Posted on 07/13/2007 9:28:10 AM PDT by bnelson44
From the substance of the conversation to the venue in which it occurred, there are no surprises here. This isn’t the first time the Only Man Who Can Save America has floated the Gulf of Tonkin scenario; in fact, he’s done it on the floor of the House. And lord knows it isn’t the first time he’s dialed in to Alex Jones’s show to swap conspiracy theories. In fact, it seems to be a regular gig. So after all the argument about whether he himself is a Truther or just patronizes Truthers, we arrive at the, er, truth: he doesn’t think 9/11 was an inside job but he thinks the next one might be.
Audio at link
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I use “Paulettes,” or “Paul-zis”
Ron Paul is clearly insane.
Does anybody hear still give a pin what Ron Paul thinks?
To be completely correct, no he wasn't advancing "a ... theory of his own" on this particular occasion.
King Kook Alex Jones asked him about CINDY SHEEHAN's recent theory that the Neocons are apt to set off a staged terror attack, impose martial law and attack Iran, etc. Paul responded affirmatively, that we are in "great danger" of what Sheehan is predicting.
So, again, "all" Paul did was to emphatically agree with one of Cindy Sheehan's nuttiest and most paranoid rants.
Ideally, it would be white with pink spotting.
I prefer the term Paulbearers.
*!Hysterical!*
Yeah, if only HTML didn't have such limitations!
Maybe I can get it done with Photoshop. I’m gonna back-burner that one.
Ron Paul: The GOP’s answer to Dennis Kucinich.
You've fallen for a myth. The help that the U.S. gave was EXTREMELY minimal. Next to nothing. It was almost entirely a British operation. Yes, Eisenhower did agree to it, but only after repeated hectoring from Churchill. The United States would have been satisfied for the Mosaddeq government to remain in power because, after all, the only connections the Americans had in country were within the government. The Brits were the only ones with connections to opposition forces. The Brits were also the ones with an economic interest, the Iranians having nationalized their oil fields. The Americans had no oil contracts (although that would come later).
The Brits also controlled (had on their payroll) Mullahs who were able to put protesters on the street. The only job the Brits gave to the CIA was to hand out some money and maybe equipment (e.g. radio transmitters) to some of the opposition forces. But the CIA only ever dispersed a small fraction of the cash. (About $30,000 of about $300,000 IIRC.) The reason was that after several days of protests the CIA team became convinced that the coup had failed and shut down their operations.
The notion that the United States played a significant role in all this came from two sources. One was the self-aggrandizing tales of daring do circulated by one of the CIA operatives in Iran, one Kermit Roosevelt. Kermit was full of crap. The other source was the CIA bureaucracy later playing up Iran as an example of a successful operation in the wake of The Bay of Pigs, when Congress was grilling them and many were asking, "so what the hell have you done right?" But this was also bullshit.
For more info see Amir Taheri's book about the American Embassy in Iran, Nest of Spies.
The license plate number is quite fitting as well.
Don't think I said 'significant' anywhere in my post did I? However as the 'leader of the free world' after WWII, guess where the buck stops?
The other source was the CIA bureaucracy later playing up Iran as an example of a successful operation in the wake of The Bay of Pigs, when Congress was grilling them and many were asking, "so what the hell have you done right?" But this was also bullshit.
Very well may have been. But if this is played up in the 60s, how were the Iranians to know the difference? Who they blamed, and what actually may have happened, are sometimes two different things aren't they?
So 50+ years after the facts we know the truth. That's all well and good. But did the Iranians of the early 70s have the intelligence to know the difference? Which is going to get more cover time for a cause in the late 1970s? Attacking the nation that caused the most (according to you) or the nation that was involved that is the most prominent? Human nature is going to tell you they're going after the most prominent nation for their involvement.
Why would anyone photoshop Howdie Doodie into that picture? What have they got against him?
I made no anti-Semitic suggestions of any kind. I did suggest that conspiracy theorists are anti-Semites, because that is generally what they are.
Even the ones who like to boast online about their purported advanced degrees in history.
This is the whole problem, and the reason revolutionary Iran attacked us (and the reason any totalitarian, absolutist, extremist government would be and frequently have been inclined to do likewise).
You here palpably demonstrate your failure to "get it". You put 'leader of the free world' in disdainful quotes and pretend that the reason is really some set of specific and particular transgressions on our part. It's not. It IS because we're the leader of the Free World. And indeed it would be so regardless of how, or even to a large extent IF, we exercised that leadership. So long as America were still the outstanding EXAMPLE of the modern, liberal state, which even you isolationists wish us to remain, we would be their enemy simply because of that fact.
From Nazism to Communism and now to Islamofascism, the very nature of the totalitarian ideology is to oppose modern liberalism, and to do so aggressively and with the aim of destroying it.
(Hopefully it's obvious, but by "liberal" and "liberalism" and do not here mean the antonyms to "conservative" and "conservatism". Instead I use the term as it was used prior to the 1950s, to refer to what used to be called "Western Liberalism" before it went global. This means the general package of ideas regarding the proper governance of the free and orderly society that developed in the Western world from the beginning of the modern era up through the 19th Century and beyond, including elements such as markets, individualism, limited government and the rule of law, individual rights and freedom of conscious, and so forth.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.