Reason Magazine

Site Search

Fox News Conspiracy Theories

Andrew Sullivan, whose defense of Ron Paul this week put H&R's to shame, catches Fox News accusing the candidate of "9/11 Truthism":

GIBSON: According to a recent Rasmussen Report poll, 35 percent of Democrats think President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement has already infected people like Rosie O'Donnell and one in three Democrats, and many other people, Americans evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul. With me now is FOX News contributor and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin.

So, Michelle, this stuns me. It wouldn't have stunned me had it come up in the Democratic debate, but it's a jaw-dropper to see it in the Republican debate.

MICHELLE MALKIN: It is and it doesn't belong here. And I'm glad that this moment provided great TV for FOX News — it was a very instructive exchange — but Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans, because the 9/11 truth virus is something that infects only a very small proportion of people that would identify themselves as conservative or Republican. And as you say, John, this is far more prevalent, this strain of 9/11 truth virus, on the left, and in much of the mainstream of the Democratic Party as that Rasmussen poll showed.

Paul never said that or anything like it at the debate. What's Malkin's evidence?

You know, I try not to spend too much time in these cesspools, but it is worth taking a visit to places like, you know, these WTC7 sites and Students and Scholars for Truth, and I note that Ron Paul has basically allied himself with these people. He appears with Students for Truth on campus and he's appeared on radio shows like 9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones.

Ron Paul has appeared on Alex Jones' show, but he has never appeared with "Students and Scholars for Truth" or "Students for Truth." Those groups don't actually exist. What Malkin is probably referring to is this incident three months ago, when members of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth attended a Paul campaign appearence. Group leader Justin Martell buttonholed Paul and got him to admit that he 1) generally doesn't trust government accounts of things and 2) would sign on to a 9/11 investigation if Dennis Kucinich launched one. (He did question the Kennedy assassination: John Gibson, take notes!) Check out the video—it's pretty clear he's not sure what to think of the group.

And that's the only contact Paul has had with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth. A Paul spokesman confirmed that for me, adding "he can not and will not screen individuals from coming to his public events. People come to Ron's events to support Ron Paul, but that does not mean Ron holds their views in any way." (I contacted Martell and I'll update the post if he claims otherwise.)

So what's Malkin's basis for telling the Fox News audience that Paul "appears on campus" with 9/11 conspiracy groups? If she can produce proof I'll retract this post and apologize. If she can't, she should retract that claim during her next Fox News appearance.

UPDATE: From Michael Jackman of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

Our group met him once at an event. We would love to interview him more in depth at some point.

In other words, he has never appeared with or endorsed the group.

UPDATE II: Malkin responds:

Last week, on John Gibson's Fox News Channel show, "The Big Story," I was asked to comment on 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Ron Paul. Here's the video. In the segment, I referred to "Students and Scholars for Truth." The accurate name of the group I was referring to is "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." (There's a separate group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which I've blogged about previously.) I also stated that Paul appeared on campus with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This is incorrect. The incident I was referring to was an exchange that took place at a campaign house party, not during an on-campus joint appearance, as I mistakenly stated. I regret the errors and am forwarding this post to The Big Story producers so that they can air these corrections if they wish to do so.

Good for her. However, Malkin insists that Paul gave shady answers to Martell and implied "government cover-ups." She highlights him saying "too often investigations on almost any issue is usually a cover-up." Her position: "This has no place on the GOP presidential debate stage."

Malkin is trying too hard, and with too little evidence, to prove that Paul agrees with the Student Scholars. Early in the video they tell a drive-through window attendant that "9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by our own government." When Martell confronts Paul, he's careful not to say that. He says "we've heard that you have questioned the government's official account." He opens the door for Paul to claim a conspiracy behind 9/11. Paul never does.

So what's the evidence for Paul being a secret Truther? According to Malkin, it's that the Truth groups claim that Paul is a secret Truther. She quotes Student Scholars:

Ron Paul knows very well that something is very wrong with the official explanation of 9/11. However, like Dennis Kucinich he cannot look right into our cameras and proclaim “9/11 WAS A SELF INFLICTED WOUND!” Through acknowledging the legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s concerns, these candidates are expressing their support for our cause.
Note that it's Malkin, not Paul, who cites the Student Scholars as a credible source of information.

UPDATE III: As the thread continues to grow, probably worth pointing out that Paul has already named the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks. He did so at the GOP debate.
Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.
In other words, Al Qaeda did it. Osama bin Laden did it. Paul's view is incompatible with the idea that "9/11 was a self-inflicted wound" or the towers came down in controlled demolitions.
Send this article to:

« Brits to Allow Human/Animal Combo… | Main | Ron Paul, Part MCXII »

Comments to "Fox News Conspiracy Theories":

Pro Libertate | May 18, 2007, 6:37pm | #

Any lie to protect the GOP from the ideals upon which this country was founded, right, Michelle?

Charles Oliver | May 18, 2007, 6:40pm | #

Wow, Michelle Malkin gets her facts wrong. I bet that has never happened before.

Bradford C. | May 18, 2007, 6:48pm | #

She's not that hot anyways.

jet | May 18, 2007, 6:50pm | #

Michelle Malkin not only gets her facts wrong; she does seem to not understand basic logic.

Ron Paul: US foreign policy was one of the reasons Middle Eastern terrorits attacked the US on 9/11.

9/11 Truth Nuts: The US was not attacked by Middle Eastern terrorists; 9/11 was an inside job.

Shelby | May 18, 2007, 6:52pm | #

No surprise. Malkin is dedicated to supporting the mainstream Republican party, and is not exactly prissy about her factual details. Ron Paul is the least mainstream of the candidates, and his ideas are the most antithetical to the mainstream. Hence the widespread effort to get him off the stage before many people start listening to what he has to say.

Of course, Paul does give them plenty of ammo.

Brian Sorgatz | May 18, 2007, 6:55pm | #

She's not that hot anyways.

You haven't seen her in The Erotic Adventures of Malkinocchio.

Ken Shultz | May 18, 2007, 6:56pm | #

Who is this Michelle Malkin and why should I care about what she thinks?

FreedomIsHard | May 18, 2007, 6:59pm | #

This constant attack on Paul for his message of freedom is utterly disheartening. The fact the Repub hacks are working so hard is uplifting because they see the message is gaining on them.

88Fingers | May 18, 2007, 7:15pm | #

I'm guess that Michelle Malkin and the other Republidrones at Fox News read Paul's comment like this: "9/11 happened because we're constantly butting into the Middle East, so we deserved it." Paul in no way attempted to legitimize the attacks, but to understand them in the context of our foreign policy. That there is just TOO MUCH DARN THINKUN for the GOP shills, so it's easier to just paint old Ron as a fringy loon.
Fuck you, Michelle Malkin. If you made a porn tape, I'd whack off to it maybe, MAYBE once. And then I'd burn it.

Dave Weigel | May 18, 2007, 7:17pm | #

Let's knock off the sexual insults, please.

plunge | May 18, 2007, 7:23pm | #

Let's not forget that after the first Republican debate, Malkin was coo-cooing with Republican party guests about how those liberal media types had conspired to make Guiliani look bad: because of course, liberals are REALLY scared of a pro-choice Republican! Pretty ridiculous stuff: this is just an extension of that sniveling paranoia.

Single Issue Voter | May 18, 2007, 7:28pm | #

"Let's knock off the sexual insults, please."

Keep 'em coming. They reflect badly on the "liberaltarian" commenters. Good to see what kind of assholes these people are. We haven't even got to the usual racial sexual insults Michelle provokes.

Kevin | May 18, 2007, 7:29pm | #

The 9/11 truth guy stole my haircut and my yearbook photo jacket from 1979. Bastard.

Also, I'm holding out hope that we soon see a miles-long post with dozens of wacko links and the concluding admonition to "wake up, America!" It's Friday night, my wife went out and all I have for entertainment is the Nets and Cavs.

MPG | May 18, 2007, 7:31pm | #

What does Michelle Malkin have against the 9/11 truth wingnuts? She has so much in common with them: paranoia, a very free way with facts, complete intolerance for all those with opposing viewpoints, bigotry...

jn | May 18, 2007, 7:32pm | #

If she can't, she should retract that claim during her next Fox News appearance.

hahahahahahahahah

Anthony Gregory | May 18, 2007, 7:34pm | #

Good post! Thanks, Dave.

Bhh | May 18, 2007, 7:37pm | #

The amount of screech falling on Paul is interesting because it's not like he was going to get nominated anyway. Trying to keep the deadend 28% on the compound I guess.

Edward | May 18, 2007, 7:38pm | #

Ron Paul handled the 9/11 Truth guy like a good politician, so he does have some qualifications.

uncle sam | May 18, 2007, 7:40pm | #

Remember when National Review published an article (1976) proving that the Libertarian Party was communist?

They haven't changed much.

Sal Paradise | May 18, 2007, 7:41pm | #

Yes, we all know Fox News viewers will require, no demand, evidence of this before they believe it.

Little Cupckaes | May 18, 2007, 7:42pm | #

Malkin's opinions can have no value. Remember, this lady defends the incarceration of the Japanese during WW II.

MPG | May 18, 2007, 7:43pm | #

Here's a quote from Christopher Hitchens, which, while it was directed at the late Jerry Falwell, describes Mrs. Malkin quite well:

"People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup.

The whole consideration of this -- of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality."

josh | May 18, 2007, 7:47pm | #

Are there people who support/repsect Michelle Malkin? I assume there must be somewhere, but I would be shocked to meet one.

joe | May 18, 2007, 7:47pm | #

That kid looks about 15, and it doesn't help that he's wearing a much larger man's suit.

Single Issue Voter | May 18, 2007, 7:50pm | #

"Malkin's opinions can have no value. Remember, this lady defends the incarceration of the Japanese during WW II."

She does have a "progressive" streak. I was a bit put off by her siding with Earl Warren and FDR.

Frank | May 18, 2007, 7:53pm | #

Fox news lying? C'mon! How is that possible? They call themselves, "fair and unbalanced", so that must be true. Anybody who questions Fox News hates America and is a terrorist.

Yogi | May 18, 2007, 7:57pm | #

Untermensch -
From that CNN article:

His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.

Ain't that the truth. There are so many things Paul could have said after Giuliani demanded he apologize... instead, he starts talking about Iran in 1953.

Yogi | May 18, 2007, 8:01pm | #

Frank-

... They call themselves, "fair and unbalanced", so that must be true...

Slip of the fingers there? :)

joe | May 18, 2007, 8:11pm | #

There is absolutely nothing in that video to indicate that Paul is a 9/11 Truther. He's obviously talking in general terms about the official story being tainted by ass-covering, which is probably true to some extent. The kid was deliberately talking around his point, and Paul didn't go anywhere near there.-

The Democrats are probably going to nominate a pro-war candidate. The GOP might as well go ahead and nominate this guy. Maybe people would like him better than Hillary.

Mad Max | May 18, 2007, 8:14pm | #

"She does have a 'progressive' streak. I was a bit put off by her siding with Earl Warren and FDR."

Not only does Malkin approve of Earl Warren as a cheerleader for internment, but she is also relying on a Warren Court opinion from the 1960s: The *Sullivan* opinion, which gives the media a broad privilege to tell untruths about public officials. Without that gift from Earl Warren's liberal Supreme Court, Malkin would be vulnerable to a defamation suit from Paul.

Of course, Paul may oppose defamations suits in principle, I don't know.

Vote for Michelle Malkin and the liberal Earl Warre legacy!

tros | May 18, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Let's knock off the sexual insults, please.

Michelle Malkin sucks Satan's cock. And she's a whore, too. Maybe we can impeach Boy Georgie if we can find some of his DNA on her clothes.

Libertarians to post Fallwel GOP: All your base are belong to us.

Pig Mannix | May 18, 2007, 8:15pm | #

If she can't, she should retract that claim during her next Fox News appearance.

You're not going to be holding your breath, I hope. If you do, you'll probably be able to run for office on the LP ticket in 2008.

James Kabala | May 18, 2007, 8:16pm | #

By Malkin's standards, I guess she has "appeared with" the guy who tried to get her to sign a picture of a interned Japanese child.

joe | May 18, 2007, 8:22pm | #

Nah, Hillary would just do the same thing as Guiliani.

plunge | May 18, 2007, 8:25pm | #

"Keep 'em coming. They reflect badly on the "liberaltarian" commenters. Good to see what kind of assholes these people are. We haven't even got to the usual racial sexual insults Michelle provokes."

