Jon Huntsman’s Revealing ‘Twilight Zone’ Attack Ad Against Ron Paul

A recent attack ad against Ron Paul from the Jon Huntsman campaign portrays Dr. Paul as a kooky conspiracy theorist with a “Twilight Zone” parody. What’s funny about it is that instead of making Ron Paul look bad, it just makes Jon Huntsman appear either totally ignorant or totally dishonest.

It shows Dr. Paul talking about how individuals from Skull & Bones (the Yale secret society), the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) have a great amount of influence in government. You’re supposed think this is some kind of “conspiracy theory”, but what is controversial about it? Here is a list of membership in the Trilateral Commission; David Rockefeller, Paul Volcker, Madeleine Albright, R. Nicholas Burns, John Deutch, Jane Harman, Henry Kissinger, John Negroponte, Condoleezza Rice, Lawrence Summers, Philip Zelikow, Timothy Geithner, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, Robert Zoellick, etc. Here is a list of membership in the CFR; John Abizaid, Elliott Abrams, Peter Ackerman, Madeleine Albright, James Baker III, John Bolton, L. Paul Bremer III, Zbigniew Brzezinski, R. Nicholas Burns, Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney, Wesley Clark, Ryan Crocker, Tom Daschle, etc., etc. (just to pick out a few of the names from A-D). Gosh, none of those people have had any influence in government, right? Notice the overlap, individuals who are members of both groups, and also notice as your browse through the names of influential voices in the mainstream media who are members. This attempt to prey upon people’s ignorance by implicitly denying this fact only makes Huntsman look stupid to any reasonably-well informed individual.

It next shows a clip of Dr. Paul saying that President George H. W. Bush—incidentally, a member of the aforementioned Skull & Bones, as is his son, George W. Bush, as was his son’s main contender in the 2004 election, John Kerry—announced that they were working for a “new world order”. But this statement of Dr. Paul, too, is a fact. Bush announced on September 11, 1990 that the U.S. would not tolerate Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Iraq, declaring that this crisis presented “a rare opportunity”, because “out of these troubled times, our fifth objective, a new world order, can emerge.” He repeated his goal of establishing a “new world order”—a new order of U.S. global military hegemony, that is—thereafter.

The ad next shows Dr. Paul saying that the Civil War was a senseless slaughter and suggesting that the government could have ended slavery—which was not Lincoln’s objective in the war (although he was opposed to the institution of slavery, he declared in his inaugural address, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”)—could have been achieved without 600,000 Americans being killed. This is certainly an unconventional view, but what’s wrong with that? We need more unconventional thinkers who have the courage to voice their views. It’s as though if you question whether a war was necessary or inevitable, you are some kind of heretic. You are supposed to react: “Of course the Civil War was necessary! Of course 600,000 Americans needed to die!  Blasphemer!” God forbid you rejecting conventional “wisdom”, thinking for yourself, and entertaining silly ideas like that nations should seek to do everything possible to avoid senseless massacres.

Next is a very brief clip of Ron Paul saying, “If you look at the history, you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel.” You are supposed to think: Oh my, what a nutty conspiracy theorist. Except that, of course, Dr. Paul is correct. This, too, is not even controversial. When the Hamas charter was first published in 1988, the New York Times observed that “Israeli authorities have taken no direct action against Hamas” and relayed the belief among many Palestinians that “the fundamentalists are being tolerated by the Israeli security forces in hopes of splitting the uprising [the first Intifada]”, and as a force to counter the PLO, which posed a threat to Israel because it had dangerously joined the international consensus on a two-state solution. In fact, Israel had reportedly funded the Hamas parent organization, Mujama al-Islamiya, which had been legally registered in Israel by Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin nearly a decade before the Hamas charter was announced. A Wall Street Journal article pointing this out was entitled “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas” (it’s not currently loading for me, so here’s Google’s cache of it, just in case).

The next clip in the ad is of Dr. Paul saying asking during a debate, “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years”. Then it plays a question put to Dr. Paul, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?” This is one of the most frequently repeated attacks against Ron Paul. When you boil it down, Dr. Paul’s sin is that he is too honest with Americans, and he speaks truths people don’t like to hear. Again, his statements about what motivated those responsible for the 9/11 attacks are completely uncontroversial. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.” Is the 9/11 Commission “suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks”? This kind of mindlessness and willful ignorance among media commentators and politicians like Jon Huntsman is a huge part of what is wrong with this country, and Ron Paul’s refreshing honesty is a good remedy.

The next clip is of Dr. Paul saying in a debate about Iran, “The Israelis are there, the United States is there, all these countries, China has nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a [nuclear] weapon. Internationally, they’d be given more respect.” It’s not entirely clear what the point of including this clip is. Presumably, you are supposed to think that Dr. Paul is in favor of Iran getting the bomb or something. But is what he said controversial? When former Israeli prime minister and current defense minister Ehud Barak was asked by Charlie Rose, “If you were Iran wouldn’t you want a nuclear weapon?” his reply was, “Probably, probably. I don’t delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel. They have their history of 4,000 years. They look around and they see the Indians are nuclear. The Chinese are nuclear, Pakistan is nuclear … not to mention the Russians.” Jon Huntsman must think Ehud Barak is completely loony.

What’s most enlightening about the attacks on Dr. Paul and his views and positions is the fact that when you really get down to it, his sin is that he’s too unwilling to tow the official line on issues across the board, too willing to challenge the lies and war propaganda, and too honest with the American public about real issues. These, then, are the true reasons you are not supposed to vote for Ron Paul.

  • http://www.jsnyd.com JSnyd

    Fantastic breakdown of this bizarre ad. Since there are no substantive grounds with which to attack Ron, his opponents are the ones that end up looking like THEY belong in the psych ward.

    God forbid we end our wars, end our empire, and take our enemies words at face value.

    Thank you for the breaking it down. I guess this is a last ditch effort by a guy with single digit poll numbers.

    AWAKEN THE ERUDITE

  • http://www.givejonadollar.com Jon @ Givejonadollar.com

    Typical attacks, but Paul is getting in the attack game too.

    It must be done. Differences have to be raised and pointed out especially with so many of them (minus Paul) saying essentially the same thing.

    I think if this thing draws out to the end, and I think it will with the winner take all rules modified, then Ron Paul could be the next nominee and that is what is scaring the hell out of the establishment.

    As much as it might surprise people, I don’t think the Republicans would mind Ron Paul that much. It would be the Democrats that would really hate him, as he is the perfect embodimient of everything they are supposed to be minus the economic issues.

    A true anti-war guy, who can explain his position well, and is a champion on civil liberties would be a nightmare to Obama as Democrats would flee in droves to Paul as would the Republican and Independent vote to remove Obama.

    • Brad Smith

      I agree about the Democrats hating him. However, it’s the hardcore Democrats who simply will vote Obama, regardless of what he does, who would feel like hypocrites if they ever admitted to themselves just how much they must betray to continue to support Obama.

  • Brad Smith

    Great article and I agree with your assesment 100%.

    I would like to point out one more thing as well. When Ron Paul was talking about slaves he mentioned buying them out of slavery. Again this is far from wacky this was in fact how England freed their slaves. (before our civil war)

    http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm

    Purposes of the Act

    The purposes of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 were described in the preamble to the Bill as:

    “the abolition of slavery throughout the British colonies”;

    “for promoting the industry of the manumitted slaves”; and

    “for compensating the persons hitherto entitled to the services of such slaves”.

    The second purpose was achieved by providing for a period of apprenticeship.

    The third purpose was achieved by appropriating £20 million — a huge sum in those days — to compensate slave owners.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Thanks for that, Brad.

  • Anti-State

    Thank you, nice job!

  • Mike McKee

    The Paul campaign should offer to buy this from Huntsman so they can run it themselves.