Here we go again…..another two years of having to hear from the Paulbots until he loses the nomination once again.
Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney’s three-year run as conservatives’ favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual straw poll.
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination
~~~The straw poll is not binding — and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party’s nomination over Romney.
Is this how we’re going to be taken seriously?
Really?
The Democrats would love it if a nutjob like Ron Paul were our nominee, and why shouldn’t they be.
But maybe I shouldn’t of been worried. It appears the Paulbots are, as usual, very organized:
Fox’s Molly Hennenberg is reporting people BOO’ed when Ron Paul’s name was mentioned as the winner!
She says only a couple of thousand voted. You had to go seek out the ballots, so all this was the Paultards getting organized!
Meanwhile, Glenn Beck is giving his speech right now so why in the heck are you reading this?
How insane is something like this? These are probably the same people that stated Ron Paul “won” every Republican debate back during the elections.
What the hell?!
And the Obama bots were bad enough…this is worse! It’s like, these folks always say Ron Paul’s right no matter what. Just like some of the Obama bots do with Obama. It’s Jesus Camp, without the Jesus.
i think the question is, why did less than 2500 voters participate in the straw poll when organizers said there were 10,000 attendees at the conference?
what’s up with those numbers?
I still dont understand your distaste for Paul… if our message is truly going to be fiscal responsibility… hes the guy… sorry.
My beef with Paul, besides the obvious “troofer” angle, which should alarm any sane person, is the fact that his minions, throughout the last presidential campaign, were known to have cheated every single available online opinion poll in which “ron paul” was one of the pickable options.
A well known “conservative” site at the time, which has since become a bastion of looniness, even ran a poll which was purposely worded so as to confuse, making the winner the loser, and the paulnuts, paulbots, paultards, they came in droves to vote for you-know-who. They bragged about techniques in their forums for cheating polls.
I don’t trust anybody whose core supporters use tactics like these. I believe Paul is a deception.
If you make a poll, with Ron Paul as the only option, he will take approximately 52,000% of the vote. Give or take.
CPAC needs to run a better poll as I think something was wrong with this one. Paul has no chance at winning any Republican election anywhere and at any time.
My suggestion is first… chill. It is an expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. That lesson is worth gold to a very reluctant GOP.
Remember Coulter’s sage (hard to believe) advice. One needn’t be spilling the beans on the
20162012** candidate early since it gives the Alinsky machine years to drum up lies. Stealth and surprise has it’s advantages… even in political strategy.**This 2016 is a thing for me this eve… feels like two long ass terms under this bozo already, I guess.
I will also say that the same ol’ same ol’ offerings are simply not exciting the conservative base. They have a year or two to clean up their act, or move over for a fresh face to take power. Considering our last election, it’s obvious that political “experience” is no longer a factor.
So bad news? Not really. And hardly a harbinger of the GOP nominee. It’s a message upon which CPAC has now hit “send” to the GOP.
If you trust ANY online non-scientific poll you need to rethink things. Did you see the hijacked foxnews poll that said all tea partiers were racist? But how does this have anything to do with Paul’s platform? Did you see the Coulter video in the post below this one? She loves the guy and his policies (albeit from foreign policy). But if were going to have a single solid message of fiscal responsibility, I still think he’s our man.
I was also happy to see Mitch Daniels getting votes… havnt been hearing a lot about him.. though I would like to keep him here in Indy because hes doing an amazing job.
Somehow they all came out in droves tonight, on every conservative site where RP’s name is mentioned, like out of the woodwork, never seen before, like on command.
These folks are unbelievable.
If RP becomes our president, as I quipped at GatewayPundit, we will inevitably have a Department for the Study of Chupacabras and Bigfoots. These people invented the sockpuppet and the poll-jack both, and they do the same thing online that Plouffe recommends his minions do, go out on command, en masse, and spam their absolute love and adoration for the “Republican” Ron Paul.
All a deception. If we could get all the IP’s together and collate them, there would be a couple hundred.
I say a couple hundred, not counting all the “spoofed” IPs which they recommend for jacking online polls at their forums, and for posting multiple “I love RP” posts at the same forum under different nics.
