In ’98, Ron Paul warned U.S. policy was leading to terrorist attacks

By David McElroy · September 30, 2011

We’ve been told over and over that nobody could have reasonably predicted the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The people who say this believe the terrorists “hate us for our freedom.” If it was so hard to predict that we were going to be attacked, why did Ron Paul warn the nation about it almost three years before it happened?

I remember Dec. 16, 1998 very well. President Bill Clinton was in the middle of impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. For the crime of lying under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, congressional Republicans were trying to throw him out of office. Clinton’s actions were slimy, unprincipled and illegal, but hardly qualifying of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Clinton was the ultimate political animal, so he did what politicians like to do when they’re in trouble. He wrapped himself in the flag and took invented an excuse to attack a country.

Although most people saw through the political motivations for the air attacks on Iraq which killed hundreds of innocent Iraqis, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul stood virtually alone in opposing the attack for the right reasons. At a news conference at the House, Paul laid out his arguments very clearly. He seemed quite angry. Take the four minutes or so to watch this video clip from that news conference. Right around the three-minute mark, you’ll hear Paul explaining that U.S. policy was not only killing innocent people, but it was also making it more likely that U.S. military personnel were going to be killed and that the United States would be attacked by terrorists.

Today, the convenient fiction is that terrorists randomly attack the United States (and the West in general) because of the freedoms we enjoy. While it’s true that many Muslims (especially the more conservative among them) don’t like our culture, it’s very, very clear that we were attacked because we had U.S. troops in their holy lands and the U.S. government had been attacking and killing people in that part of the world for years — in our names. Ron Paul understood this. The other politicians didn’t understand it. Who was right?

Today, Paul again explains what causes terror attacks. He explains what happens as a result of arrogant interventionist policies from Washington. He also warns us what is coming economically as the clowns in charge keep pursuing the same policies have haven’t worked so far.

As he runs for office and tells the truth about these issues, we’re surrounded by people who dismiss him as crazy or extremist or weird. They don’t understand him. They don’t understand his reasoning. They don’t understand the things that most of us believe.

What I’d like to ask those people is very simple. When Ron Paul warned in 1998 what was coming, you didn’t believe him then. He’s still warning you that trouble is coming, economically and internationally. Why do you choose to believe the same sorts of people who were wrong then — instead of the man who was right?

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts