The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Iran Bomb Plot Sinks Ron Paul’s Credibility

By on 10.12.11 @ 12:24PM

So.

Doubtless if unsurprisingly he never saw it coming. But Iran just sent a torpedo amidships to the Ron Paul campaign.

Remember Congressman Paul back at that Fox debate in Iowa saying to Chris Wallace that the threat from Iran was “small”? That “Iran does not have an air force that can come here…. They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves…” This was in addition to Paul’s attack on former president George W. Bush for signing an executive order designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist group.” All are of a piece in the consistent Ron Paul theme that many see as a McGovernite foreign policy. Not only far-left wing philosophically but with a startling — and dangerous — naïveté about the nature of America’s enemies.

Comes now the news that lo and behold Iran is being accused by the FBI — with the charge backed up by House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican — of plotting not one but two attacks on American soil. The targets being the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. and the Israeli Embassy.

The attack was stopped, the plot unraveled. And the plotters? That would be, reports Newsmax, two suspects arrested who are connected to “Iran’s Quds Force, an element within Iran’s elite Islamic Revolution Guards Corps that is known for carrying out operations beyond Iran’s borders.”

All of which is to say, Congressman Paul’s theories about Iran have just been blown to smithereens. 

Iran didn’t use an air force to get to America — it had an Iranian, American-naturalized citizen Manssor Arbabsiar — already here.

Suppose instead of a plot to blow up a Washington restaurant — among the charges — with a conventional bomb, Arbabsiar and his cohort had managed to smuggle in a nuclear weapon? What did Paul write in his book The Revolution in addition to scorning the idea that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was a danger?

I had said all along that Iran posed no imminent nuclear threat to us or to her neighbors.

This time around, luck was on America’s side. Iran didn’t — yet — have the capacity to smuggle in a nuclear weapon. But they were within a whisker of getting a conventional bomb and killing hundreds —on American soil.

An act which all by itself could easily be defined as an act of war.

But the real casualty here?

The Ron Paul movement.

The congressman has just been shown to be wrong about Iran — big time.

Fortunately for the intended targets, for conservatives and for America the only real casualty here is the Paul campaign — and the naïve ideas that drive its leftist foreign policy crusade.

View all comments (453) |

Whitney| 10.12.11 @ 12:38PM

Jeff, do you mean Hal Rogers of Kentucky the Appropriations Chair? I think you meant Mike Rogers of Michigan who is the House INtelligence Chair.

WJ| 10.12.11 @ 2:04PM

I watched the bloviating Rogers on CNN last night. It was interesting that Rachel Maddow was practically orgasmic about this whole chain of events. She was ecstatic that her favorite leftists could conjure up fabrications just as well as the Bush regime. It was also interesting that Hannity gave the storage no coverage that I could see.

It's a big fat fake put on us by Democrats trying to distract us from the real problems.

JP| 10.12.11 @ 2:38PM

The entire episode sounds ridiculous.

Cl1nt| 10.12.11 @ 12:41PM

Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet, Consectetur Adipisicing Elit, Sed Do Eiusmod Tempor Incididunt Ut Labore Et Dolore Magna Aliqua. Ut Enim Ad Minim Veniam, Quis Nostrud Exercitation Ullamco Laboris Nisi Ut Aliquip Ex Ea Commodo Consequat. Duis Aute Irure Dolor In Reprehenderit In Voluptate Velit Esse Cillum Dolore Eu Fugiat Nulla Pariatur. Excepteur Sint Occaecat Cupidatat Non Proident, Sunt In Culpa Qui Officia Deserunt Mollit Anim Id Est Laborum.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 12:59PM

Uh Oh !

The Israel Firster Poseur Punk Poster Is In The Building

"The lorem ipsum text is typically a section of a Latin text by Cicero with words altered, added and removed that make it nonsensical in meaning and not proper Latin"

Go Tell It To Your Mancrush Bibi.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Jack in Wi.| 10.12.11 @ 5:27PM

Latest Reuters Poll just up on Drudge. Romney 23%. Cain 19%. Ron Paul 13%, Perry 10%. This was taken before Herman Cain imploded last night. His insane 999 plan was shredded by everyone on the panel. He named Alan [ the big bubble ] Greenspan as his favorite chairman of the FED. His resume is toilet paper thin and he hasn't got any money.

Mr. Lord is delusional if he thinks most people care about another war with Iran. They lied us into Iraq. They are trying to lie us into Iran. An unprovoked attack on Iran would be a horrible war crime and destroy what is left of the world economy.

I said yesterday that the race was down to Paul and Romney. Well Perry and Cain have imploded so that leaves Paul and Romney. Ron Paul has by the largest group of active contributors. Most people hate these wars and foreign aid. The Fed should be audited and most people support that. He and Romney do the best against Obama in most polls. I say it is Ron Paul and a new beginning or ruin under the neocons and Romney.

Robert getchell| 10.13.11 @ 12:36PM

Again you morons that believe Ron paul is the savior llok at the mistakes he has made over the years they have not been a lot but just like the iran story they are huge mistakes You Tea Party members are jumping from one guy to the next because thats how you all act if plan A doesn't work in a week lets jump to plan B this has been your party's moniker remember Michele Bachman she was the savior in the beginning come out of your fogged minds and start looking at thr solutions as long term andmaybe it might get done until then you have lost your power the tail can't wag the dog when it comes down to people cheering executions and all the other stupid stuff you have at one time or another backed only to run from the candidate as soon as there is a little mess grow a spine will you.

Foo Bar| 10.13.11 @ 1:14PM

why should i take your opinions seriously when you cant even punctuate correctly.

pmarlar| 10.13.11 @ 4:45PM

Robert,
Ron Paul is not a "flavor of the week." We "morons" have been behind him all along because he makes sense. P.S., if someone would actually follow his plan of being a defense nation, we would have more protection here on the homefront and I don't think we would have to worry much about Iran.

YodaIsMyCopilot| 10.13.11 @ 6:55PM

When voters finally shrug off the lies and propaganda from the main stream media and understand Ron Paul, they support him and stick with him. His base is uncommonly deep and steadily growing. And Dr. Paul is still 100% correct about Iran. They are of no threat to us as a nation. This is all propaganda. An assassination attempt, even if it weren't some pathetic lie, is a job for the FBI, not the armed forces.

Ryan| 10.13.11 @ 8:14AM

So's your mother!

Robt. Johnson| 10.15.11 @ 10:22AM

Gorsh, it sure is wunnerful that us Dum Idjits got such Fart Smellers - sorry, Smart Fellers - as Yerself to edjercate us. Now, then - English, please??

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.11 @ 12:41PM

Oops....you are right! What was I thinking???

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 1:36PM

Jeff, meet our anencephalic pet Clint. Born without a brain, he is the perfect paulbot. Watch now, as he lambastes me ineffectually with Capitals.

You are SO right on this. Our borders are as porous and well defended as SpongeBob SquarePant's Pineapple Under The Sea. Paul is completely ineffectual on this.

Next, of course, Clint is going to lecture YOU on what Reagan said about Paul on defense. From 1976. Cut and Paste.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 2:02PM

Box Of Tissues Screwball Israel Firster Maniac Bibibot Crybaby,Tool Job.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Tool Job's Face.

Matt| 10.12.11 @ 2:12PM

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Ron Paul the one who says we should put more troops on our borders to prevent this kind of thing instead of having them 6000 miles away, answer me this, even if we attack Iran how is that going to prevent them from sneaking a tiny force of 2 mercs across our wide open border? Also, have you all forgotten the Oklahoma City bombing? How many died there? Was he from Iran?

Jennifer | 10.12.11 @ 2:34PM

Bravo, Matt!

thomas conway| 10.12.11 @ 3:28PM

exactly - this proves paul's point, not destroys it BIG TIME as the author would have us believe... so by the authors understanding, we should send our troops to invade iran as a preventative measure to stop TWO guys from attacking a NON US citizen on our shores... hmmm..... maybe we should invade every country who's cicitzens have perpetrated a crime on our shores - this is more war mongering that got us mixed up in the middleeast in the first place to support our failed foreign policies in the first place that made enemies of middle easterners when we first installed our puppet regime in iran under the original Shah's son

Dave| 10.12.11 @ 3:41PM

Dead on Matt. Nuff said!

Fabes| 10.12.11 @ 5:39PM

Was listening to comments about if US attacks Iran. The guy was ex-CIA, he was saying if US attack Iran the Iranian will view it as US starting the war. He was also saying attacks in the US would be likely if a war with Iran is started. If you watch the Frontline doco on Ira, you would see the US govt throw the Iran reformists under the bus after helping with Afghanistan. The Iran govt see the US pushing themselves into affairs that don't concern them. You have to be careful with these allegations, the US govt are chronic liars to their own people and allies. Gulf of Tonkin, LBJ saying not wanting to escalate war, Operation Northwood, WMD and Al qaeda link to Iraq. Do I need to say more?

Thomas Conway| 10.12.11 @ 11:13PM

you read my mind - i don't trust the govt one bit anymore - you didn't even mention the most current debacle... operation fast and the furious - headed in AZ and TX... hmmm... funny coincidence that the Op Fast/Furious had links to both the Zetas cartel and TX... really..... if iran wanted to kill a saudi ambassador, they would have used their own people (lot less cheaper, more chance of success and less chance or getting caught) AND they could have killed any ambassador - it would have had the same effect... not only that , but what would that even accomplish for iran? the ONLY people this helps is the US war machine, the UN's purpose for sticking around, the saudis and israel... btw, i used to be proisrael up till 3 years ago when i really started digging into the history of the region - i'm not against them now either, but they should handle their own business - they'll never have a lasting peace over there until we get our noses out of it and let them make it themselves

Java McPhearson| 10.13.11 @ 12:11AM

Yes, if we attack them they should think we started the war and they have the right to think so.
Why do we attack nations? To try to police combatant citizens and at the same time kill thousands of civilians? Do we still think that all people not like us are against us because of a few?
What happened to fair diplomacy in dealing with other nations? Did General Atomics (maker of the predator drone) rewrite our relations policy?

Eric H| 10.12.11 @ 8:45PM

I'm glad you said it Matt, because now I don't have to.

That's a pretty weak straw man you set up, Mr. Lord.

Quartermaster| 10.12.11 @ 9:35PM

This business does not pass the smell test. From what I've read so far about it, this appears to be a so called "sting" with the FBI and DEA providing most of the means to commit the crime.

Frankly, we need to end Muslim immigration, and send most of those already here back whence they came. That can be done honestly, but FedGov has, shall we say, a known reputation for framing people to make a case for their agency. The main bidness of FedGov agencies is continuing to live. If they actually accomplish anything it's nice, but survival is the prime directive and they will lie cheat and steal to do it.

Brett D| 10.12.11 @ 10:41PM

Having served in our military and trained extensively against the Iranian threat from a defensive planning perspective, I can attest to exactly what you are saying. I've spent the past few years warning Americans that the U.S. Govt Military Complex plans to create small false-flag events, building tensions on Iran as we slowly tighten up our tactical assets on them, finalized by a psyops operation to push an "imminent threat" scenario upon the American people, which will aim to perpetuate the need for war and an invasion into Iran.

Further, during my training, we attempted to train other scenarios not specifically mandated, which we identified as low-risk possibilities, which to our surprise were shut down immediately. This shut down of our systems, is unauthorized by even the highest authority of our upper echelons. This training was in regard to missiles Iran doesn't even have and are difficult to shoot down, if the operator is not aware of such missiles being shot at our assets.

I believe the U.S. Govt intends to create "imminent threat" by means similar to what I experienced as it would immediately put us into war with Iran. The general public, not understanding the extremely technical nature of our missile defense, would fall right in line with the move.

I recommend watching General Clark's speech about how we intend to overthrow the governments of 7 countries. I also recommend reading the book "The Grand Chessboard", which details why this region is so important to the elitist running the show. Finally, research the 1953 coup of Iran's democratic government due to attempting to nationalize their oil, which would allow China/Russia distribution. Such distribution is absolute worse-case scenario in the eyes of the current foreign policy in place.

TennesseeVolunteer| 10.14.11 @ 8:21AM

Thanks Brett. This stunt by the three Stooges (Holder, Obama and Mueller) about the "Used Car Salesman Plot" does not pass the smell test.
I am not a peacenik but it iis high time for our government to extensively reveal what they know to the Great Unwashed in America and let us weigh in on all of these wars.
We are droning, bombing and assassinating in multiple countries with the obvious intent of doing the same to Iram, Syria and Pakistan. ENOUGH!

Free Life| 10.13.11 @ 3:49PM

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SAID !!!! Ron Paul is for defence not Militarism lom lom....somehow the writter in the article doesn't realize that this DIDn't HAPPEN on Ron Paul's watch it happened on the current leaderships !!!!!!! And proves we are no more safer today than we were 4, 8 , 10 years ago.

Let's get everyone onboard with this pointe and yours !

William R| 10.12.11 @ 4:36PM

How Ron Paul Won the Debate Again

http://www.nysun.com/editorial.....ain/87520/

Jack in Wi.| 10.13.11 @ 7:21AM

William R: That is a great link. The New York Sun is a Jewish consevative site and it's fine commentary gives me a lot of hope that sane Jewish consevatives are coming over for Dr. Paul

Jack in Wi.| 10.12.11 @ 5:29PM

Here's some Latin for you. The neocons delenda est.

Dai Alanye | 10.12.11 @ 12:42PM

Wait a moment---Ron Paul had credibility at one time? When the devil was that?

TC| 10.12.11 @ 2:13PM

Ron Paul is the only one with credibility. And no one doubts that except a few paid hacks on message boards.

Diomasach| 10.12.11 @ 3:56PM

Really? Then where's my check? Becuase I doubt his credibility, and I'm on a message board, therefore by your logic someone should be paying me.

Danno| 10.12.11 @ 5:32PM

If you read any of Chalmers Johnson's books, and are still not convinced by what Ron Paul has to say about American foreign policy, I might be persuaded to send you a check.

mzk1| 11.4.11 @ 8:05AM

OK, let's see. We have a smple Paul supporter. And he is delusional. He thinks we're being paid to coment.

Thomas Conway| 10.12.11 @ 11:18PM

um... for one, his prediction of all the bubbles that just burst over the last decade and a half? uh... the fact that he was suspicious and uncovered the 16 TRILLION dollars that the FED exported to bail out still secret entities....uh, all that while defending himself from ALL of washington and ALL of the current candidates until each situation actually blew up in their faces proving Paul's points.. uh, the BS war in Iraq? where there was falsified intel on WMDs... uh... do you want me to continue? or do you want to actually get off your lazy @ss, stop listening to talking heads spoon feed you information, find out the ACTUAL facts and THEN make and educated decision? really, we are in trouble if you people don't wake up soon

hargy63| 10.13.11 @ 10:36AM

he's chairman of the finance committee in the house and a 7-term congressman. Plus, he lead the charge on the partial audit of the Fed and members of the Republican establishment are beginning to talk about a full and yearly audit of the Fed. Why you may ask? Ron Paul. I voted for Romney in 2008 primaries, and now I hate myself for doing it because of the things I have uncovered with just a little bit of research on my own instead of being spoon-fed by Fox News, CNN, and these ridiculous debates. I wish people were more diligent in their comments on people running for the highest office. It is to easy to dismiss someone because they don't agree with what is considered normal. If 17 trillion dollars in debt, pointless wars, and an increasing socialized soceity is normal, consider me abnormal.

SCM| 10.12.11 @ 12:44PM

Watch out, Mr Lord! You're going to whip Clint into a frenzy!

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 1:05PM

Ronald Reagan,
" Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

mzk1| 11.4.11 @ 8:09AM

If Reagan, in one of the few mistakes of his Presidency, had not forced the Israelis to leave, this would not have happened. Reagan was not neutral in placing the marines. He was, for the one time in his career, anti-Israel.

It should be noted that he had a picture on his desk of a child wounder in the Lebanese war. Except it turned out that this was false, that the child was not hurt by the Israelis and in fact may have been hurt by something completely unrelated to war.

All of which does not remove Reagan from his place as the only truly pro-Israel president in American hsitory.

Antony | 10.12.11 @ 12:49PM

This will be a story if and when there is enough evidence to show it to be so.

Free Life| 10.13.11 @ 3:54PM

WOW......A one liner that knocks it out of the Ball Park ! But as the smearing begins, lets start pushing the pointe that it's didn't happne on Ron Paul's watch and he is for Defence not Militarism. Ron Paul's say's bring our troops home NOW to secure our borders. This is what throws the article under the bus.

mzk1| 11.4.11 @ 8:10AM

Defence? You are an anglophile?

C Bowen | 10.12.11 @ 12:52PM

Jeff Lord thought Saddam was a threat and has no credibility.

Iraq a threat? It hard to believe, but he thought so. LOL--I know its hard to believe, but he really thought so and even wrote on this blog that Iraq really did have "WMDS"--I know, get out the tin foil hat--and they still let him post on foreign policy topics? Too funny.

mzk1| 11.4.11 @ 8:12AM

Of course Iraq was a threat. You forget that they sucessfully invaded Kuwait? That they massacred the Kurds? That they WERE SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES? You are OK with that?

They had a terrorist trainting camp with an actual jumbo-jet to practice on. The aerial photos were published.

Obama is a threat to the US. Paul is a threat to the entire world.

Dan| 10.12.11 @ 12:59PM

This has absolutley nothing to do with Iran's capability and willingness to use a nuke on the US. I think by the reaction you are seeing to this proves once and for all that RP is right when he says "imagine if this sort of thing were to happen here, what would we do?" Well, here it is. An Iranian plotted to kill an ambassador to the US on our soil and all I hear is this is an act of war. Well, do you people still think that when we take out one terrorist and kill 10 civilians while doing it, that it has no blowback.They say the same thing about us. How is this so hard to admit.

whatever5678| 10.12.11 @ 1:33PM

Agreed. It isn't that Paul's message carries some idea that we AREN'T currently at risk. In fact, that is EXACTLY what he says. BECAUSE of our actions abroad they are (apparenlty) angry. The more you keep pushing someone the more they will begin to fight back. You cannot equate Paul's message to unending peace, why, well because we are STILL under the control of the neo-con war machine. When, and I pray with all my heart, Ron Paul's policy takes effect, SHOULD we get attacked or thwart an attack THEN you MIGHT have some argument. However, even then, under DECADES of oppression and sanctions, an attack or attempted attack would most likely be revenge for past actions. You Mr. Lords or anyone else will not convince me otherwise. You are helping to bring about the beginning of either a major War or the downfall of america into a more state controlled country.
It's interesting how "bullying" was the HOT topic for children/schools this past year and something that "we must address", but yet as an international body, we ARE the biggest bully out there.

Audrey| 10.12.11 @ 1:36PM

Right on Dan. This does nothing to destroy Paul's credibility. It only proves what he has been saying all along. We occupy and kill them, why wouldn't they want to do the same to us? Osama Bin Laden already told us this in his letter. We have the reasons behind the attack. We just need to pull out and defend ourselves.

Matt| 10.12.11 @ 2:17PM

Exactly, thank you. Ron says we ARE in danger because of our militarism. How does this discredit anything he's said? Not to mention this story is still new and very sketchy, how many times did the Bin Laden story change, let's wait till the dust settles first and see what exactly happened, or atleast the final agreed upon verion they will hand us.

JR| 10.12.11 @ 3:00PM

Am I reading this right? Cause they get mad at us for exercising our power we should just cut and run. Really? Why dont we just dig a big hole and bury our heads in it? Cowards.

Josh| 10.12.11 @ 3:10PM

Your the coward JR.....you think killing people 6,000 miles will save your own hide.

leopard| 10.12.11 @ 3:31PM

sorry, JR, but we do NOT have a 'right' to 'exercise our power' wherever or whenever we desire. And, there are repercussions with every action we take - both positive and negative... the problem is that the negative effects generally are socialized on the American people while the positive benefits are concentrated on the select few... those 'few' that also make policy decisions. Which means, in the end, the average american citizen gets shafted while those politically connected reap the rewards. Let's change the system, vote Ron Paul!

Roger| 10.13.11 @ 9:02AM

This "coward" notion has made us broke. Throwing good money after bad because you can't admit you were/are wrong, now that is cowardly.

Americus| 10.12.11 @ 1:03PM

Wow. Too much. Amazing.

Next you're going to tell me that Holder not only caught this guy (back in MAY, half a year ago), but also gave him and his latino boys assault rifles to guard the splosives.

And now waited until OCTOBER to say something about it. Conveniently in the middle of the Paul Phenom. And when Holder needs a friend most.

Too bad Holder is getting ready to hang for all the gun swaps with the drug kingpins south of Texas. He really is an effective tool, I mean, worker.

You tool.

Ooops. I mean too! Not tool.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.11 @ 1:05PM

CBowen...

I see...this picture of gassed Kurds (courtesy of Saddam) was...photo shopped? Made up? Never happened?

Sure.

http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/Kurds.jpg

Mal_Content| 10.12.11 @ 1:24PM

You're right Jeffrey. The US was so angry at Iraq right after that happened that they...did nothing.... in order to maintain trade relations with Iraq and cultivate a new enemy for Iran. Or at least thats what these unclassified documents tell me.

Date: December 29, 1988
Subject: Export-Import Financing for Iraq
Summary: In the closing days of the Reagan administration, the State Department's top human rights official argues that continued financial aid to Iraq "can simply not be squared with our worldwide human rights policy." However, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy counters that U.S. financial ties with Iraq have "far greater use with Baghdad as a carrot than as a stick." A year and a half later, Iraq invades Kuwait.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/20.....r.iraq.pdf

Matt| 10.12.11 @ 2:20PM

I'd say Jeff just got pwned. Hey Jeff buddy, I've only read two of your posts so far, maybe you should just quit talking, you're not helping your cause much.

mattma| 10.12.11 @ 1:27PM

Are all of those WMD's disguised as dead people? I see your point.

anonoped| 10.12.11 @ 1:49PM

Who do you think gave Saddam the gas to kill his own people?

Mal_Content| 10.12.11 @ 1:55PM

US involvement in Saddam Hussein’s rise to power.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

C Bowen | 10.12.11 @ 2:11PM

LOL--you were scared of Saddam! Boo! What a craven little Ruling Class hack.

