Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ron Paul: Beware of government staged terrorist event
Posted by: McQ on Friday, July 13, 2007

No, seriously:
Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.
I can't imagine a more sure way to ensure a) impeachment and b) the end to any involvement in Iraq immediately than to attempt to stage a terrorist attack in the US "to revive flagging support".

But then there are plenty who believe that's how we got into this mess, to include, some would say, Rep. Paul.

And now we pause for a comment or two from those who will be sure to say, "I wouldn't put anything past this administration". Let me just assure you, up front, that we know you wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that even this administration understands how dumb an idea that would be and, given the way the media/new media today work would understand, unlike Dan Rather, that they'd most likely be found out very quickly (I mean hey, there's at least one multi-billion dollar book contract in such a scheme somewhere).

Last, but certainly not least, as with all conspiracy theories success depends on perfect execution of the plan and the complete silence of those involved. The chance of either success or silence in such an endeavor is infinitesimal - well, unless you believe they're responsible for 9/11 and then, look out, here it comes!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Ron Paul Rulz, you Neo-Cons SUCK!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I can’t imagine a more sure way to ensure a) impeachment and b) the end to any involvement in Iraq immediately than to attempt to stage a terrorist attack in the US "to revive flagging support".
That’s probably true, but what about blaming Al Qaeda for an event that isn’t theirs? That’s what got the Spanish government unelected, even though they thought they could get away with it.

Also doesn’t your argument that the Bush administration wouldn’t stage an attack on the US because of the political implication of being found out both demonstrate your agreement with those who wouldn’t put it past Bush and assume a stronger grasp on reality that Bush seems to have?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Also doesn’t your argument that the Bush administration wouldn’t stage an attack on the US because of the political implication of being found out both demonstrate your agreement with those who wouldn’t put it past Bush and assume a stronger grasp on reality that Bush seems to have?
No Retief, because I have nothing upon which to base such an assumption, not that being in precisely the same situation has stopped others from making such leaps, you know, like Ron Paul.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well clearly Edwards, Obama, and Clinton need to move towards the center, because Ron Paul is stone cold sewing up the moonbat vote.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
I wouldn’t be so sure about this. The source are Alex Jones media outlets, not exactly best known for accurate quotations and interpretations. Paul seems to say that the Bush administration is trying to blame everything wrong on Iran as a pretext to attack them, but I don’t see any direct quotes saying Paul thinks theres going to be a false flag terror attack.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Read the article, guys. I didn’t hear the interview at all, but the only quote that they could find from Paul is that the administration is trying to blame their failures in Iraq on the Iranians, presumably as a prelude to war there. Nothing about staged terrorist attacks at all. You guys have been had, the story was completely fabricated.

I’m a daily reader of QandO and respect this blog a lot. I don’t want it to come to outright smears of candidates based on things that really have no basis in fact.
 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://intermissionphoto.com
If he really said this, I am now setting some money aside, so that if someone ever attacks Ron Paul, I can contribute to that man’s legal defense fund.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
matt, I think I should point out that this isn’t really a smear, it’s being reported by Ron Paul supporters. It’s just that some (many?) Paul supporters are so out there that they think this is a good thing for him to say. I’m not sure I believe it myself, because of how wrong his supporters (the 911 truthers) are all the time.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
" The source are Alex Jones media outlets, not exactly best known for accurate quotations and interpretations."

Then why don’t you follow the link and listen for yourself? It doesn’t take long. According to my not-so-great ears, when asked to comment on how much danger we are in of a Gulf of Tonkin type provocation, he answered "I think we are in great danger of it...". Listen and decide for yourself.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Read the article, guys. I didn’t hear the interview at all, but the only quote that they could find from Paul is that the administration is trying to blame their failures in Iraq on the Iranians, presumably as a prelude to war there. Nothing about staged terrorist attacks at all. You guys have been had, the story was completely fabricated.
Listen to the interview, Matt. Jones sets it up talking about the administration’s need to have an AQ attack to bolster war support and then asks:
Alex Jones: "How much danger are we in of some new "Gulf of Tonkin" provocation."

Ron Paul: "Well I think we’re in great danger ..."
Now, that’s my transcription from the interview. Click on the link above and then click on the "Alex Jones show" link in the Politico article if you’d like to hear it for yourself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is why Ron Paul - no matter how good otherwise - will never get my vote.

