle East since the 70s and for 30 years the CIA has
successfully kept him from hearing about it.
|5.22.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Regarding what Paul said:
I can see how his "There's no evidence of that" statement sounds
weak.
That's exactly the precise sounding answer I would expect out of an
engineer. You don't tell someone they are wrong, only that there is
no evidence to support their claims.
It may be a feature of his medical background as opposed to being a
wishy-washy political answer.
robc|5.22.07 @ 3:15PM|#
steveintheknow,
Swimming on all seven.
Even more impressive, lawn bowling on all seven (or even growing a
lawn on all seven).
Alex Hammer|5.22.07 @ 3:25PM|#
See also:
Ron Paul Campaign: Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron
Paul
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-paul-campaign-key-california.html
Joe Klein in TIME - How Rudy Won the Second Debate
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/joe-klein-in-time-how-rudy-won-second.html
Ron Paul's supporters busted gaming Digg
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/blog-ron-pauls-supporters-busted-gaming.html
Dave W.|5.22.07 @ 3:36PM|#
"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."
Why is "[inside job]" quoted as a paraphrase?
What did Ron Paul really say, instead of inside job?
Did he say:
But I don't think there's any evidence of the US military
flying jets into the Towers and I don't believe
that.
or
But I don't think there's any evidence of the US military
command standing down the air defenses and I don't believe
that.
or
But I don't think there's any evidence of the landlord
blowing up the Twin Towers after the hi-jackers hit them
and I don't believe that.
or
But I don't think there's any evidence of the landlord
demolishing WTC7 and I don't believe that.
or
But I don't think there's any evidence of the anthrax being
a false flag attack and I don't believe that.
or
But I don't think there's any evidence of that Flt 93 was
shot down and I don't believe that.
Use of the vague parenthatical "[inside job]" is not helpful here.
It is difficult to be sure what Ron Paul meant. What were the
candidate's actual words on this point?
David McElroy|5.22.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Dave W., as a former newspaper editor (and reporter before that), I can tell you that I suspect the missing word would be "it." If you're going to insert something like that into a quote, you would be be helping to explain what someone was referring to with a vague term, NOT obscuring words in which the speaker was explicit.
VM|5.22.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Thanks, Steve Who Knows -
my friend "AGF" threw that one my way. He likes the "Chuck Norris"
jokes, so he constantly comes up with new ones/ recycles other
phrases and adjusts them.
Pat Curley|5.22.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Sounds to me like he wants to have it both ways; support from the Alex Jones' wackos and plausible deniability. Still, those answers were better than what Paul has come up with before; we'll see how the "Truthers" react to it.
Dave W.|5.22.07 @ 3:47PM|#
I can tell you that I suspect the missing word would be
"it."
You are probably correct, in which case it would appear that Ron
Paul was merely referring to the previous question, and his thought
would read thus:
But I don't think there's any evidence of it [meaning: that 9/11
was executed by the US government] and I don't believe that.
I guess my point is that there is room for a lot of conspiracy
theorism, even if you believe that there were real Islamic
highjackers doing the highjacking.
dave|5.22.07 @ 3:54PM|#
It's clear from these comments at my Democratic friend's blog
that Dondero believes libertarians and the GOP are OMG BFF's!!1!
and anyone attempting to "drive a wedge" between them will only do
so over his "dead body".
http://heyjennyslater.blogspot.com/2007/05/killing-infidel.html#c1925571383613349349
At least that's what I think he's saying. I've reread his comment a
few times and still can't quite grasp his point.
Urkobold®|5.22.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Guy Montag,
SHUT
THE F***
UP,
UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING REMOTELY INTELLIGENT TO SAY.
YOU WILL BE INFORMED BY Urkobold IN ADVANCE WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING
INTELLIGENT TO SAY.
Urkobold hath thus stymied his own rage.
VM|5.22.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Oh Great URKOBOLD! May "What A" Guy be my Dodgeball
partner?
pretty pretty please?
|5.22.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Okapi wrote: "It makes me sick to my stomach to think anyone
would believe me capable of holding such a disgusting, moronic,
imbicilic belief"."
Um, "imbecilic" is one of those words that you just don't want to
mis-spell. It kind of boomerangs.
|5.22.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Regarding what Paul said:
"There's no evidence of that."
This seems to indicate that he has read and considered the
arguments of 9/11 truth groups, which is a sin heretical enough to
get him another segment on The Malkin Factor.
|5.22.07 @ 6:32PM|#
This is the same crap they threw at Kerry.
Ooh, you didn't phrase your answer in exactly the right manner -
that means you love 9/11 truthers!
Look at Mr. Big Words there!
|5.22.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Folks can check the debate
transcript.