Wait--weren't you working for the Administration that allied with Saddam? Are you projecting?

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 10:47PM

Hey, C.B:

Howzit goin' with your Wall St. protester buds, kiddo?

C Bowen | 10.13.11 @ 6:32PM

That doesn't make any sense. Lord is the one who is siding with Holder/Hillary/Obama.

Wait--you and your "husband" were scared of Saddam, right? LOL Are you both easily scared, or he more then you?

Margie| 10.17.11 @ 7:09PM

My "husband"?
So now I have a "husband?' And not a real husband or something.
Good Lord you Paul-bots are weird.

Mike L| 10.12.11 @ 2:14PM

A shame it happened. But we did give Saddam the gas after all. Maybe that wasn't such a great idea.

Smirking Weasel| 10.12.11 @ 5:58PM

So what, they're Kurds, not Americans, and their fate is irrelevant to America. Perhaps they should have made a real thought out effort and overthrowing and killing Saddam thermselves; if they failed, their deaths would have been honorable.
Attemping to make Americans fully responsible for ending all the bad things that happen within(or to) other nations is not merely stupid, arrogant and irresponsible, it can fairly be considered treasonous towards the rest of America for it commits the nation to bankruptcy and decline. Your contempt for the best-and real- interests
of Americans invites blowback upon you personally, and the nation will relish it when it comes.

Hegelian Dialectic| 10.12.11 @ 10:32PM

Yeah, an who did Iraq get the chemical warfare technology from again? Good ole #1 arms dealer in the world the USofA. Did you know Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Obama has broken the record 2 years in a row of military weapons sales across the global? Makes for nice future conflicts and trouble to keep the Military Industrial Complex rolling . The country doesn't matter, it's only a matter of time; Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria... just cover the evil CFR/AEI and their terrorism first.

How about covering how the US State Department launders billions in taxpayers funds through USAID to US puppet dictators and governments across the globe, then back to the US Military Industrial Complex?

BTW, speaking of Kurds... not covering the genocide by Turkey to this day? I see its a 'One Way Street with blinders' with your rag opinionated print.

CT| 10.13.11 @ 12:21PM

The US supplied Saddam with the gas !

TennesseeVolunteer| 10.14.11 @ 8:28AM

Jeff, it is time for Patriots to take a big step back and stop this hell bent march to WWIII.
The Great Unwashed are tired of Washington Carpetbaggers from both parties telling us we need to send our precious servicement here, there and everywhere.
This "Used Car Salesman Bomber Plot" does not smell right and you know it.
It is time to take a Big Breath and ask ourselves why it is so right for us to have our country bombing, droning and assassinating in seven + countries.
I was all for the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan but when is it enough?
When KT McFarland comes on Fox two hours after this plot is announced and says it is an "act of war" when the only info is coming from a born liar like Holder is beyond the pale.
ENOUGH!
No more! Until the American people have had plenty of time to weigh in. I don't trust Obama, Holder, the media or Iran. Our leaders no longer speak for us and we want to Stand Down until we have had time to make our beliefs known!

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 1:13PM

" Michael Scheuer, a former CIA intelligence officer, believes there are many suspicious issues about the investigation.

“One of the biggest problems in the US is telling what the terrorist threat is in our country,” Scheuer told RT. “The FBI runs the sting operations and then claims great credit for breaking up a plot that would not have existed [had they not] lured someone into doing it.”

“My initial reaction was: If the Iranians want to kill a Saudi ambassador, why do it in the US?” said the former CIA intelligence officer, suggesting the incident could be used as an excuse to start a full-scale war with Iran."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 1:37PM

Sceuer is just upset he missed Osama because he was incompetent.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 1:53PM

Do Your Homework Screwball Israel Firster Maniac Bibibot,Tool Job.

"Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA's) Osama bin Laden unit, told the U.K. Daily Telegraph in a recent interview he was prevented from capturing or killing the terrorist by his superiors on at least 10 separate occasions.

The 22-year CIA veteran-turned-whistle=blower resigned from the agency in 2004, disgusted by the government’s lies surrounding the terror war. And he’s been embarrassing the U.S. establishment ever since.

In 1995, Scheuer was selected to lead the spy agency’s bin Laden efforts. By then the militant Islamist was exiled in Sudan after angering Saudi authorities. Bin Laden was running several businesses in the African nation that Scheuer suggested disrupting. “We formulated operations and submitted them for approval but they would not approve any of them,” the ex-CIA official told the Daily Telegraph. “If we had been able to deal a serious economic blow it could have been a show-stopper.”

The next year, bin Laden declared war on the American government. And in 1997, when bin Laden was again living in Afghanistan, Scheuer said his team groomed a band of Afghans to capture the suspected terror boss. There were at least two “clear opportunities” to bring down bin Laden by the middle of 1998, according to Scheuer. But in both cases, he said, CIA bosses refused to proceed.

Then, in August of that year, bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network bombed two American embassies in Africa. Bin Laden said the embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, was targeted for serving as a U.S. intelligence hub for the CIA. The attacks killed numerous U.S. diplomats and at least two CIA agents, according to the Associated Press.

Scheuer told the Telegraph that following the missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998, there were at least eight other chances to get the terror mastermind. By that point, bin Laden was supposedly among the U.S. government’s most wanted criminals. But for some unknown reason, senior officials refused to authorize his capture or assassination."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Mike L| 10.12.11 @ 2:15PM

Right on Clint!

Joe M| 10.12.11 @ 1:15PM

Jeffrey, ever heard the term "false flag"?

Dave| 10.12.11 @ 1:20PM

Yes, and that's not the case. Please take your conspiracies to the kids table. We have grown up topics to discuss.

Or you're welcome to present the evidence... besides a link to infowars and their fantasies.

9/11 was an outside job! ;-)

mattma| 10.12.11 @ 1:34PM

Conspiracy theorists didn't coin the term false flag. It's been used for a hundred years. It is a very real thing. I wont give you a link to infowars but here is a link to the encyclopedia http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/False flag

Dave| 10.12.11 @ 1:17PM

Jeff,
Where did Saddam get the gas? How did Saddam get "propped up"? US

And because he gassed the Kurds, that requires us to get involved for nearly a decade killing thousands of American sons and daughters as well as spending billions AND removing the one thing that kept Iran in check: Iraq?

Ron is still correct on why they attacked us. The underwear bombed just restated in court what Paul said. Does it justify it? No. But Paul is still on target. Why don't you bring in a bigger intellectual next time to make the case? Middle School kids taking remedial world affairs could handle this.

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 1:21PM

Can we wait to get more details on this situation before jumping to conclusions and advocating for war with Iran?

Mike L| 10.12.11 @ 2:16PM

Right! This seems like a great distraction from what is going on with OWS

Bill| 10.12.11 @ 1:22PM

Jeffrey you are jumping the gun. The investigation has just begun. All the facts are not in. This has all the markings of a cy-op. Just like the fast and furious operation, and underwear bomber, this is likely a gov operation to provide a reason clamp down further on the freedoms of the American people. As far as Ron's credibility is concerned, his foreign policy at least has us exiting the illegal wars, unlike any of the others running.

David| 10.12.11 @ 1:23PM

Who is the author of this? Where is your proof that any of this even happened for the reasons you say they did? Where are the real journalist at? More Iran propanganda from teh sheep.

Americus| 10.12.11 @ 1:23PM

Joe M, Jeffrey *has* heard of the term "false flag".

He doesn't need our help. He chooses to be deceptive knowingly.

Everyone who reads Jeffrey and trust him needs our help. So they can start to think for themselves instead of trusting "the news" to be objective, thoughtful, critically analytical, and pragmatic.

This entire event was planned and cooked up as a to draw our attention away from the other despicable things this Admin has done (example: feeding thousands of guns no-strings-attached to druglords and their henchmen south of our border).

How's that, Jeffrey? Send me something on that Fazt and Fureous arms thing, please. We'll be waiting for your next journolistick gem.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 1:26PM

This article just proves that many people have NO CLUE as to the motivation of human beings. So, let me ask you, why did the Iranians not try to attack the Saudi ambassador to Sweden or Germany, or any other country. If you drink the "It's because we're free" kool-aid, then you are 10 times the kook that the media tries to paint Ron Paul. There are lots of countries, some of them with more freedoms than we have, that do not get attacked. Let's try and spell this out one more time: we get attacked, not because we are free, not because of religious hatred, but because we think we have some kind of mandate from god to police the world. It's the equivalent of camping out in your neighbor's yard on a permanent basis, entering their house whenever we feel like it, and threatening them into painting their kitchen the color that we think would most likely raise the property value on our house next door. It's intrusion where we have no right to intrued. THAT is why they attack us, and it really is not all that difficult to understand, unless you are a puppet or a sheep. If we continue the policies that we have pursued for the past 60-80 years, we will bankrupt our country, create 10 times more enemies than we can possibly monitor or kill with drones, and devalue the dollar so badly that it's only use will be to clean our backsides after we crap out our government regulated Soylent Green. Wake up! Please! We can still return to the values that made us the model of modern civilized government.

The events with the Iranian plot do not change this. If anything, they only strengthen the points that Ron Paul has been trying to pound in people's heads for three decades. The man is right, and I pray enough people see it to turn us around before it is too late.

JR| 10.12.11 @ 3:08PM

You really think that if we left they would just become peaceful and leave everybody alone? Idiots!

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 3:15PM

Not immediately. We have built up enough hate that it would take a while for them to forget. But the answer is not continuing to do the things that make them hate us in the first place. That is, unless your goal is to destroy that which you are trying to protect more quickly.

Whose the bigger idiot: The person who beats an angry dog whose leash is breaking, or the person who stops beating the dog, calms it down, offers food to it, and then backs away quietly with a gun in his hand?

CT| 10.13.11 @ 3:18PM

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2.....ent-386430

David| 10.12.11 @ 1:27PM

Oh and Jeff. Ron Paul doesnt usually agree with others. Look where the "others" have put this country. Are you awake?

Big brother Knows best| 10.12.11 @ 1:27PM

Yellow Journalism at its finest, quick to cry for war slow to look at facts... Mr. Lord can lead the march to Tehran..

mike| 10.12.11 @ 1:28PM

The fact that there is even such a thing as an ambassador to Saudi Arabia says it all.

We go around the world trying to control our "interests", then when someone gets pissed off about it, we act suprised when they retaliate.

Never ceases to amaze me.

If we didn't get entangled in this mess in the first place, there would be no reason for Iran to retaliate to begin with, unless of course you are one of those whackos who believes they "HATE US FER R FREEDUMS!!"

Total nonsense.

JR| 10.12.11 @ 3:10PM

No Mike they really want to rule the world and people like you would empower them to do so with your cowardly ideas.

mike| 10.12.11 @ 3:54PM

Sorry JD, you are the one with the cowardly ideas. I'm not the one afraid of a terrorist lurking under every rock out to get me, like some scared little chiuaua shaking in his skin. You are the one that ACTUALLY believes they can go about "ruling the world" with virtually no airforce, no navy, no means to get here and "rule" us.

I'm not afraid of them at all. I believe we could defend ourselves against any agressor if we simply put our military spending towards a strong defense, instead of wasting it going around the world telling other countries what to do.

Better rethink who you're calling a coward, chump.

David| 10.12.11 @ 1:29PM

"If you drink the "It's because we're free" kool-aid, then you are 10 times the kook that the media tries to paint Ron Paul"

Exactly. If its because we are free then the "terrorist" are winning because we are losing those freedoms they say they attack us for.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.12.11 @ 1:30PM

Americus....

Congressman Rogers was aware of this from the get go....and was on Fox yestreday saying this is what happened and he was informed from the start months ago. He's a Republican, no Holder fan. Are you suggesting he's lying?

Americus| 10.12.11 @ 1:45PM

I'm not saying anyone is lying. In fact, it doesn't matter if he is telling the truth.

What I am saying is that we continue to play fools and foolish games.

It's like me telling someone I have a six pack abs from doing situps every day when in fact I am really obese and in poor health. It doesn't really matter what I try to convince you of -- I'm still going to die from a heart attack or complications of diabetes.

Nobody cares if I am lying or not. They care about my health and they care about why I keep eating DingDongs and sitting on my couch, watching REALITY TV.

This entire article is like reality TV. You might be a DingDong. Or not. No offense, of course. Everyone needs a sweet treat of ignorance. But don't bet on it being very rewarding for long.

I'm most happy to see just how many people are calling these kinds of articles BS nowadays. I'm not talking about the OWS stinkers (bless their souls). I'm talking about thoughtful employed middle America. There will be a change, mark my words. And it will be healthful, peaceful, and will take place in the voting booths. And if not this time, next time.

Should bring a tear to our eyes.

Welcome.

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 1:33PM

Hrmmm... Paul wants to pull the troops home, and put them on the southern border... seems to me that's the problem area here, so I don't see this really helping or hurting him. Besides, I really doubt there is much legitimate about this. Another fear mongering attempt at getting the war drums pounding towards Iran, and a convenient distraction from Fast and Furious. Iran would gain nothing, but the current administration does.

Jordan| 10.12.11 @ 1:33PM

Jeffrey, how would react against aspiring Iranian nuclear ambitions given the chance? If your answer does not involve war with Iran you may as well close your mouth and thank your lucky stars that you have a presidential candidate who gives a damn about the lives of innocent people around the world and in your country by advocating for the stop of illegal, undeclared and never ending wars. If you are proposing continued economic sanctions, you are provoking and preparing for war and since you beat the drum so loudly I think you should be first to volunteer for the American invasion of Iran...a country of over 70 million people, over three times the size of Iraq with a less hospitable climate to invaders than Afghanistan. Are you so brave, or just a chickenhawk with not guts willing to send other's children to their deaths?

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 1:34PM

Jeffery lord,
What action do you suggest America take against Iran?

C Bowen | 10.12.11 @ 3:35PM

A multi trillion dollar debt financed invasion with poor teenager/early 20 types from Middle America?

That was his plan when Saddam scared him 23 years ago.

Americus Soul| 10.12.11 @ 1:34PM

quoting:

Camping out in your neighbor's yard on a permanent basis, entering their house whenever we feel like it, and threatening them into painting their kitchen the color that we think would most likely raise the property value on our house.....

THAT is why they attack us, and it really is not all that difficult to understand, unless you are a puppet or a sheep. (end quote)

Brilliantly spoken in words nearly everyone (except the media mouthpiece) will value.

THANK YOU, Burning_Tyger.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 1:38PM

Right, which is why they attacked our merchant vessels in the early 1800s during the Jefferson administration---because we had occupied their lands.

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 1:40PM

Thought they did that because they were pirates, trying to get the epic lootz?

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 1:43PM

This is the most commonly repeated idiotic statement of the Big War Propagandists.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 1:44PM

No. Those were pirates. They stole for personal benefit. They may have used religious language to justify their actions, but as ALWAYS, religion is just a spark that ignites the fuel supplied by economics. And Jefferson dealt with them the same way Ron Paul would deal with them if they attacked our trade vessels today. Listen, if you are trying to draw some kind of ridiculous parallel between the foreign policy of our founders, and that of our "pro-active / pre-emptive" foreign policy of today, I promise you, you are going to miserably fail.

JR| 10.12.11 @ 3:16PM

Nothing brilliant about it. Cowardly more like it.

Sean| 10.12.11 @ 1:36PM

Let me guess the FBI recruits two stooges with Iranian backgrounds to plot an attack. They hook up these stooges with Holders Mexican cartel contacts from Fast and Furious. The Mexican Cartel puts money in the bank for them. They get arrested 6 months later to take heat off Holder.

Let me see the open borders Republican establishment wants war with Iran, but they ignore the threat from Mexico next door.

mike| 10.12.11 @ 1:43PM

I think this article sank YOUR credibility.

LOL

BUCK KENNEDY| 10.12.11 @ 1:43PM

heh

you think the congressman from Texas is naive? look in the mirror buddy boy. the fact here is that WE all used to be naive. we all used to believe the crap pumped out of the district of criminals. no longer though. i know how informed Dr. Paul is on foreign policy and defense issues. well enough to suit me anyways. my eyes are clear and so are his. change is coming, and this time you really can believe it. RP Revolution 2012.

Americus| 10.12.11 @ 1:52PM

Bingo. Exactly the point I made above in reply to Jeff.

We have too much free time on our hands for the good of the establishment.

Back when we were fat and happy we were too busy jetting around and buying houses.

Now we have lottttss of free time to LEARN just how fudged up this place has become -- thanks to the DofC folks who we trusted.

I used to trust them. Heck, I don't even trust salespeople but I trusted our elected officials to "do what's best for their country". Well.... how about that. Call me a moron.

Never again. Never again.

Anyone who screwed us over, prepare to lose your jobs. If not this election cycle, next. And if not then, next. Ad infinitum. You have awakened the serpent of Liberty, it seems. I wish I was older and I'd say my job was almost done. You'll have me and my big mouth for at least another 40 years, unfortunately.

Welcome.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 1:48PM

God almighty, this place is like a loony bin.

What you Ron Paulers don't seem to understand is that whatever his ideas, good or bad, he can not beat Obama. The press and the left will portray him as some kind of crazy old maniac, and the moment he opens his mouth in a nationwide debate against Obama, everybody will know it's true.

Please. Think. More than anything else, Obama must be defeated. And Paul can't do it. You know this.

anonoped| 10.12.11 @ 1:55PM

Even if your flawed opinion had merit.

Your logic sounds like this.

Why even put a man on the moon? There's no air there so there's no use in even trying. The astronaut would never be able to breath.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 1:58PM

" Harris Poll: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney Would Top President Obama

Released on Tuesday, September 27, the latest Harris Poll surveyed 2,462 adults and was conducted between September 12 and 19. According to the poll, if Texas Congressman Ron Paul wins the Republican presidential nomination he would beat Obama by 51 percent to 49 percent in the general election. On the other hand, if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination he would top Obama by 53 percent to 47 percent in the general election.'

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 1:59PM

No, your wrong. what I do know is that Ron Paul attracts voters from across the political spectrum. The Dems are unhappy with their man, but most of them will still vote for him rather than have a Repub as president....except for Paul. He gets a large number of independents, and more Blue Dogs than any other Repub candidate. If he were the nominee, the Repubs hate Obama so much, they will line up. Then you add in all the independants and a few disenfranchised Dems.....Dr. Paul would wipe the floor with Obama.

Dr. Paul's biggest challenge is getting Republicans to nominate him. If that happens...no contest in the general election.

Thomas| 10.12.11 @ 2:07PM

What you don't seem to understand is that Ron Paul has polled better vs Obama than every other republican other than Romney.

So using your logic why are we even having a nomination, debates or any of this polling, why not just declare Romney the nominee?

And where are you asking the wing nut supporters of Rick Perry and Rick Sanitarium why they even bother when neither candidate has a prayers chance at beating Obama?

And to answer your statement that the only thing that matters is beating Obama...you are wrong. I am an across the board conservative. I have libertarian economic views, I am pro life, pro borders, pro culture, anti drug and I am pro defense (meaning the only viable candidate for me is Ron Paul). I believe in the constitution and state's rights which means unlike Bachman the idiot, Romney the faker, Perry the dunce or Rick the Insane I am not willing to burn the constitution in order to score points with illiterate morons who vote solely on social issues.

If we were electing a president for life I would agree with you, any of them would be better than Obama. The problem is they are only elected for 4 years. They will govern like the liberals they are, nothing will improve, things will probably get worse. Then the democrats will simply blame our problems on "conservatism" and an even more liberal guy will get elected in 4 years.

Don't you wingnuts understand yet that the liberal, big government Bush calling himself a conservative is exactly the reason we ended up with Obama in the first place?

If the republican candidate is not a true conservative (with the only true conservative running so far being Ron Paul) then I will vote for and give vocal support for Obama. If this country is going to burn then I want it to be under the liberal flag, not under some phony conservative. Then at least we will have the chance to elect a conservative in another 4 years.

Thomas| 10.12.11 @ 2:09PM

I forgot to mention.

Pollsters conduct their polls by asking "likely voters" meaning they leave out the large swath of apathetic people who might actually turn out for Ron Paul.

Dan Warner| 10.12.11 @ 2:09PM

You have GOT to be kidding. Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter. Ron Paul is Obama's intellectual superior without question. Ron Paul would wipe the floor with him in every debate.

Nathan McMurray| 10.12.11 @ 2:16PM

This is the kind of Left vs. Right mentality that got us to where we are today. You do realize that no matter who we have elected in the last 35 years, regardless of the R or D in front of their name, the top 1% still benefit, we still get into more wars and our freedoms quickly evaporate. Obama is bad, Perry is bad, Romney is bad, Cain is bad. Ron Paul is the only candidate not already bought and paid for by those whose only interest is keeping things exactlty as they are going.

Michael Place| 10.12.11 @ 1:50PM

Hey,

Can't find a comment link on your site, so I'll jump in on another story your mangling.

My question: Did you fire this fucking wingnut Howley yet?

If not, your publication is a total fucking joke on par with the National Inquirer and the Star.

Have a nice day.

Michael Place

Michael Place| 10.12.11 @ 4:37PM

Dig a little deeper Lord Jeffrey

http://www.cnn.com/video/socia.....t.cnn.html

And fire Howley already. Publicly. I'll be respectful when you stop standing by disinformation on the part of your editorial staff.

I now count 1 potentially illegal hit piece/political provacateurship and one piece of shoddy analysis/bad journalism. Iran is only a significant threat if we continue to manufacture them into one.

Jay| 10.12.11 @ 9:01PM

"Dig a little deeper Lord Jeffrey"

Lord does not know how. That is why he always gets smashed to pieces by Tom Woods, et. al.

Thomas| 10.12.11 @ 1:51PM

For the author to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy as "leftist" shows extreme ignorance. Ron Paul's foreign policy is that of the "old right", while that of the neocons is the traditional foreign policy of the progressive left in vein of FDR and LBJ.

The modern left, the McGovern-esque foreign policy may overlap with that of the "old right" in certain respects but they are very different. Unlike the modern leftists Ron Paul wants us to secure our own borders with our military, he wants us to have nuclear armed submarines and aircraft carriers, he wants us to have the best military in the world. Ron Paul supported the SDI initiative in the 80's and opposed disarmament treaties which favored the Soviets. He has always opposed foreign aid, and he has always opposed our involvement with organizations such as the U.N. and our participation in things such as NAFTA which undermine our sovereignty, our economy and our national security.

The leftists on the other hand support the U.N. they want us to have more global government and less sovereignty. They want open borders. They want more foreign aid and support schemes such as cap and trade which will be used in an attempt to equalize global wealth (ie removing it from America and giving it to South America, Asia and Africa). They support unilateral disarmament and they hate our military.

Ron Paul believes in our nations right to use whatever force is necessary for SELF DEFENSE, not for national building and for the benefit of large corporate donors.

For anyone who believes in national security and who is a traditional conservative there is only one candidate who you can sensibly support. That is Ron Paul.

K| 10.13.11 @ 5:03PM

Ron's support for SDI angered alot of libertarians, specifically his friends at the Mises Institute.

(Real) Libertarians have and always will be pro-disarmament. Fortunately Paul now supports disarming nuclear weapons and has therefor regained the respect of libertarians who had rolled their eyes at cold warriors since day one.

WJ| 10.12.11 @ 1:52PM

Jeffery Lord's writings sink his credibility.

Jay| 10.12.11 @ 9:07PM

You cannot sink what is already at the bottom of an ocean trench.

david| 10.12.11 @ 1:52PM

Sanctions are an act of war on our part. Ridiculous story. Any thing at this point would be blowback. Just think if we had listened to RP 30 years ago would we even be in this situation.

anonoped| 10.12.11 @ 1:52PM

Maybe it's time we tarred and feathered un-thinkers who write articles like this, then bomb Iran with them.

mike| 10.12.11 @ 1:54PM

"What you Ron Paulers don't seem to understand is that whatever his ideas, good or bad, he can not beat Obama."

Ah, so lets nominate a guy that answers to lobbyists, once again, just like weve always done..... a guy that speaks in slogans and has pretty hair.... that will solve the problems we face.....right?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again and expecting different results.

I for one am done backing the lesser of two evils. Wont do it again.

I'll vote for RP in the primaries and when/if he loses, I'll sit at home for the general election.

All the other candidates are exchangable anyway. Wont really matter who wins.....they're all the same.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 2:03PM

If you seriously do not see the difference between a Romney and an Obama, then truly you may as well stay home. You're of no use to anybody.

mike| 10.12.11 @ 2:06PM

The only difference between the two is that one of them will steer us towards the cliff at a less direct angle of approach.

They are both statists that believe the government has the answers to our problems, just maybe to a different degree.

If you dont see that, dont even bother responding. You have already drank the kool-aid.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 1:55PM

As to this Iranian conspiracy, something is very strange here. No matter how many different ways I look at this, there doesn't appear to be anything to be gained by them to blow up the Saudi ambassador or the Israeli Embassy and perhaps kill hundreds of Americans on American soil.

Sure, they might surreptitiously support an "independent" terrorist attack, but it seems to me they would do everything to keep their fingerprints off of it.

Again, there is nothing for them to gain from this, and alternatively, in that their nuclear weapon program might be jeopardized, plenty to lose.

Something is not right.

kevin| 10.12.11 @ 2:44PM

Agreed....10 years in Afganistan and we have no proof that Iran (or Pakistan) is helping the Taliban et we know it is true....but an assasination attempt was discovered this easily? I agree something about this story doesn't add up at all.....maybe it was just an attempt to get the president better poll numbers?? I'd hate to say it, but with Obama I wouldn't put it past him....

Spambalaya| 10.12.11 @ 4:33PM

You're assuming Iran intended to claim responsibility for such a hypothetical series of attacks. However, if the Saudi and Israeli embassies were bombed on American soil and someone claiming to be a representative of al Qaeda subsequently took responsibility, it would serve to place the U.S. and Israel on high alert again a non-existent enemy while diverting us from the increasing Iranian nuclear threat. It would also cause dissension within Saudi Arabia, since al Qaeda is a Sunni offshoot. Meanwhile Iran could consolidate its power in the region, especially with their newest ally, Iraq.

dl| 10.12.11 @ 1:57PM

I'd love to wait and see what other evidence turns up....this is awfully suspicious...holder is just about to get taken to task for fast and furious and this comes up? I have no doubt that there was someone legitimately trying to kill the saudi ambassador, but all we have is an "un-uniformed" mysterious member of the iranian army? that piece sounds a bit shaky

kevin| 10.12.11 @ 2:38PM

I heard a military specialist on the radio yesterday (maybe NPR) and he said that Iran has one of the best intellegnce departments of any country and have carried out many assasination attempts in the past with much succes. One thing they have never done though was to try and hire an outside organization to carry out there plans, he was even suspiciuos that Iran would do something like this without an alterior motive. He believed that maybe Iran anted the US to make the first attack, so that they could build a loyalty from their citizens and maybe other countries to fight against the evil occupier the United States. That sounds a little more realist to me than some of the best in the business acting like ametures in a poorly planned plot.....

Spambalaya| 10.12.11 @ 4:36PM

Iran has used proxies for decades to carry out extranational operations, most notably Hisbollah. The NPR commentator was profoundly uninformed if he made the claim you say he did.

IO| 10.12.11 @ 1:58PM

Mr. Lords. I think you have twisted the facts of a story in order to spout your hatred toward Ron Paul. You're argument is that Dr. Paul was wrong to say that Iran is an Immediate threat to the U.S. You're trying to use this covert plot to prove your point. You fall pathetically short.

If you were right, and Dr. Paul was wrong, I'm sure you would be hearing the war drums beating again loudly in Washington. With Obama in need of a boost, I'm sure he'd jump at the opportunity to attack a clear and present threat to the U.S. But.....He hasn't, nor will he. Nor will you see Congress declare war on Iran......Why? Because they are not a clear and present threat to us. Any two bit hood could plot to assassinate someone on US soil. Hell, what do you think the Mob does? Your argument is about as limp as your frontal lobe. Get a clue, and stop trying to dictate the truth to the world.

dl| 10.12.11 @ 1:59PM

on a side note...wouldn't this fall right into paul's plans about a stronger national defense? Wasn't this guy caught on the us/mexico border? Not in some hotzone halfway around the world? besides all this proves is that Iran really isn't a threat if they are stupid enough to strike a deal with a DEA informant

Americus| 10.12.11 @ 1:59PM

IMPORTANT -- good people, let's keep in mind this fact. ... the more we get occupied with posts and replies to foolish and subversive commentary (like this story by Jeff) the less time we have to upset the apple cart and get real people elected.

Let's get back to work helping educate our neighbors and friends and others who don't yet know the reason to consider Dr. Paul. They probably don't yet know how to be pragmatic and critical thinkers and probably won't learn without much time invested on our parts.

Heck, just take a look at that one website where the author was complaining about how Ron Paul's eyebrow was fake -- the guy actually posted that!! And it burned up a total of at least 20 hours if not 200 hours of collective time.

When fed with drivel like that, it's no wonder that the US populus knows little about the facts.

This article wasn't one to ignore like that one, but let's keep things in perspective. I think we've bashed poor Jeff and his posse enough for now.

Enjoy.

Solo| 10.12.11 @ 2:18PM

BUUUUWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

Holy crap!

Now...there, ladies and gentleman, is a true Paulbot!

He isn't just drinking the Kool-Aid.....he's got it on an I.V. drip!

mike| 10.12.11 @ 2:22PM

That made absolutely no sense and explained no position whatsoever.

devinesara| 10.12.11 @ 3:21PM

Solo (Beavis) and Mike (Butthead),
Do you guys have trouble with complex sentences? Have you seen "Idiocracy"?

mike| 10.12.11 @ 3:33PM

I was responding to Solo with that statement.

Maybe you should figure out how post replies work.

devinesara| 10.12.11 @ 11:32PM

Sorry, Mike. Butthead is pretty awesome, actually. I have a great deal of affection for him.

DC4Teggy| 10.13.11 @ 12:30AM

Maybe you should re-read his reply and see he wasn't talking to you.

DC4Teggy| 10.13.11 @ 12:31AM

Fail... your name is mike. I apologize. =P

Dan Warner| 10.12.11 @ 2:02PM

Law enforcement has done this job for decades. That is what the FBI does, arrest bad guys. What makes you think all of this law enforcement would vanish under a Ron Paul administration?

Notice that we did not need sanctions, bombing or invasions to accomplish this bust, just as it should be. Also, the target was not the US, it was a Saudi ambasador who just happened to be in the US.

So please explain your logic to me? If law enforcement did a good job arresting a terrorist, how does that equate to Ron Paul losing any credibility? This is exactly how he would persue terrorists, with law enforcement rather than all out invasions.

CodyMac| 10.12.11 @ 2:03PM

All this "torpedo" does is explode behind the RP submarine and push its message forward more quickly. Lets look at what happened:

Iran fails to carry out an attack on US soil against US allies who are treated preferentially overseas. If the details in this story are true, then they sent their best men to carry this out... and failed. So Despite our being overstretched all over the globe, out homeland security forces were able to stop Iran's best attempt at an attack. Imagine if all the troops around the world were stationed here and defending our borders... these yahoos wouldn't have made it through the front door.

And this writer obviously does not understand the message that Ron Paul advocates. We should not expect countries in the Middle-East to stop hating us until we stop acting as we have been acting for the past many decades. Even were we to accept the constitutional views our founders put down in regard to foreign relations, and get out of everyone's business, it would still be many years until hostilities due to our past actions died down.

Ron Paul is the only person in this race who understands economics and how the world works on a very large scale. The people who don't like his message are, quite frankly, not intelligent or well informed enough to understand it.

Or they do not value the future of America.

kevin| 10.12.11 @ 2:05PM

Come on now.....is anyone really scared of Iran? Are they going to throw conspiracies at us? Can a country with a budget the size of Rhode Island really do anything to us? We have more nukes in the San Francisco bay than they can build in the next 20 years.....a bee is annoying and the sting does hurt, but a bee can never kill a bear (or even seriously hurt it)

yes man| 10.12.11 @ 2:06PM

Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakastan, Saudi Arabia, Libya ect... it seems WE are the aggressors. Wise up. Your skimpy little article will do nothing to the Ron Paul movement rooted in peaceful relationships and common sense.

Jason | 10.12.11 @ 2:07PM

Ron Paul said Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to the U.S. or Israel. Unless they have recently developed a nuke, I'd say he's correct. If, in response to that, you suggest we should attack Iran because one day they MIGHT have a nuke and therefore MIGHT use it on us, well..you'd better be prepared to invade every country around the globe that MIGHT do the same. And if you're going to continue invading countries because they MIGHT be a threat, you are going to guarantee that those countries WILL become a threat.

How about minding our business and tending to our own problems rather than policing everyone else's borders. I'm pretty sure Paul is right when he quotes the CIA's 9/11 Commission reports that say they don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we're occupying their land.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 2:22PM

Agreed. Gunpowder, tanks, machine guns, long-range bombers...all these were closely guarded military technologies. And now, much of the world has them. If you think you can prevent the world from gaining a weapon's technology, then all of human history says you are wrong. I do not doubt that one day Iran will have a nuke, and so will most of the other Middle Eastern nations. So the question is, which foreign policy is more likely to make those nations want to use those nukes against us? I promise you, putting our military on the ground in all their back yards will be high on the list.

That is the problem with an aggressive foreign policy, however noble the cause. The more you try to protect yourself with "pre-emption", the more you threaten the security of that which you are trying to protect. The founders and Ron Paul have it right: friendly relations with everyone, entangling alliances with no one, and if you attack us, we will declare war constitutionally, and go after you with all we got, like we did in WW2.

kevin| 10.12.11 @ 2:33PM

Agreed......

Jason D| 10.12.11 @ 2:08PM

While I am definitely sure that Iran is not our friend, I am not sure that there is a good course of action in dealing with them. We put sanctions on Iraq in the 90's and it is estimated that 500,000 children died. Madeline Albright said that it was worth it. I don't believe policies that kill children are in the spirit of what America is about.

We know that sanctions will not hurt the leaders of this nation, it will only hurt the poor and middle classes causing them to also hate us more.

I would not want to believe that you propose war with them. WE are already battling in one way or another in 3 - 6 nations depending on how you want to count military action. Iran is bigger by far than any of these other nations and a war would spread our troops even further leaving our defense even worse off.

When you have time to think about it our biggest threat is not terrorism, not China, not Iran or anyone other than our own foreing policy. We have departed from the foreign policy of our founders (trading instead of attacking) and are trying to police the world.
There are only 3 ways to pay for our current foreign policy and military adventurism: taxes, borrowing and inflation (monetization of the debts). All of these options are a huge detriment to the US economy. They suck productive resources away from the private sector into the growing publi /military sector.

We all want to beat Obama in next years election. In order to do that we will need to get a good portion of the independent voters. Only two candidates poll higher than Obama among independents: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Among those two it should be easy for conservatives to see that Ron Paul is a better choice.

Republicans also need to remember that a good portion of the Ron Paul faction will either stay home or write him in come November 2012 which will definitely mean another Obama term.

I wrote this fast, sorry for any errors.

Jason | 10.12.11 @ 2:09PM

One more thing...
If it turns out Iran did have a terror plot against us, then by all means, go in and handle the business. Have Congress declare a war and develop an exit strategy before we get there so we can go in, take out our target and get home.

That's the kind of foreign policy Ron Paul advocates for, by the way.

kevin| 10.12.11 @ 2:11PM

Plus we would not have to rebuild them after we bomb them, so the war would probably be over in a couple of weeks....

sector7| 10.12.11 @ 2:12PM

Mr. Lord, either you are misguided, or have something to personally gain from misleading.

Paul's position is to strengthen our borders to thwart attacks such as these. Not keep us so spread out we must narrowly survive them. I pray you see the error of your ways.

Jay| 10.12.11 @ 9:15PM

"...either you are misguided, or have something to personally gain from misleading..."

False dichotomy. In Lord's case, it is both.

Lord has an apoplectic hatred of Paul. You should hear him on the Levin show ranting about Paul – Levin and Lord together are hilarious!

TC| 10.12.11 @ 2:17PM

This is clearly an attempt by Obama to discredit Dr. Paul. Watch how no evidence will be forthcoming. Just like the evidence for Bin Laden's death was never provided.

Some people are so gullible. But as Lincoln said, 'you can't fool all the people all the time'.

The Strong DNA Strand| 10.12.11 @ 2:17PM

Tell your central banker employer at the top of the food chain he's a fucking sissy if he thinks he needs to manipulate in order to gain more power/wealth. Fucking sissies need more of that sissy shit to survive in the world. Weak DNA.

Mal_Content| 10.12.11 @ 2:21PM

Jeff Lord does it for the pageviews.

Does it hurts your pride, Jeff, knowing that you need to use Paul as a foil to drive up internet traffic?

Without Paul to criticize, Lord is just another neocon voice in the Big Government wilderness.

If you don't believe me Jeff, write an article about this plot without mention Paul at all. Lets see hom many comments and views that one gets.

sector7| 10.12.11 @ 2:34PM

Correct. And despite Jeff's attempt, the results are that it strengthens Paul's support and gives Paul's supporters a venue for interacting. Question is: is Jeff smart enough to know this?

Dixie Pixie| 10.12.11 @ 2:23PM

I don't see how the Iranian Plot hurts the Ron Paul campaign.

Ron Paul has never made improving American-Iranian relations a part of his campaign platform.
That was Obama and he has pursued that fantasy for the last tree years by ignoring every Iranian outrage.
He made it well known to the Iranian Mullahs that he was their type of guy.
The Iranian Plot proved the folly of sucking up to the Iranian Mullahs.

Besides the Iranian Plot was strictly amateur hour until the FBI became involved and escalated the scope of the plot.

For example, does anyone believe a criminal smuggling corporation can be bribed in kidnapping / killing a foreign ambassador?
Such criminal organizations survive by keeping a low public profile as possible.
Spectacular Front-page crimes like that are certain to provoke a government into a fury, is the very last thing such an organizations wants to happen.

This plot was conceptually flawed from the beginning and it took the resources provided by the FBI to get it anywhere.

In short Ron Paul is not connected to the Iranian Plot, but the Obama administration was up to their eyeballs in it.
No wonder they are busily deflecting it away from themselves.

kevin| 10.12.11 @ 2:24PM

So i looked it up.....I should have said that Iran has a GDP the size of North Carolina (not Rhode Island). So if North Carolina wanted to wage war against the US, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Turkey, Europe and probably a handful of other nations....would you be scared then?

devinesara| 10.12.11 @ 2:25PM

Wrong. Ron Paul's comments were about Iranian ground, naval or air deployment--not a terror plot. And, as a matter of fact, if you took the time to look into it, if Ron Paul's foreign policy stance were adopted, retaliatory terror attacks would be less likely and there would be no reason for an attack of an Israeli embassy here, because the US and Israel would no longer be "special friends," just friends. He's for strengthening our country's security from here, which would make such terror attacks even more improbable. So, nice try, but you seem to jump right over the logic of RP's argument to your own speculative conclusion.

Spambalaya| 10.12.11 @ 4:41PM

"And, as a matter of fact, if you took the time to look into it"

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. That would require, you know, research.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 6:01PM

If you have ever researched anything Spambalaya, I have yet to see any evidence of it here.

Cleach| 10.12.11 @ 2:27PM

So another terrorist attempts to attack the united states, your point? the only reason they do so is because we are actively invading their home and destroying their friends and familys, how do you expect them to react, smile and wave? This article only shows how our involment in the middle east not only makes our men and women in uniform far easier to target and kill but give these islamic extremeists a huge number of very upset individuals wanting revenge, kinda like what we did after 9/11. Ron Paul 2012 vote vertebre

luke| 10.12.11 @ 2:28PM

Your journalism leaves much to be desired.
I'm going to send you a jump to conclusions mat for Christmas. It probably belongs next to your bed for every morning when you wake up.

ash| 10.12.11 @ 2:29PM

whos the winner? cynicism?

Celeste| 10.12.11 @ 2:32PM

I smell BS

Dan| 10.12.11 @ 2:33PM

Jeffrey your article proves zilch about Dr Paul. He is still correct on their nuclear capabilities. Go celebrate with your boyfriend and have him finger you some more wake up tomorrow and realize you are so very wrong.

mnroc| 10.12.11 @ 2:34PM

I didn't realize the Spectator was just another neocon shill. Who keeps this rag operating? The FBI "claiming" something doesn't make it unquestionably true. I have to wonder who is truly naive here. In any event, such a threat doesn't disprove anything Paul has said about the dangers the US has created itself and left itself vulnerable to.

Steve| 10.12.11 @ 2:34PM

So lets just keep making all of the middle east mad at us. That has been working so far right?

mike| 10.12.11 @ 2:39PM

But, but..... we are the policemen of the world..... the bringers of peace. We have to keep the world safe for democracy.

Its our job, as the wealthiest country on the planet.... I mean the most in debt country on the planet............ right?

We can spend forever.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 2:48PM

Hey Mike, don't worry buddy. If we don't have the money, we can just print more like we always do and then everyone will be A-OK.

Mal_Content| 10.12.11 @ 3:45PM

A Brookings Institute study shows that Iranian Islamists hate freshly-printed US dollars.

Call the Bernank! He can save us!

Americus| 10.12.11 @ 2:37PM

IMPORTANT -- good people, let's keep in mind this fact. ... the more we get occupied with posts and replies to foolish and subversive commentary (like this story by Jeff) the less time we have to upset the apple cart and get real people elected.

Let's get back to work helping educate our neighbors and friends and others who don't yet know the reason to consider Dr. Paul. They probably don't yet know how to be pragmatic and critical thinkers and probably won't learn without much time invested on our parts.

Heck, just take a look at that one website where the author was complaining about how Ron Paul's eyebrow was fake -- the guy actually posted that!! And it burned up a total of at least 20 hours if not 200 hours of collective time.

When fed with drivel like that, it's no wonder that the US populus knows little about the facts.

This article wasn't one to ignore like that one, but let's keep things in perspective. I think we've bashed poor Jeff and his posse enough for now.

Enjoy.

Solo| 10.12.11 @ 3:27PM

BUUUUWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

Holy crap!

Now...there, ladies and gentleman, is a true Paulbot!

He isn't just drinking the Kool-Aid.....he's got it on an I.V. drip!

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 2:38PM

Wow. The Paulbot lunatics are out in full force.

Lots of ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, and irrational arguments.

So. Paulbots: terrorism is America's fault because we're over there, and Ron Paul is dead right about that! Uh-huh. So we leave them alone, and they leave us alone. And the Koran (or Qu'ran, or however they spell it) doesn't instruct them to conquer new lands and kill infidels.

So, Paulistas: when and where are you going to erect the Cathedral of Ron Paul? So you can better worship him!

mike| 10.12.11 @ 2:42PM

Would you love China if they had troops on american soil?

I suppose you would if they said they were here to help us, right?

LOL

Idiot.

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 2:52PM

Who let you out of your straitjacket? The men in white coats are coming...better put it back on.

dan| 10.12.11 @ 2:52PM

"Lots of ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, and irrational arguments."
Did you even read your own comment?

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 3:07PM

I did, and it's true. It's a statement of fact.

Examples (actual comment by your fellow Ron Paul'ers--aren't you proud?):
"foolish and subversive commentary (like this story by Jeff)";
"Maybe it's time we tarred and feathered un-thinkers who write articles like this, then bomb Iran with them.";
"Ron Paul is the only one with credibility. And no one doubts that except a few paid hacks on message boards."
...and anything written by certain serial posters who shall remain nameless, because I don't want to waste my time fending off their attacks.

You're free to like Ron Paul as much as you like. I'm free to dislike him. The problem is that you people vitriolically condemn anyone who even disagrees in a civil fashion with Your Hero.

That makes you a cult.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 5:24PM

" October 05, 2011
(CNN) -- America's veterans are proud of their military service, but in a new report published Wednesday, they expressed ambivalence about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a new Pew Research Center report on war and sacrifice, half of post-9/11 veterans said the Afghanistan war has been worth fighting. Only 44% felt that way about Iraq, and one-third said both wars were worth the costs."

