There may well be other news in the world right now, but I want to follow up on the Ron Paul-Michelle Malkin kerfuffle. In our last exciting episode, Malkin triaged her attacks on Paul and built a new case that he might be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on a web post by the group that confronted him after a house party.
In regards to Rep. Ron Paul, he states twice in the Student Scholars video that he believes that the first 9/11 investigation was one in which there many "cover-ups." Paul also claimed he "never automatically believes anything the government does when they do an investigation." Additionally, he has been on the Alex Jones show several times. Ron Paul knows very well that something is very wrong with the official explanation of 9/1l. 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.
I repeat: This has no place on the GOP presidential debate stage.
Since I am a journalist, I asked Justin Martell (the leader of Student Scholars, who quizzed Paul) about this statement. He responds:
In regards to the article that I wrote that Malkin cites, where I stated that candidates cannot look into our camera's and proclaim "9/11 was a self inflicted wound," it has been taken out of context. You must understand the position I am writing from. Many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or 9/11 Wingnuts as some have so eloquently described them, won't give anyone the time of day unless they fully commit to the "inside job" standpoint, and that article was in response to many emails I had received from supposed supporters telling me that I should have been more aggressive and that if a candidate won't go on the record and say 9/11 was an inside job, then "to hell with them." And I was merely responding to those people, and trying to tell them that just because a candidate does not share their exact views about 9/11 does not mean he or she should not be supported.
This onion is pretty much peeled. Paul does not think there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, has said so, and has persuaded Martell that he thinks so. But Martell and other members of Student Scholars like the way he answered their questions and he/they encourage 9/11 truthers to support Paul (or Dennis Kucinich). If anyone thinks that failing to kick 9/11 truthers out of your event is or having some 9/11 truthers support your campaign is grounds for being kept out of the debates, I guess he/she can argue that.
In fairness, I admit that the LGF poll Malkin links to is pretty sweet.