Tin foil hat. Nuttier than a squirrel turd.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
I think he genuinely thinks there could be a danger of a Gulf of Tonkin provocation. Though that is quite different than a staged terrorist event! So clearly your subject heading for this story is wrong, McQ. A Gulf of Tonkin provocation would be some connection of, say, Iranian units to an attack on American troops, the President asking for the ability to defend against Iranian threats, and using that to launch a war against Iran. But a Gulf of Tonkin provocation is not a staged terrorist attack. Any good libertarian has to worry about big government abusing its power, you know.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Hmmm. Correct me if I am wrong. But I don’t think a "Gulf of Tonkin provocation" translates into "stage a terrorist attack in the US to revive flagging support" as you seem to want stuff into Ron Paul’s mouth.

My understanding is that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a minor naval skirmish that involved an actual (not staged) but ineffective enemy attack on US vessels. The administration then chose to trump the attack far far out of proportion to its actual significance in order justify and sell further military action in Vietnam.

So if we use the correct historical understanding of "Gulf of Tonkin provocation", which I suspect that Ron Paul understands even if McQ does not, and then go back to the transcript:
Alex Jones: "How much danger are we in of some new "Gulf of Tonkin" provocation."
Ron Paul: "Well I think we’re in great danger ..."
Then Ron Paul does not sound so much like he is wearing a tin foil hat. McQ, on the other hand, sounds like a man on a mission.

 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
Scott - posted before I saw your comment, and made the same point. sorry.
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
Hmmm. Correct me if I am wrong. But I don’t think a "Gulf of Tonkin provocation" translates into "stage a terrorist attack in the US to revive flagging support" as you seem to want stuff into Ron Paul’s mouth.
Listen to the run up from Alex Jones before he finally throws the "Gulf of Tonkin provocation" line at him. My goodness, it’s obvious as it can be what he’s asking (in fact he initially quotes Cindy Sheehan as claiming a staged event might be forth coming). And Paul agrees, "I think we’re in great danger..."

Danger from what? Danger from another "Gulf of Tonkin" provocation, for heaven sake. That’s what the man asked about.

Look, Jones isn’t exactly your garden variety radio host from what I understand and is big on conspiracy theories and the "truther" nonsense. And apparently Paul has a monthly gig with him ... lay down with dogs and get up with fleas, etc.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is just wrong. This type of commentary in politics is poisonous and just contributes more and more to the loathing most people feel for what goes on in D.C.
 
Written By: Mark Eichenlaub
URL: http://regimeofterror.com
After listening to this interview, I just have 2 questions:

1. Do we still have insane asylums?
2. Why isn’t Ron Paul in one?

Inquiring minds want to know.....
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Whatever Ron Paul’s point really was, he clearly thinks the government will attempt to deceive our people into supporting a war with another country. From that "idea," he can attempt to dismiss all evidence of any other countries trying to harm our efforts in Iraq (like Iran).

So even if someone just repeats old, but confirmed, information about Iran supplying weapons and extra terrorists to fight in Iraq he can just claim it’s another false flag Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy and blow it off as being lies.
 
Written By: jows
URL: http://
Retief:
”…doesn’t your argument that the Bush administration wouldn’t stage an attack on the US because of the political implication of being found out both demonstrate your agreement with those who wouldn’t put it past Bush and assume a stronger grasp on reality that Bush seems to have?”
As poorly stated by Retief, Mr. McQuain’s argument clearly does not state that he agrees with those who wouldn’t put it past Bush, not to mention that the balance of Mr. McQuain’s posting belies any such assumption. Retief’s assumption claim is equally absurd.

However, we could take this as the awkward genesis of an potential LN thread. That is why the think tank guys are needed. If this issue was of sufficient importance, they could take its elements through the polishing process to assist folks like Retief in their efforts. Retief’s total load of nonsense could be polished up, if need be, into:

“Neo-libertarian leaders join Libertarians in fear of Bush Administration creating a trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin in Iraq. Today, in a posting on his internet magazine, Mr. McQuain said, and we quote:
“Seriously! …there are plenty who believe that’s how we got into this mess. I wouldn’t put anything past this administration. … Gulf of Tonkin…look out, here it comes!””


Obviously more polish is needed, but you get the idea. Put it out in the NYT and you’ve got it. Retief, who took nothing and fired all barrels, will eagerly seize upon the much more persuasive polished material and take up the cry. Of course, therightwingnoisemachine will deny everything, but Retief will have the NYT quote and he knows the truth.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
After listening to this interview, I just have 2 questions:

1. Do we still have insane asylums?
2. Why isn’t Ron Paul in one?
Ah, yes, political dissent belongs in an asylum. Stalin would have loved ya, SDN.

