Conspiracy

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.

NEXT: Brits to Allow Human/Animal Combo Embryos

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

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

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

  3. She’s not that hot anyways.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. She’s not that hot anyways.

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

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Let’s knock off the sexual insults, please.

  11. 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.

  12. “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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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…

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

    hahahahahahahahah

  16. Good post! Thanks, Dave.

  17. 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.

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

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

    They haven’t changed much.

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

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

  22. 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.”

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

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

  25. “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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Frank-

    … They call themselves, “fair and unbalanced”, so that must be true…

    Slip of the fingers there? 🙂

  29. 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.

  30. “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!

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

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

  35. “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?

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.”)

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

  40. “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.

  41. 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?

  42. “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.

  43. 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

  44. Just a preview of upcoming news stories on Dr. Paul:

    Ron paul is anti-semitic and racist

    …and

    From here.

  45. 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.”

  46. “Korean War statement”

    I meant: “Korean War stalemate.”

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

  47. “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?

  48. “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.”

    Is it true dat chinks’ slit-holes are sideways?

  49. I want to stick my big, burnt plantain into Michelle Malkin’s horizontal vagin!

  50. “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

  51. 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.

  52. 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!

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

  54. 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!”

  55. It’s anything to keep the newscycle spinning. Next.

  56. 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.

  57. “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

  58. 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=

  59. 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.

    1. Hi. I’m from the future H&R, and you ain’t seen nothun’ yet!

    2. Gotta run. My flying car is double parked.

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. “Also, why does everyone who dislikes her make vile jokes about her physical appearance, and sometimes even her race?”

    Maybe because they are racist?

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

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

    only thing important to anyone in power at Fox.

  67. 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.

  68. 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…

  69. “Leave it up to Guy Montag to buy into Malkin’s bullshit.”

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

  70. 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.

  71. “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.

  72. “…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”.

  73. 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?

  74. 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?

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

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

  78. masik,

    “I wasn’t referring to your comment”

    didn’t say you were.

  79. “nasik,

    “I wasn’t referring to your comment”

    didn’t say you were.”

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

  80. >>> 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?

  81. “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

  82. 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.”

  83. 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.

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

  85. 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?

  86. 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.

  87. Kind of an ugly thread here.

  88. 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.

  89. 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…)

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

  91. “Retire” that word, even.

  92. perhaps she just showed her true colors

    Enough hurtful, hurtful words.

  93. …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.

  94. 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)

  95. 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.

  96. 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.

  97. “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.

  98. 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.

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

  100. 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.

  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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.

  104. Thank you for defending my honor.

  105. Proof of Libertarian power:

    Why Ron Paul Will Be President

    We’re Number 9! We’re Number 9!

  106. 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?

  107. 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.

  108. “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.

  109. 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.

  110. 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.

  111. Tim – it’s Radley’s blog. His rules. His lines.

    Bravo, Radley!

    D.A.R.: what you said! 🙂

  112. 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.

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

  115. 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.

  116. 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.

  117. 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?!

  118. Are the squirrels back?

  119. 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?

  120. 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!\”

  121. 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.

  122. Trools

    Goddamit! Trolls I mean . Eff you. >_

  123. 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?

  124. 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.

  125. 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.

  126. 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.

  127. 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.

  128. “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.

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

  130. D:

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. 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.

  134. 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.

  135. Oops, I forgot to stop being The Commerce Clause.

  136. 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”…

  137. 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!

  138. 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?

  139. Ron paul is Bill Maher\\\’s new hero.

  140. 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

  141. 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.

  142. 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.

  143. 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)
    http://www.Takeoverworld.info/proterrorism.html

  144. 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.

    Disclaimer – this doesn’t necessarily mean forgein policy wasn’t a contributing factor.

  145. I know this is a “free speech zone” and all, but somebody get rid of this racist/sexual stuff directed at Malkin.

    Agreed. This isn’t DU or Kos.

  146. Oops, I forgot to stop being The Commerce Clause…

    Hey! So jf is responsible for Congress’s massive expansion of legislative authority! Get him!