How could anyone trust a candidate, whose CORE FREAKIN SUPPORTERS use tactics like this?
youre joking right?
do you prefer robo-calls?
and by the way, “If RP becomes our president, as I quipped at GatewayPundit, we will inevitably have a Department for the Study of Chupacabras and Bigfoots.”
doubtful:
-never voted for a raise in taxes
-never voted for an unbalanced budget
-never taken a government paid junket
-never voted to increase the power of the executive branch
-voted against regulating the internet
-returned the unused portion of his congressional office budget to the treasury every year.
-never voted for any bill or resolution that isn’t explicitly authorized by the constitution.
I was never a Paul fan until maybe 3 months ago, and I had no idea about who he was during the last election… but he seems to be obamas polar opposite and thats what Im looking for.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Read that and get back to us, p.w.f05
You’re right, that was hyperbole. Good catch.
I’ve just been going over all his known positions.
On domestic policy, I am 100% with him.
His foreign policy however bugs me. His foreign policy is basically “F&%k ‘em. F&%k ‘em all”.
He advocates withdrawing from most international organizations, including WHO, WTO, UN, NATO, and would immediately withdraw all our troops from all around the world.
Sorry, but isolationism never helped us avoid wars in the past.
From Sarah Palin’s point of view this is the best result for this straw poll. She wasn’t going to win since she didn’t show up and since Romney usually has this thing rigged.
Few consider Ron Paul a serious presidential contender, no matter what you think about him. This result means the straw poll was worthless as a barometer for 2012.
@playwithfire – there is a LOT you are missing about Ron Paul. First is that he is a Truther, which is hideous enough. Second is that he is virulently anti-military which leads to item #3 of my objections to him – his (and his son’s) endorsement of Adam Kokesh. http://newmexicoindependent.com/44739/dpnm-who-is-adam-kokesh-to-lecture-anyone-on-corruption
Don’t forget he got endorsed by David Duke too. That bothers me, and also he’s involved with people like Cindy Sheehan.
CPAC gave a nod of approval to a–libertarian? For some reason I find this wonderfully amusing!
One of the biggest problems with Paul (probably ties with his history of overt racism) is that he is a complete hypocrite on his two biggest issues (order irrelevant):
1) Spending
Okay, so maybe he never votes for pork-barrel spending. He just inserts a ton of earmarks into budgets that he knows will pass and then doesn’t vote for them. At least porkers who vote for the budgets they earmark are somewhat honest about it.
2) The Consitution
Ron Paul has never read the Consitution. If anyone wishes to dispute this, I ask that you first read the document and count the references to God you come across. If the Constitution is less than “replete” with such references (let’s say that replete can be quantified as once in every Article), then please explain how someone could have read the Constitution (much less purport to be an expert thereupon) and think it to be “replete with references to God” as Ron Paul has described it.
Since this was a poll you had to seek out, not one distributed to the entire 10,000 in attendance, that probably says it all. Paul’s supporters, very young and very proactive in getting his name in polls. I like some of his ideas but he isn’t a serious contender.
I’ll have to see if Sarah bones up on policy and is able to express her views cogently. She is good on the attack and for a blogger it’s great but she won’t get by with snark attack again up against the enemy. My wish for her is to be able to stand in a debate and express her policies clearly and concisely staying on point without a teleprompter. I think though even at this point, she be awesome as a cabinet member…energy is her best topic…along with her patriotism. If the good ole boys continue to try to marginalize her, it will be everyone’s loss. They should be helping every conservative voice be strong. Will the Repubs blow it? I liked Beck today at CPAC.
Nuts, Aaron beat me to it with his post (part #1).
Paul is a Truther, an anti-Semite, a phony Fiscal Con, and a flat out loon. This poll was gamed.
I remember watching the Ronulans network with each other to game polls, then brag about all the momentum he had. What was some of the proof they cited? How well he was doing in the polls!!!!
Do you understand what that means? They manipulated the results themselves, then actually believed that the polls whose results they stacked were legit. If that isn’t proof that the Ronulans are nuts like their hero, then there isn’t any.
Also the Ronulans I’ve met really seem to be those who feel that rules shouldn’t apply to them. They want to do whatever they want without consequences. I’ve noticed when it’s something they don’t like the govt. doing, they calim it’s unconstitutional….whether or not it is. Small government is one thing, but they seemed to be in favor of almost NO government at all.
A saying I’ve seen from a former libertarian.
