Noam Chomsky defends Ron Paul – Same position as the Pentagon

Dandelion Salad

Ron Paul 2012 sign

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

on Sep 23, 2011

Excerpt of discussion with Ken Hildebrandt on September 20, 2011, regarding Paul’s recent comments regarding 9-11, for which he was booed by an unenlightened audience at a recent Republican presidential debate.


Updated: Aug. 3, 2017

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul’s 9/11 Theories: “What He Said Is Completely Uncontroversial”

Democracy Now! on Sep 13, 2011 – During the most recent Republican presidential debate on Monday, September 12th, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas drew boos and jeers from the crowd and his fellow debaters for his views on the roots of 9/11 attacks. Dr. Paul criticized U.S. foreign policy as the catalyst stating, “we’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries… We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?” For more, Democracy Now! spoke with Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Noam Chomsky. Dr. Chomsky responded to Dr. Paul’s comments by reciting the history of antagonism to US policy, concluding: “I think what he said is completely uncontroversial. You can read it in government documents.”


Ralph Nader Explains Why Ron Paul Is An Excellent Presidential Candidate

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul’s 9/11 Theories: What He Said Is Completely Uncontroversial

Paul Thompson: 9/11-A mind-boggling journey + Sibel Edmonds: 9/11, Ron Paul, Israel and more

Madeleine Albright: We think the price is worth it by Felicity Arbuthnot

The Punk Patriot: Yellow Journalism At Its Worst

11 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky defends Ron Paul – Same position as the Pentagon

  1. Pingback: Ron Paul and the Killing Machine By Mike Whitney « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Why Progressives Should Support Ron Paul « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: How You Can STOP Republican Militarism: Vote for Ron Paul « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Is It Immoral to Vote for Obama? by Mike Whitney « Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: Ralph Nader: Obama is a Dictator! + Nader, Ron Paul, Kucinich Speak to Occupy Wall Street « Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: The crime of making Americans aware of their own history by William Blum « Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: Noam Chomsky on the Responsibility of Intellectuals: Redux « Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: The Daily Show: Ron Paul « Dandelion Salad

  9. Pingback: Noam Chomsky on Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention « Dandelion Salad

  10. Pingback: The Iraq War Is a Smashing Success by Michael Parenti « Dandelion Salad

  11. Between the two major parties Ron Paul is the better candidate of the lot in my view. He is willing to speak the truth about our foreign policies and also some of our domestic policies. But he still identifies himself as a Republican even though his Party wants nothing to do with him. He is right about the Fed but is not in touch with reality when it comes to understanding government’s role in protecting human rights and providing a level economic playing field for all citizens. He fails to understand, or doesn’t care, that his libertarian ideology favors the rich at the expense of the poor.

    As Sibel Edmonds points out, his choice of legal counsel suggests that what he says publicly and what he believes personally might be out of alignment:

    Does Ron Paul understand how much of a danger his party has been to democracy and world peace? Did he ever suggest that Bush ought to have been impeached and that Obama is pursuing the same policies as Bush? If Ron Paul is standing up to defend his country and the Constitution will he run for president against his own party if his party chooses another candidate and not him to face Obama? Is his loyalty to his party or to the Constitution and the rule of law?

    If the only candidates running on election day are Democrats and Republicans I guess he’s the best choice, but Americans would be better off, in my view, seeking someone who understands that we need a fundamental change, not an incremental change. Our two party, money rules, system of government is broken and corrupt. Both parties are moving the ball towards the same goal posts even though they move the ball at different speeds using different plays.

    In my view… good enough… is no longer… good enough.

Comments are closed.