From your post, it looks like you are a R. Paul supporter. If you are, perhaps you could answer a question for me so I get this straight.
What is Mr. Paul advocating that the United States should do [after the fact] if OBL attacked us because of our foreign policy? What should our future actions be?
That is the important point. A president can’t always change what happened in the past before he was elected.
It makes no sense to me for Congressman Paul to have made that point unless he was getting at what he would do if he were President. Where was he headed with the comment that he did make, which I’ve heard a video clip of?
You should e-mail Dr. Paul that question. I bet he answers it.
It is impossible to speak for someone else. However, if we are honest we might be able to figure out the course of action that should be supported. For decades the US has had, as part of our foreign policy, the philosophy that the best way to deal with some countries is to destabilize the country followed by the installation of a puppet leader friendly to the interests of the administration in office. (remember the shaw of iran?) This has had mixed results from our perspective. Perhaps a different approach is called for. As it applies to Dr. Paul's position, maybe it is clear in his mind that iraq really had very little to do with the attack on our country and therefore it is a bad idea to meddle in their civil war?