Paul Right, Romney Wrong on Iraq and 9/11

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.

If you re-read the article that this thread started with, you will find no endorsement by the John Birch Society, which has never endorsed candidates for public office.

Your claim that somehow EEE single-handedly "got the John Birch Society behind Ron Paul" is ludicrous. If you knew anything at all about the JBS, which I seriously doubt, you would know that Rep. Paul has consistently scored highest of all members of Congress in the annual Conservative Index published in The New American, a JBS publication. While this is not the same as an endorsement, it would tend to indicate that the leadership of the JBS and Rep. Paul agree on the issues of importance to the John Birch Society (which, I would aver, might also be of importance to members of this forum).

Does their agreeing on such issues as stem cell research, immigration, the minimum wage and protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from judicial activists make Ron Paul a "kook" as you proclaim him to be?

Not in my book.

1. There is a worldwide resurgence of radical, conquest-minded Islam. This is nothing new, but has occurred repeatedly over the last fourteen-hundred years. There are literally dozens of al Qaida-type terrorist organizations, those "non-state actors" - al Qaida is only one of many. Previously, however, they lacked access to WMDs.

AQ, i.e., militant Islamic fundamentalism, is a global movemment. It is not like the Red Brigades, Tupamaros, Shining Path, etc. Moreover, AQ enjoyed state sponsorship/support from the likes of Afghanistan and to a less extent, Iran. The current surge of militant Islamic fundamentalism begain with the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini in 1979 and subsequent humiliation of the US for 444 days with the hostage crisis. The US hurried departure from Lebanon in 1983 with the bombing of the Marine barracks, the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Algeria, and the lack of a US response to repeated attacks over the 90s fed the aura and confidence of the Islamic fundamentalists who believed that the West could be defeated.

So far, AQ does not have access to WMD, at least they have no demonstrated that capability. We do know that they would have no compunction in using it. Unlike previous terrorist groups, AQ can be used as a surrogate by state sponsors like Iran who do not want to confront the West directly.

5. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the sources of the modern world-wide terrorist threat. Lesser players such as Pakistan, Syria, etc. are important, but Iran is the grand-daddy of modern Islamic terrorism (with Jimmy Carter as the midwife) since 1979, and the Saudis have followed closely by massively funding the ideological efforts via madrassas, etc. This is basic "Axis-Of-Evil" stuff, and it is real.

There are significant differences between the governments Iran and Saudi Arabia in terms of their support of terrorism. As I have indicated, the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini was a seminal event in the history of modern militant Islamic fundamentalism. It provided not only material support to groups like Hamas, but it also inspired Muslims elsewhere to rally to the cause.

The Saudis have funded madrassas and furthered the more conservative, fundamental view of Islam. Much of it was in reaction to the success of the Iranian Revolution and the fear that it would spread to the Kingdom, especially among the significant Sh'ia population of the Eastern Province. It was no accident that King Fahd changed his title in the 1980s to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques [places]. Saudi Arabia has two of the three holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina. Over a million Muslims from around the globe come to the Kingdom every year to do the haj.

Unlike the Iranian government, the removal of the Saudi monarchy is the target of bin Laden and AQ. The Saudi government does not provide support to AQ. They don't want them to succeed in their objectives. The US had and continues to have a significant presence in Saudi Arabia. We have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. I could go on and on about the differences. Suffice it to say, I don't consider Saudi Arabia to be a state sponsor of terrorism.

I notice you left out Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Historically, I don't consider Afghanstan and Iraq to be "lesser players" in the support of terrorism. There are reasons why they were on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for over a decade.

And, in accomplishing this goal it is essential to remember that the dominant pieces in this global chess game of terror and conquest are the nation-states. They are the Knights, Bishops, Rooks and Queens, with Iran and Saudi Arabia as the Kings - the terrorist organizations, al Qaida included, are merely their pawns. Pawns which are expendable. To win the game, the war of civilization, we must checkmate the kings.

It has been my position that the WOT cannot be won without regime change in Iran. That should be the objective. Again, I do no include Saudi Arabia as one of the "Kings" in terms of the WOT. They want regime change in Iran and the defeat of AQ as much as we do. Both of them pose a serious and immediate threat to the existence of the current Saudi government.

It truly bodes ill for Western civilization that our putative leaders and self-styled intelligentsia cannot honestly and forthrightly frame the issues and make the necessary arguments in our public discourse.

The big fear is that we make this into a religious war that will radicalize the billion plus Muslims in the world. Politicians tread lightly in how they describe the enemy and what needs to be done. It is obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is spreading throughout the world from Indonesia to Turkey. Our challenge is to marginalize the radical Islamic fringe and enlist the majority of Muslims to join our efforts.

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.