We’ve been told over and over that nobody could have reasonably predicted the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The people who say this believe the terrorists “hate us for our freedom.” If it was so hard to predict that we were going to be attacked, why did Ron Paul warn the nation about it almost three years before it happened?
I remember Dec. 16, 1998 very well. President Bill Clinton was in the middle of impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. For the crime of lying under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, congressional Republicans were trying to throw him out of office. Clinton’s actions were slimy, unprincipled and illegal, but hardly qualifying of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Clinton was the ultimate political animal, so he did what politicians like to do when they’re in trouble. He wrapped himself in the flag and took invented an excuse to attack a country.
Although most people saw through the political motivations for the air attacks on Iraq which killed hundreds of innocent Iraqis, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul stood virtually alone in opposing the attack for the right reasons. At a news conference at the House, Paul laid out his arguments very clearly. He seemed quite angry. Take the four minutes or so to watch this video clip from that news conference. Right around the three-minute mark, you’ll hear Paul explaining that U.S. policy was not only killing innocent people, but it was also making it more likely that U.S. military personnel were going to be killed and that the United States would be attacked by terrorists.
Today, the convenient fiction is that terrorists randomly attack the United States (and the West in general) because of the freedoms we enjoy. While it’s true that many Muslims (especially the more conservative among them) don’t like our culture, it’s very, very clear that we were attacked because we had U.S. troops in their holy lands and the U.S. government had been attacking and killing people in that part of the world for years — in our names. Ron Paul understood this. The other politicians didn’t understand it. Who was right?
Today, Paul again explains what causes terror attacks. He explains what happens as a result of arrogant interventionist policies from Washington. He also warns us what is coming economically as the clowns in charge keep pursuing the same policies have haven’t worked so far.
As he runs for office and tells the truth about these issues, we’re surrounded by people who dismiss him as crazy or extremist or weird. They don’t understand him. They don’t understand his reasoning. They don’t understand the things that most of us believe.
What I’d like to ask those people is very simple. When Ron Paul warned in 1998 what was coming, you didn’t believe him then. He’s still warning you that trouble is coming, economically and internationally. Why do you choose to believe the same sorts of people who were wrong then — instead of the man who was right?