http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=380317507584941587&q=Why+Are+Americans+So+Angry

5/7/2007 7:59:27 PM

Quote :

"Defeat the Media Clones by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. So how does the Establishment deal with a Ron Paul candidacy? What else did you expect? By ignoring him as much as possible. The Reuters headline following the May 3 GOP debate: "2008 Republicans back war." All right, you say, perhaps that’s just a crude summary. A headline can’t say everything, after all, and the article itself will surely disambiguate the candidates. It’s certainly newsworthy that a nine-term Republican congressman had been a fierce opponent of the war from the beginning, and made his antiwar position clear time and again during the debate. Naturally this will get some play. But not even a hint of that in the Reuters article by John Whitesides. I mean, hey, didn’t you read the headline? The 2008 Republicans back war! Here’s the entire coverage of Ron Paul: "Also participating were Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Ron Paul of Texas, and Duncan Hunter of California." Well, that’s just a smash-up job there, Mr. Whitesides. That wasn’t an isolated case. On the Liberty and Power blog, David Beito reports: "Later that night, CNN's post-debate spin segment sank to an even greater low. The panel included Arianna Huffington and some neo-con guy from The Weekly Standard. Nobody mentioned Paul's views. The ever-insufferable Huffington, who either did not watch the debate or lied about what she saw, self-righteously proclaimed that all of the ten candidates supported the war. Nobody challenged her. Are we to be spared nothing?" The creepy Dick Morris is in a category all his own. First, he declared John McCain the winner. Now anyone who watched the debate had to be wondering if McCain’s, well, weirdness was meant for laughs. At the same time, you almost had to admire how he could be at once stilted and robotic, and yet also crazed and menacing. But back to our subject: Morris ignored Paul altogether. Now he managed to find time to mention Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson – heck, he mentioned every other candidate besides Ron Paul, even listing specific winners and losers. Since a candidate like Ron Paul isn’t allowed to exist in Dick Morris’ world, he apparently couldn’t win or lose. Now we have the phenomenon of Yahoo News inexplicably excluding Ron Paul from its list of GOP candidates. Yet right there are Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, whose combined support in the polls trails Ron Paul’s. Stunned, I actually called Yahoo and left a voicemail message for their chief communications officer, and included my email address. In their emailed reply, I was told: "According to the latest FEC filings, it is our understanding that Congressman Paul has not officially entered the 2008 Presidential race, but has only gotten to the stage of forming an exploratory committee." Huh? Unannounced candidates are allowed into the debates? Can't possibly be true, I thought. So I simply went to the Federal Election Commission website, and after three seconds of searching I found Ron Paul's filing statement, dated March 12. (That's funny: I was told Yahoo had consulted "the latest FEC filings.") Well, here are Ron Paul's documents right here. To Yahoo's credit, after I sent them this documentation I was told that they would have a page for Ron Paul up within a week. But apparently it's going to take persistence and vigilance to ensure that Paul is treated fairly. As of yesterday, for example, ABC News began deleting and banning posts about Ron Paul, as well as posts complaining about this deletion policy. See this article. Since that post was written, ABC has begun blocking all comments about Ron Paul. The same media establishment that bought the Iraq propaganda package and then claimed to be oh-so-sorry is now trying to keep out of the limelight the one presidential contender who has actually bucked the establishment and does something other than parrot government/media slogans. But that’s what the mainstream media’s purpose is: to define the nature of our political debate and make sure no fundamental questions are ever raised. No, I don’t mean that the heads of these organizations held a special meeting and after exchanging the secret handshake pledged to keep mum about Paul. My point is that no such meeting is necessary. As shills for the establishment, they think alike on everything that matters. While marginal debate is to be permitted here and there, truly independent voices are to be demonized, drowned out, or, better yet, ignored altogether. (Ask Amy Goodman of the left’s Democracy Now! program why she doesn’t close up shop and just let ABC and Fox give us our news.) The media establishment likes the status quo just the way it is. This is all the more reason for people interested in Ron Paul to talk about him, write about him, and light up the Internet about him. (I wrote this piece as a quick intro to Paul so people could quickly and easily show their friends what made him so unusual and admirable.) Not only will you serve the cause of genuine political debate in this country – if we wind up with Rudy and Hillary, what on earth will they have to debate about? – but you’ll also tick off the race of clones who give us only the news they think we need. That’s reward enough, isn’t it? "