  147. I know this is a “free speech zone” and all, but somebody get rid of this racist/sexual stuff directed at Malkin.

    Agreed. This isn’t DU or Kos.

    Your mom is a free speech zone.

  148. This must be inside blog baseball. I don’t understand the importance or interest of any of it.

    I just read blogs hoping for a good line once in a while.

  149. This must be inside blog baseball. I don’t understand the importance or interest of any of it.

    The claim was made on the top-rated cable news channel and it could affect whether one of the GOP presidential candidates is allowed at future debates.

  150. We were attacked because we are the sole world power that might stand in the way of the Islamo-fascist fantasy of a reemergent Caliphate. This is what they say. We cannot exist in this world without a foreign policy. Do business with Saddam? We are supporting tryannical despots. Have sanctions against him? We are starving thousands of children. Invade and topple him? We are imperialist warmongers. There is no such thing as isolationism in the real world. I sympathize with the idea but allowing a large part of the world to descend further into a nightmarish dark ages will not make us safe.

  151. Bill –

    In countries like Egypt, Turkey and Algeria, we actively work to prevent “Islamist” parties from coming to power.

    Just as we did in Iran.

    We do this because we have invested in one party or one set of parties, and in the name of “stability” we feel we can’t afford to see another party take their place.

    Unfortunately, since nothing is forever, eventually one of the parties we have been trying to get stomped on will come to power. How do you think they will feel about us when they do? If we spent a decade or so providing material and intelligence support to prop up Tony Blair in office, when he finally kicked the bucket how popular do you think we would be in Britain?

    There was no structural geopolitical reason for the Islamist parties in Iran to hate us. The natural enemy of Iran is Russia. [Just like Turkey.] Iran is a natural ally of anyone who would act as a counterbalance to Russian influence. That’s how Britain got in there in the first place, in their limited way. The Islamists would have bought our weapons and sold us their oil the same as the Shah did. The reason they hated us is because fear of communism in Iran led us to help the Shah terrorize and stomp on everyone who might possibly challenge his rule in Iran, including the mullahs. After a couple decades of that, they were understandably displeased.

    Variations on that story have played out all over the Islamic world. Maybe it was necessary for us to do what they did during the period of superpower conflict. But the fact is that we did it. Add in our support for Israel, and you get the end result we currently have.

    Maybe we don’t need isolationism, but we might start by refraining from intervening in the domestic politics of other nations. I drank the Kool Aid in 2002 also, and told myself that the best way we could atone for the necessary evils we engaged in during the Cold War was to use our resources to bring liberal democracy to the Middle East. Our experiences since then have proven that Democratic Trotskyism is a recipe for disaster – so I’m out. And so are a lot of other people, and their number climbs by the day.

  152. Thanks for the thoughtful response, the cold war did indeed lead us to some unsavory alliances but I disagree the Islamists are incensed by the totalitarian ways of our allies. We helped the Islamists in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo. This wasn’t seen as beneficence but as a weakness to exploit. We were happy post cold-war to to allow the Islamists their state in Iran, Afghanistan, only when they turned their aggression towards us did we respond. Should we become like Sweden and Switzerland which proclaimed neutrality but sold goods and services to Nazi Germany? Would their neutrality have protected them had Germany won the war? By the way, a top Al Qaeda group issued a fatwa against the Dalai Lama a few weeks ago. What interventionist foreign policy do the Tibetan Buddhists ascribe to? I’m afraid our enemies are not so rational as you.

  153. What interventionist foreign policy do the Tibetan Buddhists ascribe to?

    Failing to convert to Islam, of course.

    Kist like failing to sign Kioto (if there is an R behind your name*) makes you “anti-environment”.

    *Ds don’t have to sign as they are all about love and mother earth.

  154. “What interventionist foreign policy do the Tibetan Buddhists ascribe to?”

    Hell they probably supported the Shah in 1953 as well. If so , by Rep Ron Paul’s figurin’ they have it coming too.

