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

Skip to comments.

Paul Right, Romney Wrong on Iraq and 9/11
John Birch Society ^ | 8-8-07 | Gary Benoit

Posted on 08/08/2007 1:30:04 PM PDT by CJ Wolf

Ron Paul was right during the Des Moines Republican debate when he said that our going into Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. And Mitt Romney was wrong when he interrupted him.

At the Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa, on August 5, Congressman Ron Paul made clear that our going to war against Iraq had nothing to do with going after al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11.

"The neoconservatives promoted this war many, many years before it was started," Paul said during the debate. "It had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq." As Ron Paul elaborated on how wrong the neocons have been, Governor Romney, apparently attempting to telegraph his disgust with the congressman’s remarks, snidely said to the audience, "Has he forgotten about 9/11?" as he gestured with his hands. A couple seconds later, Romney again rudely interrupted — "Have you forgotten about..." — as Paul continued using the time allotted to him.

Later in the debate, Paul revisited the subject of al-Qaeda. "I supported going after the al-Qaeda into Afghanistan," he said, "but, lo and behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Osama bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation- building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that’s why we’re in this mess today."

Put simply, Ron Paul does not believe we went into Iraq because of 9/11. But Mitt Romney obviously believes we did. So who’s right?

It is true that President Bush and other neocons in his administration have repeatedly juxtaposed references to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to those of 9/11 in their public statements. In so doing, they have created the impression among many Americans — apparently including Romney — that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11. But the administration did not explicitly say this and did not even present evidence supporting this allegation. As President Bush himself said on September 17, 2003: "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

The administration did portray an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection as a concrete fact. Yet in a January 8, 2004 press conference, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged: "There is not — you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did." In truth, the evidence simply was not there.

By interrupting Congressman Paul with his "Has he forgotten about 9/11?" protestation, Governor Romney not only made himself appear less than presidential, he also confirmed that, where Iraq is concerned, he does not know what he’s talking about.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; 911truthers; asseenonstormfront; icecreammandrake; iraq; jbs; johnbirchsociety; lunaticfringe; mrspaulsshrimp; patbuchananlite; paul; paulbearers; paulestinians; porkzilla; preciousbodilyfluids; romney; sapandimpurify; tinfoilhats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-354 next last
To: CJ Wolf

In before fluoridation.


101 posted on 08/08/2007 2:43:28 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

“... capturing or killing the person responsible for 9-11 has really not been much of a priority. ...)

The real priority was ensuring there wasn’t a second 9-11.


102 posted on 08/08/2007 2:43:51 PM PDT by DugwayDuke (A patriot will cast their vote in the manner most likely to deny power to democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

Why has Ron Paul voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act?


103 posted on 08/08/2007 2:44:51 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII

nope see post 9.


104 posted on 08/08/2007 2:45:03 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: kabar

because he believes it’s unconstitutional.


105 posted on 08/08/2007 2:45:47 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

LOL! XD


106 posted on 08/08/2007 2:45:54 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Correct. After 9/11 pre-emption is the most effective way to deal with terrorist regimes and organizations or else we will have many 9/11 to come, God forbid. I think your tagline agrees with this.
107 posted on 08/08/2007 2:46:00 PM PDT by jveritas (God bless our brave troops and President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

I don’t disagree that we went into Iraq for reasons unrelated to Al Queida.

Ron Paul will NEVER be President. A bus carrying all of the other announced and unannounced candidates could fall into a hole directly to the magma filled center of the earth, killing all aboard—and Ron Paul could still not be elected.

It isnt going to happen.


108 posted on 08/08/2007 2:48:49 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We have an enemy who is trying to kill us. The Patriot Act provides the tools we need to defend ourselves. Ron Paul is a fringe lunatic.


109 posted on 08/08/2007 2:49:24 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
So, what’s a neocon?

Irving Crystal, largely regarded as the founder of the ideology, explains it best:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

110 posted on 08/08/2007 2:49:39 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

And by the way, what parts are unconsitutional and who has challenged its constitutionality in court?


