by F. Grey Parker
Adam Clarke Estes describes his meltdown during an interview last month:
"CNN's Gloria Borger was just starting to grill Paul about the details of his involvement in the racist newsletters, when the candidate stonewalled her. "Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20-something years. 22 years ago?" Paul said right at the outset. "I didn't write them, I disavow them, that's it."
A short time later, USA Today published a damning piece which, at the very least, cast a doubt on his timeline:
"Some issues of the newsletters included racist, anti-Israel or anti-gay comments, including a 1992 newsletter in which he said 95% of black men in Washington "are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Paul told TheDallas Morning News in 1996 that the contents of his newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. Wednesday, he told CNN he didn't write the newsletters and didn't know what was in them."
That he was so quickly proven to be distorting his own record of events was bad enough. But, it is his angry-old-man act that deserves more analysis.
As Estes noted:
"Borger, like a good journalist, pressed on for a few seconds before urging Paul to react to what people are saying about the two-decade old allegations. "These things are pretty incendiary," Borger said. "Because of people like you," Paul snapped back, just before he pulled of his microphone and headed for the door. "I appreciate your answering the questions, and you understand it's our job to ask them," the reporter said, almost apologetically as Paul was leaving." EMPHASIS OURS
Wrong. The person responsible for Ron Paul being dogged by unpleasant questions is Ron Paul. That he cannot or will not concede this is telling.
Today, he was at it again. Jason Cherkis reports:
"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who is expected to do very well in the Iowa caucus this week, aggressively fended off accusations on Sunday that he has engaged in 9/11 conspiracy theories and wrote a series of racist and homophobic newsletters published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s.
While Rep. Paul (R-Texas) is no stranger to conspiracy theories, he erupted when asked by ABC's Jake Tapper about rumors that he once believed the 9/11 attacks were an inside job."
"Now, wait, wait, wait, wait," he told Tapper on "This Week." "Don't go any further on that. That's complete nonsense."
Former Paul aide Eric Dondero, who worked closely with him from 1987 to 2003, recently wrote that Paul "engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time." Dondero said that Paul believed George W. Bush planned to use the attacks as a justification for invading Iraq, which Paul vehemently opposed, and that he expressed "no sympathies whatsoever" for the 9/11 victims."
Again, it is the nature of his response that demands attention. This is not a new charge against Paul. Simply declaring it to be "complete nonsense" doesn't wash. Speculation regarding his affinity for trutherism is the result of his own statements. Examples are not hard to find. Shortly before the 1 minute mark in the video below, Paul is asked "why don't you come out about the truth about 9/11?" He responds by saying, "because I can't handle the controversy." EMPHASIS OURS
Put aside the issue of Paul's alleged racism, anti-semitism or trutherism. When you're claiming to be qualified to run the world's most powerful country, you can't act like an angry grandpa.
Would he behave this way in matters of diplomacy? Would a President Paul potentially look the leaders of other powerful nations in the eye and blatantly tell amateurish lies? Might he dramatically upend international security by stomping out of sensitive discussions? I think it's possible that the answer to all of these questions is yes.
This is who Ron Paul is.
Today, he was at it again. Jason Cherkis reports:
"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who is expected to do very well in the Iowa caucus this week, aggressively fended off accusations on Sunday that he has engaged in 9/11 conspiracy theories and wrote a series of racist and homophobic newsletters published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s.
While Rep. Paul (R-Texas) is no stranger to conspiracy theories, he erupted when asked by ABC's Jake Tapper about rumors that he once believed the 9/11 attacks were an inside job."
"Now, wait, wait, wait, wait," he told Tapper on "This Week." "Don't go any further on that. That's complete nonsense."
Former Paul aide Eric Dondero, who worked closely with him from 1987 to 2003, recently wrote that Paul "engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time." Dondero said that Paul believed George W. Bush planned to use the attacks as a justification for invading Iraq, which Paul vehemently opposed, and that he expressed "no sympathies whatsoever" for the 9/11 victims."
Again, it is the nature of his response that demands attention. This is not a new charge against Paul. Simply declaring it to be "complete nonsense" doesn't wash. Speculation regarding his affinity for trutherism is the result of his own statements. Examples are not hard to find. Shortly before the 1 minute mark in the video below, Paul is asked "why don't you come out about the truth about 9/11?" He responds by saying, "because I can't handle the controversy." EMPHASIS OURS
Put aside the issue of Paul's alleged racism, anti-semitism or trutherism. When you're claiming to be qualified to run the world's most powerful country, you can't act like an angry grandpa.
Would he behave this way in matters of diplomacy? Would a President Paul potentially look the leaders of other powerful nations in the eye and blatantly tell amateurish lies? Might he dramatically upend international security by stomping out of sensitive discussions? I think it's possible that the answer to all of these questions is yes.
This is who Ron Paul is.
No comments:
Post a Comment