So wait, the game here is that she is so obnoxious that people are obnoxious back... and then you crow about it as demonstrating something? Trolls cheerleading other trolls. When will it end?

miche | May 18, 2007, 8:27pm | #

Be thankful she no longer says she's libertarian.
TAE: Are you comfortable wearing the “conservative” label?

MALKIN: Oh, absolutely. I started out more of a social conservative than an economic conservative, and then there was a period where I called myself a libertarian before I called myself a conservative. I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate Harry Brown for President in 1996.
If we could only say the same for Dondero.

Jesse Walker | May 18, 2007, 8:27pm | #

The 9/11 Truth stuff is so egregious, it's easy to overlook this oddity in Michelle's comments:

Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans

I thought the whole point of these debates was to find out who the best representative of the Republicans would be.

Ruthless | May 18, 2007, 8:35pm | #

Guiliani and Lloyd Bentson are turds of a feather.
After Bentson's "you're no Kennedy" putdown of Dan Quayle, I would have voted for Quayle to be Tyrant-in-Chief, except, as a peaceful anarchist I wasn't voting then either. (Goldwater got one of my last votes--before I "matured.")

Warty | May 18, 2007, 8:41pm | #

Jesus Christ. Fuck these cocksuckers. Fuck them in their hot, hot Pinay asses.

Franklin Harris | May 18, 2007, 8:41pm | #

"it's easy to overlook this oddity in Michelle's comments"

Except it's not really an "oddity," given that it was apparently in the talking points memo Karl Rove sent to Limbaugh, Hannity, the Michigan GOP party chair, et. al.

Jesse Walker | May 18, 2007, 8:46pm | #

They're all calling for kicking Paul out of the debates. But did anyone besides Malkin suggest that he was "representing" the GOP, as opposed to making the case that he should its representative?

Franklin Harris | May 18, 2007, 8:47pm | #

"After Bentson's "you're no Kennedy" putdown of Dan Quayle..."

That was a putdown? If Quayle hadn't been an idiot, he could have said, "No, I'm not a philandering lightweight who nearly bungled the country into a nuclear war."

That might have actually made Gore Vidal vote Republican.

Similarly, did anyone see the cover of this week's "Newsweek," which asked if any of the current candidates could be the next Truman?

Truman??? Yeah, that whole Korean War statement was great. To say nothing of all the M*A*S*H reruns I was subjected to during childhood.

Mad Max | May 18, 2007, 8:48pm | #

Dr. Paul - run on a 3rd-party ticket! Don't waste time with these soteriologically-challenged Republocrats - present the people with a choice!

Anyone who can get H&R commenters to support a pro-life candidate is an extraordinary politician.

I'm not on his staff or anything, but I'm slowly falling in love with him, preparatory (I suppose) to him losing spectacularly.

Meanwhile, see his video "Educating Rudy":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Franklin Harris | May 18, 2007, 8:51pm | #

Jesse,

I always took that as implied: The idea that he's "wasting time" that could go to candidates with something to say, you know, like McCain talking about the gates of Hell, and that he's making the GOP look bad because he's a "joke."

Franklin Harris | May 18, 2007, 8:52pm | #

"Korean War statement"

I meant: "Korean War stalemate."

I blame being taught to read by the "whole language" method.

Ken Shultz | May 18, 2007, 8:53pm | #

"I thought the whole point of these debates was to find out who the best representative of the Republicans would be."

It's still about the echo chamber.

If you're the party that doesn't have the White House, and you're talkin' about the Presidential election, then maybe you're talkin' about being a big tent party.

...and we are talkin' about a hack, here, right?

Lucky Strike | May 18, 2007, 9:09pm | #

"That was a putdown? If Quayle hadn't been an idiot, he could have said, "No, I'm not a philandering lightweight who nearly bungled the country into a nuclear war.""

Who's an idiot is beside the point, Franklin Harris.

Speaking of idiots (other than you, Rev. Harris), Truman wanted to freeze the price of US Government bonds and notes and bills.

LSMFT
Lord Save Me From Truman

Pro Libertate | May 18, 2007, 9:21pm | #

You know, I love that a libertarian is running for president within a major party. It's bringing out all the poisons, like a good emetic.

I hope Paul keeps irritating the GOP establishment. It's the best hope for at least some of the ideas to make it into the public eye. Like a speck of sand.

J. Bailey | May 18, 2007, 9:24pm | #

Why is 9/11 Truth always characterized as believing Bush knew about it? Most credible Scholars--and there are thousands of them worldwide--doubt Bush would have been involved at all. Why would they tell that Chimp anything about it? Look at his face when he heard the news... And you're going to trust this idiot with a diabolical plot?

Please stop misconstruing what tens of millions of people are thinking. We just want the investigation reopened. The 9/11 Commission Report is a travesty!

Jim Bob | May 18, 2007, 9:31pm | #

Mr. Weigel, you seem to be assuming that Malkin possesses a tiny bit of integrity, which she does not.

dhex | May 18, 2007, 9:37pm | #

wow.

so are republicans genuinely scared of the guy or is this just something to do before the main course begins?

the truthers must be eating this up.

"they're paying attention to us!"

tyrannis minx | May 18, 2007, 9:40pm | #

It's anything to keep the newscycle spinning. Next.

Guy Montag | May 18, 2007, 9:44pm | #

He is in league with Dennis Kucinich and you still view him as some sort of sane?

Perhaps his hooking up with Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal will win him a reason campaign contribution.

stonerollins | May 18, 2007, 10:07pm | #

"By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq."

Patrick Buchanan May 18, 2007

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan58.html

Jon Rowe | May 18, 2007, 10:08pm | #

I like Ron Paul. But one thing that most bothers me about him is his willingness to go on shows like Alex Jones'. Jones is a total nut, who believes 911 was a US conspiracy and that most of the elite Democrats and Republicans including George Bush are homosexual Devil worshippers, members of "The Bohemian Grove."

Paul doesn't seem to endorse any of this. But he does praise Jones as though he were a legitimate voice.

Listen for yourself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AwFlN61XThE&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6H7iqRVQs2A&mode=related&search=

dhex | May 18, 2007, 10:38pm | #

also, tros: what the fuck happened to the self-transforming hippy love bug everyone should eat shrooms routine?

i think malkin is vile too, but the boys club shit here is fucking retarded.

Nasikabatrachus | May 18, 2007, 10:42pm | #

Good job, Weigel. I bet Malkin is really ashamed of herself, now. Expect an apology to come through Reason's special red "sorry, libertarians, we were wrong" phone connected to the offices of all of the major news outlets.