  155. I appreciate that sexual/racist attacks on Malkin are out of line, and I fully support Hit & Run’s right to do as it pleases with commenters and comments in its own forum…

    …but I still say that if you chum up the waters with lots of meaty bits and blood, you shouldn’t be surprised when the sharks show up.

    Even the former Hit & Runner In Charge of Bopping Commenters on the Head, earlier this week, speculated, in a humorous way, about the sexual adventures he might have had with Ms. Partisan if only things had gone differently. The lady invites controversy. …on purpose.

    Linking to her stuff and expecting people to behave cordially is like giving a bunch of drunks all the beer they can drink and then gettin’ upset ’cause they got too rowdy.

    You made this bed. …and the closer we get to the election, the worse it’s going to get.

  156. 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.

    Bullshit.

    And I suppose the continuation of the War on Drugs (while stupidly linking drug use to supporting terrorism), steel tariffs, the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind have been good for libertarians as well.

  157. It’s worth pointing out that Dr. Paul is an actual conservative, not a conservative-lite after the model of other Republicans, or a hermaphroditic left-Republican like Giuliani.

    Dr. Paul sponsored H.R. 1094, which would get the federal courts out of the business of hearing abortion cases. What, in contrast, have other Republicans done during the 12 years they controlled Congress in order to address the abortion problem? They banned one rare procedure, justifying the ban by reference to the Supreme Court’s criteria in Roe v. Wade. Oh yeah, that should put a dent in the culture of death!

  158. “Bullshit.”

    Janice Rogers Brown

    Name any Clinton judicial appointee who could be even remotely considered “libertarian”.

    The rest of your comment is a non sequitor.
    Bush supports progressive Democrat style policies -no suprise- that is why I never voted for him.

  159. Janice Rogers Brown

    Name any Clinton judicial appointee who could be even remotely considered “libertarian”.

    The rest of your comment is a non sequitor.
    Bush supports progressive Democrat style policies -no suprise- that is why I never voted for him.

    I had you pegged as a Bush supporter, so I apologize.

    But just because Clinton was horrible on civil liberties doesn’t mean that Bush is any better on them, regardless of who he appointed.

    And get back to the subject, I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says myself, but I think it’s hypocritical for Republicans to take him to task for blaming America for 9/11 and giving lip service to conspiracy theories when some of them have done the same thing themselves.

  160. “And *to*”, sorry.

  161. I for one believe that the bush administration had knowledge of or orchestrated 911. I said it then and I say it now.
    A “wartime” president needs a “wartime” precident to act upon. Making war USED TO BE the republican party’s method of economic development. As any fool can see, it is no more.

  162. I for one believe that the bush administration had knowledge of or orchestrated 911. I said it then and I say it now.
    A “wartime” president needs a “wartime” precident to act upon. Making war USED TO BE the republican party’s method of economic development. As any fool can see, it is no more.

    …and I get banned. >_>

  163. Single Issue Voter –

    It depends on what area of liberty you’re talking about.

    If we’re talking about economics, I don’t think the judicial nominees of either major party will magically begin interpreting the Constitution in a libertarian way. The interstate commerce clause will still be abused in the same old way. And the attempt to climb a chain of precedents in takings law was stopped butt cold. The courts are a dead end for libertarian economics.

    That leaves non-economic civil liberties, and I don’t think we can trust Republican judicial appointees on civil liberties now or in the future. The Republican party is only too happy to cooperate in a “Regent University” style rollback of just about everything that came out of the Warren court. Even the good stuff. When you get right down to it the Republican party mainstream finds the 1st and 4th Amendments to be inconveniences.

  164. I for one believe that the bush administration had knowledge of or orchestrated 911.

    I, for one, believe that you have left the shore of reason or that Bush is a diabolical genius on par with OJ Simpson.

  165. 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?

    Uhhh, Bali is in Indonesia not Thailand. And the group behind it (Jemaah Islamiyah) was has been fighting to overthrow their government for some time now. They also blame Australia for the loss of East Timor in addition to them supporting the Iraq War.