5/10/2007 11:02:34 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul's Goldwater Moment He's a Republican, he's antiwar – and the Establishment is deathly afraid of him by Justin Raimondo Portraits of Congressman Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, invariably descend into cliché – he is "Dr. No," he’s against subsidies even for his own district, he’s a libertarian Don Quixote – but, then again, clichés are what the conventional wisdom is made of, and so we are told Rep. Paul’s run for the White House is a fool’s errand. He’s a "fringe" candidate, he has "no chance," he’s just doing this to annoy the folks over at "The Corner" – this is what the mostly Washington-based cognoscenti of political punditry are telling us. Yes, even the ostensible "libertarians" over at the Cato Institute, one of whom sneered: "The Republican debate in California last night showed that the field of candidates still lacks a Reagan-style small-government conservative among the top tier of candidates. The candidates invoked Reagan's name at least 19 times, but one had to go all the way down to Rep. Ron Paul's quixotic campaign before someone reflected Reagan's commitment to limited government." Never mind that the Reagan administration’s commitment to limited government was purely rhetorical, and that it never did anything to actually roll back the state: after all, the Catoites live and work in Washington, D.C., where partisan myths are sonorously uttered and routinely believed. However, this business about "all the way down" clearly denotes the attitude that Rep. Paul is beneath notice, and certainly doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously by the notoriously haughty Deep Thinkers over at Cato. (Say, aren’t these the same folks who are now telling us that twenty-five years of libertarian activism and scholarship have led to the growth of government, and "this isn’t as bad as it seems"?) The conventional wisdom says that Ron Paul hasn’t got a chance – but this Washington-centric "wisdom" has been spectacularly wrong in recent years, notably about the invasion of Iraq. Before the war, "everybody" knew Saddam harbored "weapons of mass destruction." Those of us who doubted this were, by definition, outside the "mainstream" – i.e. relegated to the "fringe." And remember how the Washington wags were all so certain we’d be greeted with showers of rose petals and hailed as "liberators"? They were wrong about that one, too. This same smug certainty – the Greeks had a word for it: hubris – fuels their present domestic political prognoses, starting with the alleged inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s coronation as the Democratic standard-bearer. No one predicted the rise of Obama-mania, just as no one is exhibiting the least bit of imaginative punditeering in positing the rise of a parallel phenomenon in the GOP. Not that Rep. Paul has much in common with the Obama-glamorous Barack – except, perhaps, a certain authenticity, or at least (in Obama’s case) a reflection of the popular yearning for it. This is a significant base, in a crowded field: mobilized on behalf of an antiwar Republican candidate, dissenting GOPers could pose a serious challenge to neocon dominance of the party. Just as the Goldwater partisans rose up from the grassroots and routed the Rockefeller Republicans and the Eastern Establishment from the leadership of the party – and paved the way for the conservative ascendancy in the GOP – so the Paul campaign could augur a new libertarian turn in the party’s politics, one more attuned, ironically, to fiscally conservative and socially liberal "centrist" voters than any of Paul’s rivals. Rep. Paul’s cause, however, is not exactly a return to the Republican party of Barry Goldwater: he is a true paleo-Republican in that he wants to go all the way back to the conservatism of Robert A. Taft. Here is a ten-term congressman from Texas who remembers what the Republican party used to stand for – limited government, the foreign policy of the Founders, and the preservation of our old Republic against the Scylla of domestic tyranny and the Charybdis of conquests abroad. There is much history here, and, in Paul’s case, authenticity – he’s a country doctor, a man who oozes sincerity, and just the kind of stern yet benevolent figure, brimming with integrity, who is conceivably capable of leading the GOP out of its ideological quagmire, and reclaiming its lost heritage. Paul could conjure a Goldwater moment and revitalize his party. All he has to do is mount a visible challenge to the sterile neoconservative orthodoxy. This would scare the bejesus out of the neocons – and perhaps frighten them back into the Democratic party from whence they came. That alone would be a great boon to the GOP. A Republican victory in the next presidential election seems unlikely no matter who wins the nomination: if Republicans can’t win the White House this time around, perhaps they’ll be content with winning back their own souls. NOTES IN THE MARGIN There’s been a blogospheric brouhaha over the alleged "manipulation" of online polls by the Paul camp: when he won the ABC poll, after being initially excluded, major media began to take measures, such as banning pro-Paul comments on message boards. The truth is that libertarians are hardly the most organized group on the planet: getting them to act in concert is like herding cats. Trust me, I have long experience in this matter, and I have a very hard time believing that libertarians have gotten it together enough to pull off such online stunts, which would take thousands of participants and a central authority which is conspicuous by its absence in the movement. "

5/13/2007 11:05:12 AM

ron paul really impressed me during the debates, if i vote republican i'd certainly like for him to be an option

5/13/2007 12:21:35 PM

ron paul is the only conservative running right now and is pretty much the only person i would vote for in the republican party. if Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson get the nomination i think i might vote independent because the republicans need to get their shit straight and stop trying to be moderate.

5/14/2007 4:44:47 PM

Quote :

"Security, Washington-Style by Ron Paul Congress voted this past week to authorize nearly $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department, but the result will likely continue to be more bureaucracy and less security for Americans. Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created. I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency. When Congress voted to create the Homeland Security Department, I strongly urged that – at the least – FEMA and the Coast Guard should remain independent entities outside the Department. Our Coast Guard has an important mission – to protect us from external threats – and in my view it is dangerous to experiment with re-arranging the deck chairs when the United States is vulnerable to attack. As I said at the time, “the Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy." Likewise with FEMA. At the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I wrote “we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.” Unfortunately and tragically, we all know very well what happened in 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We know that FEMA’s handing of the disaster did in many cases more harm than good. FEMA was so disorganized and incompetent in its management of the 2005 hurricanes that one can only wonder how much the internal disarray in the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to that mismanagement. Folding responsibility for defending our land borders into the Department of Homeland Security was also a bad idea, as we have come to see. The test is simple: We just ask ourselves whether our immigration enforcement has gotten better or worse since functions were transferred into this super bureaucracy. Are our borders being more effectively defended against those who would enter our country illegally? I don’t think so. Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation."

5/15/2007 10:50:25 AM

Ron Paul was the only candidate I could respect in the debate tonight. I like how he didn't back down when Rudy started swinging around 9/11 demanding an apology.

5/15/2007 10:34:40 PM

^I wish he'd have been even stronger on that.

5/15/2007 10:55:40 PM

The crowd might have strung him up and lynched him.

There's some stupid fuckers out there.

5/15/2007 10:57:05 PM

I'm a Christian, old-school Conservative, and normally very calm.

That audience, and what is going on in my party almost made me pull a Bob Knight on my own furniture.

How in the world are men like these vying for the Republican nomination? Speaking of the big three, mostly.

5/15/2007 11:00:20 PM

It's too bad he isn't a better debater.

The GOP would rather play "24" quips than admit the fact that there are unintended and sometime deadly consequences to our years of everchanging, aggressive and meddling foreign relations..both overt and covert.


The reasons for the attack doesn't mean we can't retalitate, but it gives us a better understanding on how to avoid these kind of attacks in the future.

Unless there is a public/media outcry, I doubt we will see Paul in the next debate.

5/15/2007 11:18:38 PM

^^ I think part of it is that the mainstream Republican has gone to the right a good bit, and because of that, the circle of what is Republican has gotten very tight.

