December 9, 2011 12:17 PM

Ron Paul: 9/11 prompted "glee" in Bush administration

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Campaign 2012

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the stage for an invasion of Iran.

Paul, who was tied for second in this week's CBS News/New York Times poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers, is making a strong push in the Hawkeye state in hopes of scoring an upset victory in the first-in-the-nation January 3 caucuses. Paul volunteers have been working to convince Paul's mostly young supporters - many of whom will be on holiday break from college when the caucuses take place - to be sure to make it to their caucus site.

Paul's libertarian views - on the foreign policy front, he wants to dramatically reduce the U.S. military presence abroad and end all foreign aid - put him at odds with many Republican voters. A poll from Gallup this week found that 62 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters see Paul as an unacceptable nominee.

But if no candidate can consolidate support in Iowa, Paul could emerge victorious in the caucuses even if he gets less than 30 percent support. Paul's supporters tend to be more passionate about their candidate than the backers of many of his rivals, which could give him an advantage if bad weather discourages less-motivated Iowans from getting to their caucus site on January 3.

In response to Paul's comments Thursday evening, former Bush administration spokesman Ari Fleisher Tweeted: "The man is nuts."

On "Face the Nation" last month, Paul said that while the average American didn't cause the Sept. 11 attacks, " if you have a flawed policy it may influence it."

"I think there's an influence and that's exactly what the 9/11 commission said that's what the DOD has said and that's also what the CIA has said and that's what a lot of researchers have said," said Paul. "...our policies definitely had an influence and you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm. They say yes we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country and we don't like the intervention that we do in their nation so to deny this I think is very dangerous. But to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous is very dangerous notion because it's not true."

He added: "So I'm saying policies have an effect but that's a far cry from blaming America. I mean in America, you're supposed to be able to criticize your own government without saying you're un-American."

Full CBS News coverage: Ron Paul

18 Photos

Ron Paul on the campaign trail

View the Full Gallery »


Add a Comment See all 198 Comments
by TheAlwaysSunnyinNewYork December 13, 2011 4:11 AM EST
1 Candidate has never flip flopped on any of his positions. 1 Candidate predicted the financial crisis in 2005. 1 Candidate receives more donation from U.S. servicemen than the others. 1 Candidate want to stop foreign handouts. Don't believe the media. See For yourself. Get more facts on the man at: http://www.antination.com/p/contenders.html
Reply to this comment
by jas9990 December 12, 2011 3:59 PM EST
Everyone knows Bush and his Saudi allies did 9/11 to prop up his failing Presidency and let him start blitzkrieg wars all over the planet like the Project for a New American Century publicly planned.

It's just that some people are still lying to themselves and can't emotionally admit the truth yet.

Thank you Ron Paul for taking the American sheeple one step closer to reality.
Reply to this comment
by sweetcakesmaria December 10, 2011 1:50 PM EST
Romney, Gingrich are nothing more than politicans that will say or do anything to get elected. If either one becomes President, the world will instantly become more dangerous. Paul brings commonsense and realism to the table. Paul was right on when he said that we're intentionally demonizing Iran so that we can have reasons to go to war with them. He also said that he would bring our troops stationed all over the globe home and stop supporting other Countries with American tax dollars. Paul appears to be what America needs at this time in our history.
Reply to this comment
by Overruled1 December 10, 2011 5:05 PM EST
We already have reason to attack Iran. They abducted our embassy staff in 1979.
They are leading sponsors of terrorism and support the hamas and hezbulla. They seek nuclear weapons, have underwater missiles, and are building missiles that have ranges that stretch across Europe.
The military and religious extremists are dictating to a captive populace what their rights are and aren't instead of the other way around, just as in China whose population is even denied the true facts of their political and economic history by their government.
This way rewriting history makes them look just and honorable.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is The Great Democracy, but it is the best one today. Attacking Iran's military and political leadership is who our target should be. I'm sure the second the populace learns of US involvement in Iran, many will form militia, and welcome us with open arms thus accelerating the change in power there.
However true, we do have people here lusting for what Iran has for the taking, and that is wrong.
America has to make it right by the people of Iran for the damages done by the CIA there long ago.
by logicdoug December 10, 2011 12:46 PM EST
Ron Paul and his supporters THINK more than most politicians and their unquestioning supporters, but not enough to end his mind's corruption by power, and therefore not enough to learn the easy process to socially manifest his espousals.

The people who call him "nuts" and such terms illuminate their classic ignorance of the human phenomenon. Who, standing before their children, will say they do not want peace? You cannot have peace by starting wars. But you can have it by putting your armed citizenry and military in your own country where they can noticeably defend it. The people who call Ron Paul "nuts", are too ignorant to understand the preceding two sentences, or too ignorant to want peace.

Respectfully, DougBuchananCom
Reply to this comment
by TechDel December 10, 2011 1:54 PM EST
Wow! You must be soooo intelligent. The way you wrote that proves that only Ron Paul supporters can think. You sound like Obama you elitist a**hole. Even the most partisan libs didn't claim Bush was gleeful about 9-11. Guilty of doing it maybe, but not gleeful. How does Paul know? Did he have listening devices in the White House or can he read minds? I will stay home on election day if my only choices are a psycho and a socialist.
by fedup12 December 10, 2011 11:36 AM EST
I would vote for Ron Paul before Newt or Mitt.
Reply to this comment
by tsprague52 December 13, 2011 6:57 PM EST
I would vote for, almost, anyone before Newt. But then, I was an adult voter when Newt was a member of Congress. I do not want this man anywhere near ANY power at any time.

Ron Paul has stayed consistent. I agree. However, so have the majority of the US, in that they don't agree with Ron Paul's views.
by fedup12 December 9, 2011 10:12 PM EST
Well. the proof is it didnt take ol Bush to go from We will hunt bin laden down to Bin laden is not important now look at these doctored up photos of WMDs.
Reply to this comment
by alanrobisch December 9, 2011 10:06 PM EST
I think every Ron Paul backer should be embarassed by the man. He has no shame and will attack anyone factual or not. He makes McCarthy look like a playground bully.
Reply to this comment
by fedup12 December 9, 2011 10:22 PM EST
No. A bully is a guy who jumps at any small chance to go to war.
by DavidinNYC December 10, 2011 1:06 AM EST
It appears that the United States only goes to war when there is a profit to be made in certain priveleged groups or to thwart off threats to our monetary superiority around the world. In the case of going to war against Iraq Saddam Hussein has been neglecting to go along with his sale of oil in American dollars, he wanted to sell oil in Euros. This may have been a contributing factor to going to war there. In the case of Libya an even more damaging threat to the United States and western powers had become apparent. Gaddafi has been working with the leadership of African and Central Asian countries to form a multi-national alliance - their own version of NATO in order to strengthen their soveriegnty. Worse yet, he was negotiating plans with the direct democratical government of his country to finally back their currency- the dinar, with actual gold. Again the United Sates and western governments do not like to have power taken away from them and like so many other times in history use force to retain it. This would've been extremely beneficial to the Libyan people as having a gold- backed currency would dramatically ncrease that currencies' value, however for Libyan's oil customers it left them with several peaceful options- either convert their countries' currency to gold in order to catch up to the dinar's, spend massive amounts of their fiat money just to purchase its dinar equivalent and then buy the oil with that or buy oil elsewhere. Neither of these options satisfied these countries so they chose the quick fix- enforce a no-fly zone, sanction the country, spur anti- Qaddafi sentiment across the world, plant anti-Qaddafi rebels in the country, use NATO and othere forces to strengthen those forces, paint a negative view of Qaddafi in the media so as to diminish the anti-war groups and individuals and to make those people who have an understanding of foreign affairs look completely stupid, ise these NATO forces to take over the oil, plant a replacement region and thus hold onto power until the LIbyan people revolt once agains and then apply a faux revolution to occur to start the whole thing over again. Ron Paul knows what he's talking about. He's incredibly educated and if more Americans knew what he knew we'd be far better off and these pro-war fools would have been a thing of history by now.
See all 4 Replies
by alanrobisch December 9, 2011 10:03 PM EST
I see the conspiracy theorists are out in full throat. they should be ashamed of themselves. No proof has come forth to prove their point. If they were right our country is no better than the third reich and I don't think even hitler killed his own people as a pretrext to war. The people who believe this are true loons.
Reply to this comment
by carlc55 December 10, 2011 12:11 AM EST
Are you delusional - where the hell have you BEEN for the last 10 years. The Bush admisnstration did exactly what Ron Paul said they did. They used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq. Or have you had your head stuck in some dark, unmentionable place since then aren't aware of current history.
by Skootch December 10, 2011 12:23 PM EST
Really?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
by obwan222 December 9, 2011 9:46 PM EST
AmericasConscience: "Just as I suspected. Ron Paul is a leftwing shill..."

No he's a Libertarian, but you can't see that because you're a right-wing lunatic who thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a left-wing lunatic.

AmericasConscience: "Ron Paul just sealed his fate and will never get the GOP nomination."

Paul's fate was sealed a long time ago, you just didn't know it. He's a Libertarian, not a Republican (or a Democrat). And the GOP is pursuing a very virulent form of political correctness. If you don't say exactly the right thing, sign the right pledges and kiss the right a$$ then you are to be driven out.
Reply to this comment
by alanrobisch December 9, 2011 9:59 PM EST
his comments are horrendous. He is the proverbial bull in the china shop. does he really believe what he said. These are some of the more hateful words i have ever heard. In effect he has stated that George bush was happy at the death of 3000 people. this man has no conscience or a complete loss of respect for everyone else but himself. This is spiteful and hateful to the enth degree
by answerman1949 December 9, 2011 8:08 PM EST
Paul could have even more provocative, speaking about the "Dancing Israelis," Mossad agents, who were arrested while dancing with joy at the burning World Trade Center. Paul could have spoken about how EVERY US government agency and military organization failed in its mission to protect American lives, yet President George W. Bush fired no one nor disciplined no one. Paul could have incriminated the Bush much more than he did; so, by comparison, his statement was both mild and reasonable.
Reply to this comment
See all 198 Comments
.
Latest CBS News Headlines Popular CBS News Stories
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...