To anger a liberal, take away their political power
To anger a Conservative, take away his freedom
To anger a libertarian, take away his weed.
…
2,935 votes were cast in the straw poll, the most in the history of the 37-year conference, but a fraction of the approximately 10,000 people who attended CPAC.
By finishing well above Palin and Pawlenty, Romney clearly remains well-positioned among the sort of conservative activists who attend such conferences as CPAC. Having already sought his party’s presidential nomination once, and retaining many of the supporters he had in 2008, Romney enters the early going of the 2012 race as something close to a frontrunner.
But the results of the straw poll, though imprecise, indicate that conservatives are not entirely happy with the field of likely candidates mentioned two years before the first balloting.
Fifty-three percent of those who participated in the contest said they wished the GOP had a better field of candidates. Forty-six percent said they were satisfied with those now seen as possible presidential candidates.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33225.html#ixzz0g9xftfeu
Dreadnout said,
“Sorry, but isolationism never helped us avoid wars in the past.”
Two points I’d like to make here, first, isolation wasn’t so bad, until the country elected internationalists like Wilson and FDR. We had absolutely no business getting into WW1, there is no way the business with MX was serious enough for the waste of blood and treasure. Maybe if we’d let the Europeans work things out on their own WW2 wouldn’t even have happened.
Secondly, there is a major difference between isolationism and being the world’s police force. I disagree with him on 9/11, the causes of the war on terror and our response to it. But on other issues he is way ahead of the pack, that we do agree on.
Aaron,
I’ve never known a politician, any politician who wasn’t a hypocrite on some level, hell, I may have never met any people who weren’t. In my opinion the very best we could ever hope for is a politician who delivers 3/4 of what he says.
As for the references to God, I would much rather keep religion and politics separate, but it isn’t likely to happen, and at least he isn’t a preacher like Huckabee.
Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but many of his positions are very good ones. If the old boy’s network at the GOP keeps it’s collective nose up in the air, it will only trip and fall again, and again. It amazes me how many beat the “all inclusive” “big tent” “room for all” drum” until a Libertarian like Paul dares to stick his nose under the flap.
Paul supported the Goldstone Report.
Isn’t that enough, really, to disqualify Paul for pretty much anything?
It is to me.
If there was nothing else about that man that I was opposed to but this?
I would still think he was the worst candidate in the bunch.
“GOLDSTONE’S GAZA REPORT: PART ONE: A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE
By Richard Landes
The first part of this two-part article explores the pervasive flaws that mar the UNHRC’s “Gaza Fact-Finding Mission Report.” It focuses on an interlocking combination of problems: 1) its failure to investigate seriously the problem of Hamas embedding its war effort in the midst of civilians in order to draw Israeli fire and then accuse Israel of war crimes; 2) its astonishing credulity concerning all Palestinian claims, contrasted with a corresponding skepticism of all Israeli claims; 3) its harsh judgments on Israelis for war crimes (i.e., deliberate targeting of civilians), contrasted with its resolute agnosticism concerning Hamas intentions. The result is that Goldstone actually participates in Hamas’ strategy and encourages the sacrificing of their own civilians.”
http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2009/12/landes1.html
A must-read. This is the rebuttal of the antisemitic, evil, twisted, pro-jihad absolute crock that Paul thought was dead-on.
The DEVIL could have written this report. And no, THAT is not hyperbole, not in the least.
Sarah Palin has endorsed Ron Paul’s son.
It is way to early to rely on polls.
CNN is blatantly pushing fear propaganda by it’s “Cyber Attack Simulation” airing tonight. Check out http://www.infowars.com
It seems like they are trying to get the public to consent to the possibility of future martial law.
2500 voters is actually the largest # of voters in the cpac straw poll history. they have spoken! you guys should actually listen to ron paul…i got on board with him on the war issue but i’ve educated myself since then and have come to realize that the ideal of liberty applied to every facet of government is the best route we could ever take. i literally have an entire bookshelf full of stuff on economics, foreign policy, and constitutional issues that i’ve read in the past couple of years. austrian economics ftw! ron paul is the man and you’re a fucking tool for insinuating that he was a 9-11 truther, because he never was; he just had a small group of supporters that were but that doesn’t mean anything. it’s no worse than obama having a small group of supporters that are communists
A whole bookshelf? Read in the last couple of years, very impressive indeed!