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, ........
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq..... - New York Times
{Elisions and bolding are mine.}
Paul never said invited. That was Wendell Goler's term,
which Rudy picked up on, and with which he proceeded to beat Ron
about the head and shoulders. Guy has a point when he said that
that it was a premise of Goler's question, but notice that, while
Paul tried to express what U.S. actions motivated the attackers, he
never claimed that their felt grievances justified their
actions.
Kevin
JoeCobb|5.22.07 @ 6:35PM|#
Ron Paul used the scientifically correct words to answer the
claims made by "Student Scholars" about a 9/11 conspiracy within
the U.S. government.
Paul: "I'd say there's no evidence of that."
So, the hypothesis is nullified; maybe some evidence will show up
some day. Meanwhile, forget it.
It is good skeptic epistemology.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 7:12PM|#
Guy Montag,
SHUT
THE F***
UP,
UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING REMOTELY INTELLIGENT TO SAY.
YOU WILL BE INFORMED BY Urkobold IN ADVANCE WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING
INTELLIGENT TO SAY.
Urkobold hath thus stymied his own rage.
Cute! And make me.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 7:40PM|#
kevrob,
Paul never said invited. That was Wendell Goler's
term,
And Mr. Paul accepted the premise and blamed the USA for the
attacks of 9/11. It was all our own fault that UBL attacked us
because we were enforcing no-fly-zones on Iraq and all the
rest.
Yea, we asked to be attacked all the way back to when Ike kicked
the french and British off of the Siani. Eveil Zionist Bastards we
be.
|5.22.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Please don't ask Ron Paul any more questions about that
clown. ED is an attention-whore who should be ignored.
Hey, Have I mentioned lately (ie - in this thread) that Eric
Dondero is such an egomaniac that he
created his own wikipedia entry?
|5.22.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Guy writes: "In this case, think more of a woman not covered in
a tent, who dares to wear makeup, maybe even a skirt that shows
calf."
Actually, it's more like a neighbor who keeps spraypainting "JESUS
SAVES" on your car and who got your new husband locked up on
trumped-up charges because he prefers your old abusive drunk
husband.
|5.22.07 @ 9:02PM|#
"Good point about the CIA. After all, they made up the blowback
theory, then forgot to tell anyone just so Rudy wouldnt have heard
about it before the debate."
Rudy knows it by whatever's Italian for 'hoist by his own
petard'.
|5.22.07 @ 9:07PM|#
And Mr. Paul accepted the premise and blamed the USA for the
attacks of 9/11. It was all our own fault that UBL attacked us
because we were enforcing no-fly-zones on Iraq and all the
rest.
Sorry, Guy. That's disingenuous, to be kind. Look, if you prefer to
support a guy who thinks your liberty is about obeying his
authority, to each his own, but don't make stuff up. That's really
just weak.
|5.22.07 @ 9:11PM|#
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you
know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Is Eric going to make witty remarks like this under his own name
now, instead of attributing them to Ron Paul? Eric?
mw|5.22.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Announcing the formation of a
new political action alliance:
Bloggers
United
To
Thoroughly
Head off the
Election of
Asshats like
Dondero.
Yes, yes, I know I am just cribbing from my own comment in last
weeks Dondero thread, but I can't help it. I just crack myself up
sometimes. Really. I just slay myself. That's all I have time for,
gotta go work on my wikipedia bio.
Eric Dondero|5.23.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Squoo, that famous quote that got Ron Paul into so much trouble came from Ron's ghost writer at the time Lew Rockwell.
Eric Dondero|5.23.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Official response to Ron Paul:
If I was "fired" as you claim, then why did you give me a $10,000
bonus at the end of my tenure?
Eric Dondero|5.23.07 @ 10:43AM|#
This attack on me from Ron Paul is to be expected, but really
quite juvenile. I haven't worked for him for over 3 years. Since
that time I've been using him (and my friend Chief of Staff Tom
Lizardo), as an employment reference. In the last 3 years, I've
received employment with every firm that I've applied to0 (like as
a translator for AIG who conducts extensive background checks), so
I'm presuming that the reference was good.
Now, all of a sudden Ron Paul is saying that I was "fired."
Interesting. I sense the heavy hand of Marc Elam or Lew Rockwell
behind this strategy. Interesting indeed.
|5.23.07 @ 10:59AM|#
"that famous quote that got Ron Paul into so much trouble came
from Ron's ghost writer at the time Lew Rockwell."
I thought so, I thought it sounded like the type of racist remarks
that he sometimes makes.
|5.23.07 @ 11:06AM|#
"And Mr. Paul accepted the premise and blamed the USA for the
attacks of 9/11. It was all our own fault that UBL attacked us
because we were enforcing no-fly-zones on Iraq and all the
rest."