Also, why does everyone who dislikes her make vile jokes about her physical appearance, and sometimes even her race? She is a bad enough person that she can be more than properly insulted along the lines of things she HAS chosen. Let's be more rational here on the reason blog.

JBar | May 18, 2007, 10:50pm | #

Remove Ron Paul from the debates? Hell, his presence on the next stage will ensure top ratings. No person involved in the production of the next debate will want Paul out. Michelle Malkin doesn't want Paul out.

Michelle Malkin wanting Ron Paul ousted from the debates is like Rush Limbaugh wishing there had never been a Clinton presidency! Ron Paul is money in the bank for Michelle.

Single Issue Voter | May 18, 2007, 10:56pm | #

"Also, why does everyone who dislikes her make vile jokes about her physical appearance, and sometimes even her race?"

Maybe because they are racist?

Klintron | May 18, 2007, 10:57pm | #

What is the defense of Ron Paul's newsletters? Other than the "they were ghost written" defense? I've only just found out about this and am seeking more information.

Asharak | May 18, 2007, 10:59pm | #

Michelle Malkin not only gets her facts wrong; she does seem to not understand basic logic.

Ron Paul: US foreign policy was one of the reasons Middle Eastern terrorits attacked the US on 9/11.

9/11 Truth Nuts: The US was not attacked by Middle Eastern terrorists; 9/11 was an inside job.


Exactly.

I hate to admit it, but I used to like reading Michelle Malkin's columns. But then 9/11 happened and she somehow morphed into a shrill, pro-internment statist (or perhaps she just showed her true colors).

Also, why does everyone who dislikes her make vile jokes about her physical appearance, and sometimes even her race? She is a bad enough person that she can be more than properly insulted along the lines of things she HAS chosen. Let's be more rational here on the reason blog.

I concur.

Asharak | May 18, 2007, 11:01pm | #

He is in league with Dennis Kucinich and you still view him as some sort of sane?

Perhaps his hooking up with Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal will win him a reason campaign contribution.


Leave it up to Guy Montag to buy into Malkin's bullshit.

Tim | May 18, 2007, 11:02pm | #

....this moment provided great TV for FOX News...

only thing important to anyone in power at Fox.

Mad Max | May 18, 2007, 11:04pm | #

Nasik,

Calling Malkin objectively pro-liberal, as I did with my Earl Warren comments, is much nastier (and truer) than any racial or sexual joke. Why would I have to pull a Coulter (and I presume Malkin has denounced Coulter's racist and sexist jokes, right?).

Jon,

If Dr. Paul hangs out with wackos (eg, by posting on H&R or appearing on certain radio programs), then he deserved to be rebuked. My guess is that he would have very little to fear from a single standard of morality, *impartially* applied - such a standard might singe him a few times, but it will *consume* his opponents.

For instance, if Dr. Paul can be blamed for the people with whom he is associated (but whom he did not endorse), then what shall we say of Rudy and the NYPD? That reminds me of a song which I just made up:

I met you down in New York City
You thought you had known me before
The way you treated me was shitty
You raped me while I was on the floor
The voters don't wanna remember
But nobody ought to forget
Plunger love up the butt, with a searing pain
Attacking an innocent suspect

Plunger love, its drivin me mad
Its makin me crazy
Plunger love its drivin me mad
Its makin me crazy

You say to American voters
If you get their votes you'll protect 'em
But we need some definite answers
Why your cops tore up somebody's rectum

Dr. Ron Paul posed a question
You said asking it was a sin
But the facts are plain
And the truth they contain
Show your intelligence is yet to begin

Plunger love its drivin me mad
Its makin me crazy
Plunger love its drivin me mad
Its makin me crazy

You treat me like I was a fetus
You shed my blood while it's warm
You let your cops rip up civilians
Just like you kill the unborn

You live in a world of illusion
Where everythings peaches and cream
We all face a clear-cut conclusion
It's *you* that deserves to get reamed.

Plunger love, etc.

Jim Walsh | May 18, 2007, 11:12pm | #

Such is the state of modern political discourse that the talking heads are now pretty much making it up as they go along. How did this happen, you ask. Simple: the money is in freakshows. Rational discourse is booooooooooring, bring on the freaks! Gotta have our bread and circuses, ya know...

Single Issue Voter | May 18, 2007, 11:16pm | #

"Leave it up to Guy Montag to buy into Malkin's bullshit."

The quoted statements appear to be Guy's not Malkins.

Dan REdmond | May 18, 2007, 11:17pm | #

i think by engaging with that weirdo he gave some sanction to the psychotic conspiracy theory. I'm a citizena and I would have stopped him about 3 seconds in and said- wait you don't believe the US knew anything about 9/11 and if he said they did I woud have punched him in the face.

Nasikabatrachus | May 18, 2007, 11:32pm | #

"Nasik,

Calling Malkin objectively pro-liberal, as I did with my Earl Warren comments, is much nastier (and truer) than any racial or sexual joke. Why would I have to pull a Coulter (and I presume Malkin has denounced Coulter's racist and sexist jokes, right?)."

I don't understand what you're asking. I wasn't referring to your comment-my point was that if she is worthy of insults, and I think she is, she is worthy of insults about her choices rather than biological accident.

Mike Espinoza | May 18, 2007, 11:38pm | #

"...it doesn't belong here."

"...Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans..."


So much for the "big tent" and the "arena of ideas".

Asharak | May 18, 2007, 11:39pm | #

The quoted statements appear to be Guy's not Malkins.

Yes, but he believes what she said.

And aren't you the same guy who thinks the Bush administration has been good for libertarians?

Asharak | May 18, 2007, 11:42pm | #

I are not racist! I only wants to stick my long, black, war-like stick into her brown, asiatic balloon-knot. Den we order chinese take-out. Kung-pao!

Hey, troll, how's the rest of Little Green Footballs doing?

JM | May 18, 2007, 11:44pm | #

I'm inclined to believe that he appears on this radio show simply because they ask him to be on and he is happy to listen to people who want to hear his ideas.

For good Paul news, according to the latest Zogby poll (May 16) in New Hampshire he is becoming more viable. Placing 4th in declared candidates at 3%. Romney has 35%, McCain 19%, and Giuliani has 19%. Undeclared Fred Thompson has 6%. The rest of the people who shared the stage with Paul and the big three are at 1% or less.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1302

It is also worth noting that Paul has been steadily rising since January. There is a lot of time for him to increase his support. I'm looking forward to seeing his numbers after the New Hampshire debate June 5th. Interestingly, Pat Buchanan just came out in support of Paul's foreign policy. In 1996 Buchanan won New Hampshire.

