Ron Paul, Michael Scheuer, Donald Trump, and why the "blowback' argument failed

[jmdrake]

[MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION], so we don't just keep repeating ourselves ad naseum, I'm going to take this conversation in a slightly different path. Have you ever heard of Michael Scheuer? Do you remember him? In 2008 he was the CIA analyst that was vocally supporting Ron Paul's "blowback" argument with regards to foreign policy.



That's great right? Well he's also the guy that CREATED the CIA's post 9/11 torture program!



That bothered me the same way I suspect you think posting Trump defending waterboarding would bother me. (It doesn't change my opinion on Trump because this isn't as bad in my book as Trump supporting red flag laws and assault weapons bans).

So why could Michael Scheuer be so good on foreign policy yet so bad on torture? A related question, why didn't Ron Paul make more use of Michael Scheuer during the campaign? Certainly his primary opponents who accused Dr. Paul of being soft on terrorism for saying "We should listen to Al Qaeda. They don't want troops on the Arabian pennisula." could not have made that argument about Michael Scheuer.

I asked this question to a RPF member who had become personally acquinted with Michael Scheuer. She told me the Ron Paul campaign shied away from Scheuer because part of his "blowback" theory is that blowback was caused by U.S. support for Israel. I heard neocons on the radio back in 2008 claim, without evidence, that when Ron Paul was talking about "blowback" he was really talking about Israel. But Ron wasn't going to go there because Israel is the third rail in politics. Your current favorite candidate, RFK Jr., threw his friend Roger Waters under the bus over Israel. (I'll put that in a different thread).

Note this. Michael Scheuer was willing to verbally attack U.S. favorable policy towards Israel while defending the WORST things about the U.S. intelligence community. Fast forward to Donald Trump and he mirrored Michael Scheuer. Trump has NEVER to my knowledge attacked Israel. So what was Trump's response to 9/11? He didn't endorse any "blowback" theory of any kind. He told Rudy Giuliani "You didn't protect America on 9/11" and he told Jeb Bush "Your brother didn't protect America on 9/11." Who was Trump really attacking? Why the intelligence services of course! After all, its the intelligence services that "failed." Rudy and Dubya were just figure heads. It's now been admitted that at least two of the hijackers were CIA double agents and that this information was kept from the FBI. (Or the FBI knew about it and kept this from the American people.)

So there you go. This is a big game of CYA (cover your arse) and which "third rail" you're ready to step on. Ron Paul stepped on the "We create our own enemies" third rail which wounded American pride and self image while avoiding any direct attacks on Israel. Micheal Scheur stepped on the Israel third rail while defending all the things the intelligence agencies did. Trump left America's pride and Israel alone and attacked the intelligence services.

That's the "big picture" that you and [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION] are missing. This isn't about right versus left or right versus wrong. It's about how to sell the simple truth that 9/11 wasn't because Muslims hate us for our freedoms. That George W. Bush "big lie" is the foundational lie of just about everything wrong with America from 2001 through 2020. The "give up your freedoms to save your life from a souped up cold virus" is the new foundational lie that seems to be fading fast. I don't know what the next foundational lie will be. Anyway, Trump sold an antidote to that lie in a way that a majority of Republicans were willing to buy. And like cocaine is a hell of a drug, Trump is a hell of a salesman.

 

[acptulsa]

He told Rudy Giuliani "You didn't protect America on 9/11" and he told Jeb Bush "Your brother didn't protect America on 9/11." Who was Trump really attacking? Why the intelligence services of course! After all, its the intelligence services that "failed."

Why did you put "failed" in quotes?

I know why you put "failed" in quotes. I just don't know why you do it where it's putting words in Trump's mouth. Obviously the intelligence services failed to protect us. Duh. Three buildings fell down, killing thousands in terror. Do you think the intelligence services are goofy enough to try to argue with someone who pointed that rather obvious fact out?

You aren't putting yourself in these people's shoes. You're trying to dress a wolf in sheep's clothing. What instructions do you give him? Do you tell him to deny patently obvious facts like we weren't protected on 9/11/01? Or do you have him admit the bleeding elephant is in the room, in hopes that it lends weight to the things he does deny?

All he admitted was that the government didn't protect us on 9/11/01. He has treated the question, "Why on earth not?" like Social Security and Israel. Sorry, but I'm having difficulty reading very much into that.

 

[jmdrake]

Why did you put "failed" in quotes?