Hard Right, I think your quote is a great summation.
To anger a liberal, take away their political power
To anger a Conservative, take away his freedom
To anger a libertarian, take away his weed.
The covert message is doubly amusing: Liberals are expressed in the plural, a feature that reflects a ‘Collective’ mentality: while Conservatives are portrayed as individuals.
yeah, i would say it is impressive seeing as how 90% of the time i’m reading analytical chemistry books instead of anything for pleasure. ~80 books in a year and a half is pretty damn good outside of my grad school work you asshole. weed (which i’ve never used) has little to nothing to do with the libertarian movement currently. why don’t you stop being a partisan hack and try to educate yourself on the issues?
@pwnttothemax: I’ll grant you your point but you raise another interesting issue: the relative youth and inexperience of most of these Ron Paul supporters.
It’s something I have seen many times before when young people flock to the latest Pied Piper offering to change the world (hello Obama) only to discover the answers aren’t so easy as the Piper pretended they were.
Ron Paul, has a lot of appeal to younger people who don’t have a lot of practical experience dealing with these complex issues over time.
And since you mention grad school, we all know the stultifying effect academia has on the young. Not so much in Chemistry perhaps, but certainly even there the academic environment is one in which false utopian views are common.
The young are always impressed with themselves and their accomplishments. However, they often fail to notice or realize that older generations have already read the Chemistry texts and decades later are applying the knowledge, rather than learning theory.
The quest for knowledge isn’t prioritized by the young: knowledge is accumulative and combined with experience, can eventually becomes wisdom.
Now, I must sign off to apply some of that theory in the everyday application of running a business.
You might be surprised, some of us have personal libraries for reference; providing us with material that allows us to debate issues rather than resorting to profanity and name calling.
Play your hand, we enjoy the sport; but so far, you have failed to exhibit your superior intellect.
No WMD in Iraq. No Al-Qaeda ties to Iraq…Yet we invade Iraq? That doesn’t make any sense.
And somehow we are not “Real” conservatives because we want this country to refrain from waging offensive war?
Remember Ron Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. That is something the author neglects to mention. The insulting picture of Ron Paul as a peace-loving hippy is inaccurate.
Ron Paul believes in waging war to protect our interests, but he believes in waging just war, not an illegal, offensive war on a country that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 9/11 terror attacks.
@Paul Fan:
There was al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to invasion; and ties even before 9/11. What is arguable, is whether or not there were operational links.
The war is larger than just al Qaeda. It is a whole network of Islamic terror groups that share funding, training, ideology, and interests.
What were the justifications put forth? It wasn’t just about wmd, but also the uncertainty of it by Saddam’s cat-and-mouse obfuscating of the issue, the capabilities to produce, 12 yrs of defiance of 16 + 1 UNSCR, and extensive ties to terrorism, both secular and religious.
And against it since:
Including voting “NO” on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
So he voted for our intervention into Afghanistan, but not in following through with the job?
ArPee is just horrible on foreign policy and his ideas about American interventionism.
The country had SOMETHING to do with 9/11. But what was it, now (since President Bush never made the case that Saddam had a hand in the events of 9/11)? What is the relationship between mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath/speech?
@Paul Fan:
Dude!
Your frantic grasping of the memes you’ve been fed has interfered with your ability to clearly see reality.
Perhaps a review of Judge Harold Baers’ US District Court decision will assist you in getting on the right pathway.
Furthermore, the archives here at FA are full to overflowing with further information on those topics that you may find useful.
@Paul Fan: Does Ron Paul want to pull all U.S. troops out from overseas and bring them home abandoning our allies and the hard fought positions we have won with blood and treasure across the world to bring peace?
Taqiyyotomist
24 Paul supported the Goldstone Report.
Isn’t that enough, really, to disqualify Paul for pretty much anything?
It is to me.
me too.
when I meet paulbots im reminded of the kind of rabid koolaid drinking nuts that were obamas core. which is another reason not to like the man.
obama and paul may be at the¨oposite ends¨of the political spectrum but they do have a few things in common, under the veneer they are both antisemites, and they both beleive they are intitled to not just thier own opinions but thier own set of facts and history
We have some paulistinians around here who were puting up homemade RP signs and even sheets that had the words, “The Fed Did It.” Cookoo.