The View crew came out in support of his foreign policy as well. Buchanan and Rosie O'Donnell agreeing on something is a bit scary.

Terrorific | May 18, 2007, 11:51pm | #

I know this is a "free speech zone" and all, but somebody get rid of this racist/sexual stuff directed at Malkin. All it does is make her look good, and it waters down any good arguments being presented on here.

R. Totale | May 18, 2007, 11:53pm | #

uh, radley? jesse? dave? anyone? time for some ip blockin'.

Mad Max | May 18, 2007, 11:58pm | #

masik,

"I wasn't referring to your comment"

didn't say you were.

Nasikabatrachus | May 19, 2007, 12:09am | #

"nasik,

"I wasn't referring to your comment"

didn't say you were."

Sorry, Max, I didn't understand what you were saying.

Quiet_Desperation | May 19, 2007, 12:15am | #

>>> We haven't even got to the usual racial
>>> sexual insults Michelle provokes.

Oooo! Oooo! I volunteer!

*ahem*

I'd fuck Michelle. She'd love me long time.

There. How's that? Can I get Imus' old gig?

titus pullo | May 19, 2007, 12:19am | #

"The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time — the (inaudible) and the others come there — but it is the most faggy goddamn thing that you would ever imagine. The San Francisco crowd, it's just terrible. I can't even shake hands with anybody from San Francisco." — President Richard M. Nixon, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953


"The mood is reminiscent of high school. There's no end to the pee-pee and penis jokes, suggesting that these men, advanced in so many other ways, were emotionally arrested sometime during adolescence" — Philip Weiss, Spy Magazine journalist, who infiltrated the Grove in 1989.

The club, which holds two-week outings outside San Francisco at the Bohemian Grove, where members run about in the woods naked, includes many former Republican officials..."The New York Times

Mad Max | May 19, 2007, 12:22am | #

Nasik,

OK, let's try again: The real problem with Malkin is the policies she supports and the dubious polemical tactics she sometimes uses. I think that's what you said, too. If she raped a helpless prisoner with a plunger, I'd bring up her sexuality, but she didn't (that I know of). It was the NYPD which used the plunger, during Rudy's watch. I don't think Rudy can be personally blamed for this, but the guilt-by-assoiation techniques being used againt Paul can certainly be used to hang that plunger around Rudy's neck, and I think this ought to be done every time someone tries to do the guilt-by-association thing with Paul. Then the opinion formers can righteously call on "both sides" to "de-escalate the rhetoric."

TrickyVic | May 19, 2007, 1:45am | #

They are just pissed off because it only took 12 years for her side of the camp to blow it in Congress and their two term sucky president is not really a conservative. They are venting because they are lost and hopeless. Haven't you heard O'reily lately, the passage of the new immigration bill will be the end of the Republican party forever.

It's cheap shots by desperate people.

Deus | May 19, 2007, 2:04am | #

Weigel might want to look into deleting Interasian Porn's comments. No point giving the Malkin types more ammo to tar Paul with.

Ken Shultz | May 19, 2007, 2:26am | #

I don't spend much time listening to what campaigning politicians say, really, and I spend even less time listening to what hacks say about what some campaigning politician said.

I hardly listen at all to what people who get upset about what some hack said say about what some politician said. ...'cause it really, really doesn't matter.

I do think it's interesting, however, to see people get upset about what the people who got upset said say about what some hack said about what some politician said.

When you lay out some hackery for people to comment on and then throw your own cup of kerosene on the fire, what do you expect to get in the comments section? ...an exposition on Spinoza?

leftpondian | May 19, 2007, 2:34am | #

Looks like Malkin is trying to outstrip (sorry) Coulter as the biggest/baddest truth twister on the Right. It gets people's attention I guess, sells news, etc.

Stevo Darkly | May 19, 2007, 4:00am | #

Kind of an ugly thread here.

MPG | May 19, 2007, 5:57am | #

All the racial / sexual jokes are pretty nasty. They show just how low our political culture is getting. Still, it ought to be kept in mind that Malkin, along with Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and certain so-called conservative blogs such as Little Green Footballs, have contributed more than anyone to creating this climate. They spew insults left and right, but then cry like little children when insults are hurled at them.

Although they may not use as graphic language as has been used here, the sentiments they express are far more poisonous. As obnoxious as certain statements have been (I would have no real objections to their being deleted), they go nowhere near as far as the claim that a whole race of people should be interned.

Eric the .5b | May 19, 2007, 7:17am | #

I'm vaguely curious as to which of these posts are regular trolls posting under other screen names and which are Reds posting so they can make fun of the "liberaltarians".

(Incidentally, can we reture that word, now? It should be clear by now that any such alliance is a pipe dream...)

X-New Yawker | May 19, 2007, 8:04am | #

If Rudy wins the Republican Party nomination will he name Bernard Kerik as his running mate?

Eric the .5b | May 19, 2007, 8:20am | #

"Retire" that word, even.

| May 19, 2007, 8:20am | #

perhaps she just showed her true colors

Enough hurtful, hurtful words.

Tony | May 19, 2007, 8:28am | #

...the guilt-by-assoiation techniques being used againt Paul can certainly be used to hang that plunger around Rudy's neck...

Unfortunately, being pro-torture, I think Rudy would wear it proudly and the 28% would jump for joy about it. It can be considered an "enhanced interrogation technique". U.S. government plunger purchases would skyrocket.

Kevin Parker | May 19, 2007, 8:36am | #

Warning: Ron Paul is starting to edge out reason.com in web traffic. But both are currently far ahead of Rudy's site.

http://tinyurl.com/2xplmm
(the Alexa url was so long it painted outside the lines)

Barry | May 19, 2007, 8:49am | #

Ken Shultz:
"Who is this Michelle Malkin and why should I care about what she thinks?"

A person who'll be on Fox News 100x as much as any libertarian. A person who has helped to make the GOP what it is today (in her own little way).

A person who helps form public opinion, probably 10x as much as all of the writers for 'Reason' put together.

Fluffy | May 19, 2007, 9:37am | #

Look, there are things that I disagree with Malkin on that are just the result of sincere disagreement. For example, I think she sincerely believes the argument she constructed in favor of the Japanese internment, as insane as it is.