  166. Bill,
    Just because AQ issued a fatwa against someone without an interventionist foreign policy doesn’t disprove the idea that an interventionist foreign policy created an environment where 9/11 was more likely to happen. Interventionist foreign policy isn’t the only explanation of terrorism, and I’ve never suggested it was. I doubt Ron Paul has either. Do you seriously doubt that our actions in other countries have consequences?

    You probably get mad at injustices you see being carried out by terrorists and dictators, and it makes it easier for you to support aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. Why do you think that other people don’t have the same feelings when they see what they view as injustice on our part?

    I’m not in any way saying that those actions of ours in any way justified AQs actions against the innocents killed on 9/11 or at other times. What I’m saying, and what I think Ron Paul was trying to say was that these actions have real consequences, and one of them is that it pisses people off about us, and when people are pissed off, they’re more likely to either support or at least turn a blind eye toward the actions of those who oppose us.

    Foreign intervention comes at a real cost, and helping make it easier for terrorists to win support from people who might otherwise not be predisposed to help them is one of those costs.

    ~Jon

  167. The censoring of offensive comments brings up and interesting tension between the social libertarian sensibility of ‘let a thousand (durian) flowers bloom’ and the right of private presses to print, and censor, what they please. I think Reason generally does a good job of balancing between these poles; in fact they allow all kinds of material that certain sectors of society would deem outrageously offensive: you find a great deal of scatalogical comments and humor here directed towards religion (even in some cases, religious figures) for just one example. I don’t know what their exact policy is regarding censorship, but it seems like they only censor racist and sexually demeaning comments directed primarily towards women in public life. Not sure if they are as protective of male public figures.

    Any comments on this Radley?

  168. I for one believe that the bush administration had knowledge of or orchestrated 911.

    WTF? You can’t even keep your buddy in the next cubicle’s raise a secret, everybody knows who your brother-in-law is sleeping with and you expect me to believe that somehow GWB was able to orchestrate thousands of people to pull off blowing up two, not just one, but two really tall buildings and half the Pentagon and not one single person blabbed off about it?

    There’s this guy named Occam….and he’s usually right.

  169. ….but it seems like they only censor racist and sexually demeaning comments directed primarily towards women in public life

    I know, man. I was just getting ready to call her a slut. Now, I will refrain.

  170. ## I for one believe that the bush
    ## administration had knowledge of or
    ## orchestrated 911.

    # WTF? You can’t even keep your buddy
    # in the next cubicle’s raise a secret,
    # everybody knows who your brother-in-law
    # is sleeping with and you expect me to
    # believe that somehow GWB was able to
    # orchestrate thousands of people to pull off
    # blowing up two, not just one, but two really
    # tall buildings and half the Pentagon and not
    # one single person blabbed off about it?

    I don’t find this dismissal persuasive. The fact is that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of significant things you don’t know about what government is doing or has done in the past several decades, precisely because people are good at keeping secrets, or making arrangements to ensure that secrets are kept. Maybe some of those things will dribble out into the press months or years after the fact — but maybe not for decades, and perhaps only after their disclosure no longer makes a difference. THAT’s as long as a secret needs to be kept, and no longer.

    We now know that the Nazis themselves burned the German parliament building, and blamed the Communists. But people in Germany didn’t begin to have a VERIFIABLE inkling of it until many years afterward, long after Hitler had consolidated his power and enmired his country in a terrible war. So it is not only possible, but demonstrated by this and other examples, that significant political secrets can be kept for many years. Whether there is such a secret related to the 9/11 attacks is, as yet, unknown. But we haven’t even waited a decade; it took longer for the truth of the Nazi duplicity to come out. Surely, if there are secrets to be kept, “our guys” can do better than the Nazis!

    Occam’s razor requires that we prefer the simpler of two theories that BOTH explain all the known facts. So, does the theory YOU prefer explain all the known facts? Does the “inside job” theory? Maybe neither one is sufficient.

