For once and for all..

I want to reiterate what I said in response to another comment, because as others have suggested, it is critically important that the campaign remained focused and not scattered hither and yon.

We have just a few moments of attention with most people, so we cannot overload their processing capacity with a lot of complex issues. These can be discussed amongst ourselves in appropriate venues, but on the campaign trail, as I said before...

The central messages of a political campaign must be exceedingly simple and repeatable. This is why Ron Paul has focused on two themes which are very popular with the general public. They are:

(1) Freedom is popular!

(2) Peace is popular!

ALL other messages create dispersion of energy and chaotic discussion.

We should all put our pet issues in our hip pockets so that when we reach into our right pocket, we get the FREEDOM message and when we reach into our left pocket, we pull out the PEACE message.

Any other more complicated strategy would be counterproductive to winning the election, perhaps even disastrous.

Dr. Paul, in talking about his first day in office, once again deftly turns the criticism of his being an “isolationist” around and directs it subtly back at his opponents, who have distorted his “noninterventionist” policy.

While discussing immediately starting the troop and ship withdrawal from the Middle East, Dr. Paul says that this would be “a powerful message” to the world, “that we are not going to be isolationists anymore.”

Voila!!! Q.E.D. Debate point scored.

Way to go Dr. Paul!

Ron Paul is so true to the ideas that he espouses. He practices what he preaches. He respects the freedom of individuals, even those with soiled reputations like George W. Bush!

When asked about whether he thought Bush should be impeached, he responded basically that IF it were proven that Bush had lied to get us into the Iraq War, then yes, that would be impeachable. However, he doesn't believe that the situation has been adequately investigated. He muses that the responsibility for any alleged lies could fall on Cheney's office. "People don't know" for sure whether the President lied is his position on impeachment.

His position on 9/11 is very similar, viz., it needs to be adequately investigated. He says, "I question, everything the government does, philosophically." However, when asked if he believes that there is any evidence that would indicate that the government orchestrated 9/11, he says, "Absolutely not."

I have never ever seen any "truthers" suggest that they think RP believes it was an inside job. This is a total non-issue. What a weird blog post.

If you go to Google Video, and check out EDUCATION, you will find a dozen videos all about 9-11 and how it was an inside job. I wrote to Google and I told them I found it odd they would be publishing so many of these videos, with the top 100 list on the right side of the page, 99% porn. Gee folks, what are your kids really studying? People who watch these Google videos are going to say, "Wow it absolutly looks like 9-11 was an inside job." Is that a good reason to shun them? I tell the truthers I meet, "Right now Ron Paul is talking about the CIA term "Blowback", because it acomplishes two things, foreign policy and keeping 9-11 On the table", and that's what you want, 9-11 on the table, so SUPPORT RON PAUL, and remember, in time TRUTH comes out". I have turned no one away from my Meetup. FREEDOM OF SPEACH AND THOUGHT is also what Ron Paul is all about. Control yourself, it's the hardest job you'll ever take on.

I thought it was very signifigant coming from Liveleak.The amazing part is not the interview (mediocre) but the mostly positive reaction from Liveleakers.You must understand Liveleak is mainly a military video sharing site (plus gore, humor, terrorist videos etc..) and for a long time I was sad because the bootlickers and neo-cons seemed to have the most support. I even felt it was pointless to argue sometimes. It seems like Ron Pauls message of liberty is winning over even the most resilient. If Ron Paul can gain the support of Liveleak then that is a signifigant inroad to gaining the support of the military. If you can withstand the fiery arguements on a Liveleak thread then you can withstand the MSM's far weaker arguements -A liberal for Ron Paul.

I felt a couple of the answers he gave were actually a little bit weak. Though he certainly phrased his answer to the pullback from Iraq question quite a bit better than usual.

For example the answer suggesting that President Bush Jr. should replace his generals if they were giving him bad advice. The reality seems to be that the President is ignoring all the advice he's getting from the generals and instead relies on the American Enterprise Institute for determining his Iraq policy. That's right, the warmongering neo-con thinktank who'd love nothing more than to expand the war into Iran.

If this is actually the case he should have criticized the President for not listening to the generals. It would also strengthen his case to pull out of Iraq.

I hope Ron Paul will shed some more light on his potential policies later in the campaign, perhaps after he starts showing up in the traditional polls.

Kudos on the fact that he didn't start mud slinging, that's one of the things that extremely bothers me every time I watch the democratic debates. Ron Paul is definitely a stand up guy, exemplified by the fact that he even tends to give Kucinich kudos from time to time.

I suspect that Ron Paul, like me and many others are skeptical of the 9/11 details. The commission didn't hear from everyone, and removed parts so it looks like some kind of coverup - they are acting as guilty as OJ was acting (see below), yet I wouldn't convict either.

For me, Saudis (mostly) hijacked planes and crashed them into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in PA since in the latter case the passengers were able to oppose them. Beyond that there are many questions, and not enough answers. But among them, Popular Mechanix removes most of the physics and engineering objections. If you rebuilt the towers, set them afire with jet fuel in an structurally compromised area, they would collapse. It was an airplane (with AA markings) that crashed into the pentagon as several eye-witnesses attest, and based on what was found in the wreckage, not a cruise missile.

In many things we will never know exactly what happened, so need a best guess, and ought to consider alternative explanations only so far as they present evidence, and then the evidence needs to be weighed, and often there will be no satisfactory choice as to what to believe as the multiple explanations are all equally likely or unlikely with nothing further available.

Go back to the JFK assassination. There is a "Magic Bullet" theory, where a bullet could pass through two people apparently without damage to the bullet. Something is wrong with that. It doesn't point to what is right, only that something is wrong, and that they too quickly stopped looking for suspects once Oswald was killed - even Oswald as a suspect.

Or the OJ trial. I still have problems with that and can simply say "I don't know", but I told people he wouldn't be convicted based on what the JURY heard and could consider. Didn't they know he was guilty? Not based on the rules of evidence and not the media hype.

And finally, the Duke LaCrosse team. They were stupid to have a party like that in the first place, but I suspect what happened is the accuser was in her car hours later in the parking lot in some kind of crisis where the store clerk called the police and was afraid of being arrested for "driving while black", or in this case parking, so she made something up.

Hi Jane,
i'm glad to see your post.
I too was at that fundraiser for dr. paul in pembroke, new hampshire, and I too was also standing right next to dr. paul when Justin Martell was speaking with him. This was a fundraiser for him and not a 9-11 meeting or whatever people may think. He was approached by Justin Martell who was attending the forum and probably thought it would be a good opportunity to ask Dr. Paul about his stance on 9-11. Dr. Paul was very gracious, as usual, and spoke with him.
I posted almost exactly the same comment on www.ronpaulforums.com with the link to the video because I was so sick of reading about dr. paul and the 9-11 issue.
Dr. Paul was being his usual honest self. He was not about to give a definitive answer on that subject because he would have needed more info to respond to a question such as that. He read the 9-11 report and I don't know what else but it was clear that he would welcome a new investigation if he felt or the american people felt that there were still unanswered questions, or a cover up and was willing to confer with Dennis Kucinich about the issue.
So, yes for whoever has questions about the good doctor's stance on 9-11 then just watch and listen to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91a13Yr3oQ
I hope this additional comment helps.

PS Jane - are you the lady who was by the front door sitting at the card table checking off names when we came in?

blessings,
sunny

I was quite impressed with this interview, particularly the changing tone of the interviewer from hostile towards Ron Paul at the beginning of the interview to inquisative and lastly to respectful. I think it really showed how Ron's steady, quiet charisma and actually answering the questions wins people over.

What is up with the horrible pictures of ron paul being displaying during radio interviews?

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

As he says in this interview, Dr. Paul is only responsible for what he himself says. Everyone seems to want to put words into his mouth, but what he says in this interview is clear. Listen to it yourself. At the close of the interview, the interviewer says,

Interviewer: "I think we learned a lot today. We learned that Ron Paul doesn't, in fact, believe that 911 was orchestrated by the government."

Ron Paul: "I am glad we got that clarified, once and for all!"

It cannot be more clear. If people want to spin crazy theories about what they think Ron Paul secretly thinks, please do it somewhere else. This is not the place for it. The internet is a big place, and there is room for us all. However, the Daily Paul is the place to help Ron Paul get elected president!.

Thank you. And thank you Jane, for posting that excellent interview.

Michael Nystrom
Editor
www.dailypaul.com

While perhaps at times Ron Paul was not clear enough on this question (he is a politician ya know) he has on numerous occasion (including a fundraiser I attended) made it clear that he did not subscribe to the inside job theory.

