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.
No Wolfie. You have to be able to identify the enemy to fight a war. Ru Paul is either incompetent in that regard, or too cowardly to stand up for his country.
LOL. 9/11 was just one manifestation of the threat AQ and militant Islamic fundamentalism poses to the US. Armed pilots could not have prevented WTC I, the attack against our embassies in East Africa, the attack against the USS Cole, and foiled plots like the Millenium bomber and the Ft. Dix six. The best defense against this enemy is intelligence, shared by all of the appropriate agencies of government. If we had had the tools provided by the Patriot Act prior to 9/11, it is quite possible that the perpetrators would never have even boarded those planes.
Cyclopsie, Iraq and Saddam were identifiable enemy’s. Paul did propose a declaration of war in 2002 against Iraq, which I personally would have approved of, even though I know he’d vote against it.
But today a declaration of war is an ‘anachronism’, like most of the constitution. We just don’t do it anymore, instead we list a bunch of violated UN resolutions as justification. It seems like you are ok with that approach, am I correct?
Ten Facts About Ron Paul That May Shock You
- Ron Paul is a reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson.
- Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his Bill of Rights.
- Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Constitution and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
- Ron Paul has no alarm clock, but instead wakes every morning to the call of freedom.
- Ron Paul was raised in the wild by a pair of American bald eagles.
- Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.
- Ron Paul lives in a house made of integrity.
- Ron Paul doesn't sleep. He deliberates.
- I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Ron Paul.
- If you pull Ron Paul's finger, a band will march by playing Yankee Doodle Dandy.
LOL. Posting the same drivel another 100 times on a Paul thread, I see. Maybe you and the Paul bashers need to kick it up a notch. The whips and chains in the dungy basement so far isn’t working for you guys.
You know you list all those attacks and what did we do? Pretty much nothing. It wasn’t the patriot act that would save us. When Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996 we should have sent Jack Sparrow the Jihad hunter after him at a minimum.
lol
I have no problem with Mr. Paul but he’s absolutely wrong as Joseph has shown.
“It wasn’t the patriot act that would save us.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/17/81913.shtml
Well said. That’s really the way it would have been had Algore won.
“Now that the Patriot Act has been gutted by the Senate, however, plots like those cited above will presumably proceed to their successful completion.”
I think we’ve foiled a few as well since the the Patriot act was gutted. But then again, the article doesn’t say how the patriot act helped foil these plots and it is newmax after all. It’s like linking to the JBS. ;-)
Good for you, you support the UN.
It’s crap like this that causes me to totally discount the Birchers.
I don’t think Paul is an extremist, just a loon with no chance.
LOL! Yep — what kinda nut would link a JBS article? ;-)
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. The point is that we were attacked repeatedly culminating with 9/11, an attack that inflicted more casualties than Pearl Harbor. The question is what do we do now. The Patriot Act is part of that response and yet Ron Paul seems to be in a state of denial. He votes against the Patriot Act despite 9/11. What’s wrong with this guy?
I suggest you read those 23 reasons why we went to war in Iraq contained in the Joint Resolution. Most of them had nothing to do with the UN.
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.