Ron Paul Explains

We've been hammering Ron Paul here the last couple of days as part of our effort to not allow political candidates to court the 9-11 Deniers while maintaining sufficient distance that they can avoid any "blowback". Paul was asked some questions by the good folks over at Reason Magazine. He's still dancing a little bit, but these are better responses:

Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.

Hat Tip: Wil in the comments, who has a rather interesting blog name.

Ryan Sager posts the transcript of a John McCain/Blogger conference call yesterday where I asked Senator McCain about Paul's Truther-friendly comments. One minor correction: at the end I did not say "truth or virus", I said "Truther virus".

Update: Some disappointed reactions at 9-11 Blogger along with one "he believes in it but can't admit it politically". We report, you decide.

Mrs M and Kirsten Powers discuss Paul's comments on the O'Reilly Factor:



I like Michelle's comment at the end, "If these people are going to come up to you, the proper response should be, 'Bug off!'"

Some of the Truthers are pointing to this article that Mrs M wrote years ago, claiming that it shows she was a Truther too:

What really happened on United Airlines Flight 93? As the Philadelphia Daily News reported back in November, many folks in Shanksville, Pa., where the hijacked Boeing 757 crashed, believe the plane was shot down. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a small, unmarked jet flying overhead immediately after impact; others are convinced they heard the piercing sound of a missile. A federal flight controller told The Telegraph of Nashua, N.H., that an F-16 had indeed been in "hot pursuit" of Flight 93 until it hit the ground. One of the 911calls from a passenger on the flight indicated that there was an explosion aboard the plane. The FBI immediately confiscated the tape.

Of course, there is a difference between asking those sorts of question in March of 2002, and asking them now, and that is that we know a heck of a lot more about 9-11 thanks to the Commission Report and other evidence that has come out over the years.