  171. I wonder what this Occam guy thinks of Ron Paul’s slim chances.

  172. We now know that the Nazis themselves burned the German parliament building, and blamed the Communists. But people in Germany didn’t begin to have a VERIFIABLE inkling of it until many years afterward, long after Hitler had consolidated his power and enmired his country in a terrible war.

    Acutally we don’t know for sure who burned the Reichstag and probably never will. While some claim it was the Nazi themselves, the primary evidence for that view comes from a Communist-affiliated show trial. Most maintream historians believe that it was the act of one lone nutcase.

    The point being that politicians don’t necessarily have to initiate events to take advantage of them. For what it’s worth, if Bush or Cheney were really behind 9/11 I’d assume they’d try to directly implicate Saddam Hussein.

  173. “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.”

    glad to see your brain is turning into forest undergrowth.

    hey, is it a coincidence that mckenna AND leary kick it from brain cancers?

    hmmmmm.

  174. in my experience, contra many points in this thread, most truthers didn’t come from the left. they were already anti-gov’t rightish or otherwise politically disengaged.

  175. I appreciate Ms. Malkin and Mssrs. Johnson and Sullivan, et al for their support of all that is not left wing nutroots, Kos or otherwise donkey party. They have been bastions of fending off the government and represent something many of us have wanted for a long time, a voice.

    However, having spent so much energy fending off the idiocies of the left wing for so long, their bylines have begun to stray from that party line to something more of an overt offfense of that which their voice sought to defend. That is, they tend to be taking on some rabid aspects of the left wing. They’re struggling to find a candidate to defend and as a result are attacking those who would most benefit their goals.

    They’ve lost sight of enjoying the prolonged campaign season and are fighting like the election is tomorrow. There’s more to lose over the next eighteen months, don’t throw it away today.

  176. Two thoughts and I have to work today hard to follow up:
    1) There are plenty of anti tax, conservative type truth outers in Northern Nevada where I am. Most have a populist economic outlook-xenophobic on immigration, outsourcing, trade balances, etc. Most are quite fanatic. They might even say–the planes were a hologram! (The most extreme truth out I can think of) and if you don’t believe it, then you’re a fool.
    2. I recommend Pat Buchanon (speaking of xenophobia) for his book “A Republic, not an Empire”. A non interventionist foreign policy to me means we will work with Europe to keep the free PASSAGE OF OIL through the Straits of Hormuz open. However, we will not manipulate domestic politics through violence or even massive amounts of NGO money to influence who these countries are ruled by or trade with.
    If the price of ME oil goes up, so be it.
    We have the resources to then look for alternatives. The economy can adjust to oil price increases, especially if they are gradual. Libertarians should not be subsidizing the price of oil with political interventions.

  177. I’d like to recommend the book Profits of War from Ari Ben-Menashe. It’s not merely about “routine” corruption and war profiteering, like Halliburton or Buckeye Steel (run by Samuel Bush who sold weapons to the Kaiser), but about clandestine networks of weapons sales that reach to the highest levels of govt, sometimes working opposite of official policy.

    Ari is working for a branch of Mossad, extenal services or something. In one chapter, he flies to Guatemala to pick up $56 million from a Saudi Ambassador but his superiors tell him it’s CIA money not Saudi money, Saudis doing a favor, and “don’t ask questions” meaning it’s narco money he is laundering. From there he flies to Miami where he meets Robert Gates, deposits $4 M in Phoenix, then to Switzerland where the remainder is deposited in an Iranian account to buy overpriced weapons from Israel, to fight Iraq, some of which are US weapons. And during this period, other US officials are selling arms to Iraq, including nuclear material, via German and French channels.

    PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY and confusion is the name of the game.

    One section of the book is about his direct observance of McFarlane, Casey, and Bush dealing with Iranian leaders, apparently behind Carter’s back. The chapter I’m on now is about attempts to set up a 2nd Israel ‘channel’ for arms dealing which Peres’ Labor people were arranging with Ollie North. On this operation, Guiliani was involved as prosecutor in this “sting” to knock out the Likud-based channel by burning some lower-level arms dealers. North wanted to “look good”.