Rumcrook, obama and RP aren’t too far apart.
As you stated they both anti-semites, but there is more than that. Neither want to defend America from it’s enemies, neither like the military, both love to spend other people’s money while claiming they are fiscally conservative, they are detatched from reality on foreign affairs, and have HUGE egos.
The main difference is that RP wants no government control of anything and obama wants nothing but govt control of everything.
Aye Chihuahua –
I ca tell you did not actually READ what you posted, otherwise you would not have posted it as “proof” that Iraq was behind 9/11, or had a relationship with al Qaeda. Because at pages 15 through 19, the judge notes that the “evidence” that there was a connection was largely inadmissible hearsay. And what “evidence” that was presented was from two witnesses (not seventeen, not eleven . . . just 2 witnesses) testifying as “experts” on the issue; they were not fact witnesses with first hand knowledge of anything. Indeed, there is no first hand testimony from anyone about any actual working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Indeed, no one has yet explained why they believe a messianic Islamist psychopath would team up with a fascistic nationalistic secular psychopath, when neither has any possible ability to control the other. It makes no sense at all, which is why there is NO FIRST HAND EVIDENCE from anyone establishing a relationship.
@BRob:
I can tell that you did not read what I posted either.
The judge reviewed the evidence and made his ruling based on that evidence, not based on things that were inadmissible.
Your attempt to poo poo Hizzoner’s ruling is weak tea at best.
You then go on to try and further the meme that OBL and Saddam would not have cooperated because of their supposed religious/secular dichotomy…. The only problem with that approach is that those commonly held beliefs have been proven faulty as well.
You should stick with topics that you know something about. That list is limited to thus far unproven, untested pound cake baking skills but we’ll offer you the benefit of doubt in that one area.
@BRob:
How about the Iraqi Perspectives Project?
There’s a reason why Bush said
It isn’t just “al Qaeda” but a whole Islamic terror network with cross-over training and financing and interests. Don’t be fooled by the franchise name:
Back in 1998, bin Laden’s fatwa declaring war against the U.S. was done so under the umbrella moniker, the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, signed also by Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt at the time, to become al Qaeda’s #2 man; Abu- Yasir Rifa’i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the [Egyptian] Islamic Group; Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh.
It isn’t just “al Qaeda” we are at war with, but a whole Islamic terror network. The boundaries that separates and distinguishes one from another get rather blurred and dissolves.
Ray Robison‘s “Both in One Trench” devotes a chapter that makes sense of it and debunks the Drumheller-induced myth that a “secular” Saddam would never collaborate with religious nuts toward shared short-term goals.
Scott commented on this well:
@BRob: AGAIN you are mistaken. While there is no “credible evidence” Iraq collaborated in attacks against the United States the 9/11 Commission described multiple contacts and high level discussions between Iraq and bin Laden.
Iraq even offered bin Laden safe haven in Iraq.
To say that there was “no relationship” between Al Queda and Iraq is FLAT OUT WRONG. There was an ongoing relationship at a very high level for a period of years.
Maybe you should tell George Soros to update the talking points he feeds you.
P.S. Saddam’s fingerprints were all over the 1993 WTC bombing
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2005/08/who-is-ramzi-yousef-and-why-you-should.html
And even if there is no “credible evidence” according to the 9/11 Commission that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11 he sure didn’t mind linking himself to the attacks in propaganda inside Iraq:
saddam harbored terrorists, he funded terrorists he exported terrorism, he trained terrrorists, he was a terrorist, the war on terror showed up on his doorstep because he ran a terror sponsor nation. thier are incontrovertable links between saddam to terrorism and yes al-queda.
http://rumcrook2.blogspot.com/
the link below details everthing you need to understand saddams role in worldwide terror, after reading it all, if you still believe saddam was no threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world than you can not be helped you are a moron, do not breed.
Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror – by Deroy Murdock
Iraq & Militant Islam
Saddam’s al Qaeda links were a worthy rationale for toppling his regime.
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
here’s the rudimentary truth avoided religiously by liberals, saddam operated a terror sponsor state. he himself was a terrorist.
New evidence of Saddam link to 9-11
Czech records indicate Atta meeting with Iraqi official in Prague
The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
[EDITED BY CURT FOR BREVITY, ADDED LINKS]
saddam harbored terrorists, he funded terrorists he exported terrorism, he trained terrrorists, he was a terrorist, the war on terror showed up on his doorstep because he ran a terror sponsor nation. thier are incontrovertable links between saddam to terrorism and yes al-queda.
the link below details everthing you need to understand saddams role in worldwide terror, after reading it all, if you still believe saddam was no threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world than you can not be helped you are a moron, do not breed.
this is a list of material showing the links and more of saddams terror ties
http://rumcrook2.blogspot.com/
just one link from above with the fingerprint trail to saddam
Saddam’s Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
One thing we’ve learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found–literally–millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam’s links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever–that “secular” Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn’t mix. But John Ashcroft’s press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn’t it have also missed Saddam’s terror links?
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam’s son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime’s dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda “summit” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.
It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.
That’s not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers’ safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.
there is some first hand evidence for you brob. be awake.
thier are none so blind as those who will not see….
@rumcrook: You’ll just confuse BLOB with facts. They tend to get in the way of his George Soros supplied talking points.
well thats a bummer for him. but someone else will see the links and the argument and the gathered evidence and understand the meme,lie spread by the left for years now in order that it can be thought to be the truth,
well yeah RP voted to attack those responsible for 9/11, but they turned it into a nation building excercise and have since gone waaaaaay past what was laid out in the resolution. therefore, he votes against any spending resolution, since they’re not going directly after bin laden but after other organizations in other countries (hussein in iraq, other syndicates in pakistan).
most people on this site seem bitter. while i was at CPAC, many of the speakers and adults personally thanked and applauded the amount of youth that were there to support conservative values of freedom. they often urged us “not to wait in line. sieze the situation and make your voices heard” -stephen baldwin, one of the first speakers. but when we made our voices heard via straw poll, they rejected our views and said “those damn kids all loaded the vote for ron paul.” -random old guy in bathroom stall.
we’re no longer even expecting to get a good spin on ron paul, nor for our support behind him. we just want results. and winning the CPAC straw poll is a result you CANNOT deny.
@rumcrook: I know. We don’t provide the counterpoint to educate BLOB. He’s a hopeless cause. But you watch. He will come back a few months from now and repeat the same big lie again as if we never had this exchange. It gets a bit tiresome.
@pwnttothemax: Winning straw polls doesn’t count for sh*t! If RP can’t win a primary he can’t be nominated. If he runs as an Independent the Democrat will win.
Again, did I miss a response from you regarding RP’s position on pulling out our troops based overseas? RP may have some good ideas when it comes to the fiscal situation but his foreign policy is a loser. America learned a bloody and painful lesson in the 20th Century: isolationism kills. We don’t want to see that lesson repeated.
I too welcome the youth to participate in the political process and I am glad there were so many at CPAC. But surely you didn’t attend just to vote for RP in a straw poll? Hopefully you got some information from the other speakers?
@mike’s america: yeah that seems to be the consensus… though it wasn’t last year when romney won lol.
the idea of “isolationism” is half-brained and doesn’t properly represent the values ron paul stands for. he’s for non-intervention, and by that he means he doesn’t want to START wars with other nations. we’re asking for people to hate us when we set up bases all over the muslim holy land, enforce trade sanctions on the middle eastern civilians, and overthrow governments to put up people supportive of us. the thought that we have to START wars with other nations because they might some day start one with us is just illogical. “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower (a true conservative). the only conflict the U.S. has rightfully joined in the 20th century was against Japan, who attacked us first (though many would argue that we goaded them, as we supplied war goods to only allied countries).
of course we should have gone in after Bin Laden, but there are Constitutional methods for that: writs of marque and reprisal. after 9/11 we had the international community on our side. if we would have issued a writ on Bin Laden’s head we could have avoided two devastating conflicts and costly nation building exercises. how are we viewed internationally now? well, i’d say we’re hated. and our foreign policy is the reason for that.
RP is also for free trade of goods and ideas with all nations. as Thomas Jefferson said: “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”
man… it’s been a while since i’ve gotten into a flame war over RP. it’s like going back in time to 2008 lol
@pwnttothemax: So you wouldn’t have gone to war against Hitler? Gosh…. now you know why some of us are a bit leery of the Paulians.
But specifically, does RP want to withdraw American forces from all overseas bases?