I know why you put "failed" in quotes. I just don't know why you do it where it's putting words in Trump's mouth. Obviously the intelligence services failed to protect us. Duh. Three buildings fell down, killing thousands in terror. Do you think the intelligence services are goofy enough to try to argue with someone who pointed that rather obvious fact out?

You aren't putting yourself in these people's shoes. You're trying to dress a wolf in sheep's clothing. What instructions do you give him? Do you tell him to deny patently obvious facts like we weren't protected on 9/11/01? Or do you have him admit the bleeding elephant is in the room, in hopes that it lends weight to the things he does deny?

All he admitted was that the government didn't protect us on 9/11/01. He has treated the question, "Why on earth not?" like Social Security and Israel. Sorry, but I'm having difficulty reading very much into that.

You're difficulty is because you're still into "Trump good" or "Trump bad" mode. Forget Trump for a minute and let your mind think about strategy! I see from your profile that you've been here since 2008. So you and I were both trying to get Ron Paul elected the first go round. (Well, second if you count his failed libertarian campaign.) We did moneybombs. Won online polls. Hired a freaking blimp! Nothing helped. Republican after republican would tell me "I like Ron Paul, but I don't like his foreign policy." Blowback was an emotional loser of a policy. But well meaning Ron Paul supporters wanted to blame the 9/11 truthers. Somehow it was our fault. I never heard any potential republican voter that I talked to say "I like Ron Paul...but I think he might be a 9/11 truther" or "I like him but a lot of his supporters are 9/11 truthers." Blowback did NOT sell. I've explained why it did not sell, but you're too focused on "orange man bad" to see it.

And yes, I put "failed" in quotes because I'm pretty sure that for some (not all) of the people in the intelligence community, 9/11 went off exactly as planned. To you Trump saying "The government didn't protect us on 9/11" is no big deal. Okay. Why the hell was Ron Paul not willing to come out and say that? If Ron had said that he might have gotten elected president! Doesn't that piss you off just a little bit? I don't blame Ron Paul. I don't even blame the people who gave him the bad advice. But we are dumb as hell if we can't learn from Trump's success. And yes, the intelligence community is pissed at Trump for multiple reasons, one of which is that he shined the light on their coachroach nest of lies used to explain why 9/11 was at the very least allowed to happen. And yes I know there is strong evidence for MIHOP as opposed to just LIHOP. See the link to the "9/11 thermate experiments" in my sig.

 

[acptulsa]

Somehow it was our fault. I never heard any potential republican voter that I talked to say "I like Ron Paul...but I think he might be a 9/11 truther" or "I like him but a lot of his supporters are 9/11 truthers." Blowback did NOT sell. I've explained why it did not sell, but you're too focused on "orange man bad" to see it.

Am I also too focused on Orange Man Bad to see that this is irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissable?

And why are you bringing it back up when I already pointed out in the other thread that I believe that whoever first broached the subject as a candidate would suffer from the instinct to shoot the messenger, while the second is gifted with the opportunity to play good cop to the other one's bad cop, in exactly the manner you suggest? You act like it's easy to get someone to admit they screwed up as long as you offer them a scapegoat immediately. It has been my experience that admitting things went wrong, and looking for a scapegoat, are two separate and distinct steps.

As an irrelevant aside, I did hear Republican primary voters tell me they were turned off by the truth movement, and associated Ron Paul with it for reasons they generally couldn't explain.

And yes, I put "failed" in quotes because I'm pretty sure that for some (not all) of the people in the intelligence community, 9/11 went off exactly as planned. To you Trump saying "The government didn't protect us on 9/11" is no big deal. Okay. Why the hell was Ron Paul not willing to come out and say that? If Ron had said that he might have gotten elected president! Doesn't that piss you off just a little bit? I don't blame Ron Paul. I don't even blame the people who gave him the bad advice. But we are dumb as hell if we can't learn from Trump's success. And yes, the intelligence community is pissed at Trump for multiple reasons, one of which is that he shined the light on their coachroach nest of lies used to explain why 9/11 was at the very least allowed to happen. And yes I know there is strong evidence for MIHOP as opposed to just LIHOP. See the link to the "9/11 thermate experiments" in my sig.

You think Ron Paul would have been nominated if he had pointed out that we weren't protected on 9/11/01? That's funny, because I thought he did. He certainly never said we were!

No, I don't think that's the same thing as talking about blowback, no I don't think saying that was the key to victory, and no I don't believe admitting it was tantamount to saying that means it was intentional, not government incompetence. Sorry.