111 posted on 08/08/2007 2:50:41 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Woops, it's Irving Kristol. What's wrong with my spelling today?
112 posted on 08/08/2007 2:50:42 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
IMHO, neoconservatives are a subset of the conservative movement which had its roots in the foreign policy of Scoop Jackson. Jackson, a Senator from Washington State and Boeing, advocated a muscular foreign policy which in the Cold War found allies among his conservative Republican colleagues. He also fought hard to permit Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. As a Democrat, however, Jackson frequently parted company with conservatives and their desire to keep the size and scope of government in check. The Democratic Party's aversion to the military and ennui towards the Cold War made the move to the conservative Republican Party under Ronald Reagan more palatable to neocons assuming they were willing to look the other way or ignore Reagan's support for lower taxes, the 2nd Amendment, states rights, etc. As a result many wound up in the Reagan Administration and Republican Party.

The Bush administration, staffed to an extraordinary degree by AEI (the primary neocon think tank) at the Pentagon and more than willing to expand domestic spending in virtually every direction must have seemed like a dream come true from their point of view.

113 posted on 08/08/2007 2:53:00 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

You said this was a “true” statement:

“...They forgot about Osama bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation- building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that’s why we’re in this mess today...”

Well, surely you remember that we did help the Afghans drive the Soviet army out of their country in 1989. Then, we just “went away” (as has been proposed by Ron Paul as his “prescription” for Iraq).

As a result, the Taliban arose to fill the power vacuum left by the retreating Soviets. The Taliban were ruthless and primitive and, without an iota of gratitude, provided the training camps al Qaeda needed to prepare to attack Americans in the US on 9/11.

Surely, you remember all that? Hey, you COULD look it up. That is, if you’re not afraid to challenge your precious dogmas. OK. OK. Maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe you weren’t even born in 1989.

From that cut-and-run catastrophe, I should think it would be pretty obvious that leaving a “power vacuum” in a former war-zone (as Afghanistan was and Iraq would be) is a really, really STUPID policy.

On the other hand, “Nation-building” has been proved to be a really SMART policy by the examples of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Italy, Greece, Italy, Austria, etc. etc...

If you (and Ron Paul) really “think” that a post-WWII Germany and Japan (as examples) would have become allies of ours WITHOUT some “nation-building” after WWII, then one has to wonder if you are smoking some of Dr. Paul’s “special cigarettes”...

Hmmm...

Why am I NOT surprised that Ron Paul has announced that he is “in favor of” the STUPID policy?

Regarding our so-called “unjustified” attack on Iraq, it should be obvious that Saddam Hussein’s many attacks on our patrol aircraft clearly broke the terms of the “Cease Fire agreement” that ended the First Gulf War. Surely, you understand that if a “Cease-fire Agreement” is broken by one party, then the other party has the RIGHT to resume hostilities? There is nothing “unjustified” about it, DUmmie rants notwithstanding...

I mean, just how STUPID would you have to be to “think” that a “Cease-fire Agreement” would bind only ONE party to that agreement?

Ooops... Ron Paul IS one of “those” too, isn’t he?

I do think it’s funny that Ron Paul’s overly-fastidious objection to our initiating the Iraq compaign (”There was no “Declaration of War”!” None! Zilch! Nada! Un-lawful!) is seldom contrasted with Ron Paul’s prior support for invading Afghanistan, where there was ALSO no “Declaration of War”.

Ooops...

I wonder why more Paulistas’ heads have not exploded trying to “explain” that little piece of Paulian illogic?

Based on his fact-challenged statements, I have to conclude that Ron Paul is just another un-principled politician, pandering to the gullible. So I am not surprised that he seems to be planning to sweeten his retirement with un-spent “campaign funds”, much of which (logically) has been “contributed” by al Qaeda sympathizers.

That’s “blood-money”, IMO. Shame on him...


114 posted on 08/08/2007 2:55:12 PM PDT by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
The Canadians knew there was a connection.

How sad is it that we have a Republican running for President that doesn't have a clue.

Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter
Last Updated: Monday, April 28, 2003 | 10:28 AM ET
CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html#skip300x250

115 posted on 08/08/2007 2:56:18 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

Hell, I like Ron Paul on most issues.

But, I agree completely.


116 posted on 08/08/2007 2:59:00 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
Was Ron Paul a guest speaker at the Daily Kos convention?
117 posted on 08/08/2007 3:01:06 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #118 Removed by Moderator

To: kabar

“The Patriot Act provides the tools we need to defend ourselves.”

I think armed pilots could have prevented 9/11.


119 posted on 08/08/2007 3:02:13 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

Gary Benoit does not grasp the big picture.


120 posted on 08/08/2007 3:02:41 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-354 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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