But there are times when it's obvious she is being deliberately deceptive. This is one of those times. It's an obvious deliberate lie and smear. Glenn Beck did something similar on his show, by claiming that Paul said nothing about his political career in response to the "ever make a life and death decision" question, and then producing an audio clip as evidence where he deliberately cut out the part of Paul's answer where he did in fact talk about his political decisions. There is no other way to take that than as a deliberate lie.

If Malkin and Beck are going to deliberately lie, they don't deserve courtesy or good will or honest discussion. They deserve "Good fuck yourself". So I am not going to cry any crocodile tears about things people post about poor Michelle Malkin.

Radley Balko | May 19, 2007, 9:50am | #

"Interasian Porn's" vile comments about Michelle Malkin have been deleted, and his IP address has been banned.

Anyone who makes similarly personal comments or attacks on Malkin will get the same treatment.

Guy Montag | May 19, 2007, 9:51am | #

Asharak,

Group leader Justin Martell buttonholed Paul and got him to admit that he 1) generally doesn't trust government accounts of things and 2) would sign on to a 9/11 investigation if Dennis Kucinich launched one. (He did question the Kennedy assassination: John Gibson, take notes!)

I was quoting David Weigel, clear as day. Scroll up to his post if you did not bother reading the whle thing.

Guy Montag | May 19, 2007, 9:55am | #

Ooops! Not quoting, I was commenting on what David wrote.

Fluffy | May 19, 2007, 9:55am | #

So Guy, what you're saying is that any point of agreement with Dennis Kucinich on any subject whatsoever constitutes proof of insanity?

We're going to have a problem, then, because I bet Kucinich likes sunny days. He appears to also like attractive women, based on the evidence of his new wife. I also read somewhere that he likes Chinese food. This saddens me, because I guess it means I'm crazy too.

Willy | May 19, 2007, 10:00am | #

Ron Paul is correct: US foreign policy was one of the reasons Middle Eastern terrorists attacked the US on 9/11.

On that morning in question I was on my way to work when a co-worker called with the news. At he telling of the second attach on WTC I commented, "Well, it better be terrorists." The alternative being a seriously flawed air traffic control. Or, finally broken.

That is, I recognized that US foreign policy was a basis for world-wide dislike of the US and fomenting something like the 9/11 attack.

Paul's comment was not news nor was it a 'blame 'merika first' slur.

Guy Montag | May 19, 2007, 10:09am | #

So Guy, what you're saying is that any point of agreement with Dennis Kucinich on any subject whatsoever constitutes proof of insanity?

No, but agreeing on that point that he revealed does, no telling what other crackpot stuff he agrees with my pick for the Democrat VP candidate.

Fluffy | May 19, 2007, 10:46am | #

What does it reveal?

Maybe it only reveals that Paul doesn't trust any investigation or commission that required the voluntary assistance of the Bush administration.

The behavior of the Bush administration in the Department of Justice scandal, and their weaselly approach to providing information to oversight committees, calls into question their performance elsewhere.

You don't have to think 9/11 was an inside job to think that every last subject "investigated" during the tenure of these rogues might need to be re-investigated after they leave. The morning of the next President's inauguration they should put police tape around the DoJ, the NSA, the FBI, and Langely and go through every document or computer file that's still left at that point.

Michelle Malkin | May 19, 2007, 10:46am | #

Thank you for defending my honor.

Verry Nothard | May 19, 2007, 11:29am | #

Proof of Libertarian power:

Why Ron Paul Will Be President


We're Number 9! We're Number 9!

Mad Max, | May 19, 2007, 11:36am | #

Verry,

The link you provided says:

"Ron Paul is the 2nd highest rated congressman by taxpayer advocates."

2d highest? Who's #1? Someone from the anarchist party? Or is it a mystery, like when Yoda says that Luke Skywalker is the galaxy's last hope, and the ghost of Obi Wan Kenobi says "no, there is another"? Who turns out to be Princess Leia?

tros | May 19, 2007, 12:06pm | #

also, tros: what the fuck happened to the self-transforming hippy love bug everyone should eat shrooms routine?

I just couldn't miss a chance to annoy Dave Weigel. And the concentration camps. I dare you to tell everyone that I am a racist and see if they believe you.

Mendelism | May 19, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Malkin responds:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007568.htm

Tim | May 19, 2007, 12:08pm | #

"Interasian Porn's" vile comments about Michelle Malkin have been deleted, and his IP address has been banned.

Anyone who makes similarly personal comments or attacks on Malkin will get the same treatment.


Balko, the comments were pretty disgusting, but is it really a good idea to start policing your commenters? You may run into that "line-drawing" problem you find in 1st Amendment issues.

Occasional Lurker | May 19, 2007, 12:11pm | #

I thought Interasian Porns comments were fucking hilarious. You can't possibly believe the guy was serious. There's like a Tipper Gore prude vive happening here. Christ, lighten up.

D.A. Ridgely | May 19, 2007, 12:12pm | #

Thank you for defending my honor.

"Remember, you're defending this woman's honor... which is more than she ever did." -- Groucho

Malkin, like most true believers, has a problem with truthiness. But the racist, sexist comments are beneath contempt. And, to steal once again from Groucho, you'd be amazed just how low my contempt can go.

VM | May 19, 2007, 12:17pm | #

Tim - it's Radley's blog. His rules. His lines.

Bravo, Radley!

D.A.R.: what you said! :)

Brainster | May 19, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Paul knows exactly what the 9-11 Deniers (I don't like the term Truthers) are about. He has appeared on Alex Jones' show often enough and this dance with fruitcake Justin Martell in the video is all about maintaining plausible deniability while giving a nod and a wink to the tinfoil hatters.

Fluffy | May 19, 2007, 12:31pm | #

Right, Brainster, because I'm sure it's really common for politicians approached by nutcases to not handle them with kid gloves.

I'm sure that it's really common for Congressmen to respond to constituent oddball inquiries by saying "You're a fucking nut, kid! Get some thorazine!" It happens all the time.

I just read Malkin's response, and it's pathetic. It doesn't matter what Alex Jones says on his radio show, and it doesn't matter what this dopey kid has to say on his website. The only thing that can make Ron Paul a 9/11 Truther is a direct statement by Ron Paul that he thinks the Bush administration was involved in setting up 9/11. Period.

