Ron Paul: If I Was In Charge The People Killed on 9/11 Would Still Be Alive

Thinks presidents have time machines in their basement

Politics • August 2012 • Views: 1,796

Ron Paul, traveler from a different reality and Texas libertarian, recently spoke to his cult where he dropped this little gem:

Somebody, rather nastily, said the other day on, uh, the Internet ‘oh yeah if those Paul people had been in charge, uh, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.’ But you know what I think the answer is? So would the 3000 people from 9/11 be alive!

Youtube Video

Yeah Ron, I’m sure you can just hop in your TARDIS, go back to 1979, and fix things right up.

via BuzzFeed

Recent Pages by prononymous (Prononymous, rogue demon hunter):
Legitimate Rape ad Art and Microorganisms collide Showdown in Pelosi-town. Fact checking the fact checkers. Math is lame. When will I ever use it anyway? Alternatives to nuclear in the Pacific Ring of Fire?

Jump to bottom

9 comments

Destro Sun, Aug 26, 2012 9:12:07pm

It is very clear Bush and company were incompetents. I don't know if Ron Paul, who would cut govt programs would have done any good either.

[Link: www.salon.com...]

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Sun, Aug 26, 2012 9:28:13pm

What he is trying to say, as he has said before, that 9/11 was the result of blowback. If America had used Paul's foreign policy then there never would have been any blowback in the first place.

But if it was the result of blowback then he would have had to travel back in time to 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and stopped us from helping Osama and friends, or he would have needed to have been president at the time. Either way it's all hypothetical nonsense using the 9/11 victims for a cheap talking point.

He wasn't trying to say that he would have noticed a memo that others missed. That's conjecture and quite presumptuous at that. I'm sure he has perfect vision in hindsight.

Destro Sun, Aug 26, 2012 9:47:51pm

re: #2 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter

What he is trying to say, as he has said before, that 9/11 was the result of blowback. If America had used Paul's foreign policy then there never would have been any blowback in the first place.

But if it was the result of blowback then he would have had to travel back in time to 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and stopped us from helping Osama and friends, or he would have needed to have been president at the time. Either way it's all hypothetical nonsense using the 9/11 victims for a cheap talking point.

He wasn't trying to say that he would have noticed a memo that others missed. That's conjecture and quite presumptuous at that. I'm sure he has perfect vision in hindsight.

I thought he was t alking about the memo - I admit I did not click link and listen to Ron Paul - while I am sympathetic to his foreign policy and even some of his domestic politics like ending the drug war, I don't consider him a serious candidate or politician.

funky chicken Mon, Aug 27, 2012 4:57:13am

re: #2 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter

Honestly I still wonder why we got involved with the Soviets and Afghanistan. Really, was it worth the 30 + years, billions of dollars, etc, etc? Afghanistan would have been better off under Soviet rule than under the Taliban, for comparison's sake.

But Ron Paul is a lunatic.

Destro Mon, Aug 27, 2012 6:11:25am

re: #4 funky chicken

Honestly I still wonder why we got involved with the Soviets and Afghanistan. Really, was it worth the 30 + years, billions of dollars, etc, etc? Afghanistan would have been better off under Soviet rule than under the Taliban, for comparison's sake.

But Ron Paul is a lunatic.

One more reason to consider the Reagan era an era of failure or one where policies set us up for failure down the line, be it economic or geo-political (support for Iraq over Iran in that war, etc).

Many claim supporting the jihadis in Afghanistan was a good thing because it helped bring down the USSR. But the fall of Soviet communism has zero to do with Afghanistan. Economics caused the collapse of the USSR, which was in decline since the 70s when they needed to buy ever more American grain to keep their people fed.

So Ron Paul is right in a sense, that blowback from Afghanistan policies caused 9/11 but Ron Paul was a non-entity in the 80s.

lawhawk Mon, Aug 27, 2012 6:14:22am

Or, we can go back further - and use the TARDIS to rejigger the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, or go back to when the US installed the Shah in the first place in Iran over the elected government because it leaned towards the USSR.

Or we can realize that even the best of intentions can lead to bad outcomes.

Paul's engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking - tapping into an ongoing and pervasive undercurrent of isolationism along the fringes of both parties.

alinuxguru Mon, Aug 27, 2012 7:17:29am

If Ron Paul were in charge in the 80s, we would also be calling Kuwait "Iraq".

Destro Mon, Aug 27, 2012 9:08:44am

re: #7 alinuxguru

If Ron Paul were in charge in the 80s, we would also be calling Kuwait "Iraq".

What's wrong with that? Kuwaiti women in an Iraq regime would be wearing jeans, going to universities and there would not be Sharia law.

Additionally, Saddam's Iraq would be cranking up the oil pumps to pay off the war debts he incurred when the Saudis egged him on to fight Iran.

Hell, maybe Saddam would have invaded Saudi Arabia by now and liberated the people their from oppressive Saudi rule in favor of a secular pan Arabic vision of the Middle East and no al-Qaeda and No 9/11 with the Saudi rule overthrown.

Israel, pressured and fearful of a powerful Iraq may have reached a deal with the Palestinians by now.

Maybe in some alternative universe, not kicking Saddam out of Kuwait would have been the best thing possible for world peace and development.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Mon, Aug 27, 2012 11:10:28am

I'm sympathetic to some of Paul's foreign policy points. I often think myself that we shouldn't have such an aggressive foreign policy. But I don't agree with non-intervention. That's because intervention isn't an evil thing by itself. We can be a world leader and help those less fortunate without relying on excessive military strength.

My objection to Paul's comment isn't the underlying philosophy in this case, it's using a nonsense scenario and the corpses of the 9/11 victims to score some cheap emotional points.

First, 9/11 is the result of a lot more than simple blow-back. There were many factors at work. But' let's say, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was all blow-back and zero anything else.

The policies that caused this blow-back were initiated in 1979. That's a time when communism was still a scary propaganda point and a major factor in US politics. We had gone to war overtly and covertly, and done lots of political and economic maneuvering around the perceived threat of communism. There was absolutely zero chance that Paul or other libertarians would have taken over national policy at the time. The thought that they might have is nothing but a fantasy.

So what Paul is saying is that if an impossible thing happened then 9/11 wouldn't have. Well no shit. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster had just spontaneously aborted Osama in his mothers' womb 9/11 wouldn't have happened either.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!