I'm watching the post-debate show on Fox, and everyone has made it a point to blast Paul. Michael Steele (the black guy earlier) stated "Paul is done for me". He never started for you numbnuts, so shut up like your opinion matters.

5/15/2007 11:39:12 PM

Shawn Hannity attempting to grill Ron Paul right now. Ron Paul comes out of this looking like he was correct.

5/15/2007 11:44:23 PM

Paul did much better against the sanctimonious Hannity than he did in the debate, didn't he?

So we've never made a mistake in our foreign policy?

We haven't instilled some hatred against our country?

There aren't radicals determined enough to attack us for it?

No..they just hate our freedom and that our women wear skirts.

5/15/2007 11:52:44 PM

Yeah, and the Kuwait reference from someone (I think Hunter) was stupid. Find me a Muslim not in the Kuwaiti Royal Family why we did that war. Our country couldn't give a s*** about Kuwait. It was to secure our future oil source.

5/15/2007 11:57:28 PM

i can't believe the crowd bought that 9/11 hyperbole from Rudy...such bullshit. People are stupid.

5/16/2007 5:16:34 AM

Paul's comment, while technically correct, is simply not something you can say if you're running for President. It's probably not even something you SHOULD say while running for President. He could've gotten the same point across, but he should've chosen his words more carefully.

5/16/2007 8:21:57 AM

Apparently Paul won a fox news viewers poll with 30% of the vote, lol.

5/16/2007 8:25:33 AM

how dare he suggest that our actions in the middle east over the last 50 years had influence in the actions of the terrorists on 9/11. america has never done wrong. we are the victim.

seriously though, fuck guiliani, fuck mccain, fuck romney, fuck huckabee, fuck brownback, fuck thompson, fuck hunter, fuck tancredo, fuck gilmore, fuck them all

god bless ron paul

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 8:27 AM. Reason : .]

5/16/2007 8:26:32 AM

hey, who was that guy last night who was making a Constitutionalist argument (it was someone besides Ron Paul)?


^ his comment was quite legitimate, but his delivery of it was awful.

5/16/2007 8:36:34 AM

^ I will agree with that.

Legitimacy of arguments though has never mattered much in politics.

5/16/2007 8:43:05 AM

Quote :

" his comment was quite legitimate, but his delivery of it was awful."

perhaps.

i think ron paul sometimes makes the mistake of assuming his audience is grounded in reality.

5/16/2007 9:37:55 AM

Quote :

"seriously though, fuck guiliani, fuck mccain, fuck romney, fuck huckabee, fuck brownback, fuck thompson, fuck hunter, fuck tancredo, fuck gilmore, fuck them all god bless ron paul"

he's doing well in the MSNBC poll also
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18661344/

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ...]

5/16/2007 9:54:27 AM

I wonder if there is any poll-skewing going on.

Or maybe mainstream America isn't as dumb as that South Carolina crowd.

5/16/2007 11:12:43 AM

people with a brain probably voted for ron paul. i'm guessing most of fox news viewers are incapable of sending a text message or still own a rotary phone.

5/16/2007 11:22:53 AM

i'm guessing you're an illiterate moron.

Quote :

"Apparently Paul won a fox news viewers poll with 30% of the vote, lol. "

5/16/2007 11:38:16 AM

i think they only had 40,000 total votes for all candiates. that's a very, very small percentage of fox viewers.

5/16/2007 11:41:13 AM

Did anyone manage to get a count on how many times Ron Paul was asked if he was running for the wrong party's nomination?

5/16/2007 3:01:14 PM

^ I think I counted four.

That's the thing about Republicans. They tell libertarians to become part of the Republican Party, and then when they do, they chastise them for being libertarians.

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2007 3:04:23 PM

yeah, 9/11 has nothing to do with people taking a radical sect of a religion too seriously...its all america's fault...its also england's fault when their subways get bombed and its also scotlands fault when their planes get shot down too

paul just completely destroyed any chances of being the republican nominee in 08 as im sure you all realize

5/16/2007 4:10:15 PM

^yeah, people usually don't want to hear the truth.