Paul's statement about the Gulf of Tonkin incident isn't on point, sorry. The Bush administration has made no bones about upping the diplomatic ante about Iran, and pushes the "Iran is the sponsor of the Iraqi insurgency" angle every time it wants. It certainly doesn't require a vivid imagination to believe that under those circumstances the administration might not welcome a confrontation in the Shatt-al-Arab as an entre into taking military action it deems necessary and appropriate.

Occasional Lurker | May 19, 2007, 12:31pm | #

Anyone who makes similarly personal comments or attacks on Malkin will get the same treatment.

But the racist, sexist comments are beneath contempt.

Oh cmon. The guy was obviously being ironic and purposefully outrageous. I guess South Park must be the the most vilest and racist show on TV.

Why did his/her comments even merit a response? That you'd let some idiot troll get under your skin says alot more about you than it does about him.

One of the reasons YouTube is so popular is the completely uncensored, sometimes unintentionally hilarious commentary. I guess that'll be one of the last places you'll find it. Apparently it's not the case here.

Brainster | May 19, 2007, 12:59pm | #

If you want to see how a politician should handle these people, check out Barack Obama's response to Martell (this kid gets around!). Was Paul's response at the debate 9-11 Denial? I'd say no, it was more of a Ward Churchill, chickens coming home to roots moment. But is Paul well aware of the 9-11 nutbars and courting their support? Yep, but we're not going to let him get away with it. I debunk the 9-11 kooks every day of the year at Screw Loose Change, and I'm definitely to the point where my attitude is that I will make no distinction between the Deniers and those who harbor them.

plunge | May 19, 2007, 1:04pm | #

So in other words, Malkin makes the thinnest of retractions possible, while of course defending the overall lie about what Paul actually said despite the fact that the major prop she used to get there collapsed.

Par for the course.

David T | May 19, 2007, 1:06pm | #

I know others have made this point but it bears repeating: isn't it strange that some of the same people who denounce Ron Paul for supposedly saying that 9/11 was deserved payback for America doing Bad Things (which he didn't say) eulogize Jerry Falwell who definitely *did* say exactly that?!

Mad Max | May 19, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Are the squirrels back?

Mad Max | May 19, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Yes, only Tipper Gore could possibly want to delete racist comments from a thread dedicated to (dare I say it) reason.

As for Malkin's claims - nice attempt to invoke guilt-by-association. Can I blame you for abuses in the war on terror? You support the war, after all, so can I blame you for the abuses? Oh, yeah, you don't think there are any abuses, do you?

Dubious Intelect | May 19, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Some here seem to react as though Malkin operates mostly on intelectual honesty. I'm not familiar with Ms. Malkins early career and so perhaps she did at the beginning.

Of course, we must take her at face value and argue her points on their merit(or lack there of). So that part I understand.


Her response is expected. Her job is as a smear doctor. She throws the accusations out there to create doubt, and see what sticks. She mde a 'retraction that any media source can publish if they choose.' Of course, they won't. Or if they did, it wouldn't matter. The perceptions she wished to create are there.

The Fox story was great. There was Paul compared to and put in the same intellectual comapny as Rosie O'Donnel, 9/11 Conspiracists, 'Crazy' Democrats, all playing to their supposed 'conservative' audiance's visceral antipathy to such things.

Subliminal, Liminal and Super-liminal! "Hey you, don't listen to Ron Paul!"

Occasional Lurker | May 19, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Yes, only Tipper Gore could possibly want to delete racist comments from a thread dedicated to (dare I say it) reason.

Oh please, get off the high horse. I suppose you have telepathic powers that allow to see into people's hearts and determine wether they are racist or not.

A racist comment would be:
"Michelle Malkin? Who listens to what that gook bitch has say."

The guy was obviously(to me) attempting to be humorous in a sick way playing on your prudish sensibilities of race.

The comments should've been deleted because they distracted unecessarily from the discussion, not because they were 'vile' or 'racist.'

How about you just stop feeding the trools.

Occasional Lurker | May 19, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Trools

Goddamit! Trolls I mean . Eff you. >_

ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE | May 19, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Malkin learned well from Clinton how to speak out of both sides of her mouth.

Her post, summed up: "I was wrong, I take it back, but I still mean it."

I used to watch FOX more than any other news channel. How can I ever trust them again?

Brainster | May 19, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Actually if you read what Gibson and Malkin said carefully, neither of them directly said that Paul claimed Bush knew about 9-11 in advance. It is true that they associate him with the 9-11 kooks without quite directly saying that he endorses them, which (no coincidence) is exactly what Paul does himself.

And Malkin makes an excellent point that there really is no place in the Republican Party for a guy who says what Paul did on Alex Jones' show on 1-17-07:

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

Brian Defferding | May 19, 2007, 2:19pm | #

ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE: Very well put. She screwed up and now fumbling her words to make it not look so bad.

She calls Ron Paul's supporters "hysterical minions." What a smug and asinine statement.

Jesse Walker | May 19, 2007, 2:26pm | #

I'm vaguely curious as to which of these posts are regular trolls posting under other screen names and which are Reds posting so they can make fun of the "liberaltarians".

Well, before he was posting as "Interasian Porn," our now-banned commenter was calling himself "RealConservative" and posting pro-war comments. He had another screen name as well, which I've already forgotten.

So he was either a cross-dressing hawk or just a troll of many faces.

Asia Carrera | May 19, 2007, 2:27pm | #

So a guy that said more thorough investigations would be a good idea to see if these claims have any validity at all is a 'kook' who has no place in the Republican party?

Nowhere have I seen that Paul directly endorses these '9/11 Truther'beliefs. In every case, he seems to think further investigation would be a good idea, and his worst sin seems to be in keeping an open mind and believing that only more a more detailed investigation could adecuately answer these questions.

Mad Max | May 19, 2007, 2:37pm | #

"I suppose you have telepathic powers that allow to see into people's hearts and determine wether they are racist or not. . . .

"The guy was obviously(to me) attempting to be humorous in a sick way playing on your prudish sensibilities of race."

All right, then, I admit I don't have telepathic powers. Only you have that capability, in that you can read a troll's unexpressed intentions. And the troll also seems to have psychic powers, because [as you explain it] he could predict in advance that H&R readers and editors (all notorious prudes) would be upset by references to the sexual organs of Chinese women. Not that Malkin is Chinese, but all Asians are basically the same, right?