 

[jmdrake]

Am I also too focused on Orange Man Bad to see that this is irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissable?

I see you got your law degree from Perry Mason Unisveristy. Irrelvant, immaterial or inadmmissable to what? Your made up argument that nobody except perhaps [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION] disagrees with, or what I'm actually arguing and what Tucker Carlson is actually arguing and what the jackass Kyle Kulinski was trying to argue against? Again, this isn't a debate on whether or not you should vote for Trump or if Trump is a good guy or whatever. The other thread was about why Trump is being prosecuted. Tucker thinks it's for Trump taking an antiwar stance. I happen to agree but think it goes further into Trump taking on the intelligence sservices. And in thinking about that, I finally was able to articulate, and I've thought about this for years, as to why Trump was able to successfully speak against the Iraq war in a presidential debate when Ron and Rand struggled with that. Yes Ron pushed the envelope in his own way, but what Ron said never resonated on an emotional level with most Republicans. Even today if you talk to rank and file Republicans who are willing to admit thee Iraq war was a mistake, the probablly still won't sign off on the "blowback" theory.

And why are you bringing it back up when I already pointed out in the other thread that I believe that whoever first broached the subject as a candidate would suffer from the instinct to shoot the messenger, while the second is gifted with the opportunity to play good cop to the other one's bad cop, in exactly the manner you suggest?

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT I AM "SUGGESTING!" And that shows complete lack of understanding on your part. Ron Paul's "blowback" theory STILL IS NOT POPULAR. You will not find many republicans that will sign off on the idea that 9/11 happened because we had soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Hell I don't believe that crap myself. I went along with it for the sake of peace but it doesn't reasonate.

You act like it's easy to get someone to admit they screwed up as long as you offer them a scapegoat immediately. It has been my experience that admitting things went wrong, and looking for a scapegoat, are two separate and distinct steps.

Ummm...you have no freaking clue what you're even saying let alone what I'm saying. Back in 2008 I thought "blowback" was a stupid argument to make to Republicans. I still think that's true. Blowback didn't become a winning strategy in 2016. Trump used a different strategy.

 

[acptulsa]

Trump used a different strategy.

OK.

And if I remember right, Perry was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. What ever else you might be, I've never known you to be incompetent.

Trump is slicker than Ron Paul. Can't deny it. I agree that the blowback talk didn't sell Ron Paul to Republicans. Blaming Dubya alone is ridiculous, but Republicans are very often open to ridiculous lies. They do seem to prefer them to the truth. I still think Republicans weren't ready to throw their boy Dubya under the bus until they realized it was that or the awful truth. Educational campaigns, what a joy...

That said, I still don't get where the notion that saying the intelligence services failed is equivalent to saying they were complicit, if that's what you were also saying.

 

[jmdrake]

I was in the middle of editing my response to you when you responded. So I'll put that edit here:

You think Ron Paul would have been nominated if he had pointed out that we weren't protected on 9/11/01? That's funny, because I thought he did. He certainly never said we were!

Not saying that we were protected is nowhere near the same as saying that Jeb Bush and Rudy Giuliani failed to protect us on 9/11. You must have not actually watched any GOP debates in 2007. Watch this video before you respond please.



In fact watch ^that twice. Ron missed the opportunity to attack Rudy and instead got attacked himself. And Sean Hannity ended the segment with "And I think it's fair to say Rudy Giuliani got the best of this argument." Hate Sean Hannity all you want (I can't stand him) but on this particular matter, Hannity was right.

Compare Ron Paul's intellectual, but emotionally weak, argument regarding 9/11 that Giuliani trounced him over multiple times to Trump taking down Jeb Bush on the same subject.



Notice the difference. Rudy Giuliani got the best of Ron Paul in that debate so well that he was willing to use that same attack years later with his back handed compliment to Rand Paul for being different from his dad. Has Jeb Bush raised his smirking head since Trump attacked him on 9/11 to try to attack Trump on 9/11 (or anything else for that matter)? Nope. Why? Trump's attack worked on an emotional level. Night and day. You're sounding like the idiots that still think the vaccine is "safe and efffective" despite all evidence to the conratry. The verdict is in. The blowback theory failed to win over republican voters. Attacking the "deep state" (i.e. the intelligence services) is a winning strategy for winning over republican voters. And...it happens to be accurate as both you and I know a segment of the intelligence services, not the entire organizations, was part of 9/11. I think Ron knows this too but he was never willing to come out and say it.