It’s not clear he was talking about a staged terrorist event, and the question specifically asked about a Gulf of Tonkin incident. But, of course, to those who prefer ad hominems and personal attacks to actually dealing with issues and giving others the benefit of the doubt, it’s just insult, attack, call someone insane, and go for emotion. Sigh. Emotion trumps reason these days.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It’s not clear he was talking about a staged terrorist event, and the question specifically asked about a Gulf of Tonkin incident
Have your hearing checked, Erb.

Even the people at PrisonPlanet claim "Presidential candidate Ron Paul says the U.S. is in "great danger" of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation while also warning that a major collapse of the American economy is on the horizon..."

Once again, you make a statement that is the exact opposite of reality.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
notherbob2, what reason does McQ give for us not to take Ron Paul’s suggestion seriously? Is it not that the effect of such a deceptionon public opinion would be the opposite of what would be helpful to the Bush Administration? Does that not imply that should Bush believe it was advantageous, he’d be perfectly happy to Gulf of Tonkin us? Sure he doesn’t state that he agrees but he doesn’t actually disagree either.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
"Tin foil hat. Nuttier than a squirrel turd."

How many times do I have to repeat this? The so-called "tin foil hat" (properly known as an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie) PREVENTS mental malfunction. I personally vouch for its efficacy. Remember, an ounce of prevention(in this case, a couple of ounces) is worth a pound of cure.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


The Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually two incidents, the second of which probably never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

******************************************8
"Ron Paul: "Well I think we’re in great danger ...""

Is there some particular reason you left off the next two words, "..of it", other than it tends to confirm that Ron Paul thinks there actually is a danger of being snookered into a widening conflict?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"notherbob2...Does that not imply that should Bush believe it was advantageous, he’d be perfectly happy to Gulf of Tonkin us?"
When requested, I always undertake to respond appropriately. In this case the problem is that I see in your statement...well,...way too much liberal "nuance". There is no implication save that provided by your fevered mind.

The reasoning is similar to someone saying that President Bush is unlikely to put a pistol to his head and fire in order to avoid answering a tough question in a press briefing, due to the expected consequences. One either agrees that such a scenario is unlikely or takes the position that such an action is, nevertheless, likely. The statement itself contains no implication whatsoever as to the President’s proclivity to produce a pistol.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Let’s see here.
Alex Jones, and Ron Paul.
The differences between these two, and Ted Rall, and for that matter Scott Erb are what, again?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
While it’s true Paul did agree that a Gulf of Tonkin incident is possible, please quote me where he said the administration would stage an attack.

Admittedly that was a part of the interviewer’s premise, but Paul never agreed with that, only that a "G of T type" incident (most likely involving Iran) was plausible.
 
Written By: Andy
URL: http://
Here is Paul’s statement on "Gulf of Tonkin" from the house floor in January.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul362.html
We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin–type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.
Just like the Fox debate, words are being put into Dr. Paul’s mouth. Paul never said that "America invited the 9/11 attacks" either.

Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
While it’s true Paul did agree that a Gulf of Tonkin incident ...
Jones said "Gulf of Tonkin" provocation .... what was the Gulf of Tonkin incident/provocation and why was Jones asking that?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Just like the Fox debate, words are being put into Dr. Paul’s mouth.
Really? Have you considered the venue in which he voluntarily put himself in this case?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Have you considered that it is completely irrelevant who Dr. Paul was talking to, but rather what he says.

It is quite clear that Dr. Paul is referring to the potential of a Gulf of Tonkin incident. One that the current administration has already perpetrated in the lead up to Iraq (Nigerian WMD materials). A staged terrorist attack by the US government is on a completely different level. You were caught not checking up on the primary source, relying on a third party for your information, and now have nothing to go on. You are just as bad as the mainstream liberal media.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGI1ODI1YjlhYTUzOTM4MmJlOWJlZjVjYTE1MDZjY2U=
 
Written By: Jake
URL: http://
Have you considered that it is completely irrelevant who Dr. Paul was talking to, but rather what he says.
Actually it is completely relevant, especially when you listen to the entire lead in to the final question. And what he did was agree to the premise of the question which was we could expect a staged attack.
You were caught not checking up on the primary source, relying on a third party for your information ...
BS. I heard the interview. I transcribed the pertinent part. Have you listened to it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What if Iran does supply munitions to our enemies in Iraq? Send agents to attack our troops? Fund terrorist attacks against US interests? Take over our embassy? Hold our diplomats hostage?

Would all this be OK?

It’s not like we haven’t been in a one-sided war with them for almost 30 years.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider