Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: George W. Bush
The purpose of that list of questions was to raise questions about invading Iraq. And Iraq did not pose a credible threat of attack, certainly not an imminent one....I think the distinction is clear. Ron Paul voted against the invasion and regime change in Iraq because it did not pose such a threat. Subsequently, he was proven correct about the absence of al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion or Iraq's possession of WMD stockpiles and weapons to deliver them anywhere in the region.

A big DUHHHHHHHHHH

That means Ron Paul was opposed to the war in Iraq.

He was in fact right about the absence of al Qaida in Iraq.

Out effenstanding!!!

Of course no one claimed al Qaida was present in Iraq, or claimed their presence as a reason to invade, but no matter.

He was correct about the lack of WMDs. IMO Powell is correct that they would have been there in spades had we not invaded an sanctions lifted.

But no matter.

Ron opposed the war, perhaps history will prove hiim right, but that's a simple fact.

185 posted on 07/19/2007 7:06:49 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson
Ron opposed the war, perhaps history will prove hiim right, but that's a simple fact.

Opposing the war is nothing to be ashamed of.

Even William F. Buckley, Jr. reconsidered and said he would've opposed our invasion of Iraq. It is only the kool-aid drinkers who insist on denying reality.

188 posted on 07/19/2007 7:18:14 PM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
Of course no one claimed al Qaida was present in Iraq, or claimed their presence as a reason to invade, but no matter.

We seem to have people claiming that on most of these threads, as though Saddam (not Osama) was the leader of al-Qaeda.

He was correct about the lack of WMDs. IMO Powell is correct that they would have been there in spades had we not invaded an sanctions lifted.

So the guy who actually opposed the invasion in private with Bush but went to the U.N. with all that false information now wants to do some CYA by saying "does anyone doubt that if left unchecked, Saddam would have made WMD"...well, who the hell was suggesting that we lift the sanctions anyway? It's a straw man argument. Neither the GOP nor the Dims were saying we should lift the sanctions on Iraq.

Powell is irrelevant and was almost as incompetent as Rice is. And I don't have to tell you that they are both essentially enemies of Israel's vital security interests. Whatever the question is, Powell and Rice are not the answer. Especially if you care about Israel.
206 posted on 07/20/2007 5:01:22 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson