Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) denied that a nuclear Iran would pose a national security threat to the United States or Israel in a 2007 radio interview with talk show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Hillary Clinton may end up deciding she wants to spend the 935 days until election 2016 making corporate speeches and spoiling her grandchild. Recent events have exposed weaknesses in Clinton’s supposedly impregnable armor, gaps through which a Democratic or Republican challenger could damage, perhaps even defeat her. The bad headlines to which she has been subjected are enough to make anyone—anyone who isn’t a Clinton—think twice about running for president.
I ruffled some feathers last week when I noted that Rand Paul’s conspiracy theory regarding Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and the Iraq War is strikingly similar to theories promulgated by a certain segment of 9/11 Truthers. As I said at the time, repeated the following day, and will reiterate today, I don’t believe that Rand Paul believes that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush allowed the 9/11 attacks to proceed in order to create a pretext to invade Iran. However, I do believe that it is worth drawing attention to the fact that a great many citizens of Paul World are, in fact, 9/11 Truthers and that neither Rand Paul nor his father Ron have been particularly vociferous in distancing themselves from these crackpots. Why? Well, every vote counts!
As I said at the time: “dog whistles and such.”
I bring this up again because the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity recently chose to republish a screed by Paul Craig Roberts that concludes “the US government blew up three New York skyscrapers in order to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah.”* Ron Paul, when asked why the institute that bears his name was giving credence to such insanity, shrugged it off, saying it’s “political correctness” to suggest that 9/11 Truthers should be dismissed.
Here’s Rand Paul taking a firm stand on an important issue: I am not for containment in Iran. Let me repeat that, since no one seems to be listening closely: I am unequivocally not for containing Iran. I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran. That was the choice I was given …
My tongue-in-cheek post yesterday on Rand Paul and 9/11 Truthers inspired a pair of intriguing responses. The first, which I noted in the update, was the finger-wagging from Rand Paul senior adviser Doug Stafford who insisted that Sen. Paul totes believes that terrorists carried out the attacks and that the invasion of Afghanistan was okay, so shut up. It’s worth noting that, by omission, Stafford’s comment seems to confirm that his boss also believes that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for the invasion of Iraq in order to enrich his friends at Halliburton.
As I noted in the original post, I don’t think Rand Paul is a 9/11 Truther. I simply find it amusing to remind people just how many Truthers are also big fans of his dad, Ron Paul.* And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that he’s subtly courting a certain segment of that population when he invokes Truther boogeymen like Halliburton (see: here and here and here, for starters) when discussing the Iraq War. As I said: dog whistles and such.
Of course, there is another segment of the vote the supposedly conservative senator from Kentucky could be courting, and that’s the far left. The other amusing response to my post yesterday came from super serial types on the left who insisted that their conspiracy theory about Cheney and Halliburton and war profiteering has nothing whatsoever to do with the conspiracy theories that the 9/11 Truthers believe in. As BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith noted in response to my post,
There are two kinds of 9/11 Truthers, broadly speaking.* There’s the “made it happen on purpose” (MIHOP) variety—the folks who think 9/11 was a “false flag” in which American politicians commanded an attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Then there’s the “let it happen on purpose” (LIHOP) variety. These are the far more …
Earlier this week, a video clip surfaced in which Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said, in the context of talking about sanctions on Iran, that “leading up to World War II, we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily.” Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post reported on the video, accusing Paul of essentially attributing U.S. involvement in World War II to American provocations. Paul’s office rushed to respond.
My must read of the day is “Jeb, Hillary, and the curse of tarnished political brands,” by Jonah Goldberg, in the Los Angeles Times.
Numerous members of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity have spent years as professional spin-doctors for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders of oppressive regimes.
Some domestic oil refiners are fighting new measures that would be economically beneficial for the country as a whole but decrease their profitability, experts said.