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 3:01PM

Who cares what the Quran says? Despite what people believe, all aggression in the name of religion has economics at it's primary motivation. The expansion of Islam, the Christian crusades, all economically motivated. Religion is a spark. It can't do any harm without fuel.

Scenario 1:
"Hey Ishmael. Your a good Muslim. Your life is hard and the Americans are occupying our holy lands, killing innocents in the name of their security, and placing sanctions that make it hard for you to feed your children. It is your religious duty wage holy jihad and become a martyr to kill Americans."

Ishmael: "God permits, it will be done!"

Senario 2:

"Hey Ishmael. You are a good Muslim. Your life is hard. It is your religious duty to wage Jihad on those horrible Christian crusaders in Switzerland. They must be converted, be conquered and pay taxes, or die."

Ishmael: "Ummm....let me pray to God to see if it his will. I know that I said that last year, but I am still asking him about it. I'll get back with you when I get an answer."

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 3:21PM

A made-up scenario is no substitute for reality. And I find your implication that Americans are despoilers of Islamic holy places insulting--are you a jihadi plant?

The Muslim scriptures instruct Muslims to conquer non-Muslim lands and to execute those who do not convert to Islam. The terrorists are proud of this fact.

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 3:22PM

P.S. I find it amazing that so many Islamic holy places (like, for instance, the Dome of the Rock) are just coincidentally happen to be in locations that were Jewish holy places for millenia before Islam existed--and the Muslims won't share. Hm.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 3:30PM

My scenario was simplified, because this is a message board, but the point holds true. And I was speaking from the point of view of what the powers-that-be in the Middle East tell their followers. Whether or not you or I believe what they say is true, they do use that language against us. If you don't believe me, then you are the one living in La-La Land.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 3:32PM

And quit name-calling. I am an American who loves his country, as I hope that you are. The difference is, I believe without a doubt that your take on foreign policy will destroy the country that both you and I love.

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 3:54PM

We agree on only one thing: that Muslims are whipped into a frenzy by religious demagoguery.

We disagree on everything else. You seem to be implying a strong element of truth in the belief that Americans are willfully hurting Muslims: "...occupying our holy lands, killing innocents in the name of their security, and placing sanctions that make it hard for you to feed your children."

Contrast that with your Swiss-themed statement, which implies that every rational person knows no Muslim would go on jihad against the Swiss. Which is itself untrue and naive: lots of non-Muslims in neutral ("Swiss-like") non-Islamic countries are being murdered or going into hiding for perceived slights against Islam's strict rules. Have you forgotten the "Muhammad cartoon riots?" Christians don't riot and kill innocent people (or perpetrators for that matter) for desecration and sacrilege, and haven't for centuries.

As for the Crusades...a dishonest moral equivalency. Those kingdoms were Christian for centuries, until the Muslims conquered them. Sure it's true: Christianity started and flourished in the Middle East, until the Muslims largely wiped it out.

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 4:23PM

I did not imply that Americans are intentionally hurting Muslims. I believe quite the opposite. But my point is, which I thought I made clear, that whether you believe any of the stuff I used in Scenario 1, they do use those things as fuel in the fire against us. Period.

And yes, while there are always zealots who will do crazy B.S. in the name of "insert god here", they are the fringe and stay that way unless they convince others who already have non-religious, usually socio-economic, grievances against the desired target.

So yes, there will always be fundamental Islamists who desire to conquer the world in the name of religion. Just as there those that have done not-so-nice things in the name of Christianity. (Spanish inquisition?) But my point is, that without the everyday REASONS that we freely provide, those zealots will be fringe instead of gaining any mainstream traction with the average guy trying to eek out a living in peace.

And the crusade analogy is not perfect, but a good analogy nonetheless. It was still war in the name of God. And it wouldn't have happened if there had not been a whole host of other reasons other than religious ferver:

- Feudal system was starting to collapse, and lords and kings needed more lands to satisfy the increasing population of Europe.
- Newly emergent middle class saw huge profits in trade with the East, but did not want to pay the huge tariffs that the middle men (the Islamic nations of the middle east) imposed on trade through their lands.
- I could give others, but I realize it is somewhat pointless.

Listen, I realize that some of these "reasons" could still be used, even if we quit being the World Police, but that does not mean we should be so quick to provide more reasons. Even if you feel that we need to do this, the fact of the matter is that we cannot just afford it. It makes much more sense to abandon the money-sucking, currency-crippling policies of trying to police to the world, providing economic aid to 100's of nations, and instead, use that money to build our own economy, build are infra-structure, and build our defenses at home. That was the vision of our founders anyway. You may disagree, but your position would be at odds with our Constitution, which was designed be people that had a lot more sense and reason than many people today, who seem to let emotion and politics have too much sway over how our country operates.

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 10.12.11 @ 2:39PM

How many times has the corrupt government
and the controlled media
lied to Jeffrey Lord
in the last 10 years?

mrpom| 10.12.11 @ 2:39PM

OOPS! Lord showing what an idiot he is again.

Purple Lips| 10.12.11 @ 2:39PM

The Middle East - The gift that keeps on giving.

mrpom| 10.12.11 @ 2:40PM

OOPS! Lord showing what an idiot he is again.
http://original.antiwar.com/ju.....fake-fake/

N| 10.12.11 @ 2:43PM

Even if this were true, are we now going to wipe out every criminal's country in response to criminal acts of terrorism towards US or US "interests"? We are openly hostile towards Iran, remember? Are you surprised that are hostile towards us? The question is -- can their government sponsor a nuclear attack at US and is this likely at all?

mike| 10.12.11 @ 2:51PM

The "Iran wants to nuke us" crowd's logic falls apart when they fail to mention that a nuclear launch against the US would mean their immediate destruction.

They respond to that by saying "Well, they are nuts.... muslims that believe they will see Allah and get virgins for dying for the cause"

Ok, if that were true, then why dont they just simply attack us right now? Just come over the ocean in boatloads and attack us. Same effect right?

The truth is, they dont wanna die anymore than we do....... and thats why they would never nuke us. Same reason no country has ever nuked another country that also has nukes.

JR| 10.12.11 @ 4:12PM

With people like you they know they wouldnt have to worry about that cause all ya'll would say is "if we nuke them they'll just do it again to us"

mike| 10.12.11 @ 5:17PM

No dumbass,

They couldn't possibly do it again to us because they wouldn't exist anymore. They launch one nuke in our direction, its possible it woudn't even get here in the first place. Then, we launch enough to turn the whole country into a sheet of glass.

Thats what I advocate.

So let them have their nuke if they want one. They wont use it. They cant. It would be the end of them. They know it. What part of that dont you understand?

The reason they want one is because everyone around them has one. I would feel the same way if I were in Iran. If you're the only guy on the block without a gun, who do you think everyones gonna mess with and boss around?

Try to think with logic instead of fear mongering.

dan| 10.12.11 @ 2:50PM

Ha! So the Evil Iranians plotted to do this, eh? Sounds more like a Hollywood script written by the NSA than reality... and by the way, why dont we just see where this goes in court before accusing anybody? You know, like, when the FACTS come out?

josh myers| 10.12.11 @ 2:57PM

I agree. Why bother with a trial. Obama can just assassinate them.

Cam| 10.12.11 @ 2:52PM

Iran did not attack us. This whole ridiculous scenario is hanging on a DEA informant who is a drug dealer. Really Jeff, you're going to use the word of a drug dealer and a lying traitor such as Eric Holder (arming Drug Cartels to kill Americans) to attack a virtuous man like Dr. Paul? Good luck with that. 100,000+ donated to Ron Paul last quarter. How many donors did your candidate have?

Josh Myers| 10.12.11 @ 2:54PM

I don't see where these charges have been substantiated. This reaks of the similar event with Anwar al-Awlaki. Where's the evidence? All of this talk of military action does not sound good. If we want to lecture other countries about state sponsored terrorism we might want to look in the mirror. The current perception by our government is presumptious and lacks credibility.

zzz| 10.12.11 @ 2:54PM

How convenient.

Ron Paul says Iran is not a threat, that they don't have enough gas to invade America, then the ant-Paul media tells us an Iranian Carrier is headed to America, that Iran is working with others to kill Americans.

Then Jeffery Lord accepts it all, hook, line, and sinker.

You probably thought the Jessica Lynch story was real, too, right Jeffery Lord?

Lol...

Wag the dog.

KnowBull | 10.12.11 @ 2:55PM

here is my generous contribution to your column;

BEFORE you proclaim a worthy opinion, LEARN your history. Then consider what you have learned. In your haste to spin the tale of today, you have sadly neglected so very much.

You have never heard of The Great Game ? The WWII Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran? The Pahlavi dynasty along with our involvement ( spell that interference good and ill) ? The two borders Iran presently considers with foreign armies ?

What sort of behavior exactly would you expect ? If you could do so objectively !

The sickness will not heal overnight, but the cure must begin and soon,

Ron Paul 2012

RVMP| 10.12.11 @ 2:57PM

Every country in the middle east hates us. All the 911 bombers were Saudis and we did not do anything to them. Who do you think put the Iranian leadership in power? YES the US. Do your research and investigate a little. Iran does not want anything to do with us. Sure they hate us. But they are printing money selling billions dollars a month in oil to India and China. And guess what they are not buying in dollars. IRAN is loaded with Oil. And the US hates they are not getting any of the action. They will be fabricating all kinds of crap just to incite hatred. When was the last time China attacked or Occupied someone. Our current EMPIRE building strategy is bankrupting us and making us more vulnerable. Our country needs drastic change or this path we are taking will destroy us. Although I do not agree with everything Ron Paul says he is really the only option for making HUGE change. Change that will not only protect us but also allow us to prosper. China spends 60% less than us on Military. Maybe we should learn from them. We need to focus on us INTERNALLY. No more INTERVENTIONISM. If you want to keep us on this same path you are a fool. Wake up!

zzz| 10.12.11 @ 3:00PM

Hey Jeffery Lord...

Bush called, he said somebody is kicking over incubators and building balloon machines!

Better warn America!

RTMP| 10.12.11 @ 3:04PM

Hey Jeffery Lord...Stop creating propaganda. Guys like you are why our society is failing. You have no credibility.

Justin| 10.12.11 @ 3:12PM

Actually, it proves him right!

We are Still occuping afghanistan(dr. Paul said this is why we are targets for terrorism.

The plot didn't work(dr. Paul said they wouldn't be able to go through with an attack)

Take into consideration that the white house has known about this "plot" since July, it becomes clear that you are using fear mongering techniques to discredit dr. Paul.

9th ID| 10.12.11 @ 3:14PM

Ron Paul makes WWII and Holocaust enabler Neville Chamberlain look like a war monger. Constitutional conservatives can be glad that Liber-tarian Ron Paul has promised to step down from power after his latest failed run...

Jeff Gaylord| 10.12.11 @ 3:22PM

Actually 9th Dr. Paul is a constitutional conservative - He is the champion of constitution. You sir, are a brainwashed pig being led to the slaughter! WAKE UP!

9th ID| 10.12.11 @ 8:48PM

I won't be shouted into accepting your Lord of the Flies vision for America. Paul advocates a return to the states rights chaos of the Articles of Confederation. You cult of personality Paulbots need to go back to the Liber-tarian Party where your belong along with Russell Means et al...

Burning_Tyger| 10.12.11 @ 3:26PM

For every terrorist we kill with a drone, however noble the cause, we probably kill 5 innocents, which creates 20 new terrorists. Do the math.

The policy you support is the same one that has caused this mess, and will be the destruction of our nation. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence are rolling in their grave at about 6000 RPMs in response to our current foreign policy.

Jeff Gaylord| 10.12.11 @ 3:18PM

I would love to punch Mr. Lord right in the face and see what he would do in response to that. According to his views, I would be the victim.

Bob K| 10.12.11 @ 3:43PM

Good point. The author fails to see the cause of our problems. If the US understood the cause we could fix the problem. The problem is, "they" don't want to fix the problem, they want to breakdown nations and replace them with world government. "They" are getting Americans ready to accept a National ID card - PROBABLY under the guise of safety and security I'm betting after a false flag terror attack on our soil. This will scare the people into subservance.

Rienone| 10.12.11 @ 3:20PM

This does NOTHING to Ron Paul's credibility. WHAT A JOKE! DON'T FALL FOR THIS PEOPLE! THIS is a tool for Washington, Obama, military contractors, international bankers and the WAR MACHINE! It's about oil, manipulation of the world currencies, and POWER EXPANSION. Don't let the pain and fear of 9/11 dictate your response. This is VERY dangerous ground that we are treading on here. If we decide to bomb Iran over these claims, we are GUARANTEEING terrorist attacks and US hatred for decades upon decades. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS!

YES! If they actually DID blow up something in Washington or anywhere US, costing innocent American lives. we should do something. But we shouldnt "rally the troops" because we SAY they were planning something they didn't do. And on top of that, the alleged plot was to kill another mid-east official... WHO CARES!!! Not worth our children's LIVES!

Phil| 10.12.11 @ 3:22PM

Another example of crap journalism... How do people like this get and continue to have a job...?

Keep carrying the water for the neocons...

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 3:28PM

" Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."

" Overall, 71 percent of military donations for the 2012 presidential race have gone to Ron Paul, while Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann received five percent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney eight percent, and Cain 13 percent. All other candidates combined have received three percent of the military donations. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

CHH| 10.12.11 @ 3:28PM

The establishment media is busy keeping the mind control tactics in full swing I see. Personally I do not believe any mainstream media source. We KNOW that they have been bought and paid for. The only remaining objective media exists online so far as I can tell. Ron Paul's credibility is self-evident. When you compare service records to the values of America there are no competitors Period.

Terry Mcalister| 10.12.11 @ 3:31PM

Yellow Journalism. I wish I could have the last 5 Mintues of my life back.

Solo| 10.12.11 @ 3:37PM

Well...I'll say one thing:

You can certainly judge the legitimacy of Jeffery Lord's conclusions based on the on-slaught of PaulBots who have suddenly dragged themselves from the fever swamps of the Alex Jones sites and flooded the board.

They know the risk to the RuPaul's narrative.

That's why they're here.

Ha..Ha Ha!

Too predictable!

Hans Ferdenand| 10.12.11 @ 3:48PM

Alex who? I love America and I want my representitives in congress to obey the constitution and oath they swore. Ron Paul has ALWAYS obeyed and defended the constitution from enemies foreign or domestic - sound like you are a disgruntled domestic enemy of the ever growing success of the idea of obeying the constitution! Go crawl back in your cave troll!

Mark| 10.12.11 @ 4:42PM

By your comments you can tell you are just another thoughtless creature slithering around this planet with no direction but by those who direct.

Unbiased | 10.12.11 @ 3:41PM

I'm pretty sure they came to America on commercial airliners. I think Dr. Paul was suggesting that an act of war by an Iranian military branch was not a conceivable threat.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that any country regardless of friend or foe has an equal opportunity and ability to plot an attack on American soil?

How Gullible Are We?| 10.12.11 @ 3:47PM

First of all it is no coincidence that this "plot" was announced on the very day that Attorney General Holder was to get a subpeona for the fast and furious scandal for LYING about intentionally letting guns cross the border to mexican cartels but it was also the day that Obama's jobs bill went DOWN in the senate.

http://original.antiwar.com/ju.....fake-fake/

"That our government would float a narrative like this without any apparent regard for the basic rules of fiction-writing – create believable characters who do believable things – is Washington’s way of showing contempt for the Iranians, the American people, and anyone else who stands in the way of their war agenda. They don’t care if it’s not believable. They think Americans will swallow anything, that we’re too busy trying to survive day-to-day, these days, to inquire much further than the “official” account. And of course our brain-dead media, which is reduced to a chiefly stenographic role, isn’t going to ask any inconvenient questions."

BettyLiberty | 10.12.11 @ 3:57PM

I call B.S. on this laughable Hollywood Plot. How convenient to bundle the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act all into one nice little propaganda package to deflect from Eric Holder's culpability in the treasonous Project Gun Walker scandal, or perhaps another false flag to drive us into war with Iran. Guess what American Spectator and United States Government: I don't believe in your Muslim boogeymen anymore. Ron Paul hasn't lost ANY support over this. Better luck next time with your future hit pieces.

Dan| 10.12.11 @ 3:59PM

Your article BLOWS your credibility. Cmon bow down to the Paul and pray for mercy all you naysayers. He is your only hope for a better America.

Micah | 10.12.11 @ 4:00PM

It was actually Mossad pretending to be Iran. Israel has been trying to get us to occupy their neighbors for decades. This is just another attempt to put us at war with Iran so they can control the middle east by proxy. As I've said before, we are just Israels war machine http://thespoonfed.tumblr.com/.....ar-machine

Thomas Paine| 10.12.11 @ 4:01PM

Actually Dr. Paul's point was not that Iran is a threat, but that they are less of a threat than the USSR was during the Cold War. Yet, we still negotiated with the USSR, and in the end we never actually went to war with them. This is Dr. Paul's point: that establishing and maintaining firm but open dialogue between us and Iran is important. The fact that some plot was discovered does not change the fact that Dr. Paul's only assertion is that Iran is less of the threat to the USA than the USSR was, this has not changed.

John Giles| 10.12.11 @ 4:08PM

Another stupid create-a-terrorist FBI project.

Eve Marie| 10.12.11 @ 4:13PM

Well, if this is the case, then that makes an even stronger case for Ron Paul. You see, if there are so many terrorists plotting to blow up America, then the day after 9/11 our borders should have been sealed like a drum. Yet, they still sit wide open. Just let these terrorists waltz on in and bring their nukes with them, eh?
Ron Paul would quit policing the world and PROTECT OUR BORDER. Something that hasn't even been taken seriously since 9/11.

Want America to be secure? Watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmF7sNlraU

im103mike| 10.12.11 @ 4:13PM

We didn't get nuked by an Iranian bomb, or bombed by an Iranian Air Force plane or attacked by the Iranian Army. Even had this dubious attack been carried out, it would have been small compared to 911. Iran has not declared war on us and they deny they are involved. IF this is even sponsored by Iran, it is nothing more than a probe or slap designed to make Obama do something stupid again. Ron Paul was right and he still retains his credibility, unlike Obama.

Zac| 10.12.11 @ 4:18PM

Yeah, let's not jump to conclusion on this one Jeffrey...

You quote Ron Paul in saying that Iran doesn't have a big enough Air Force to reach and attach America. You then site the attack on the Saudi Ambassador and Israeli Embassy and say that Ron Paul's message is totally sunk because of this? No. Iran had one person create the attack. There was no nuclear attack either.

Let's consider why this attack even happened in the first place. I'm sure it has to do with our foreign policy of intervention. Ron Paul is right in saying we need to exit these illegal wars that we are in. This will probably solve all our problems. I'm sure there will still be tension from the countries we invaded even after we leave, but that will be better the rising tension and stress we're dealing with our military being overseas.

Anyways... Ron Paul 2012! Our hope for liberty!

Chuck| 10.12.11 @ 4:28PM

This is Obama's ticket to re-election. When the going gets tough, the president finds a national security threat that demands immediate action. This is the first big step of the Iran War. And Obama can get away with anything he wants as long as he appears tough and G.W. Bush-like on the Imminent Iranian Threat. No left-wing hippies will make a peep (notice that OWS left out any mention of our foreign policy on their list of demands); and every Republican contender will refrain from criticism, lest they appear unpatriotic in a time of WAR. Romney, Cain, and Perry will have a choice: be Obama's cheerleader (Perry already has the experience), or somehow avoid discussing the Imminent Iranian Threat and hope the nation's attention span can cover both a war and whatever economic miracle plan they happen to be peddling at the time. Except Ron Paul. He'll remind us the nation can not afford the trillions of dollars another war will cost and that sacrificing thousands of our soldiers to destroy Iran and then babysit them for a generation is not the path to peace or prosperity.

Mark| 10.12.11 @ 4:39PM

Apparently you didn't stick around and wait for the news to come out before writing this article. If so, you would have realized that it is a farce. There aren't any ties to the Zeta Cartel to carry out a hit nor would they do it for $100,000 and jeopardize their $30 Billion Dollar Enterprise. By the way, it was an FBI Agent who led the Iranians to the Cartel supposedly. Something smells fishy to me. Then again Jeff, obviously you like to spew half truths because you carry the water for the government. Learn the facts! Oh, by the way, RON PAUL is DEAD ON when it comes to our Foreign Policy. I can tell you as a former Military Member but keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Patrick| 10.12.11 @ 4:41PM

What an absolute crock. And so I quote from the astute and articulate Glenn Greenwald, who's far less gullible than Mr. Lord:

The most difficult challenge in writing about the Iranian Terror Plot unveiled yesterday is to take it seriously enough to analyze it. Iranian Muslims in the Quds Force sending marauding bands of Mexican drug cartel assassins onto sacred American soil to commit Terrorism — against Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel — is what Bill Kristol and John Bolton would feverishly dream up while dropping acid and madly cackling at the possibility that they could get someone to believe it. But since the U.S. Government rolled out its Most Serious Officials with Very Serious Faces to make these accusations, many people (therefore) do believe it; after all, U.S. government accusations = Truth. All Serious people know that. And in the ensuing reaction one finds virtually every dynamic typically shaping discussions of Terrorism and U.S. foreign policy.

.... What’s most significant is that not even 24 hours have elapsed since these allegations were unveiled. No evidence has been presented of Iran’s involvement. And yet there is no shortage of people — especially in the media — breathlessly talking about all of this as though it’s all clearly true. If the Obama administration decided tomorrow that military action against Iran were warranted in response, is there any doubt that large majorities of Americans — and large majorities of Democrats — would support that? As I said when discussing the Awlaki killing, the truly “scary” aspect of all of this is that the U.S. Government need only point and utter the word “Terrorist” and hordes of citizens will rise up and demand not evidence, but blood.

Source: http://politics.salon.com/2011.....singleton/

crazyfingers| 10.12.11 @ 4:41PM

ahhhh.... NOPE still voting RON PAUL 2012

Nobody believes this bs anymore
but nice try

A.C.| 10.12.11 @ 4:47PM

Lord, for God sake's stop digging! You've already limited yourself forever now as the Amspeckie neocon hack flavor of the election cycle who no seriously educated conservatives are going to want to listen to anymore! You've stroked all the right DC egos....Why exactly are you still ranting? Getting a little nervous about Congressman Paul amid this pathetic field? Buck up, lil camper! Odds are still pretty long on Paul's winning the nomination. =) Getting shorter, though, aren't they, Lordie?