Ron Paul's worst moment of the 2008 campaign.



I'm trying to find the video where a supporter went up to Ron Paul and asked him "Why don't you come out with the truth about 9/11" to which Ron Paul responded "Because that would be to dangerous for me" but that seems to have fallen down the memory hole. That said, pay attention to the above video. Ron Paul was asked the question about "truthers" who "believe the U.S. government was in some way complicit in 9/11 or covered it up." Pay attention to the word "or." The way the question was phrased, even if Ron didn't believe the goverrnment was complicit in 9/11 but merely screwed up and covered up its screwup, he would be a "truther." That would have been a perfect opportunity for Ron to say "Well I think the well known inefficiencies in government mean that 9/11 could have been prevented and certainly things have been covered up." But no. Ron attacked his own supporters. The attack was mild. I forgave Ron for it. But it was still and attack.

OK.

And if I remember right, Perry was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. What ever else you might be, I've never known you to be incompetent.

Trump is slicker than Ron Paul. Can't deny it. I agree that the blowback talk didn't sell Ron Paul to Republicans. Blaming Dubya alone is ridiculous, but Republicans are very often open to ridiculous lies. They do seem to prefer them to the truth. That said, I still think Republicans weren't ready to throw their boy Dubya under the bus until they realized it was that or the awful truth. Educational campaigns, what a joy...

That said, I still don't get where the notion that saying the intelligence services failed is equivalent to saying they were complicit, if that's what you were also saying.

I never said they were equivlent statements. But saying the intellligence services failed is at least a step in the right direction, and it's a step that Ron Paul as not willing to take. Instead he put all of his chips on the "blowback" theory and suffered "blowback" from it.

The current foundational lie is about COVID and the vaccines. Rand Paul has at least taken steps in the right direction, questioning the need for chldren to get the vaccine, for people with natural immunity to have to take it and for there to be mandates of any kind. Like [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION], I WISH Rand would drop his ringing endorsement of "Operation Warp Speed" though I understand why he's taking that mushy middle position. Trump is dead wrong on the vaccines and is still pushing the idea that peoeple should keep getting boosters. RFK Jr. is in the right position on vaccines, though I question his position on Israel now. Dispassionately look at the facts and you'll see what I'm saying. Ron got horrible advice on how to argue about 9/11 to Republicans and it never would have worked for anyboddy no mattter how often it was tried.

Trump took the position of being willing to attack the "heroes" of the GOP. I thought Trump was crazy as hell to atttack John McCain by saying he preferred the veterans who didn't get captured. I thought that would have doomed his campaign. it didn't. I still disagree with attacking McCan for being a POW, but McCain deserved to have ehis hero status tarnished. By that time McCain had started cavorting with the so called "Free Syrian Army" who were a bunch of terrorists that McCain and Obama had labeled "Freedom Fighers." I would have attacked McCain on the issues. Trump did a gut punch that attacked McCain on the issue McCain was the proudest, his POW status. Trump's tactics, as distasteful as they are sometimes, actually work. And that's why he's being prosecuted.

 

[jmdrake]

Okay. [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION], I never could find the Ron Paul 9/11 clip I was looking for. But i found this.



Note that when talking to his supporters Ron Paul was willing to talk about government ineptitude, cover ups (something he denied believing in the debate cliip I gave you), assasinations etc. That is probably why you thought Ron Paul talked about government failure to protect because Ron Paul would say that to his supporters on stump speaches, but not in the debates.I saw another video (again I can't find it) where Ron Paul brought up WTC 7. He knows but he decided not to say what he knows in the debates. That just wasn't a winning strategy.

 

[acptulsa]

Trump's tactics, as distasteful as they are sometimes, actually work. And that's why he's being prosecuted.

Maybe. But in the end, they've invested a lot, and I do mean one unholy hell of a lot, of excellent bad publicity in him. And these little legal actions sure are a handy excuse for more. Trump is gathering up a lot of static electricity in the role of lightning rod, so much so that a lot of people will figure everything's fixed now if the powers that be merely refrain from stealing the next election from him. Then, he can introduce the new social credit implanted money chips in all of us and Republicans will be first in line for the Mark of the Beast, just as some of these children of God were first in line to get the DNA He wrote for them modified.

And that's another good reason for them to do what they're doing. Everyone can choose which one they like better.

That just wasn't a winning strategy.

Bucking Faux Views wasn't a winning strategy, at the time. But what choice did they give us? Blaming Bushes in 2007-2008? I'm not convinced there was a winning strategy.

We had not yet turned the net into an effective fighting tool.

 

[jmdrake]

Maybe. But in the end, they've invested a lot, and I do mean one unholy hell of a lot, of excellent bad publicity in him. And these little legal actions sure are a handy excuse for more. Trump is gathering up a lot of static electricity in the role of lightning rod, so much so that a lot of people will figure everything's fixed now if the powers that be merely refrain from stealing the next election from him. Then, he can introduce the new social credit implanted money chips in all of us and Republicans will be first in line for the Mark of the Beast, just as some of these children of God were first in line to get the DNA He wrote for them modified.

And that's another good reason for them to do what they're doing. Everyone can choose which one they like better.

Maybe. Anything is possible. From 4D chess to 5D chess? Who knows? Cause to speculate your honor. What is not speculation, at least on my part, is that it was hard as hell for me to sell rank and file republicans on Ron Paul's "blowback" argument. Only a fraction of the Ron Paul movement ever really embraced it. The rest of us were secretly hoping Ron Paul would have argued something else.

 

[acptulsa]

The rest of us were secretly hoping Ron Paul would have argued something else.

Yeah. Then Rand "learned from those mistakes" and avoided stuff like that, and failed to ever stand out.

Let's face it. While we're Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the media machine is still busy 24/7 telling the impressionable what to think about stuff. That was no easy thing to counter at the time. It still isn't, even though the MSM has been discrediting the hell out of itself ever since.

The Kennedy name, however, could be an interesting monkey wrench in that machine. It won't go away, it has history that won't go away, and it has been lauded by the left for so long that they can't dismiss it for agreeing with someone on something outside the orthodoxy from time to time.

 

[unknown]

First off, the entire process was rigged against Ron Paul from the primary "elections" to the media attacks to the debates to the "Santorum Surge" BS.

Not sure how anyone can really blame Ron Paul.

Obviously, if enough people had voted for Ron Paul, he would have won, assuming that the entire election wouldnt have been stolen like it was in 2020.

It wasnt about what Ron Paul did or didnt say when the entire establishment was hell bent on ensuring that his campaign was derailed.

Trump was atleast allowed to win the primary, Ron Paul wasnt.



Dont get me wrong, Trump was attacked incessantly as well but it wasnt exactly the same.


ETA: The establishment viewed Ron Paul as a bigger threat to the status-quo than Donald Trump.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah. Then Rand "learned from those mistakes" and avoided stuff like that, and failed to ever stand out.

Let's face it. While we're Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the media machine is still busy 24/7 telling the impressionable what to think about stuff. That was no easy thing to counter at the time. It still isn't, even though the MSM has been discrediting the hell out of itself ever since.

The Kennedy name, however, could be an interesting monkey wrench in that machine. It won't go away, it has history that won't go away, and it has been lauded by the left for so long that they can't dismiss it for agreeing with someone on something outside the orthodoxy from time to time.

Where did Rand Paul attack the intelligence services regarding 9/11? Where did he attack Rudy Giuliani or Jeb Bush or anybody regarding 9/11? I mean...you're saying he leared from Ron Paul's mistakes. Sorry but I don't see that. Rand has done a good job attacking Fauci over lockdowns and mandates and the origins of COVID-19 but he's still praising Operation Warp Speed. RFk Jr. has been the "Donald Trump" this year attacking big pharma head on. So, RFK jr. learned the lessons of Trump. Don't be afraid to go balls to the wall and tick people off if that means being relevant. The Kennedy name only got RKF Jr. to the dance floor that's not what's moving hiis feet.

 

[acptulsa]

Where did Rand Paul attack...?

The lesson Rand thought he learned from Ron's mistakes seem to have leaned more toward making less waves in general. Which, I agree, just made him milquetoast. It would have been hilarious if he had gone with a strategy nearly identical to Trump's. Then we'd have been treated to the spectacle of the media playing the one up to get Republican voters excited about it, while playing the other one down. That sort of thing always makes for good memes.

RFk Jr. has been the "Donald Trump" this year attacking big pharma head on. So, RFK jr. learned the lessons of Trump. Don't be afraid to go balls to the wall and tick people off if that means being relevant. The Kennedy name only got RKF Jr. to the dance floor that's not what's moving hiis feet.

Call them the lessons of Trump if you want. But he learned them from father, uncle and cousin.