5/16/2007 4:20:38 PM

Quote :

"paul just completely destroyed any chances of being the republican nominee in 08 as im sure you all realize"

Did he ever have a chance?

Quote :

"yeah, 9/11 has nothing to do with people taking a radical sect of a religion too seriously...its all america's fault...its also england's fault when their subways get bombed and its also scotlands fault when their planes get shot down too"

He never said anything along those lines. What he said was that it's not that the terrorists hate our freedom. They hate our interventionist foreign policy and meddling in the Middle East.

5/16/2007 4:23:42 PM

Quote :

"They hate our interventionist foreign policy "

don't we all.

5/16/2007 4:38:41 PM

they actually just hate non-muslims/infidels

im just going off what the terrorists have said and written, what do they know about why they are blowing shit up

its not like the middle east was peaceful before 1776...and do muslim fundamentalists bomb buildings in dozens of countries other than the United States because of the United States' foreign policy?

5/16/2007 4:42:44 PM

Quote :

"its not like the middle east was peaceful before 1776"

what populated area was for any length of time?

Quote :

"im just going off what the terrorists have said and written"

do you also think all catholics hate protestants b/c of the northern ireland terrorism/bombings?

Quote :

"and do muslim fundamentalists bomb buildings in dozens of countries other than the United States because of the United States' foreign policy?"

the U.S. is usually tied in there somewhere, but where are we not these days?

5/16/2007 4:51:00 PM

Or there is the distinct possibility that our interventionist policies coupled with the fact that they're zealots have allowed their leaders to manipulate them to want to kill us.

DOUBLE WHAMMY.

5/16/2007 4:53:35 PM

Treetwista, you should try reading this:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-24-2002-30919.asp

or this:

Quote :

"To sum up: Bin Laden is at war with the United States because it intruded into the holy land and later invaded sacred Iraq. These actions, condemned in the Qur’an he says, were sufficient cause for him to take up arms against the United States. ... It does not help the American public’s understanding of Bin Laden’s motives and goals when American leaders refuse to state that his cause in his eyes is a Holy War. More candor by leaders, such as Bush and Kerry, would help Americans to appreciate more fully what they face in the years ahead. To grasp the gravity of Bin Laden’s challenge to America, do consult the aforementioned web site. And, hope that your leaders in Washington do the same."

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4560

5/16/2007 4:54:17 PM

so basically you're saying that his demented religious views somehow validate or rationalize his want to destroy israel? that his claims of the US being on so-called holy grounds are good enough reasons for you to justify attacking and killing thousands of innocent americans? fuck that

saying 9/11 is the US' foreign policy fault is like saying the virginia tech kids deserved to die because they ignored Cho...just because somebody gives a reason for doing something doesnt mean their response is fair or warranted or even sane

i guess if i considered my front yard a holy ground and somebody walked into my yard i could kill their family

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2007 5:02:57 PM

Quote :

"so basically you're saying that his demented religious views somehow validate or rationalize his want to destroy israel? that his claims of the US being on so-called holy grounds are good enough reasons for you to justify attacking and killing thousands of innocent americans? fuck that saying 9/11 is the US' foreign policy fault is like saying the virginia tech kids deserved to die because they ignored Cho...just because somebody gives a reason for doing something doesnt mean their response is fair or warranted or even sane"

Nobody said anything about justification for 9/11. Not me. Not Ron Paul. Nobody.

What Ron Paul said is that our interventionist foreign policy makes us less secure. The concept is that the more countries we fuck up, the more terrorists who come over here wanting to bomb us. This is a valid point. Why meddle in the governments of other countries? What do we have to gain from sponsoring civil wars, uprisings and coups? It seems that the repercussions far outweigh the benefits.