Tom| 10.12.11 @ 4:52PM

This article certainly has Dr. Nutjob's legion of Paultard straw poll warriors in a tizzy!!!

Great work, Jeffrey!!

This bunch of Paultard losers is quite busy in their never-ending service to their Cult Master during Occupy Mommy's Basement. But their inane comments prove once again that the Anarcho-Liberals have the same guilding principle as their brethren among the Statist-Liberals: Hate America First; Blame America ALWAYS!!

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 5:10PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Tom| 10.12.11 @ 5:20PM

A Paultard cutting and pasting a quote completely out of context is the fullest extent of his or her scholarly capabilities.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 5:34PM

It Sure Upsets Your Bibibot Butt, Asshole Tommy.

" October5th, 2011:
(CNN) -- America's veterans are proud of their military service, but in a new report published Wednesday, they expressed ambivalence about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a new Pew Research Center report on war and sacrifice, half of post-9/11 veterans said the Afghanistan war has been worth fighting. Only 44% felt that way about Iraq, and one-third said both wars were worth the costs."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

9th ID| 10.12.11 @ 8:54PM

True. The Paulistas always pull this one out of their azzes as they dont' even know Reagan said it in the 70s, before Paul joined the indicted cop shooter Russell Means in the Liber-tarian Party. No veteran I know of believes their BS poll of military donations any more than we believe their stuffed strawpolls. Liber-tarians and Liber-als are just the two sides of the same coin of Libertinism...

Cl1nt| 10.12.11 @ 5:23PM

From Ron Paul's letter resigning from the Republican Party in 1987:

" The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend. If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years."

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 5:31PM

We Note Your "Cl"1"nt " Post, Coward.

Apparebtly, The Israel Firster Pretend Punk Poster Just Entered The Building.

You Israel Firsters Ain't Man Enough To Man Up To Your Own Posts.

You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

You're A Sniviling Coward. Israel Firster Punk Poster.

Tom| 10.12.11 @ 5:59PM

Aww, Clueless Clint is reduced to little more than pulling more quotes out of context in order to defend his Cult Master. This mindless zombee is so desperate that he is reduced to calling me an "Israel Firster", when I NEVER even mentioned Israel!

Now go back to your Mommy's basement, little boy.

Jonathan| 10.12.11 @ 6:33PM

It's a shame that there are people beyond elementary school who seriously believe that pointing out that our foreign policy is deeply flawed and has created serious anti-American sentiments around the world (killing innocents usually pisses off their friends and family, ya know?) is him HATING America and always trying to blame it. Rather it is you who hates America, if you see the U.S. military as an infallible source in its mission to "spread democracy" over the world. Have you ever heard of the CIA-coined term blowback? Did you know that Ron Paul used that theory to PREDICT 9/11 before it happened? That was in order to protect America, not because he "hated" it or so he could "blame" it.

The following video is a speech written by Dr. Paul - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

I dare you to watch it. Thing is, since it doesn't look at the actions of the U.S. military from a pathetically juvenile 5 year old's point of view where we're just the good guys who can do no wrong, you might think it hates America and is just blaming America first. If you can't understand it, I understand. Your views are probably so immature and undeveloped that you can't understand how the "good guys" could ever be wrong! And ANY critique of what your silly little brain deems "the good guys" MUST be equal to hatred of America!

It is truly so horrific and sad to me that any other adult in the world adopts this train of thought. It would seem to indicate both a maturity and intellectual level of a child in elementary school.

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:21PM

So many words, and so much blathering nonsense.

Your rant could just as easily have been written by MoveOn.org, which is not surprising since , Anarcho-Liberalism and Statist-Liberalism are two sides of the same coin.

As for watching a video by your Cult Master; I'd much rather spend my time in a much more productive activity; such as dealing with a severe case of diahrea.

And I'll take the word of the U.S. Government and the military over against Dr. Nutjob and you bunch of Paultard losers each and every day of the week.

im103mike| 10.12.11 @ 7:25PM

Whenever an idiot, desperate for attention can't reply to an argument with reason, he insults and calls names, Tom.

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:15PM

"Whenever an idiot, desperate for attention can't reply to an argument with reason, he insults and calls names..." as evidenced by the Paultard ranting here.

There, fixed it for you.

Actually, being insulted by a Paultard is no problem at all. It's when a person find himself in agreement with these tools that he has a HUGE problem!

Sam Freeman| 10.12.11 @ 4:54PM

There are a few things to keep in mind.

One is that we have been financing and orchestrating our own plots in Iran, including kidnapping members of this Qods Force to be interrogated by our less squeamish allies and employing al Qaeda members in Iran to this end (See: http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....ntPage=all). Would we allow our troops to be kidnapped from our own nation and tortured? Why is it okay for us (Bush II in this article) to fund al Qaeda terrorist activity against a country—aren’t we supposed to be primarily targeting al Qaeda? And Obama has continued Bush II’s support of al Qaeda, helping them come to power in Libya.

Another is the lucky timing of this for a few parties. Obama and Holder are under investigation for Operation Fast & Furious and crony government loans made to companies owned by political supporters. The neocons have been pushing for war with Iran for quite some time and this will be used to trash opponents of their plans, including Ron Paul (probably at the debate tonight), and galvanize pro war Republican primary voters to pick a neocon puppet for the nomination.

Contrary to Ron Paul’s credibility being blown to smithereens, this is simply another instance where his warning of blowback has come to pass.

Liberty Standing| 10.13.11 @ 1:15AM

Here is one of the "blowback" scenarios Ron Paul tried to warn us about. Instead of impeaching Clinton on the grounds of adultery, Ron Paul wanted to impeach him for a different reason.
(Foreign Policy/911)
http://youtu.be/4hJTisovvjc

UncleSim| 10.12.11 @ 5:04PM

What the author smells is not morning in America, its more CIA/FBI bullshit like the Times Square, Ft Dix, Sears Tower, and underwear bombers. I can smell it through the inter-tubes, can't you?

KnowBull | 10.12.11 @ 5:04PM

you talking about Operation Blast and Blurry Us ?
Where the fed funds a yahoo or two to set out to commit a despicable act while implicating another easy-to-understand bad guy, all with the purpose of implicating yet another enemy that needs to be spanked, if only one had ther reason..... ?

Wonder how many 1000s of lbs of C4 walked across the border during this Bright Shining Lie ?

Joe Mama| 10.12.11 @ 5:11PM

Uh-oh I guess the author is right. Ron Paul is wrong. And since the only way to totally control Iran is to invade them, I guess we've got another war to start! Much better to keep our troops overseas that here at home. There are certainly no threats here at home... oh wait where was this plot again? Hmm...

Mr.Liberty| 10.12.11 @ 5:16PM

TO Jeffrey Lord,

The FBI has accused, but not convicted yet. If we based all our actions based on beliefs I cringe at such a world.

Empirical date is what is relevant, and the FBI will have to show it's empirical data to get any convictions.

Citizens have rights, and you can't assume someone is guilty based on accusations. We do after-all live in the U.S. and you are innocent until proven guilty.

Maria | 10.12.11 @ 5:23PM

Mr. Lord is kidding...right? This actually proves Ron Paul to be correct. We didn't have to invade Iran to discover and thwart this plot. Iran STILL doesn't have the capacity to send an army or air force to the US. Iran's military budget is 9 billion a year. Mr. Lord likes wishful thinking.

Rolland| 10.12.11 @ 5:23PM

The credibility of Ron Paul is as sterling as ever. What isn't credible is the US government and their allegations of breaking up a terrorist plot sponsored by Iran. Are people such incredible fools that they believe ever lie that the government feeds them? Apparently, the author Jeffery Lord is firmly in that category.

Mike| 10.12.11 @ 5:25PM

I think we should have the elected officials go fight the wars they start. Maybe they would have a change of mind. This is from a USMC

Our Government would never lie| 10.12.11 @ 5:25PM

Here we go again and the American people are ready to be misled and manipulated quite easily yet again. Is it any wonder we got 5 wars going on right now and are broke because the American people believe any psyop or phsychological warfare that the government spins to the left or to the right to keep their head spinning to keep from knowing and finding out the truth and it seems to work for now to bring in more war for profit under so called "American interests".

The corporate media has a job to spin the truth and deliver deception instead thus keeping the people dumbed down from ever knowing or finding out the truth and for all we know this is all a lie and a complete fabrication. Look we all know the government and their handlers want more war expansion and wants to add Iran and Syria to the war theater list and this is just another way to ramp that up and bring that about and to sell it to the American people.

Remember the weapons of mass destruction and yellow cake uranium in Iraq that never was true? Oooopps we had crappy intel remember that? There seems to be an awful lot of crappy intel on this whole "war on terror" mess. I remember when George W. Bush was laughing about that on his way out at the roast they held for him on his way out. Google it and watch the video! The sad thing is everyone there laughed along with him so they either were ok with this and understood or it completely slipped their minds to grasp of what was being said and after how many trillions spent on these wars and invasions?

The American people are gullible and are being lied to and believe anything they are told by the "corporate media" which its their job to propagandize the American people and keep there heads spinning until after the invasion and we have thrown away trillions on lies. The corporate media is about as real as "reality TV" all are scripted teleprompter readers along with are politicians and when somebody that is awake and sees them for who and what they are they are attacked and shut down and silenced immediately so I guess there is no hope for our nation anymore.

david reber| 10.12.11 @ 5:26PM

Ok Mr Lord,

I would like to move my family and friends onto your yard. We are going to camp out and completely destroy it. I am planning on moving three tents, a couple of Hummers and maybe a jeep or two. What you don't like that? Try to call the cops...oh wait I AM THE COPS. I have all the weapons. You try to take me to court? NOPE, sorry I own the courts and your case will never be heard.

Whenever you or any member of your family attempts to leave they will be searched. Whenever they return they will be searched again and anything I want to confiscate I will confiscate. You are a prisoner in your own home with no rights other than what I give you.

What will you do Jeff? What will you do? Will you just sit there and take it or will you resort to the only option left? Violence.

somnolence| 10.12.11 @ 5:34PM

The latest action by Iran proves that Paul and many of his followers are severely delusional. Eric Holder and his subordinates at DOJ are also culpable in this, as Fast And Furious has emboldened the Mexican thugs, and their enthusiasm to connect with the mullahs. Paulboots, get real!

Areyou ForReal| 10.12.11 @ 5:48PM

You can't be serious. You think that stone age muslims 5,000+ miles away are going to have the resources and time to "connect" with random mexican drug cartels?

Ben| 10.12.11 @ 5:36PM

Actually this supports Paul's position. We have yet to apologize for Operation Ajax. Wikileaks cables revealed high level talks between Saudis and US representatives on the possible invasion of Iran. Hillary Clinton also spoke to preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran in the democratic presidential debates last go around. Seems to me all the regimes US, Iran, etc. need some enemy to justify their warmongering positions that are necessary for those in charge to consolidate power, and the rest of us remain hostage to it.

KnowBull | 10.12.11 @ 5:43PM

Your valued opinion on this Jeffers?

1953 Iranian coup d'état, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - referred from Operation Ajax)

Iranian coup d'état
Date 15–20 August 1953

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).[6] Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s, a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism.[7] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[8] Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[9] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.[10] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[11]

Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.[12] At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.[13] According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[14] 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict.[2] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[15][16][17] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.

After the coup, Pahlavi ruled as an authoritarian monarch for the next 26 years, until he was overthrown in a popular revolt in 1979.[18] The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government included a share of Iran's oil wealth[19] as well as resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians. Washington continually supplied arms to the unpopular Shah, and the CIA-trained SAVAK, his repressive secret police force. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to anti-American sentiment in Iran and the Middle East. The 1979 Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western royal dictatorship with the largely anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.[20]

somnolence| 10.12.11 @ 5:56PM

Yeah, I'm serious as hell.

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 6:24PM

So, I take it you support these dips who want to expand our foreign occupations, and ignore the southern border. Which one is your favorite? Bush-lite or Obama-lite?

somnolence| 10.12.11 @ 5:59PM

Have you ever heard of the Zimmerman Telegram? Never doubt the workings of clandestine networks, whether in 1916 or 2011.

CMP| 10.12.11 @ 6:02PM

Whatever keeps us spending and borrowing money is what they want. The BANKING CARTELS will do anything to keep us paying that interest.

Areyou ForReal| 10.12.11 @ 6:03PM

how did that zimmerman telegram work out?

Drdjkii| 10.12.11 @ 6:05PM

Jeffrey Lord.

Traitor to America, to Peace and Freedom.

We need to start a registertraitor.com just like the MRM has started the registerher.com for criminal feministas.

devinesara| 10.12.11 @ 11:37PM

Why not just call in a drone strike?

Erdi| 10.12.11 @ 6:05PM

This Ron Paul says it all! He made this video just in time for this. Imagine!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ron Paul 2012

Sam| 10.12.11 @ 6:17PM

Awesome Video! Ron Paul knows exactly what he is talking about. To bad there are so many DUMB Americans.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 6:28PM

This is perhaps the most loathsome political commericial I have ever seen, and I've been around long enough to have seen those of Lyndon Johnson, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter.

I used to look upon Ron Paul as a harmless, laughable, clown; now I look upon him as my bitter enemy, a traitor, and a pig.

And I look upon you that support him in the same way. You are not conservatives. You have never been. You are traitors.

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 6:39PM

No sir. Not traitors. Heed your own advice, consider a position objectively. Use reason and logic. When you can't find it, go ahead and vote for Romney.

Jonathan| 10.12.11 @ 6:44PM

Actually, Paul's foreign policy mirrors that of most of the Founding Fathers and the advice they gave us. They are the most conservative figures in the history of America - the original warriors against big government.

Put 1 and 1 together genius. Who's the real conservative?

I'm sorry that your brain can't grasp that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. military could actually do something WRONG! Oh, but wait, they're the GOOD GUYS right? How could the good guys ever be flawed? They're just fighting the bad guys so it must be okay!

This is not the mentality of a conservative yet it is the one you and others like you demonstrate. This is the mentality of someone living in George Orwell's 1984, who believes Big Brother's obviously phony lies that the government is good just because - wait for it - it's good!

So, I know your silly little brain might be hard pressed to understand that when we kill innocents casually around the world, their friends and family get really angry and resent us. When it happens on a grand level, a whole lot of them are angry and resentful, so they rise up against us. This should be a logical and predictable when we so carelessly claim thousands of civilian casualties.

That's all Ron Paul is saying, but for saying logic and for suggesting that GOD FORBID the U.S. military might not be justified in every war it fights, he's a "pig" and a "traitor!"

This thinking is fit for a school child, who can not understand anything but the black and white labels of "America=good" "Arabs=bad." I guess it's fit for you as well. Time to go back to school to develop some critical reasoning skills, buddy boy!

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 7:04PM

Hi Jonathan,

A few points:

1. Siding with your enemy has always been frowned upon, even by the founding fathers, believe it or not. They called it treason, and they hung people for being traitors. Paul's commercial is treasonous, in that it sides with our enemy.

2. I know this is hard to believe, but the U. S. does not have any soldiers stationed in Iran.

3. As to Iraq, dozens of nations supported our military invasion, and forty nations participated in the invasion, all of which suffered fatalities. These nations included Poland, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ukraine, Denmark, Holland, the Philippines, Japan and dozens of others that I can't remember.

4. As to Afghanistan, would you have it any other way? Even the left concedes that this invasion was necessary.

5. If Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, the bearded murderers in Iran, or the Taliban were in control of the U. S. government, I would welcome an invasion by such a benevolent nation as the U. S., and if some people wanted to support the above tyrants, I would fight them with my heart and soul.

6. What do you think the leaders of Iran think, clown, when they see this commercial? Do you think they will try to sow this dissension? Do you think that Paul's positions aids them, or damages them?

And lastly, why do I feel like I'm arguing with a leftist?

Paul has lost all credibility with me. He has made a bitter enemy. And you clowns are clueless.

zak| 10.12.11 @ 7:52PM

Mcgrath, you are actually holding the leftist position, you stand with the wilsonian progressive neoconservatives. Join the Obama party you'd fit right in.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 8:04PM

You've offered nothing to support your idiotic comment. Take a hike, or offer something substantive.

Liberty2012| 10.12.11 @ 8:58PM

"As to Iraq, dozens of nations supported our military invasion, and forty nations participated in the invasion..."
Did they really volunteer? We had somewhat of an attitude of either you are with us or you are against us. We also presented evidence that turned out not to be correct.

9th ID| 10.12.11 @ 8:58PM

Mega dittos! Ron Paul Liber-tarians are just Liber-als who love money more than anything (and dope)...

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 9:02PM

Money? Because monetary good monetary policy is the foundation of a free market? Liberty is all I want. Opportunity.

Jeffery| 10.12.11 @ 9:50PM

As Randolf Borne said, "war is the health of the state." Likewise, Eisenhower told us in his farewell address to beware the military-industrial complex.
Throughout American history, big government overseas - which you clearly support, but I doubt you'd label it "big government" - has been the biggest catalyst for big government at home. Look at John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts and Woodrow Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts. They were both created by big government liberals in a time of conflict with foreign nations, where the government demonized foreign nations and then trampled the Constitution, taking away our civil liberties in the name of "protecting national security." Except in this case, the nations that the government is demonizing are actually less threatening and dangerous than anything they dealt with back then. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly ignorant of the history that American government has with propping up enemies in order to expand its power - it makes sense and it's strategically advantageous assuming we have a government that wants to gain power and wants to expand.

Until you recognize that, yeah, you'll go on believing that near third world countries who would literally be wiped off the face of the earth in seconds if they so much as lifted a pinky against the United States, ACTUALLY pose a threat to one of the strongest nations with the strongest allies and strongest militaries. Think using facts and logic, not big government propaganda.

Listen to Borne and Eisenhower. Wake up to the failures of Adams and Wilson. War is indeed the health of the state, so it's a shame that a seemingly reasonably intelligent human being like you doesn't understand that the government ALWAYS seeks other nations to demonize in order to perpetuate and expand itself.

MT| 10.12.11 @ 10:53PM

With all due respect, these few points are horribly misguided. Allow me to respond:
1. Who is our enemy?? At last check, it was Al Qaeda. That's the only group or country that I can remember attacking us.
2. Perhaps, but we did invade and occupy the countries that border to their west and east and have warships parked off their coast. Kinda like if China had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and had warships in the Gulf of Mexico. That's an accurate, objective analogy. Would that make you mad at China?
3. Hogwash. That was a US led invasion. It was being planned in the first high level meeting when Bush took office according to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil. Clinton, along with the UN, also practically committed genocide in Iraq with our sanctions and bombings that resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. To suggest that war in Iraq that essentially lasted 20 years is anything but US policy, is absurd. Those brutal Phillipinos must stop their policy of invading Muslim countries!!
4. Invasion to get Al Qaeda is fine (Paul voted for this authority incidentally). 10 years of occupation and nation building was never intended with that resolution in 2001, even though it was poorly written, never specified an enemy, and granted unprecedented power to the President in conducting this so-called "War on Terror".
5. "and if some people wanted to support the above tyrants" And so how would you defend our military and financial support for Mubarak, Hussein in the 80's, Musharaf, Quaddafi (up until recently), and Bin Laden? All of which, aside from bin Laden, were ruthless authoritarians who oppressed their people for decades. Do you really think Muslims are that stupid to not realize how we played a role in their oppression?
6. Why do we care what Iran thinks?! They're a 3rd world country half way across the world without an air force or navy that can barely feed much of their people. This chest thumping imperial hubris and irrational nationalism accomplishes nothing. We're the most powerful country the world has ever seen. What makes you so schizophrenic to worry about what a country's leaders half way across the world thinks about us? Perhaps their people, many of whom are actually westernized and sympathetic to American culture, would admire the freedoms of a country that allow such dissent from destructive government policy.

So, back to reality. Ron Paul, once again, is right on foreign policy.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 6:48PM

Tell That To Our Military, Traitor Bastard McGrath.

" Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."

" Overall, 71 percent of military donations for the 2012 presidential race have gone to Ron Paul, while Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann received five percent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney eight percent, and Cain 13 percent. All other candidates combined have received three percent of the military donations. "
CNN) -- America's veterans are proud of their military service, but in a new report published Wednesday, they expressed ambivalence about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

" In a new Pew Research Center report on war and sacrifice, half of post-9/11 veterans said the Afghanistan war has been worth fighting. Only 44% felt that way about Iraq, and one-third said both wars were worth the costs."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 7:08PM

Yeah. And Benedict Arnold was the greatest general in the Revolutionary War until . . .

You've become as irrelevant as your hero, Clint. You got nothing.

9th ID| 10.12.11 @ 9:04PM

Makes me want to puke when I see these Liber-al Paulistas trying to co-opt the Tea Party, just like they tried and failed to sell themselves as constitutionalists and GOP conservatives. When the SHTF, and it will soon enough, I have no doubt the Paulistas will join their Liber-al cousins against constitutional conservatives. Prepare yourselves now and keep your powder dry...

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 10:40PM

Your not a Constitutionalist. Please stop claiming so. You can't be one if you endorse the Patriot Act, undeclared wars, Medicare part D, welfarism, etc. You may be a conservative but your no Constitutionalist.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 10:50PM

Eh hem, 9th ID!
Language, bud, language.
Remember?
LOL.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 11:07PM

Apocaltptic Crank Lady Margie Is Now The Pennsy RINO-CINO Israel Firster NutBag.

The Tea Party Steps On Margie's Chubby Face.

Buck Nasty | 10.12.11 @ 10:52PM

You're not a true conservative buddy... learn the definition of a neocon and get back to us.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 10:51PM

I Got Your Number Punk Ass.

You're The Jonathan Pollard Type McGrath.

Our American Warriors Ain't To Be Used As Cannon Fodder For Your Neo-ChuckenTraitor Bastard Agernda McGrath.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 10:47PM

That's your problem, you have been around way too long. Your generation can't expire fast enough. I say we conscript an all baby boomer army. This will kill two birds with one stone. It will satisfy this generations desire for conquest while simultaneously killing enough of them to no longer be a giant burden on the next generation.

YOYO| 10.12.11 @ 6:07PM

That is the best video! Turn the volume up and learn it! LIVE IT!

Ron Paul - The Truth

Mr. E.| 10.12.11 @ 6:07PM

Mr. Lord,
Where is your blog post detailing how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's 6 minute confession detailing his actions as a response to the US killing innocent muslims is a huge boost to Dr. Paul's credibility and proves without a doubt that US foreign policy is the cause of most terrorist attacks against the US? Or was your writing just a biased attempt at trying to sway people's opinions rather than actually being an accurate news article based in facts?

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 6:42PM

This event proves Paul 100% correct.

First Paul never said Iran wasn't a threat, rather he said that Iran wasn't as big of a threat as the USSR. And compared how Reagan felt with the USSR to how he believes we should try to deal with Iran.

So how does this prove PAUL correct? Simple. Pauls position is that Americas foreign policy creates more radical Muslims than it kills. Therefore our prescrncr in the Middle East compounds the problem if Islamic Radicalism. Here is a case where another American citizen was radicalized to commit an act of terror. A smart person would ask, well why did he become radicalized? Is it because America is free and prosperous? No. According to the data from CPOST amongst other government sources, he became radicalized because of Americas military operations in the Middle East.

If you sincerely want to defeat Terrorism, you have to reduce the likelihood of Muslims becoming radicals in the future, while simultaneously defending our borders and staying vigilant at home.

This is what Paul would do, and we would all be safer and richer at home as a result.

NCDAD| 10.12.11 @ 6:13PM

Just more mis-information to keep the sheeple in line with the elists's agenda.

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 6:17PM

I never thought I'd see the day when the right has become as crazy as the left. Wild accusations based on loony assumptions. Name calling. Whatever happened to logic, and reason? Whatever happened to cautious, careful reflection? Whatever happened to respect for another's opinion? Isn't this what the right is supposed to be about?

Is it Paul's fault? Or have you always been this way: whining schoolchildren petulantly demanding the playground ball?

I am not proud to be a conservative today.

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 6:31PM

I wasn't too proud of being an American when I saw all the chickenhawks begging for the Iraqi invasion. Every since the conservatism was replaced with this bullshit neoconservitism, logic has been lost. Reason is uneccessary. The Republic needs to get back to a non-interventionist position, and fix our problems here at home.

9th ID| 10.12.11 @ 9:06PM

The Ron Paul right has become so extreme that it has come full circle to the Left of Obama. They make the Birchers look like pikers by comparison! They are raging lunatics just like their cousins the Occupy Wall Streeters...

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 10:51PM

Have you considered the possibility that they actually may BE the WS protesters?
Heh, try asking one of them if they agree with them, and they won't answer you.

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 10:57PM

You Israel Firster Attempted To Hiujack The GOP & Now You're Getting Purged By Real Conservatives.
You Wouldn't Know Real Conservative Foreign Policy If It Jumped Up & Bit Your Fat Ass, Israel Firster.

Read George Washington's Farewell Address & Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address & The Old Right & Then Apologize To Real Comnservatives, Israel Firster 9th Idiot.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Crickett| 10.12.11 @ 6:31PM

First off..it is ONE guy or two, NOT an entire country..GEEze. People in our own country commit murder all the time. Not much respect for human life anymore, when even the government assassinates citizens without a trial, and commits worse stuff than bombing one embassy in many countries.

somnolence| 10.12.11 @ 6:39PM

Those who aren't proud of being an American can just be my guest and leave. Good riddance.

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 6:41PM

I watched as the public went apeshit and our country invaded another with no plausible reason. If you're proud of that, you're a fool.

libertyman| 10.12.11 @ 6:44PM

This article is garbage, Jeffrey.. it's all based on personal opinions with no credible sources cited or cold hard facts. tsk tsk tsk.. go back to journalism school dude. A 12 year old could write a more academic article than what you have "published" on the shit-stained internet. Way to add more shit to it...

bruce| 10.12.11 @ 7:21PM

I noticed Arbabsiar has been added to the people on Adopt a Terrorist For Prayer. That's an interesting response. Some Iranian leaders are listed there as well.

1776| 10.12.11 @ 7:34PM

This is inaccurate, because not only did Ron Paul predict this, but you can hear him explain interventionism in videos 30 years old! We create the turmoil in Iran, look up "Operation Ajax", or listen to Michael Scheure talk about "blowback". Muslim fanatics hate us because we have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc and we're interfere with their markets and governments....

JD| 10.12.11 @ 8:58PM

Don't worry I already did it! This author is stupid.

http://youtu.be/Mdeoktnv8ko

Chris| 10.12.11 @ 8:46PM

I guess we better go to war with Iran then. I dont see how this discredits Paul, first of all the facts are not all out and this could be a false flag event to take some pressure off of Holder. Furthermore, if we took Ron Pauls advice on foreign policy I bet Iran and Islam would be less of a threat.

JD| 10.12.11 @ 8:50PM

This author clearly doesn't understand Ron Paul's view. What Ron is calling for in a NON-INTERVENTION Foreign policy.

KnowBull | 10.12.11 @ 8:53PM

hear the latest about the aforementioned Iranian Operative ? Non-religious, disorganized, darn near purposeless loser ... not a whiff of jihadist emerges across his whole life to any of his acquaintances, although few put it past him to jump at the chance for some easy money and ... he jumped! hmmm.

Beware the Military Industrial Complex said the guy who fell into the rabbit hole after all ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Liberty2012| 10.12.11 @ 8:54PM

So the solution is what?
We have another undeclared with Iran. A country twice the size of Iraq. And what do we look for? People who might be assassins? Yes this should go over very well.
I think Ron Paul is right again. His point is that war is the only other option and that is a complete non-starter unless we are willing to collapse the country the same as the Soviets by spending ourselves into collapse.
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home and protect the borders. That seems more feasible. Right now we don't have a chance of finding weapons being brought into the country. With a stronger defense here, we might.

princeliberty| 10.12.11 @ 8:54PM

We don't know that Iran's government was linked with this plot. But in anycase, Paul never said Iran were good guys. He just doesn't think we should start a war with Iran.

Ben S.| 10.12.11 @ 8:56PM

Ok, my dear journalist friend, let's have a little lesson. There is a breaking story that "maybe" a plot to "maybe" attack the suadi ambassador and Israeli embassy. We immediately round up a couple "suspects" for questioning. Now, with such an abundance of factual information here, your have declared that there was indeed a plot, the irianians are definitely guilty, and therefor Ron Paul is a fool. You have approx zero evidence for anything you have said. Please, report the facts, or find another job.

SemperUbiSubUbi| 10.12.11 @ 9:03PM

Now, with such an abundance of factual information here, your have declared that there was indeed a plot, the irianians are definitely guilty, and therefor Ron Paul is a fool.

Brah-VO. The so-called journalist got called OUT and taken DOWN for his lame-o argument.

It's like arguing that fish live on the moon and pizzas are made of mud, therefore the earth orbits the sun. I mean geez-o-peez-o. When you've got a true conclusion you don't just duck-tape a slapdash argument in front of it and call the job done. Not even if 95% of the population knows the conclusion is true. You still have to make a GOOD argument for it.

joeingeorgia| 10.12.11 @ 8:57PM

The 'powers that be' can spin this anyway they want. They are spinning everything else, the debates, media coverage. But know this - a lot of Americans now have eyes open, and we see you for what you are.
Ron Paul 2012!

Jesse| 10.12.11 @ 9:09PM

Neo conservatism is still a very strong force in Republican politics. I'm of the opinion many of the latecomers to the Tea Party are just neo-conservatives parading their ideas under a new banner. The key is to make sure that there are delegates who understand why we're in our current mess, and the path out of it. Paul's the only one in the race that sees the problems for what they are objectively. His economic plan should be coming out soon. Hopefully it's articulated well, and plays well with the delegates.

Chris| 10.12.11 @ 9:01PM

Blah,blah,blah RON PAUL.
Blah,blah,blah RON PAUL.
Blah,blah,blah RON PAUL.

The only thing that makes sense in this entire piece is RON PAUL.

urbanII 1095| 10.12.11 @ 9:04PM

I thought the Russian spies sunk Regan to. Great article.

nonrepublicrat| 10.12.11 @ 9:04PM

The idiot who wrote this article makes me laugh. As has already been mentioned, an attack on Iran would prevent nothing. If the terrorists don't already have enough people here, they could very easily come across our wide open borders at any time. We should listen to Dr. Paul and have our troops protecting us here at home instead of thousands of miles away stirring up provocations. Vote RON PAUL, for peace and liberty. Down with agenda driven retard "journalism".

Mark| 10.12.11 @ 9:20PM

It looks like the Author of this article crammed to put this piece together like a 6th grader cramming for science class. Their argument was articulated as well too, well researched....

George| 10.12.11 @ 9:22PM

This article is beyond pathetic.

Jacob| 10.12.11 @ 10:03PM

::standing ovation::

Ron Paul never said a middle eastern embassy wouldn't have a plot against it, which one side claims they did and they say they did not plot any attacks.

Policy changes needed!| 10.12.11 @ 9:33PM

When the schoolyard bully pushes you around and keeps poking you with a big stick how do you think that persons going to react on the receiving end of it? I'm getting to the point to where I can't identify whats worse the federal governments neonazi foreign policy or Al Qaida?

Wasn't Osama and them created by our CIA and used against the Russians in Afghanistan? look it up they don't even deny this! What the hells a matter with some of you murdering warmongers?

This foreign policy is like pouring gasoline on the fire and we have had a whole decade of it and some seem primed and ready for another decade of it along with even more expansion of it too like we can afford anymore of this police state nation building and imperialism.

Some of you seem to like more killing as much as the terrorists themselves and its getting harder to distinguish between the two groups. This foreign policy needs to change it has solved nothing and apparently we need to be not only bankrupted morally but I guess financially too for some to understand this.

Our debt is beyond belief and I guess if it takes a totally broke America for some to learn this lesson then I say lets speed this up then so the wars and killing will stop expanding! Look up the definition of fascism and imperialism and take a look around your nation right now? I never invisioned an America that has checkpoints naked body scanners groping of our children and spouses and show me your papers along with no privacy rights wake up because big government likes these kind of power grabs and so did Hitler and Stalin!

Joseph| 10.12.11 @ 9:35PM

Movement's alive and well with this eight-year Army veteran, but I commend you on your effort.

Jose Mora| 10.12.11 @ 9:41PM

"War is the health of the state." I trust Eric Holder as far as I can throw him (and I can't throw very far).
How convenient, huh? He's about to be indicted for Fast and Furious, and Presto! He finds an Iranian plot.

The only people for whom Ron Paul's credibility is affected is those who do now know much about him and haven't been listening.

Ron Paul PREDICTED the WAR PROPAGANDA and the distractions from our economic problems.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this garbage that passes for journalism.

mariner34| 10.12.11 @ 9:50PM

Ron Paul Has stressed the need to strengthen are security here at home and to put a stop to policing the world. Ron Paul 2012

Jacob| 10.12.11 @ 10:01PM

Iran "attacking" an embassy overseas is not the same as flying nuclear bombs to the USA which is what he said. Good thing you actually listen when people talk thought, it pays to be a thorough journalist.

Batman| 10.12.11 @ 10:25PM

good try to tear down ron paul, he is right about one thing, everybody in the middle east is pissed that were telling there countries what to do. just take the time to look at what they were targeting, the ISREALI embassy. and the shiite ambassador. They were not directly targeting american citizens, they are trying to tell us to get the hell out and are forced to resort to bombing to get there message across. Please do some research before typing stuff like this, so all of us know the real scoop. Thank you

CalMark| 10.12.11 @ 10:26PM

Paul-bot creed:

Whatever happens in the world, it proves Ron Paul correct!

MattC| 10.12.11 @ 10:33PM

Actually, this will only enhance his campaign. When the shield beating begins and this highly suspicious scenario is used as a pretext for yet more hubristic, imperialistic militarism in the Middle East, war-weary voters will turn to the only candidate that will not kowtow to the military industrial complex.

Rob a| 10.12.11 @ 10:35PM

Look if this is true Paul would have no problem letting Israel invade Iran.

James| 10.12.11 @ 10:42PM

The plot does not hurt Ron Paul.
Did Iran successfully attack the US or did it fail just as Ron Paul suggested it would?
Iran's failure to successfully complete the plan supports Ron Paul's position that they are incapable for various reasons.

Lonnie | 10.12.11 @ 10:44PM

This is obviously all government propaganda, since the White House was under fire. Lets just give our country to China, they seem to understand Capitalism better than we do anymore.

Zoe| 10.12.11 @ 10:48PM

Wow you are an idiot, Jeffrey Lord. People, are you really going to believe the US Government? All they do is lie. All the time.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 10:53PM

I wonder how many of these Paul-bot posters are really just the same person using many handles.
LOL.
"My name is legion, for we are many!"

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 11:28PM

You're Still The Same Paranoid Zany Crazed Apocalyptic Crank Lady Israel Firster RINO-CINO Margie, Only Now You're Annoying Pennsylvanians.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

gary| 10.13.11 @ 8:33AM

it's me! All I do, all day long, is post comments defending Ron Paul, under different names. And I was the only one that donated all that money to his campaign. Nice try

Paul McGrath| 10.12.11 @ 10:57PM

Good point, Margie. One thing they have in common is that none of them really know how to write!

It's Clint!

BobnDC| 10.12.11 @ 11:11PM

What credibility did he have to sink? Have you ever seen an anvil float? There was nothing to sink before yet another stupid comment from Paul.

gary| 10.13.11 @ 8:28AM

you are a brainwashed idiot

BobnDC| 10.12.11 @ 11:14PM

Israel invade Iran... yes, more rocket science...a nation of 7 million, invade a nation 28 million, 12oo miles as the crow flies away, with 100 million neighbors on her border who want to kill every Jew alive. More foreign policy BRILLIANCE from the paulbots. Weed will affect one's ability to reason rationally, as was just proven by comments above

Clint| 10.12.11 @ 11:14PM

You're A Slandering Liar McGrath.

We Notice That You Didn't Say It To Regulars Like Jack in Wi., JP, Bob K., C.Bowen, Mike L. & The Rests Faces.

You're A Liar & A Gutless Coward.

That's An Israel Firster Trait, Punk Ass.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

esoj Ocaslev | 10.12.11 @ 11:21PM

He is a lone wolf idiot who do you know what he was doing!

There are no Zetas Cartel members in Reynosa.
This is a gulf cartel stronghold.
Very poor intelligence and planning!
Something smells fishy to me!!
Us would just love to start a war with iran!!
2nd Largest oil reserve in the world!!

Keri| 10.12.11 @ 11:29PM

Hmmm funny if this is true it HELPS Ron Paul because he is the only candidate who wants to bring troops home to DEFEND our soil

Lori-ann| 10.12.11 @ 11:35PM

OMG - I have been reading about this latest tactic...this plot was from June and all over the place I'm seeing stories on how this is a false flag, that Iran had nothing to do with this, on and on and on (whatreallyhappened.com has been all over this "plot" that is brought to the surface at such a convenient time. Yet another spin to discredit and spread misinformation about Ron Paul. This is also a distraction from Fast and Furious scandal that SHOULD get Obama and sounds like good ol Hilary was involved as well, impeached. It is also a distraction from the Occupy Wall Street movement that is also being very misrepresented in the media. Focusing on the most extreme groups while not realizing that most of the protesters are just regular people from all spectrums gathering and pissed off at it all.

If anything - if this terror plot is in fact true and Iran gov was involved, then Ron Paul would look to our Constitution, state his case to Congress (which the voters elect, remember!) and declare war the way it is intended. Ron Paul would likely also question of this mastermind plotter who lived in TX for 25 years and was a naturalized citizen, has been tortured either physically or mentally or blackmail, during the 12 hour interrogation based on Patriot Act allowances for certain forms of torture on anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist and then can now target them with drones, without ever releasing evidence or fact...if they don't have solid evidence, then it will be made up to support a war with Iran next...a repeat of the lies that led us in to our ongoing war in Iraq. Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home and stop policing the world....when that happens, we WILL BE secure...what happens when we bring those 10's of thousands troops BACK to our shores? We will have the most well defended US Airspace and US Waters and US borders that NO ONE that have ever seen! All those ships, all those planes, all those weapons that will come back with the troops will be right here to blast the hell out of anyone in any way that dares step foot in the USA and try and pull off another 9-11....just sayin

Daniel Lahner| 10.12.11 @ 11:48PM

Yeah some threat to the US, they targeted a Saudi ambassador to the US and Israel, who gives a crap about the saudi's or the Israelis, this country is to broke to worry about that nonsense.

Daniel Lahner| 10.12.11 @ 11:49PM

Let me know when they kill somebody on US SOIL, its not gonna happen.

Java McPhearson| 10.12.11 @ 11:51PM

Jeffrey,
Do two accused combatants a nation make?
Would you also justify the Iraq war based on militant terrorists residing there [sic]?
Paul was correct in sizing up the lack of probablistic threat (read: not a ballistic threat) of Iran in harming the US. The plot against the Ambassador, as it will play out, does not represent a national agenda nor does it warrant the dismissal of sound recommendations that the US does not need to police the world . It does not support our foreign policy of pre-emptive war to "try" to make the region more stable.
Are you grasping for justification of escalating war, or do you think that Paul has mislead us in recommending not to invade nations outside of a formal declaration of war, not to bomb civilians, and not to engage in a political adventure only to miss the bad guys. Would you justify rebuilding those nations, one we destroy them, with our installed government as a morally and economically sound proposal?

Jim| 10.13.11 @ 12:01AM

ha ha ha ha ha ha

you really think that any of these allegations are true?
why would Iran hire some washed up former car salesman with mexican drug cartel ties to assassinate the saudi ambassador in D.C. the capital of the U.S. of all places?

Does this make any sense at all to anyone?

try again man, Ron Paul is right on.

Patrick Beagle| 10.13.11 @ 12:35AM

It figures, a neocon just itching to debunk Paul's campaign by hoping to dig up "dirt" to unfairly discredit him. I like Paul advocate a strong national defence, but Mr. Lord, have we not created the hatred of the United States in the Middle East? Was it in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson to overthrow the democratically elected government of a sovereign nation so we could conspire with the British to control their natural resources? Any terrorist plot constitutes a threat to our security and must be dealt with, but even now, we MUST evaluate the CAUSE of American hatred in the Middle East. It was WE who directly caused the resentment that led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which would have likely never happened had we not overthrown Mohammed Mossaddegh's democratically elected government in Iran, which I might add was very progressive by Middle East standards! We must deal with every act of terrorism which threatens us, but perhaps most importantly, we SHOULD apologize for Operation Ajax and ANY and ALL unconstitutional interference in the affairs of sovereign nations unless our national security is directly threatened. Mr. Lord, this is SHAMEFUL, and its neocons like yourself who were itching for something like this to happen to unfairly and incorrectly blame Ron Paul's support for a non-interventionist policy so you and your crowd can shamelessly continue your "nation-building" and needlessly sacrifice the lives of young Americans under the guise of "patriotism!"

James Jones| 10.13.11 @ 12:41AM

If our foreign policy wasn't so intrusive and disrespectful to other countries, there wouldn't be a threat from Iran at all. What Dr. Paul is saying is that the threat would not exist if we were not threatening them with our presence. Do you recall the statistic about suicide bombings before 9/11?

Dwayne| 10.13.11 @ 12:43AM

Ahh...the smear piece defined. The spin is dizzying. The warmongering is disappointing. The fear is definite. Some Americans are still way too excited about risking our troops' lives for every crazy person or group that emerges in the Middle East...all under the imperialist notion that you can conquer all dissent. Instead, we foster their hatred and weaken our economy and defense in the process. These greed-centered, power-grabbing preemptive war policies have failed. It's time for a new policy. It's time for Ron Paul!

DC4Teggy| 10.13.11 @ 12:43AM

When I take a look back at this year, I like to think about this cheesy made for TV movie that we have all been witnessing and living through, told by the Government and those Sheep in the media. I mean, from Bin Ladens death and buriel at see with no evidence or pictures, to this corny story... It makes me kind of laugh to think that Bush had a "better" script writer.

Damian Lataan | 10.13.11 @ 12:48AM

So, Iran's going to attack America?
Why would they do that?
Oh yeah, that's right; they want their country turned into a sheet of glass!
I mean really, is there anyone actually gullible enough to fall for this nonsense?

Mox Teddy | 10.13.11 @ 1:06AM

Lies, Lies Lies. This kind of stuff doesn't work on us anymore. You're not even trying Jeffrey, you're not fooling as many as you used to with this brand of garbage.

Greg| 10.13.11 @ 2:27AM

This is nonsense. Remember McCain's 'bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran'? The neocons have been spoiling for a chance to attack Iran for years. Now suddenly, in the midst of Fast and Furious, Eric Holder and the Obama neocons suddenly unearthed this plot?

I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ANYMORE.

And hey, if they killed the Saudi Ambassador? Saudi Arabia played a hand in 9/11-- Iran certainly did not. I don't care if Iran wants to put them in the ground.

And Israel? Stop bribing our politicians. You're one of the richest nations on earth-- shift for yourselves.

Greg| 10.13.11 @ 2:30AM

By the way, neocon war mongerers, I am starting to realize NO ONE believes you people anymore. Not on the right, not on the left.

LC JB | 10.13.11 @ 2:46AM

Wow ! This thread is absolutely infested with paulbots. Clint is stuck on an endless do-loop with his Israel Firster crap. I really think this is all from a few sock-puppets. And here I thought Glenn Greenwald was the sock-puppet's sock-puppet.

LC JB | 10.13.11 @ 2:50AM

The whole idea perhaps a "false flag op" is laughable. Who would use someone many here have said, doesn't fit the bill for a terrorist? Seriouly, if I was planning something like this, I would damn well make sure my pigeon was believable, else the whole op fails.

Greg| 10.13.11 @ 2:52AM

LC JB, I was just reading up the thread and noticing similarities in language between several different posts-- such as your 'paulbot' terminology, and the same tone.

Are you one guy posting under many sockpuppets, or were you sent a link and told to post here? Do you all listen to Rush Limbaugh and get your words directly from him, or are you paid posters? I am honestly curious, especially after reading articles like the below

http : / / rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/rabble-staff/2011/03/craigslist-advert-seeks-jolly-right-wing-trolls-help-conservativ

esoj Ocaslev | 10.13.11 @ 3:14AM

First you identify a country and its actions toward our country is a threat!

Second you isolate the country from the rest of the world thru aggressive sanctions!

Third actions conveniently pop up that's infuriating and pushes us over the edge towards of war

esoj Ocaslev | 10.13.11 @ 3:25AM

End all wars!
Follow the golden rule!
If you are a conservative who supports any type of war....
You fit the biblical definition of a hypocrite!!

National defense not preemptive wars!!
RON PAUL 2012

johnjamescale| 10.13.11 @ 3:38AM

For a guy who supposedly has no chance at the nomination, Ron Paul sure does get a lot of attentention from detractors. Why do people spend so much time attempting to debunk ideas that are supposed to be patently asinine?

As for the alleged Iranian plot... I have a bridge to sell you. I will give half price to anyone who believes Eric Holder.

Harvard Student| 10.13.11 @ 4:16AM

I can't tell if the author is stupid or just wants attention.

Wil| 10.13.11 @ 4:33AM

I can't wait until America kills all these American Terrorists! We need more army in Iraq to stop all these murders. AMERICA!!!! WORLDWIDE MANIFEST DESTINY! .......seriously people, a few skyscrapers and a few planes, and we act so wronged, so shocked at how anyone could be angry at us...perfect and righteous in our ways Americans. Not saying that was right, because it wasn't right anyway you look at it...but sometimes what isn't big and flashy and goes on behind the scenes for years and years until it becomes a sad normality is the truer atrocity. Both sides need a time out (for the rest of time, hopefully). But we can't keep having surgery and putting bandaids on each place that hurts when the problem is both the doctor and the patient have tumors and keep playing slap hands. Its completely childish. And the doctor isn't even licensed!! Are we going to have concentration camps for Muslims or anyone that looks Middle Eastern soon? It wouldn't be the first time America has done such things...don't think that it can't happen again when you start scaring people that can't or won't think for themselves....and that is an awful lot of people, which to me is scarier than the actual terrorists themselves. This article is an embarrassment. We're not fighting a people...we're fighting a belief and honestly its not the enemy's that is the worst of our problems, it is our own disillusioned belief in our infallible greatness. Besides, some foiled assassination plot doesn't mean anything against Ron Paul idea of getting out of other country's business. Start taking away reasons to hate, Big Ole' America, owner of the Earth and everyone in it, in Jebus' Name...and start leading an example of how a country should be run and what the benefits of being like us is (not being World Parent and disciplining other people's kids) and maybe we could be making more friends instead of increasing the list of our enemies. I'd hate to be born in a country occupied by another country. How would that even feel? Oh wait...hmm...*wonders about what will happen with all our debt to China (the terrible evil communist place...of terrible evil...oh yeah can i pretty please borrow some cash to go hunt ragheads? ...thanks China...now off we to spread democracy to the lost savages) ~sigh* I didn't know America was the sequel to the Titanic!? Reading this article is like watching someone try to distract you while some one else is stealing something next to you. And what they're stealing is our freedoms, liberty, and the ability to think for oneself before reacting, and griefing the world from our inevitable response. Watching this happen over the course of my lifetime, has been like watching some horrifyingly hilarious and grandiose conspiracy unravel right before my eyes. Are people in this world honestly that narrow-minded and short-sighted that they think any of this...carries any weight in the long run. Do you like to do it over again humanity? Oh yes...oh yes you do. Never gets old for you guys does it? Its all a damned joke and the joke is on us all.
Ron Paul will neither be the savior or doom of America, which lies with the people of America .....and if that doesn't scare you to the bone, then what do you have to fear from an old conservative, absolutely predictably reliable, man who fights for our liberties? It boggles the mind.

Joe Jared | 10.13.11 @ 5:21AM

Who is the real casualty? 350 million people of America. I am one who no long believes the hate/war mongering lies of the government and media. I reject the hate you spread and the lies you tell. Truth be told, for nearly 7 decades, the war machine has undermined iran. Whether or not the plot was real, the United States Government is the cause terrorising country after country, with no end in sight. I reject the hate and see the people of Iran as people. It is a shame that your greed blinds you.

Rosco1776| 10.13.11 @ 6:20AM

Just proves Ron Paul was right again! If we weren't waging war on almost every country on the Arabian peninsula, do you think they would even care about us? Israel has what, 300 nukes? I think they can take care of themselves. We've killed how many civilians invading these sovereign countries? Did the FBI and CIA give them the weapons to do it or was it Holder's crew again?
Yeah, Ron Paul was wrong, LOL!!

Ron Paul 2012 or BU$T !!

Funny| 10.13.11 @ 8:10AM

This is ridiculous. The Iran bomb plot SUPPORTS Ron Paul contention. They wouldn't be sending assassins here if we weren't interferring over there. It's like Nazi Germany complaining about American interference in WW2. We wouldn't be attacking Germany if they didn't have their fingers in every pot in Europe. Yeah,... you get my point. (-D

Roger| 10.13.11 @ 8:12AM

Does anyone actually believe this? This article sounds like it was written by the same people who planned this .

Just before Holder and other DOJ/FBI officials get subpoenaed and face vetting for running guns to the Mexican drug cartels they thwart an Iranian assassination attempt involving the same drug cartels? The Americans release NO evidence, the Iranians deny it, and several world leaders question it's legitimacy???

Does this sound right to anyone?

It makes me so sad, the lengths our government has gone/is willing to go to drag us into war.

God bless America, for we need all the help we can to root out the evil agenda-makers.

gary| 10.13.11 @ 8:13AM

the media will try anything to discredit Ron Paul. This only proves his point again.
RON PAUL 2012!!

Kurt Wallace | 10.13.11 @ 8:41AM

Lord, google Letters of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 and educate yourself a bit on the tactical strategist and foresight that Ron Paul has on dealing with rogue enemies. Then try to get past your Wilsonian Progressive Neoconservative perspective to understand that Ron Paul doesn't knee jerk react but utilizes the Constitution to deal with each and every situation. Shills like yourself are a failing argument for Big Statist Foreign Socialism. If it were up to you we would colonize the entire middle east. You have been shot down by Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods and Jack Hunter time and time again for your ignorance of US History and I bet you are just looking for attention at this point.

TP| 10.13.11 @ 8:44AM

Great article in the CSM -

http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme.....reat-No.-1

Roger| 10.13.11 @ 8:49AM

The article sounds like it was written by the same people who planned this attack.

Does anyone believe the story that we are hearing?

Let's see the DOJ/FBi is about to look silly after Holder and company's little gun running fiasco. They knew they were about to be subpoenaed. The Neocons need to bolster public opinion against Iran. And many in the system(obviously including the author of this article) seek to discredit Ron Paul.

This adds up to the Revolutionary Guard's elite force to bribe a Mexican to take down a Saudi? Then the government releases NO evidence, Iran vehemently denies it, and several world leaders are skeptical. How dumb do they think the American people are?

I liked the part of he article where an anonymous govt official says he can't speak about it but does. Even if it were a real attack, what does that say about the govt when anonymous govt officials ar going to the American spectator to leak confidential info?

Rob A| 10.13.11 @ 9:02AM

This is a MUST READ: LMAO!!

http://politics.salon.com/2011.....rror_plot/

mike| 10.13.11 @ 11:45AM

great link, thanks. I have a new favorite journalist

Sovereign| 10.13.11 @ 9:12AM

Wow, this is a hit piece if I ever saw one. The bomb plot sinks Ron Paul's foreign policy plan? seriously?? we continue to provoke iran and we're surprised when some iranian tries to bomb us? You've got to be kidding me. This actually strengthens his position. Ron Paul 2012!!

thecrow| 10.13.11 @ 9:41AM

"Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: within a week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,' he said."

http://michaelfury.wordpress.c.....ome-stunt/

Steven| 10.13.11 @ 10:10AM

Jeffrey Lord is nothing. What he is, is a pole dancer for Israel. Nothing more. Anyone! With half a brain knows it. He dont give a rats ass that we lost over 5000+ of our kids because of the lies of Israeli firsters like himself. Id say his writings come close to treason.

Charlie| 10.13.11 @ 10:15AM

Did you actually do any research before you posted this article? This was manufactured by the FBI. So no it doesn't do anything to Ron Pauls credibility. But it does do something to your credibility.

Cold| 10.13.11 @ 10:17AM

Seems like this justifies Paul's position of non-interventionism. Which would be the exact opposite claim in your article.

Jim S| 10.13.11 @ 10:40AM

Wow. The author has got to be joking. This government fabrication is so transparent. Let's see Iran; is going to hire a member of a closely watched drug cartel for a paltry $1.5 million to knock of a Saudi ambassador. The drug cartel that makes billions/year is going to aggravate it's position by suddenly becoming terrorist. And Iran is going to do this provocative action while massive American military presence on three sides and control the sea routes that provide Iran's only source of international income. And they would do this while it is supposedly close to developing a nuclear weapon (that's questionable too). If Iran wanted to kill this guy, it would be easier and much risky to do so elsewhere.

The story makes no sense. The leadership of Iran might be crazy, but they aren't that STUPID. .......BTW, it appears the government is already backing off on portions of this ridiculous story. I find it odd that anything the government say on things like the economy are correctly examined for truth, but when it come to international policy, everything said somehow become gospel.

Doubtless this clueless author will continue to stupid on.

Lulu| 10.13.11 @ 10:55AM

Yes, if it were true. But Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies...a quote from Dr Ron Paul

Jim S| 10.13.11 @ 11:06AM

I see that this "dangerous terrorist" was a used car salesman. Obviously well trained.

It also appears that the informant had drug charges dropped and was being paid for information.

Now the government is saying Iran was..."likely aware of an alleged plot to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, but hard evidence of that is scant, U.S. officials said on Wednesday."

Right.

mike| 10.13.11 @ 11:09AM

If you believe the official storry of this plot, then it is your credibility that is in question.....LOOK INTO IT before you start ranting. Why would the Iranians contract out this work to some low life who didnt even have any connections to the mexican cartel save for the FBI agent who brought him in??

Ryan| 10.13.11 @ 11:13AM

Iran is a small scale threat. Internal Gangs, Cyberthreat and Drug Dealers pose a bigger thread to the security of this nation then Iran does. They can and do more damage then Iran currently could or could develop the capacity too in the next 10 years. We need to treat them as the low level criminals they are, realize that stopping the threat requires national vigilance and a steady stream of attention. Not an invasion, not whipping up the democracy into a frenzy of fear.

Rob a| 10.13.11 @ 11:25AM

Judge debunks Jeffery Lord Iran Theory. MUST WATCH!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player

Tim | 10.13.11 @ 11:59AM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/en.....36623.html

So experts in the field are unsure whether Iran really had anything to do with assassination attempt.

Are you going to admit your naivety in the subject?

Genesh| 10.13.11 @ 12:12PM

Article proves that Rep. Paul is right not wrong. Had our troops been on our borders instead of bothering the Middle East, Iran would not bother to send people here and we would have the manpower to prevent it. Does the author have no clue on how the theory of blow-back works?

Nick| 10.13.11 @ 12:33PM

The author of this article is an idiot. Plain and simple. First of all, you can't compare apples to oranges - I speak of the " instead of a plot to blow up a Washington restaurant with a conventional bomb, suppose Arbabsiar and his cohort had managed to smuggle in a nuclear weapon" - I suspect a nuke would be far more of a conspicuous spectacle coming over the border...don't you? Second, if anything this lends credibility to Ron Paul - we need to stop the wars overseas and focus on securing our own borders. The threat here was not some bumbling Iranian idiot with no real ammo, the threat is an insecure border. "Journalists" like this really need to think before they publish such drivel.

Susan| 10.13.11 @ 12:55PM

Your egregious hatred of Ron Paul and his campaign is so revealing. If you don't "educate" yourself, then, I have no sympathy for you. There were 3, not 2, buildings that collapsed on 9/11. If you don't know that, you need to start there. Explain to me how Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint with no airplane hitting it. It was a massive 47 story steel frame building. I wouldn't expect someone like you with so much vitriolic hatred for the truth to understand even that minute detail. GOVERNMENT & MILITARY ELITE PROPAGANDA has permeated our culture for years, but now it's directly hurting us, not just physically but financially!

Pablo K Howard | 10.13.11 @ 12:57PM

How does this story rank in credibility? Did the author check the facts of the story to make sure this so called Iranian plot was the work of Revolutionary Guardsmen? It sounds more like a spinning regurgitation of the false flag politics to spin us right into another needless war. The whole story stinks to me and I am not even a Ron Paul supporter.

FBI / CIA entrapment activities are no more provocation for war escalation than the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was not investigated and turns out the Maddox was not as threatened as we at first were led to believe. Thousands of servicemen and women where killed and emotionally changed as a result of this false flag.

Likewise we were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and "Al Quada" But in truth Al Quada entered Iraq as a RESULT of our invation and overthrow of Sadam. And Sadam had destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.

It is the United States that has the weapons of mass destruction based solely on the massive amounts of tax dollars WASTED on the military. In the Bush era he increased our military budget to 350 billion per year over TEN TIMES our nearest competitor, China! In the Obama administration while promising to draw down our presence in Iraq and Afganistan he has allowed our military spending to increase from 400 billion to over 970billion for this year!

Jeffery Lord do you expect me to believe in the face of these FACTS that I should not question the militarization of our government? I feel like I live in a fascist state and you are Mussolini's propagandist!

Perhaps you need more training in investigative journalism before you declare a sane man's credibility, Jeffery Lord. Perhaps we should question your credibility because you seem to be beating the wolf's drum. Sorry I am not a dumb sheep. I would rather let Ron Paul of all politicians run our foreign policy while we send the likes of Jeffery Lord to serve in Afghanistan and Iran since he is such a scared sheep.

axbucxdu| 10.13.11 @ 12:58PM

Sooner or later, neocons run out of other people's money. It's now later.

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:31PM

And Paultards have to make due with their weekly allowance as they Occupy Mommy's Basement.

axbucxdu| 10.14.11 @ 1:32PM

Indeed, how dare those lunatics for Paul stand against Leviathan's financially untenable policies. Not only domestic but foreign too?

Judging from the response above it no doubt frustrates these internationalist, neo-con messianics to know that they've been outmaneuvered by what in their mind is PLA Inc.'s lowly central bank. Equally demeaning to these adolescents is the fact that the enemy is not at all cowered by our 11 battle groups nor our more than five thousand aircraft. How will these prog cons ever cope?

RET needs to fire up his typrewriter for one of those crack-up articles, this time dedicated to neo-cons. They're demonstrably ill.

Tom| 10.14.11 @ 6:38PM

And you spent the entire day in your Mommy's Basement in order to come up with this worthless jibberish!!!

Such if the life of a Paultard.

axbucxdu| 10.15.11 @ 10:17AM

Even your ridicule is spent.

Tom| 10.15.11 @ 1:40PM

Your worthless Paultard life is a ridicule.

Jason| 10.13.11 @ 1:20PM

I guess you don't read the media of the world where an intelligence specialist at the Guardian in the UK mocks our allegations about Iran.

I guess alleged plot now means plot to the US media as the overseas media is doing all the question asking.

I can allege to have a million dollars but until I prove it, ain't no real thing.

Marmaduke| 10.13.11 @ 1:56PM

The FBI 'radicalized' the alleged bomber. If anything, it strengthen's Paul's position.

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:30PM

I'll take the credibility of the FBI over against that of Dr. Nutjob and you Paultard losers every day of the year.

Rich Birkett | 10.13.11 @ 2:21PM

Mossad and the CIA assassinate its enemies and violate the sovereighty of foreign nations, yet we don't label them terrorists, or demand economic sanctions, or threaten them with bombing. Its this double standard that makes the US and Israel "unexceptional".

Jon Bellamy| 10.13.11 @ 2:36PM

Jeff, you are terribly mistaken. Ron Paul states that if you bring our troops home, we would have a stronger defense (because all of our troops would be HERE, protecting us), and also, we would be safer: because our enemies, the terrorists, claim they are just retaliating from us occupying the land so much... I mean if you think about it, just be leaving we are: GETTING RID OF OUR ENEMY'S MOTIVE. People think the terrorists are terrorists because they're evil, jealous, and in spite of our gay-tolerant culture. Actually, while I do not condone any acts of violence on the U.S., I do think it's a good idea to not give them any reasons to want to hurt us in the first place!

What if China, Russia, or North Korean militants were occupying OUR land, doing the same thing?

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:29PM

"What if China, Russia, or North Korean militants were occupying OUR land, doing the same thing?"

The ONLY way something like that could ever happen is if Dr. Nutjob and his Paultards should one day become responsible for our national security.

frank| 10.13.11 @ 3:15PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran never even planned to kill the embassador, and this was another staged production by our morally void government to discredit Ron Paul.

frank| 10.13.11 @ 3:20PM

RP 2012

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:27PM

Dr. Nutjob is not that important to go through all that effort to discredit. Especially since that senile old fool discredits himself every time he opens his mouth.

knowbull| 10.14.11 @ 6:22PM

you seem to have so very very little of worth to say and have obviously heard nothing , or simply couldn't understand it. I dub thee - troll

Tom| 10.14.11 @ 6:35PM

I just wasted five second of my life reading this Paultard rant.

T Paine| 10.13.11 @ 3:55PM

Jeff, I don't understand what your trying to say and really question your journalism at this point.

Ron Paul is the only honest politician left. Credibility? Romney, Perry, and Cain are more credible then Ron Paul? Really. The man has voted consistenly with the constitution for 25 years. He is the most conservative person in the republican party because he understands that its the welfare state - and the warfare state - that has bankrupted us and taken away our civil liberties. (Neocons still dont understand the hypocrisy, they love power too, too much)

Come on bud, even if you are going to make the point - to say that he's lost all credibility is pretty far-fetched compared to the rest of the field.

Iran will always be a threat, Ron Paul is not saying they aren't.

What he is saying is that blowback causes the mess in the first place, and that once the U.S. worries about its own borders (something it will never do, because we have gone the route of empire and are going to end up like the Soviet Union or instigating ww3) then the conflict will be over.

Unlike the Soviet Union back during the days of Communism. Iran possesses no airforce, no nuclear weapons, no military, no industry, and has the economy of that of a 3rd world country.

Not to mention that we still negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we even sold them millions of bushels of wheat to feed them.

You are like my mother, always afraid that if I get in a car and go on a long trip - I might die. Attacked by bears, killed by drunk drivers.

America has let its fear of ants and spiders, of iranians living 6000 miles away, stop us from going outside and enjoying our freedoms. We have let the small fear of "what could happen" lead to a self-fullfilling prophecy of "what is likely to happen" - i.e. - yes, jeff. Soon enough there will be more bloodshed and America will continue its rise of usurping power and destroying our civil liberties.

The most dishonorable thing about a piece like this is that you certainly promote the war machine, but you, nor Obama (who is doing it right now), nor your neocon buddies are the ones fighting the war or paying for the war. The most decorated American General of all time, Smedley D. Butler - once wrote a book called "War is a Racket" - I suggest reading it.

Let me remind you that Ron Paul recieves more donations from active members of the military then all the republican candidates and Obama combined. There is a big difference between patriotism and nationalism, and theres a big difference between journalism and propaganda. It's sad that few know the difference, but I'll keep fighting for the cause of freedom just the same.

Centinel| 10.13.11 @ 4:14PM

The Iranians and the Saudis have been killing each other in proxy wars and via assasinations for decades all over the globe. It is the old Sunni vs. Shia fight for dominance of the Midlle East. Both governments export virulent forms of Islam. Is it a surprise that the Iranians tried to knock off a Saudi ambassador? And who really cares? I agree that the US should be upset that the Iranians tried to do it on US soil but I wouldn't necessarily call it an act of war against the USA. And I wouldn't be so quick to defend the Saudis either. This is the same Saudi Arabia that backed the Sunni Taliban before 9/11, which backed the Sunni Al-Qaeda, which sent several Saudi hijackers to attack the US on 09/11. The Middle East is a disgusting cess-pool that the US needs to steer clear of. And this possible assasination on US soil just demonstrates the need for border control and restricted immigration from Muslim countries. Attacking Iran will not prevent all terrorist agents from entering the US and causing havoc.

Paul McGrath| 10.13.11 @ 4:36PM

The problem with Ron Paul followers is that I really have no idea what they are talking about. The first problem, of course, is that none of them can write coherently, but beyond that, when you try to decipher their posts, they're all over the map. Terrorism against us is . . . our fault? Fortifying the Mexican border--which all Republican presidential candidates agree with, by the way--will prevent terrorism from the Middle East? We murdered 500,000 Iraqis? Please.

Ron Paul is an irrational, crazy old man, who will never get more than 2% of the Republican vote, much less any legitimate percentage from the American people in general, who will quickly view him as a laughable buffoon, which, of course, he is.

For those of you who follow him, it might be best to go back to your room quietly, without drawing attention to yourselves, before the big boys come and put the straight-jacket on. Again.

MT| 10.13.11 @ 5:08PM

The problem with Ron Paul bashers is they never have any substantive arguments defending their opinions and all too often resort to complete distortions of Paul's actual positions. Forget about the fact how Jeffrey Lord has thoroughly embarrassed himself with his depiction of Paul as some far left liberal. I'll leave the entertaining smackdown of him to Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman. Enjoy your free education: http://mikechurch.com/Public-T.....-paul.html

As for your post, let's go thru this:
"Terrorism against us is . . . our fault?"
>First, "our" should refer to US foreign policy. "Our" is not the American people who are victimized by bad policy and its consequences. His argument, as backed by our CIA, is that our policy of interference in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries create unintended consequences. When we support ruthless dictators (Mubarak, Musharraf, Hussein, Saudi monarchy, Quaddafi) who viciously oppress their people, build bases on their holy lands, bomb thousands of innocent civilians, invade/occupy countries that don't threaten our national security, enforce crippling sanctions that only end up blocking food and medical care from getting to women and children rather than punish their regimes, etc etc... those on the receiving end are not going to be happy. Would you? So, when you don't have multi-trillion dollar military budgets or other means of leverage, some resort to terrorism as retribution.

"We murdered 500,000 Iraqis? Please"
This is reported by the UN in the mid-90's and is not disputed by the US. In fact, Madeleine Albright famously responds to a question about US foreign policy that resulted in these deaths saying that "it was worth it". Google "Madeleine Albright Iraqi Children"

"will never get more than 2% of the Republican vote"
Considering he's already polling anywhere between 10% and 15% in most national polls of Republicans, I think your 2% claim is rather... oh, I don't know, "irrational". As far as in a general, a recent Rasmussen poll actually has him beating Obama by 10% with Independents (no other Repub beats Obama with Independents) and one of his largest coalitions happens to be a Blue Republican movement of progressives and liberals pledging their support for Paul. Consider also how he consistently polls 2nd best against Obama in multiple national polls (behind only Romney), I think you've vastly underrated his electability. And let's not forget the well-documented mainstream media's bias to completely ignore and/or marginalize his candidacy.

So, considering your rant is typical with most anti-Paul Rants... no facts, no logic, no empirical evidence, no historical context... nothing to back your juvenile name-calling and ad hominem attacks, you might want to quit while you can.

In short, you fail. Move along.

Paul McGrath| 10.13.11 @ 5:36PM

There are a lot of dictators in the world who repress their people. Some are sworn enemies of us, some are our friends, and some can be coerced not to act against us. This is, pretty much, our policy. We can't control the world. Everyone knows this. But we can influence it, and in that we have a lot of dough, we try. As you know, we send money to those who are our enemies, as well. The dictators you cite were awful people. But to the extent that we have some influence over them with the money we send them, we can maybe have some effect on the way they deal with their people.

And, we've done good. Marcos is gone from the Philippines. Castro's influence in Grenada is gone. We removed Saddam from Kuwait, and from Iraq. Noriega is out of Panama. Finally, our perseverance ended the control of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe and Russia. We do this thing covertly and overtly. But if we believe in ourselves, as I do, than we can not retreat from the world's stage. We are the greatest influence for good in world history, and we must use this influence because it is our moral duty. Nobody else can.

500,000 killed in the mid-nineties in Iraq? But we left in '91. And we did not return until '03.

We can go back and forth over Paul's electability. But if he hasn't convinced me, a lifelong Buckley conservative, he is unlikely to convince mainstream conservatives. And if he can't get the conservative vote, he isn't going anywhere.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and comments. We must defeat Obama. And although Romney is not ideal--he is no Reagan--he is no George Bush either.

MT| 10.13.11 @ 6:06PM

1st paragraph:
Why do we have to influence it by intervening in their affairs? Why not be a model for these countries for them to emulate? We know what the real reasons are. We subsidize these dictators for primarily two reasons: access to oil (and other natural resources for our multinationals) and for them to be moderate toward Israel. The real problem is that these dictators were awful to their own people. We tend to think that Muslims are dumb and that they're going to simply forget that we were directly subsidizing the very same governments that oppressed them. So, the alternative of being neutral, while open to trade and diplomacy thru voluntary associations, would be a far more productive approach and would drastically decrease the incentives for people to resort to terrorism against US interests.

2nd paragraph:
Nobody is arguing that we haven't been a source of good throughout the world. But we would be dangerously naive to think some of our seemingly "good" actions don't have unintended consequences. For example, yes we helped get Hussein out of Kuwait. But did we really have to? Everybody in that region hated Hussein. It would have been a perfect opportunity for Saudi Arabia and Iran to join with other moderate Arab states, and even Israel, against a common enemy. Furthermore, our Air Force base on their holy land in Saudi Arabia was given as one of the three main reasons for 9/11. That, and the subsequent, decade long bombing of Iraq after we left (that was what resulted in the 500,000 deaths - the UN mandated, US/UK enforced sanctions and no-fly zones during the entire 90's). And then there are our actions that are not so good. These tensions with Iran began in the early 50's when the UK and US CIA sent in a coup to overthrow Mossedeq, who was the democratically elected leader in Iran, and replaced him with the Shah who as a ruthless authoritarian that oppressed their people for 25 years before they had their Revolution and the Ayatollah came out from exile and back into power. We then funded and armed Saddam Hussein and instigated their war with Iran in the 80's that killed over 1,000,000 people.

We can't solve everybody's problems. There are dozens of countries today that have worse humanitarian problems than Libya, but we chose to single out Quaddafi (even though we were doing business with him just a few years ago). The point is, if we decide we need to be the policeman of the world and interfere in the business of other countries, then we should expect terrorism and blowback to always be a threat and it will never be eradicated.

My biggest problem with this "anybody but Obama" talk is that nobody is offering anything substantively different than Obama on the right anyway. I'm not sure how anyone can take Romney seriously. He literally takes opposite positions on every critical issue. Even in the latest debate, he takes opposite positions on every question to cover himself (I don't believe in bailouts, but I will believe we should if we have to; I want to repeal Obamacare, but his plan in Massachusetts was the model for it; I don't want a trade war, but I will force China to change how they manipulate their currency; I want to remove troops from Afghanistan, but now I want to greatly expand the military;... and it goes on and on and on). So when you want "anybody but obama", we should then be asking... to replace him with what?

I don't endorse 100% of Paul's positions by any stretch. But there is nobody who frames the debate in a more intellectually honest manner, who has more credibility (eg calling the housing bubble in a House Floor speech in Sep '03 with eery accuracy), integrity (can't be bought as he doesn't take special interest money, doesn't take the Congressional pension, never voted for an incr in Congressional pay), and always votes strictly along Constitutional principles. You may not agree with him all the time, but how can you not admire this guy??

I, along with millions of other Americans, are sick and tired of the same status quo 2-party duopoly that does the highest bidding for our big industrial complexes (military, banking, pharmaceutical, energy, insurance, etc). I think you might want to cut some of these other Paul supporters some slack. Sure, every candidate has some supporters that aren't ideal. But from what I've come to experience is that a large majority of Paul's backers are highly informed on the issues of the day and I've only been a supporter for the past 6 months or so, but there's no way anyone else gets my vote... it goes to Paul. I've done enough research at this point to know he's the only principled, honest, and true conservative running.

Bruce Stewart| 10.13.11 @ 7:37PM

The article seems to take Dr Paul's statement about Iran's nuclear capability to mean that he is not concerned about terrorist threats. I believe we should be doing a more to protect ourselves with border security. I'm afraid the Obama administration's saber-rattling serves only as a distraction from the corruption that has proliferated our gov/corp complex. This business about possibly going to war over the suspect (a US citizen) making an off hand statement about the number of possible casualties to his hired assassin (undercover DEA informant) is insanity. Will they actually declare a war this time? If one of my sons gets killed this time, I may make some threats myself!!

Doc| 10.14.11 @ 1:27AM

Coming from someone who has been to Iraq, the Saddam regime owned a palace in central Baghdad that had a handcarved wooden mural on one of the second story walls that shows a huge bomb with the letter US on it, with children burning underneath of it. I guess Saddam felt that it was necessary to have this handcarved to scapegoat the US?

The only thing Paul support-bashers do is sling insults at Paul supporters. Then they use neo-con warmongering to justify more wars, more foreign occupation and more debt. Whenever someone comes out and talks about the truth they are ridiculed, called insane and quickly discarded. I guess non of you neo-cons have read 1984.

pmarlar| 10.13.11 @ 4:40PM

What this article fails to mention is the other aspect of Dr. Paul's argument at the Iowa debate; that being that if we weren't occupying Iran, they wouldn't be so hostile. I really wish these opinion articles would practice true journalism and present all sides of the argument instead of painting people in whatever biased light they choose. The "attack" Iranians posed on American soil, as you say, is all a part of this retaliation mentality. And, by the way, we as Americans don't have much of a leg to stand on any more when it comes to "terrorist attacks" around the world. After all, didn't we just assisinate two of our own citizens without due process?? Just saying.

Tom| 10.13.11 @ 5:23PM

"if we weren't occupying Iran, they wouldn't be so hostile."

So when did we start "occupying Iran"?

Lafayette| 10.13.11 @ 11:14PM

I don't know if occupying is the right word.

We did however over throw their elected leader in the 1950s and installed a pro US puppet... until he was run out of the country by the radical Muslims that are in power still to this day.

We funded and supplied Saddam Hessian with weapons (chemical weapons too) to fight Iran.

Then there is our CIA who on many occasions try and start riots and coups in the country all the time.

We just don't learn our lesson, weather its Iran, or Saddam, or Bin Laden, or Egypt's Mubarak, or Gaddafi, or Saudi Arabia (15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia) they are our friends while we give them weapons and money, then they turn around and use them against us or on their own people.

We need to mind our own damn business and stay out of the affairs of other nations, especially in the middle east.

The Average American would be a whole lot safer and freer if we did.

Tom| 10.14.11 @ 6:10AM

Just another Paultard rant baed upon their guiding principle of "Hate America First; Blame America Always."

MT| 10.14.11 @ 9:53AM

Just another neo-con warmongering propagandist.
"Lafayette" is stating facts about our intervention in Iran. Do you dispute them? Of course not.
Furthermore, this "hate america" propaganda spewing is old and tired. We've truly entered into some fascist realm when questioning your govt's policy actions are considered "anti-american". The truth is that these generally are the acts of the most patriotic.
So, once again, it's not about blaming "Americans", it's about blaming government policy. There's a difference if you care to make any attempt at critical thinking.

Tom| 10.14.11 @ 6:48PM

It is so much better to be "Just another neo-con warmongering propagandist," than a brain-dead Paultard zombee.

One correct thing you have said is, "this "hate america" propaganda spewing is old and tired," Yes, indeed, us true Americans and conservatives are sick and tired of the "Hate America First; Blame America Always" hatred that you worthless Paultard vermin are constantly spewing forth from your empty heads and your dead, dark souls against those who are defending this country. You and the rest of Dr. Nutbjob's disciples are the lowest forms of sub-human garbage. And if you were standing in front of me, I would spit right in your Paultard face.

Paul Fallavollita | 10.13.11 @ 5:58PM

I'm not voting for Ron Paul, but I'd suggest that all this latest Iran debacle proves is that we need tighter immigration policies. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy or military action. Even 9/11 itself wasn't a military issue, it was an immigration issue. Had Pat Buchanan been elected in the 1990s, we'd have had a moratorium on immigration and there would have been no Saudi hijackers or Iranian bombers on American soil.

Centinel| 10.13.11 @ 6:47PM

Wow, you're 100% correct on the Buchanan issue. Glad to see someone remembers. He was labeled a racist at the time because of those comments.

jason| 10.13.11 @ 7:33PM

If Iran was really behind this, and if they were really a threat, they wouldnt have sent some moron who couldnt get the job done.

So this either proved that we are making up a case of war (again) or Iran is completely inept and not a real threat.

Win Win for Paul I'd say.

Lafayette| 10.13.11 @ 9:12PM

Fake FBI enabled plots are FAKE.

"To begin with, this episode continues the FBI’s record-setting undefeated streak of heroically saving us from the plots they enable. From all appearances, this is, at best, yet another spectacular “plot” hatched by some hapless loser with delusions of grandeur but without any means to put it into action except with the able assistance of the FBI, which yet again provided it through its own (paid, criminal) sources posing as Terrorist enablers. The Terrorist Mastermind at the center of the plot is a failed used car salesman in Texas with a history of pedestrian money problems. Dive under your bed. “For the entire operation, the government’s confidential sources were monitored and guided by federal law enforcement agents,” explained U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and “no explosives were actually ever placed anywhere and no one was actually ever in any danger.’”

http://politics.salon.com/2011.....singleton/

My, what a fine job our Government does of protecting us from enemies they invent. We gotta keep the fear going, how else do we justify the department of homeland security, the TSA, the patriot act, the 5 countries we are currently bombing and/or occupying and the $trillion or so we spend every year on them.

Debt ? What debt?

Jason R.| 10.13.11 @ 9:37PM

LOL, you actually believe this plot is true. This is coming from the same government that brought us Fast and Furious, the Underwear Bomber that was mysteriously aided in getting on the plane by a government official, among other false flag terror plots including 911 and Oklahoma City.

Dan T| 10.14.11 @ 12:02AM

*cough* Gulf of Tonkin *cough*

Doc| 10.14.11 @ 1:12AM

Ok, so let's think about this. Some mid 50's used car salesman starts bragging about receiving $100k to hire some drug cartel guy to assassinate some Saudi ambassador 1000 miles away, and right away they accuse Iran of being involved because this guy is Iranian-American? HAH! If you read any of Bob Baer's books, a guy that's been to Iran btw and did extesnive work in that part of the world, the Qods force would not be this sloppy. Not even close. They have 1-4 levels of proxy to cover their tracks, Hezbollah being the most prevalent and Iran hasn't been legitimately connected to a terrorist plot in over 20 years. But right away we're supposed to believe the Qods force gave this guy a ton of money to hire some obscure cartel bozo to assassinate some guy he probably doesn't know exists? Come on, get real. Another smear campaign on Ron Paul.

John | 10.14.11 @ 1:10PM

Actually, Ron Paul couldn't have been more right. He predicted word for word that there would be an event and that out of that event America would hype up the war propaganda against Iran just like in Iraq. This is so predictable it is truly amazing. This is the most farfetched story I have ever heard of, and it even. Makes the WMD delusion sound believable. General Wesley Clark even admitted that he received information from high ranking sources inside the pentagon that the military industrial complex had plans in line to invade Iran, as early as back in 2001. This has all been predicted with perfect precision. Think about it:

1) Iran supposedly "hires" a drunken pothead who is known to be a proud American and engage in promiscuous behavior with prostitutes. Do you really think they would trust a whacko like this with one of the biggest war conspiracies in American history?

2) Not to mention that this patsy tried to hire Mexican drug cartels to do the job, which are the same cartels that the ATF and Attorney General Holder have been proven to be working with behind the scenes and shipped 1000's of guns to them. The fact that we intentionally set him up with an informant, is proof of entrapment and just proves that the FBI/CIA were intentionally trying to set up and bust an Iranian attack, in order to demonize their country.

3) There is absolutely no motif, and nothing for Iran to gain whatsoever from this.

This is an obvious false flag event to hype up the war propaganda against Iran, and if the American people don't wake up, a war with Iran is most definitely inevitable. Just like the Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us into Vietnam and the weapons of mass destruction blatant lies, this is an obvious lie to lead us into yet another war. If you do your research, you will come to the logical conclusion that this is all extremely evident. There could be very rough times ahead..

A-Remnant-Conservative| 10.15.11 @ 3:20PM

Jeffrey Lord: Whose credibility sinks when we find out that Iranian terror plot is a fake? Whose credibility sinks when someone buys the fake without the ability to think things through and research things through to find out that it is actually a fake?

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/i.....sual-fake/

By the way, is Russell Kirk, author of "The Conservative Mind," not a conservative in foreign policy?

http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods180.html

Will you answer that question, Jeffrey Lord? You disagree with Paul, but have been proven false on what is and is not conservative from the view of Kirk. You mention Kirk as hating libertarians, but he praised them on foreign policy. Do you know nothing about conservatism or are you a protagonist? Are you this easy to show wrong?

wedding dresses | 10.16.11 @ 11:36AM

wow, I must say “great blog…”

ys| 10.25.11 @ 12:49AM

Slewing bearings manufactured by Yisong Precision Bearing can be used in radar tracking
system production, high precision machine tools turntable, medical equipment etc. http://www.1stbearing.com

john dubose| 10.26.11 @ 12:12AM

Nations do low grade stuff like trying to get rid of annoying foreign leaders all the time. It is an ugly business but no cause for war. Instead, we need to respond with quiet moves in kind. Ron Paul and every other serious national leader would do that. But some ( neocons like most of the rest of the Rep candidates ) and internationalist / socialist like Obama want to leverage it into an excuse to have another war to expand our power.

John| 11.5.11 @ 6:04PM

Wow this article is trash! Not only did this seem like a ridiculous set-up with admitted agents playing large parts in this 'plot', but the ISI would NEVER stoop to the level of hiring the Mexican cartel to kill an ambassador in DC! Even if this was 100% legitimate the actions of one man doesn't reflect on an entire country. Again... the ISI would NEVER do this and they could EASILY kill the ambassador when he was in the Middle East with their own highly trained agents.

Ron Paul is right and will always be right! END THE WARS AND BRING OUR TROOPS HOME! LEAVE IRAN ALONE AND LETS AVERT WWIII!

John| 11.5.11 @ 6:05PM

Oh and Jeffery Lord! YOU SUCK!

duvexy| 11.16.11 @ 2:06PM

When was the last time Iran attacked anyone??

loo| 11.25.11 @ 9:28PM

You seem to forget that Israel just blew up an Iran site where there is nuclear development!

If Iran ever wants to do anything wrong, Israel is right there to punish them before they DARE to do anything!

Iran is not as important as places like North Korea or China!

John| 12.5.11 @ 12:30PM

APPEAL TO ALL AMERICANS ON BEHALF OF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY

If you don’t support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy I can understand because I was a traditional neoconservative type for much of my life. Upon digging into the facts, however, I now recognize that Ron Paul is on the right side of this issue.

The history of the Middle East and world in general, virtually all major surveys taken in Muslim streets, speeches delivered by Muslim leaders, and human nature confirm that meddling in the affairs of other countries and regions is the root cause of resistance, hatred, revenge, and terrorism.

Our meddling in the Middle East for more than 60 years by overthrowing governments (including democratic ones), invasions, occupations, setting up puppet governments and military bases came long before terrorism emerged as a reaction. There is no supporting evidence that organized radical Muslim terrorism results from hating us by nature, because of our religion, or lifestyle.

A universal characteristic of human nature is to be focused on creating a better life for ourselves and our children. Hatred, terrorism, and focus on what goes on in other countries come into play when our own way of life is violated or threatened by them. Until our heavy handed meddling in the Middle East we were rather liked and very much respected in the Middle East.

If a Muslim superpower meddled in our region for 60 years, invaded and occupied countries in North America, set up pro-Muslim puppet governments and military bases there would also be resistance, hatred, and no doubt some of us would also consider it justified to respond with the use of terrorism (even though terrorism should never be justified). Why, therefore, are we surprised that blowback emerges in reaction to our constant and consistent meddling in the Middle East during the course of 60 years?

We kept escalating the war in Vietnam to no avail but since leaving that country we now get along well. When under Soviet occupation the people of Eastern Europe despised and resisted the Russians on a daily basis. Now that the Soviets are out they are hardly given a 2nd thought in the people’s daily lives. Afghanistan practiced resistance and terrorism during the Soviet occupation of that country. Since Soviet departure and American entrance in that arena the hatred and terrorism has shifted to us. There is terrorism being committed by Muslims of Chechnya in an effort to free that country of Russian occupation.

Why then do we violate our Christian, national, and individual values to aggressively meddle in the affairs of others only to create more hatred and terrorism directed against us, while the vast majority of people around the world, and friendly leaders of other countries, warn against this course of action? Do not two of the most important commandments left by Jesus Christ not state “Love thy brother as you love yourself” and “Thou shell not kill?” Does not our Constitution, and did not our forefathers, warn against foreign entanglements and to respect the self-determination of all people whether we agree with them or not? Have we not been taught from early childhood to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves?

History has proven over and over again that empires usually fall not from the strength of enemies but from their own over expansion. Many empires have tried to create a world in their own image by force and to date have all ultimately failed on each occasion.

If you can’t accept supporting Ron Paul’s foreign policy based on true Christian, national, and individual values that maintained the world’s respect for so many decades, then consider the fact that we simply cannot afford our current self-defeating warfare policy. Even if our meddling in the Middle East could create utopia for 30 million people in Afghanistan and 30 million people in Iraq, is it worth leading 312 million Americans into bankruptcy and full scale Depression during this process?

All evidence available thus far shows that our claims against Iran are basically as bogus as those used to justify the war in Iraq, except that the bombing of Iran would have far more serious negative consequences. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons it is unreasonable to believe that they would initiate a nuclear war against Israel as Iran would be toast within 24 hours. Contrary to the claims of so many Ahmadinejad never threatened to nuke Israel. And Iran has not started a war of aggression during its entire modern history, while we have started several, which included 3 acts of war committed against Iran alone.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad does not represent a despicable dictatorship but we must consider how to deal with the situation with our own best interests and those of our children first. This also does not mean that Ron Paul does not believe in maintaining very strong defense. He absolutely does but that has little to do with constantly, and aggressively, meddling in the affairs of other nations.

Even after reading hundreds of documents that are readily available on the Internet, including those of our own government, which confirm all of the above, it took me a few years to accept the truth. Unfortunately, we don’t have a few more years to resolve these issues any longer thus I hope and pray that all Americans will take the time to examine the facts and accept the truth much more quickly than I did. This election will determine if we continue on the path to endless wars of self-destruction, bankruptcy, and full scale Depression within the next few years, or if we start the process of recovery under President Ron Paul.

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/12/iran-bomb-plot-sinks-ron-pauls

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.20.13

Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma

Aaron Goldstein | 5.20.13

Evangelical School Gets Salvation from Controversy

Kaylin Bugos | 5.20.13

Open letter to Anré Dárel Washington

Ross Kaminsky | 5.20.13

U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Spectator Radio! Drone Policy Interview with Dan Mandis

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.20.13

It’s Not Just the IRS

Matt Purple | 5.20.13

The IRS Scandal: It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature

Mark Meckler | 5.20.13

Latest Headlines

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord|41 comments

Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?

David Catron|6 comments

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin|11 comments

It’s.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky|17 comments

Flatten the IRS

Ray V. Hartwell, III|18 comments

A Nation on the Edge

Joseph A. Harriss|4 comments

Downton’s Class System — and Ours

Tom Bethell|6 comments

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|116 comments

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?

David Catron | 5.20.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

It's.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky | 5.20.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin | 5.20.13

Downton's Class System -- and Ours

Tom Bethell | 5.20.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.