If he did, it would contradict his statements in the debate against Giuliani, his ascertion that we continue to subsidize a country (Pakistan) that harbors the people who attacked us and his vote authorizing use of force in Afghanistan.

These facts can not be reconciled with him being a closet truther... sorry.

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org

I still think you are wrong and that the only thing he would 'investigate' would be incompetence about going after WHOEVER the perpetrators were.

You have every right to think and explore what your beliefs tell you. But please do NOT project those ideas onto him because it is unfair to him.

This radio talkshow host proved himself a loyal member of the brainwashed statists with his biased line of questioning. Mr. Paul defended his position on all topics and the host came off the total loser. I could imediately tell this host was a member of the mass media elite, and his sole purpose was to try and discredit Dr. Paul. The host FAILED. Every time somebody tries this, RP answers logically and sticks to his guns. He can not be forced to flip flop. I want to see him debate any of the other candidates one on one...He'll smear all of them.

But I wholeheartedly agree that it would be a complete circus if Ron Paul were to say the same thing at this point.

I mean, what 9/11 website is he going to blurt out to support that stance if he were to go public?

My whole view is that he is better suited educating the public about the proper role of government. And if our government WERE to be chained down by the Constitution, false-flag events would be virtually impossible.

Dr. Paul wants to get to the roots instead of continually chopping at the branches.

Bottom line, Dr. Paul IS suspicious (IMHO), but it would be a COMPLETE disaster for him to go public AT THIS POINT.

By the way, here's audio of him on FMNN's Pat Gorman Show back in June addressing 9/11. And yes, he has his doubts about the official investigation and of WTC 7:

(7 minute clip)

http://media.putfile.com/Ron-Paul-Explains-Position-on-911--...

I'm surprised by Paul's answer about Bush's listening to the commanders on the ground.

I'm surprised he did not seem to be aware of the fact that when the commanders on the ground have told Bush anything other than stay the course, Bush has replaced them with new commanders that said stay the course.

"Get new commanders," Paul says. Well, that's what Bush did, except that he did it for the opposite reason Paul would.

I personally do not see anything wrong with Congressman Paul if he did say 911 was an inside job he would be joining the over 40% of the American people who believe our governmment was involved again this
poll was a controlled media poll, so that figure is higher.

To get off on these single issues is what the establishment media want us to do, that plays right into there hands and those who are daily destroying OUR country here and abroad and use FEAR to control the populace.

Lets stick to our freedom and liberty mesage and OUR PRECIOUS
CONSTITUTION and then we will win the White House !!!!!

GO RON PAUL GO !!!!!!

It's really sad that one of many 9/11 conspiracy theories became a sort of doctrine. It's even more sad that they have gained ownership over the term "9/11 Truth."

A "truther" should be someone who wants and demands the truth.

But the main conspiracy theory doctrine is being called the "truth" and now its proponents are called "truthers."

I wish the term "truther" would be more accurately applied to someone who wants to know the truth instead of someone who wants to posit their speculative version of the "truth."

In the interview, his views on 9/11 are an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

My personal belief is that Ron Paul suspects 9/11 was an inside job, but claims like that require a lot of proof. It would be veritable political suicide for him now to claim it was, without having conclusive evidence. Besides, Loose Change Final Cut is scheduled to come out in September which will really open the flood-gates. No need for the good doctor to open up a can of worms right now because the truth will come out sooner or later.

Chad

Sophisticated truthers should know that Dr Paul can't "support" their theories while running for a GOP Presidential nomination. That would be political suicide.

However, Dr. Paul has given ample reason for informed Americans to speculate that he does know or "suspect" (not "support") the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

Dr. Paul has displayed a knowledge of the nature of false-flag events and warned that a "contrived Gulf of Tonkin type event" - i.e., a false-flag event -- could draw the US into war with Iran.

That warning, and the assumption that Dr. Paul's Justice Department would conduct an honest investigation into the crimes of the Bush administration is all that truthers can realistically expect at this point.

In the meantime, truthers should continue their outreach to the more naive of Dr. Paul's supporters in the hope they will see the light eventually.

Anyone who cared could have found that out months ago. This doesn't mean they're gonna stop calling him a Truther. Why stop a good thing?