    Say what you like but Ben Menashe was facing long prison time until he came up with paperwork which vindicated his position with other US officials.

    I guess, nothing is what it seems on the surface. There’s politics, then there’s the deals and the gangsterism. That’s why “allies” and “enemies” can shift in a heartbeat.

  178. To: Saddama yo Mama | May 20, 2007, 12:43pm

    Wow, man that was beautiful. (dabs tear from left eye)

    Just because I support Ron Paul and agree with his blowback view of US foreign policy does not mean I accept every single batshit crazy theory that involves halftruths, untruths, irrelevant facts, coincidences and distortions of history.

  179. Deus,

    you said

    Uhhh, Bali is in Indonesia not Thailand. And the group behind it (Jemaah Islamiyah) was has been fighting to overthrow their government for some time now. They also blame Australia for the loss of East Timor in addition to them supporting the Iraq War.

    Uhhh, if you followed international news or knew people who lived in Thailand you would know that there is a heavy amount of terror activity in Thailand, around 2,200 people have been killed in the past three years.

    Might pay to improve your knowledge of international events before you decide to give geography lessons.

  180. Jonathan Goff,

    Thanks for your civil reply. Lets go to tape and look at what Bin Laden had to say about things.

    What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan?

    I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia.
    We warned Australia before not to join in [the war] in Afghanistan, and [against] its despicable effort to separate East Timor.

    It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali.

    First, unless I am mistaken Germany and France have not been active in Iraq.

    Second, according to Bin Laden he was unhappy about Australia’s efforts to help gain independence for East Timor and get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    What is interesting about this statement is that the efforts to gain independence for East Timor were for the most part entirely diplomatic and economic.

    It is clear US foreign policy has been used to justify terror activities. It is also clear that humanitarian activities, activities that were widely endorsed by the international community, have been used to justify terrorism.

    So maybe US foreign policy is a convenient excuse for activities that would have occurred even if the US had been isolationist.

    How do you deal with someone who blows up nightclubs in Bali, to kill Australian civilians, because the Australian government helped win independence for East Timor?

  181. Here is Ron Paul speaking in Austin yesterday. Pretty good turn out and video.
    Part 1

    Part 2

    Not sure if there is a part 3.

    I’m still kicking myself for telling my friend I would take him to the gun show here in Houston and having him bail at the last minute instead of just going to see Paul speak in Brenham. After that Paul drove to Austin for the fund raiser in the films I shared.

    Anyhow I just donated $25 to Paul’s campaign and bought $20 in buttons and magnets to give out to friends. If I had more cash I would have given more but I’m on a budget.

  182. If you look through the sexist, racist comments about Malkin, you’ll notice that none of them are posted by any of the regulars.

    This happens on liberal blogs, too. Freepers descend on any threat that criticizes Malkin, post racist and sexist slurs about her, and then point to them as evidence of the racism and sexism of her critics.

    And, of course, people who really, really want to see liberals (or, in this case, libertarians) as bad guys swallow the act hook, line, and sinker.

    Like Single Issue Voter, above.

  183. 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.

    In the words you quoted he believes that it is our own fault that they made and executed plans to attack us.

  184. “In the words you quoted he believes that it is our own fault that they made and executed plans to attack us.”

    I don’t believe 9/11 would have ever happened if it weren’t for our meddling foreign policy. Can you really believe they attacked us because they’re jealous of us?

  185. Can you really believe they attacked us because they’re jealous of us?

    I suspect that is the wrong emotion. I don’t think their pirates were attacking our merchant ships and enslaving our citizens during the time of Jefferson because they were “jealous” then either.

  186. “I don’t think their pirates were attacking our merchant ships and enslaving our citizens during the time of Jefferson because they were “jealous” then either.”

    They were doing it out of plunder. 9/11 had nothing to do with plunder. It was their way of telling us to get out. What they did was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that we didn’t provoke it. Nor does it mean we shouldn’t go after the perpetrators. This is the same position Ron Paul takes, but Michele Malkin has chosen to demonize him, probably because she knows his position has merit, so she chooses to set up a strawman.

