They have done less well at using the talking points they were obviously given by a Zionist group, attacking Ron Paul for appearing on the Alex Jones show, for commenting immediately after 9/11 that the Bush Administration was over-joyed because it gave them a pretext for war on Iraq, and–from the Wall Street Journal but clearly part of some talking points paper–for connecting 9/11 and attacks on the US to what the US has done in the Middle East [to which we would add, US support for all but two dictators for the past fifty years].
It's bad enough that we have to deal with Republican candidates and a Democratic incumbent unable to discern the truth, much less articulate it. To have a broad attack unleashed against Ron Paul–one with enough money behind it to draw in CNN and the Wall Street Journal, is of grave concern. He speaks truth–those that seek to diminish him profit from lies.
Sample Headlines [Clearly an Orchestrated Funded Campaign]
It seemed improbable that the best-known American propagandist for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is. [Dorothy Rabinowitz]
Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because “we've been in the Middle East.”
Mr. Paul has been soundly criticized for evoking a policy that would drastically reduce foreign aid to countries such as Israel.
In Defense of Ron Paul:
2011-12-21 2012: Poll: Paul leads in Iowa [MSNBC]
2011-12-20 Ron Paul Is Not a 9/11 Truther
2011-12-20 What if Ron Paul wins in Iowa?
You don't have to agree with Paul, but after a career of quixotic stands, he's earned the right to be taken seriously in his final campaign.