5/16/2007 5:20:54 PM

Quote :

" That's the thing about Republicans. They tell libertarians to become part of the Republican Party, and then when they do, they chastise them for being libertarians. "

What I dont get about that is that not all of Paul's views, but a lot of them, are in line with the traditions of the Republican party. You think Eisenhower would be happy with Halliburton? You think Teddy would be happy with, well, anything? Of course not.

The Republicans in charge, and those running for pres, want to make a big deal out of the history of their party and get back to the popularity of people like Ike and Lincoln. Yet their positions are all absolutely opposed to most of what makes those presidents popular even amongst non-Republicans.

5/16/2007 5:30:29 PM

i hope at least some of you people watch cnn

ron paul was on about 30 minutes ago

5/16/2007 5:35:30 PM

Pauls a tool... no better than clinton, just running the mouth and trying to say as much as possible to garner attention. He'll never get be nominee in this election... But it does appear that he has some internet support from people skewing polls... Doesnt show up greater than 1% in real polls, but then gets 50% support in the ones online ... sounds like the work of TWW to me

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2007 5:43:31 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: The GOP would rather play "24" quips than admit the fact that there are unintended and sometime deadly consequences to our years of everchanging, aggressive and meddling foreign relations..both overt and covert. The reasons for the attack doesn't mean we can't retalitate, but it gives us a better understanding on how to avoid these kind of attacks in the future."

This is a simply worded statement about why I've not found the Republican Party appealing in the least bit for the past five years.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Unless there is a public/media outcry, I doubt we will see Paul in the next debate."

Au contrère. I highly doubt he'll miss the next debate. The same forces that enabled Gravel to end up on the Democratic nominee's next debate on CNN (he wasn't originally invited) are undoubtedly going to use the same channels to secure a spot for Paul.

5/16/2007 6:41:24 PM

^
The person who most wants Paul there is Guiliani.

Quote :

"Or there is the distinct possibility that our interventionist policies coupled with the fact that they're zealots have allowed their leaders to manipulate them to want to kill us. "

Couldn't agree more.

Quote :

"so basically you're saying that his demented religious views... "

It seems there are two main camps. One says that the goal of the muslim radicals is complete domination over the world. The other camp says that their hostility is mainly a response to our often contradictive foreign policy over the years. The reality may lie somewhere between the two. The problem is Guiliani et al pretty much completely discount the effects of our schizo treatment of mideast countries.

When it comes to foreign policy, our country has the attention span of a gnat and the patience of a dog in heat. We have flitted from side to side in the mideast. We have left them confused and angry. I don't think we've done it on purpose, we're just very big and clumsy. We want an immediate effect and are moire than willing to forego the big picture for a quick fix.

That is how we end up supporting evil dictators and crazy insurgent groups. We really shouldn't be meddling in other country's affairs, but we can't help it. Being the most powerful country inspires this erroneous feeling that we have to help everyone else from themselves.

Washington pegged our country correctly early on. We should trade with the world, but stay neutral.

5/16/2007 10:17:40 PM

i like this ron paul guy. makes a lot of sense.

5/17/2007 8:53:45 AM

Quote :

"Pauls a tool... no better than clinton, just running the mouth and trying to say as much as possible to garner attention."

except he's backed up everything he says with 30 years of completely consistent voting.

go fuck yourself

5/17/2007 10:00:52 AM

pretty much

this man stands up for what he believes in


and lets the constitution be his guide

5/17/2007 11:26:23 AM

I think if he would of just clarified that our actions in the middle east didn't make the events of Sep 11 OK, they certainly provided the justification to the terrorists, it wouldn't have sounded like it did.




Otherwise, I think he did great.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 12:47 PM. Reason : sounded bad]

5/17/2007 12:46:31 PM

after guiliani called him out, he should have asked guiliani if he disagreed with the 9/11 commission report that completely backs up paul's statement.

5/17/2007 1:57:24 PM

you know what else he shouldve done? not blamed the US for 9/11 considering he isnt gonna win shit now

5/17/2007 2:19:20 PM