"A racist comment would be:
'Michelle Malkin? Who listens to what that [deleted] has [to] say.'"

What makes you assume that such a remark is racist? You can't read the mind of someone who makes such a comment, any more than you can read the mind of someone who discusses the sex organs of Chinese women.

"Actually if you read what Gibson and Malkin said carefully, neither of them directly said that Paul claimed Bush knew about 9-11 in advance."

Sure, I accept that explanation. Similarly, when Bill Clinton said that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monical Lewinsky, he was being technically accurate. It was just a coincidence that people *happened* to read inaccurate implications into that statement. So get off his back, already! I'm sure that Malkin would agree with me on this.

stopdrugwar | May 19, 2007, 2:45pm | #

I so pity anyone who has to monitor the lies and vile spewed by Gibson and Malkin.

Troll of Many Faces | May 19, 2007, 2:49pm | #

D:

TJIT | May 19, 2007, 2:54pm | #

If the 9-11 attacks were mainly driven by US foreign policy why was that bomb set off in the Bali nightclub. Why all the ongoing terror activity in Thailand?

Those countries have not have an expansive foreign policy driven along by a powerful military.

The Commerce Clause | May 19, 2007, 3:10pm | #

Verry Nothard,

I couldn't help but notice that in that thread you posted Eric Dondero launched his boilerplate pro-Rudy response.

That means I get to mention that Eric Dondero is such an egomaniac that he created his own wikipedia entry.

Tim | May 19, 2007, 3:12pm | #

Tim - it's Radley's blog. His rules. His lines.

Of course he can make any rule or delete any post he wants to. I'm just suggesting that at some point the offensive comment he doesn't delete may then get attributed to him or to Reason. Not a huge deal, but if you begin to screen posts then you begin to take ownership of them.

Francisco Torres | May 19, 2007, 3:12pm | #

If the 9-11 attacks were mainly driven by US foreign policy why was that bomb set off in the Bali nightclub. Why all the ongoing terror activity in Thailand?

What does one have to do with the other, in the first place? Your question is loaded.

jf | May 19, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Oops, I forgot to stop being The Commerce Clause.

tarran | May 19, 2007, 4:24pm | #

I believe the Bali nightclub bombing was aimed at the large number of Australian tourists who frequented the area.

Guess Australia's status in the "Coalition of the Willing"...

666 | May 19, 2007, 4:43pm | #

http://www.break.com/index/this-pastor-is-insane.html

tommy | May 19, 2007, 4:52pm | #

Wow! He told the truthers that he doesn't trust the government's account and would be willing to join up with Kucinich in getting to the bottom of things.

How could Malkin not take that as anything but an unequivocal refutation of truther nuts?

Beats me!

MPG | May 19, 2007, 4:55pm | #

Brainster:

"And Malkin makes an excellent point that there really is no place in the Republican Party for a guy who says what Paul did on Alex Jones' show on 1-17-07:"

Who appointed you der Kommisar of the Republican Party?

LittleGreenMedicineBall | May 19, 2007, 5:16pm | #

Ron paul is Bill Maher\'s new hero.

Jonathan Goff | May 19, 2007, 5:41pm | #

TJIT,
I know that trying to post a logical argument at the end of a thread like this may be a lost cause, and I should probably be working on writing my thesis, but I couldn't help but put in 2 cents regarding your question:

If the 9-11 attacks were mainly driven by US foreign policy why was that bomb set off in the Bali nightclub. Why all the ongoing terror activity in Thailand?

Those countries have not have an expansive foreign policy driven along by a powerful military.


A couple of points:
1. Your logic basically seems similar to someone saying "you claim that chain smoking causes lung cancer. I know some people who got lung cancer without chain smoking, therefore chain smoking can't possibly cause lung cancer". Isn't it possible that even though foreign adventurism might not be *the* one and only explanation for terrorism that it can be a major contributor?

2.In the case of Thailand, hasn't their military been directly intervening with their Muslim population?

3.In the case of Bali, weren't the resorts attacked there resorts frequented by Australians and Brits? Guess what. Both of those groups have had a hand in military intervention in Muslim lands.

4.Lastly, addressing Ron's original point, let me ask a different question. Do you think that the 9/11 attacks made the Anglosphere more likely to commit violent acts against Muslim nations? Do you think that it has increased the tolerance for things such as aggressive wars, torture, and civil liberties violations?

If their "foreign policy" has created an environment where extremism is more tolerated in our nations, why do you think that our actions in their nations can't possibly have done the same thing?

~Jon

Single Issue Voter | May 19, 2007, 5:49pm | #

Asharak,

"And aren't you the same guy who thinks the Bush administration has been good for libertarians?"

I seem to remember saying here that Republican judicial appointments were more libertarian than Democrat ones- as in some vs none. So yeah in that respect Bush has been good for libertarians.

brotherben | May 19, 2007, 5:53pm | #

I see 2 distinct camps here in south Alabam.
The folks that are hard right religious conservative repuglicans that believe Bush was sent from God and Hannity is the only trustworthy news source. And the folks on the hard left that typically vote dumocrat who think Bush is the antichrist and Rosie Odonnel is the voice of reason and are so distrustful of the corrupt govt that they believe 9/11 could have been an inside job by the CIA.
Regardless of the truth in Mr. Paul's statements, the loons are gonna believe what they want. We seem to have become too lazy too think for ourselves.

From where I sit, the "truthers" are far more common than most "thinkers" would care to realize.

Gary Goodman | May 19, 2007, 6:28pm | #

you know ...

Not all Americans were opposed to terrorism prior to Sept 11.
Some were in favor of more terrorism and catastrophic events.
(and not just Westboro Baptist and Falwell)
www.Takeoverworld.info/proterrorism.html

SixΣ | May 19, 2007, 6:29pm | #

A couple of points:
1. Your logic basically seems similar to someone saying "you claim that chain smoking causes lung cancer. I know some people who got lung cancer without chain smoking, therefore chain smoking can't possibly cause lung cancer". Isn't it possible that even though foreign adventurism might not be *the* one and only explanation for terrorism that it can be a major contributor?


First - your logic works perfectly well with scientific research, but does not work well when trying to reveal motiviations of groups.

For instance - if an animal rights group were profitting from cosmetic research on animals, one could arguably conclude they might not really care about animals at all.

Most would think it is ok to look at others' actions when trying to determine someone's motivations. Of course words said would be a part of that analysis; just responding to the logic itself.

Disclai