And we did offer a bounty on Bin Laden’s head. Obviously he paid more to whomever is hiding him to keep his head where it is.
Typical of a Ronulan to parrot loony paul. It’s our fault we were attacked on 9/11, RAWK. Pauly wants a cracker. Rawk.
I don’t care if the world hates us. Hell, they hated us LONG before 9/11. It wasn’t because we were being “imperialists” as you claim.
You know, RP and his cultists were forerunners to obama and his cult. You, like the obamabots project your fantasies onto him. You actually think he will wave his magic wand and create the utopia you dream of. Too bad he isn’t serious about what he says. He’s just milking you suckers.
As I posted previously, RP is an anti-semite. He’s a phony and definitely mentally ill. Now based off of my past debates with paulbots this is where you say I’ve bought into MSM lies, everyone plays the earmark game, and sarcastically state that following the Constitution sure is loony.
As to your claim he’s not an isolationist, you have bought into yet another of his lies.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/11/01/its_time_for_ron_pauls_15_minutes_to_be_up
What’s truly scary is his derranged belief that we can hide in “Fortess America” without dire consequences. That didn’t even work in WWII. It sure as hell won’t work now. I also like how you mindlessly quote what the terrorists claim is their reasons for hating us. Paulbots have no understanding of the Constitution, economics, foreign policy, or terrorists. Gee, wonder why you can’t get any real traction. BTW, we didn’t start a war “preemptively.” We acted in self defense where Iraq is concerned.
More ugly truth about your messiah.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ron-paul-and-the-dangers-of-isolationism/
Good lord, here’s some words of wisdom from undermedicated paul.
“…If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country?
We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination…”
“…With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully…”
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:KkJIRnqHdN0J:www.ronpaul.com/2009-12-22/will-isolationist-sanctions-on-iran-lead-to-war/+ron+paul+is+for+isolationism&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
What’s stunning is how deep in denial he is about the world. He seems to think the Iranian leaders are normal, stable people who are right to be angry at us.
why don’t you guys peak out of your trenches on occasion, and weigh the evidence for a more constitutional (ron paulian) government?
PWNTOTHE MAX As a former libertarian, and with still mixed views in philosophy, allow me to answer your statement:
Because many of us find common ground with *some* Ron Paul fiscal policies. But unfortunately… as with all candidates… we find too many gaps in other fiscal/isolationist/foreign policy Ron Paul stances.
I love Ron Paul. He has a big value in our system and debate. He is not one I want in charge. BUT… I would never want his voice to leave the Senate. Period.
He blew it in the Bernanke hearings, exposing his weakness and political ideology. But just because I don’t accept Ron Paul 100%, doesn’t mean I discount Ron Paul 100%. He just has his place.. and it’s not in the Oval Office, but as a “rattle the cage” kind of guy.
Enuf said?
@pwnttothemax: That kind of reply is hardly going to win you any converts, let alone encourage people to give RP a chance.
I notice you still didn’t answer my question about RP wanting to withdraw Americans from overseas.
As far as I am concerned Ron Paul supporters did win at least one primary.
FYI: In Nevada Ron Paul supporters were on their way to making sure that 4/5ths of the Nevada GOP’s delegation to the Republican National Convention were Ron Paul supporters. The establishment then stole the election.
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=11421562
http://m.rgj.com/news.jsp?key=264182
Our dear leaders shut down the convention. It was not reconvened. Our dear leaders hand picked Nevada’s delegation several months later.
I find it funny that Neocons behave just like the enemies they want America to destroy.
The problem with this view is that it leads to a never-ending war against an ideology in which the U.S. Federal government will continue to acquire near limitless power to encourach on my individual rights. It’s a sacrifice I am unwilling to make, and especially for a war that will never be won. There are better ways of fighting Islamic Terrorism than the schemes cooked up by Cheney and his cohorts.
Is this really necessary? Does this further the debate? Is your argument strengthened when you resort to name-calling?
@Paul Fan: Notice I used the word “PRIMARY” and not “CAUCUS” as in Nevada 2008.
There’s a big difference. A primary is more representative of the overall strength of a candidate in a state, hence it is a better indicator of electability which was my point.
P.S. I noticed none of you bothered to answer my question about whether Ron Paul would pull U.S. forces back from overseas bases. Why do you all ignore that question?