Paul Right, Romney Wrong on Iraq and 9/11

John Birch Society ^ | 8-8-07 | Gary Benoit

[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.

[billbears]

not because Iraq was behind 9/11, but because we want to prevent similar attacks

And of course the best way to do that is remove the secular government and establish one based partially on a crazy religion right?

[CJ Wolf]

and alot of them did.

[jrooney]

Posting an endorsement by the John Birch Society, not flattering. Ron Paul is definitely not right on the war and history will prove as much. History will also prove Ron Paul was not reelected as a Congressman because of his views, after he received a dismal showing in the 2008 POTUS race.

[SJackson]

I posted some of the relevent whereas' in post 62, all of which I agree with.

The essential disagreement centers around preemption. Where some of us are willing to take military action to elimanate a threat to America, Ron Paul would use military force after the fact. Noting that America's military strengths will deter a potential enemy. Just as they deterred some Islamic group about 6 years ago, like most Americans the details escape me now. Preemption is immoral, after all.

[CJ Wolf]

I’m not a fan of the patriot act. What you do instead is remove the threat, by force, which we still haven’t done...

[jrooney]

Ron Paul would fight terror and our enemies on defense, AFTER they have attacked us on our soil. Exactly the opponent al Qaeda and our foreign enemies would like to fight. One that can be defeated because they will not go on the offense. If Ron Paul was POTUS when Pearl Harbor was attacked, he would not have taken the fight to the Japanese because he would be busy convincing the American public we deserved it and should stay out of the fight. If Ron Paul was POTUS during WW2, the French would be speaking German today.

[soccermom]

LOL! You guys crack me up with your Wonderland language. A free, democratic election = "establishing" a government. If the "secular" government funds terror and seeks to rebuild a weapons program, I want it removed. If the citizens of the country choose to replace it with a government that is "based partially on a 'crazy' religion", that is their choice. And if that government sponsors terror, we will take it on. I don't understand the logic of people who presume that, because a government is secular, it is incapable of violence and madness. Saddam and Stalin were among the most violent madmen around.

[jveritas]

I called CBC last year about this and I asked if I can talk to the reporter who wrote this to check if can give me a copy of this document. They told me that he is working in their London office. I sent him an e-mail but he never replied.

[CJ Wolf]

“Just as they deterred some Islamic group about 6 years ago”

this goes back to the coulda woulda argument. Pre-9/11 We knew Al Queda wanted to strike our soil, we never responded to the Cole or many other attacks. I’m pretty sure Paul wouldn’t let that stand like our other leaders did. Nor would he let future attacks stand.

[jveritas]

We are removing the threat of islamic terrorism by force as we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

God bless our brave troops and President Bush.

[jrooney]

Amen JV. Amen.

[CJ Wolf]

“God bless our brave troops and President Bush.”

That’s worthy of repeating. And God Bless the United States of America as well.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

The ticket should be Paul/Gravel ‘08!

[kabar]

I’m not a fan of the patriot act.

Are you in favor of abolishing it?

What you do instead is remove the threat, by force, which we still haven’t done...

It is not for a lack of trying. We are killing them in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Horn of Africa and in the Philippines, etc. In order to apply force, you need good intelligence. AQ has cells in over 60 countries including the US.

[kabar]

AQ is a non-state actor. Deterrence doesn’t work.

[billbears]

Well you know it’s just that silly watching history repeat itself in the same region. Course this is what you get trying to keep together a nation created by outside forces after WWI isn’t it?

[The Pack Knight]

When Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996 we should have sent Jack Sparrow the Jihad hunter after him at a minimum.

We should have invaded Afghanistan in 1996. Private hit squads like you seem to be suggesting have their uses, but they're extremely limited in what they can accomplish.

This is pretty much what we did in Nicaragua, Angola, and countless other places, with very mixed results. Even if they managed to kill bin Laden, it would have done little or nothing to prevent September 11 because there is nothing they could have done to shut down Afghanistan as a sanctuary, training ground, and base of operations for terrorists.

Unfortunately, we lacked the political will to do what needed to be done in Afghanistan until after we were attacked. Saddam Hussein, like bin Laden, also made numerous threats against the United States, and he had access to infinitely greater resources with which to make good on those threats. We are fortunate that we have a President with the moral courage not to do what we did with Afghanistan and wait until after he made good on those threats to do something about it.

There is no quick, clean, cheap way to fight a war, and I'm tired of politicians like Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, other Republicans and all the Democrats who supposedly think they have what it takes to lead the country trying to tell us there is. They're simply trying to manipulate an understandably war-weary public by telling them what they want to hear, rather than telling them the hard truth that we face a tough, resourceful, determined enemy hell-bent on destroying our country and way of life, and that there is a lot more blood to be spilt, money to be spent, and reversals to be suffered and endured if we're to achieve victory over that enemy.

Unfortunately, it's a rare politician these days who would rather lead than pander. Our republic is the poorer for it.

[jveritas]

God bless America.

[jveritas]

JR :)

[Siobhan]

I haven’t read anything by Gary Benoit in a very long time. This is very interesting coming from him.