And "all the rest" includes sanctions that killed 500,000 children,
occupation of the Muslim holy land in Arabia, siding with Israel in
their oppression of the Palestinians, and our general meddling in
the Middle East since the 50's.
ND|5.23.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Eric, I don't know who you're trying to convince. When you write stuff
like this and openly support the policies of Bush, it doesn't
matter if you call yourself a libertarian. If you support big
government and empire building (a single google search turns up
more than enough of your writings to see you're no more libertarian
than Bill Maher) then you can call yourself Thomas Jefferson for
all I care. I'm sure there are plenty of republicrat blogs for you
to post on where someone might mistake your nonsense as reasonable
so you're wasting valuable time here.
I do need to thank you though. Some of your writings were pretty
funny. It's a shame you didn't mean them to be.
Guy Montag|5.23.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Our interventionist policy sucks and Ron Paul is right, we
should mind our own business.
Except for covert actions and it is okay for other countries to do
preemptive actions, just not us.
See his position in the previous thread.
|5.23.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Eric,
That article you wrote makes you look like a total idiot. Your
biggest credit is once having worked for a politician that is now
winning internet polls for the republican primaries. Now you are
trying ruin ron paul's good name with redonkulous smears.
Ron Paul oozes integrity and you ooze greaseballiness. Why not jsut
go work for Mccain or Guliani?
the oak|5.24.07 @ 4:59PM|#
As another former Ron Paul staffer, who worked in the same
office with Eric. I can tell you definitely. Eric was fired because
he never came to work. When he did come to work, he slept on a
nasty couch which we burned after he left.
Eric is a digruntled former employee that developed many bad habits
over the years and numero uno was slothfullness.
Eric Dondero|5.25.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Allow me to correct the record.
Yes, the poster above is correct. I did sleep on a couch in my
office from time to time.
But that was because Ron and I would be out in the District to the
wee hours of the morning at events.
At one point, our District was so large it would take 5 hours to
drive from one side (Blanco west of Austin) back home to
Freeport.
Getting home at 3:00 am in the morning for Ron Paul and I was
almost a daily event when he was back home in the District.
Many times I'd just skip going home, and go straight to the
District office for a nap before the next day's work
schedule.
Sorry, if some don't happen to think this made sense.
|5.28.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Your'e wrong Mr. Dondero. Ron Paul was quoting the
administrations own documents. How can you deny that the reason we
were attacked was due to our policies in part. Have you read the
9/11 report? Or read what the perpetrators of these crimes have
said? Or are you just trying the same thing as Rudy and trying to
use 9/11 to further your agenda.
If you want to solve a problem, it is key to understand what has
caused the problem. This is common sense.
|5.29.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how Rudolph
Giuliani is in any way a "libertarian," as Dondero claims. I can't
identify a single libertarian position in Giuliani's platform or
any of his speeches, yet Dondero urges libertarians to vote for
him.
Curious, that.
|5.29.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Is this why Dondero calls Giuliani a libertarian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5DxwzEXHQ
???????
Yeah, suing gun manufacturers...Quite "libertarian," isn't it?
Ken|5.30.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Ron Paul is no libertarian. I'm on a discussion group of the RLC
(Republican Liberty Caucus) and his supporters are all
Buchananites. White racists who keep condemning Abe Lincoln and
wishing the South won the civil war.
The chair of that group, Westmiller, a big Ron Paul supporter keeps
going on about a Jewish/Israeli conspiracy to conquer the ME. Right
out of the protocols of the elders of zion.
|6.1.07 @ 12:18AM|#
Ron Paul may not be an ideal libertarian--as far as I'm
concerned, no government office holder could ever possibly be
libertarian enough, otherwise they wouldn't hold government office,
which is why I don't vote.
But I'm still trying to wrap my head around Dondero's claim that a
gun-grabbing fascist like Giuliani is worthy of a libertarian's
vote. I can't identify a single policy position held by Giuliani
that could be remotely characterized as even being libertarian-ish.
Not one. I would really like to see Dondero offer something along
the lines of a rational explanation of why exactly Giuliani should
be supported by libertarians.
the oak|6.1.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Ron was in DC(as he never missed a vote) when Eric was sleeping
on the couch.
Ron Paul was also in DC on 9-11 as congress was in session so, Eric
you lied about what he said about that as well.
Sleeping, lying... so many bad habits. Not at all the character to
be found in a member of congress.
You don't have any friends on the Ron Paul staff. You wronged us by
not showing up to work for weeks and we had to cover your phone. It
was a good thing it didn't ring much.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245