  187. They were doing it out of plunder. 9/11 had nothing to do with plunder. It was their way of telling us to get out. What they did was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that we didn’t provoke it. Nor does it mean we shouldn’t go after the perpetrators. This is the same position Ron Paul takes, but Michele Malkin has chosen to demonize him, probably because she knows his position has merit, so she chooses to set up a strawman.

    Is it your contention that their stated justification, under religous grounds, during Jefferson’s time was just a smokescreen for “plunder” and that their same claimes now are just some confusion in language? Or are you just unaware of both?

  188. distortions?
    of history?

    Anyhow, there exists a newspaper story in which a former President of Indonesia stated that the terrorist network in his country has ‘links’ to Indonesian Intelligence. That’s what he said.

    “According to former Indonesian President Wahid, Indonesian intelligence (BIN) played a central role in the 2002 Bali Bombing”
    google indonesia president bali bombing intelligence

    Anyone familiar with the coup in the 60’s with the murder of btw 1 to 3 million Indonesians, knows it was “supported” if not led by the USG and the CIA — similar to Kermit Roosevelt and Mossadegh and Arbenz in Guatemala.

    Chilean liberal and leftist middle class reported being warned by right wingnuts that “Jakarta was coming to Santiago next”. Then Nixon and the CIA crushed Allende’s govt and installed Pinochet’s bloody reign.

    Right-wing Wahabbis were installed in Indonesia and the Left Wing socialists were ousted and killed. Now they murder Christians. American corporate foreign policy has a love affair with right wing regimes, whether it’s Latin American Nazis (some with Third Reich vintage) or Wahabbi types / Islamic fundamentalists. So long as they help Globalization — or create a casus belli.

    Indonesian Intell is obviously closely linked with the CIA. Actually all governmental global intell is linked with the CIA, if you look into it. It’s like a giant multinational Intelligence CORPORATION. Nugan-Hand bank and BCCI (Bank of Al-Qaeda) were both CIA creations. So is ISI. Mossad is a partner. MI-5/6. Nazi SS had close ties. Even KGB and CIA used to drink together on location, so I read. Walmart now hires ex-CIA and FBI for private contract work. A hundred years ago it was the Pinkertons — who later morphed into the FBI.

    This process is no big mystery.

    Some people are hypnotized by their 7th grade books on Government. Three branches. Balance of powers. Yada, yada. It’s a nice theory, seriously. That and the fiction called corporate “News”, the “free press”.

  189. Guy, do you really believe our bombing of Iraq, our sanctions that killed possibly hundreds of thousands of infants and children, our support for an oppressive Israili government, our overthrow of a ligitimately elected regime in Iran and the installation of a tyranical puppet regime all have nothing to do with the hatred of Middle Easterners for America? I predicted during Desert Storm that it would relult in a major terrorist act on American soil that would kill thousands of Americans.

  190. In response to Jake, I don’t disagree with your assertions if those questions are directed to me. Not mutually exclusive, IMO.

    I just found more minor points:

    MSM News Headlines listed by some blogger named Freedomfiles:
    Intelligence Warnings:

    Taiwan Tipped off in Advance of Attack (14 Oct)
    US asked Taiwan to Keep Attack Warning Secret (15 Oct)
    Confirmation: US Wanted Attack Knowledge Kept Secret (15 Oct)
    CIA warned of attack 14 days before (16 Oct)
    UK Admits It Knew of Terrorist Threat to Bali (18 Oct)
    The lost warning (18 Oct)
    US Citizens warned to Stay away from Bars.

    Spain claims warning over Indonesian terror cell went unheeded (21 Oct)
    UK warns of fresh Indonesian threat (22 Oct)

    Denials of Warnings

    BBC – CIA ‘not forewarned of Bali attack’ (16 Oct)
    BBC – The UK Had no Terror Warning (18 Oct)
    Downing Street rejects Bali Bomb claims (19 Oct)

    [Kuomintang legislative leader Lee Chuan-chiao pointed out that the incident had exposed the DPP government’s poor crisis management skills, particularly in view of the Executive Yuan’s claim that it had, last Friday, obtained intelligence on a possible terrorist attack in a southeast Asian Muslim country.

    According to Lee, the worst part is that the government did not issue a warning because the United States government asked it not to disclose the information.

    “The KMT’s priority is the safety of our people – not America’s national interests.” He also called on the government to establish an anti-terrorism crisis management team.]

    Comment on website:
    What was interesting is the CIA was very angry with Indonesian authorities, and outright told them that terror attacks would occur if they didn’t cooperate. What we see is new anti-terrorism legislation being slammed through the Indonesian parliament, similar to the US Patriot law, by using the Bali “terrorist” attacks which cost the lives of hundreds of innocents.

    Meanwhile, the government came up with various suspects, one of whom even got his own press conference. I’ve rarely seen terrorists, under arrest, being given the privilege to give a press conference.

    And Jamaat Islamiya, the terrorist organisation supposedly behind the Bali attacks ?

    According to the US government, this organisation was founded in the early nineties, as a “sister organisation” of Al Qaeda.

    According to regular historical documents, Jamaat Islamiya was founded in 1978, and has close links to the Indonesian military (same goes for Laskar Jihad, which was disbanded on the day of the Bali bombing).

    These organisations were used to reinforce the power of the Indonesian army, and this time it’s used to facilitate renewed cooperation between the US, Indonesian and Australian military forces under the guise of terrorism.

    The attacks furthermore gives the U.S. “credibility” claiming that Indonesia is becoming a base of operations for terrorists.

    The main strategic goal is to open military bases in Indonesia, in order to provide the sphere of influence of the United States, and to contain China by increasing US presence in Asia.

    The Bali attack was just another step in US Foreign Policy, combined with interests of regional partners.

    ——
    whatever you think of this subjective conclusion, the news articles DO exist
    It’s also interesting how Brzezinski’s “Zone of Percolating Violence” in “Southern Eurasia” from The Grand Chessboard just coincidentally happens to correspond to the entire Middle East and African oil region.

  191. So much for the “big tent” and the “arena of ideas”.

    Silly rabbit! Big tents are for pro-choicers. Not for those who support traditional Republican principles.

  192. I’m shocked, shocked that Michelle Malkin is a liar.

    Oh wait, no. Just the opposite.

  193. Bravo to Radley Balko for deleting the comments that were deliberately racist and sexist and, frankly, weren’t all that hilarious. Or orginal. Or entertaining. (That last might in fact have been the greatest offense. Certainly H&R isn’t averse to off-color comments if they are actually funny. But they can also be tiresome and, in this case, predictable.)

    Let us not forget that David Weigel asked, early on, “Let’s knock off the sexual insults, please.”

    He even said, “Please.”

    So somebody decided to deliberately poke at that established boundary.

    I can even sympathize with that contrarian impulse. But …

    The finger that deliberately decides to poke, and poke, and poke, after being politely asked not to, shouldn’t feel too surprised or outraged if it eventually gets nipped.

  194. Funny, Paul does nothing to dissuade these clowns, his silence on the matter is deafening.

    Let’s say I walk up to someone and state “George Bush personally trained the 9/11 hijackers on his Crawford ranch”. Are there some like Rosie O’Donnell or Barbra Streisand who would like to believe that? Sure.

    If you listened and seemed to agree, and did absolutely nothing to dissuade me from that position than you are a total fool and are guilty of agreement by your silence.

    Paul is typical of most current LP members in his glaring lack of political skill. And this man wants to be President when he can’t even handle some geeky college student in his dad’s old suit?

  195. The finger that deliberately decides to poke, and poke, and poke, after being politely asked not to, shouldn\’t feel too surprised or outraged if it eventually gets nipped.

    Either we have an uncensored comment section, or we don\’t. Which one is it?

    And I poke YOU in the nips! nips? oh no! racist comment!

  196. she should retract that claim during her next Fox News appearance.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.