***This is a talking point of Iraq detractors. It is also untrue.****
I looked through your links, but didn’t have time to read them completely yet. (The last one didn’t work.)
I did get a kick out of the Weekly Standard article. It made the claim that the administration was not releasing the information piecemeal because some media might cherry pick the information to discredit the war. Then they go on to say “11” unnamed sources in the administration had told them that Iraq was involved with terrorists. As if a neocon magazine would not support the policies of the war movement, being that neocons were a very vocal group arguing for the war.
There was also a startling admission in one of the articles which said something like, “As wrong as we were about WMD ...”
Don’t you think it a bit strange, given the unpopularity of the war, that the administration has not released any papers or actual evidence to back up the connection with terrorism??
What makes you think this information is any more accurate than the information about the WMD?
1) The information about WMDs was predictive information. IOW, it was an (in)accurate guess as to what Iraq had/didn't have in the way of WMDs. 2) That information was supported by the intelligence sources around the world. The fact that it was wrong doesn't mean that it's a bad reason to go to war. If we had found WMD, would you say the war is A-OK? I somehow doubt it. 3) This information (in re: the terrorist training) is analytical and reflective. IOW, it's reviewing records after the fact to determine what HAPPENED. If you want to think that the government lies all the time to all the people just to justify itself, I'm sure you'll have great company with Code Pink et al.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul's foreign policy is short-sighted and isolationist (whatever he chooses to call it doesn't change its actual result). And his tendency to side with our enemies and their viewpoints makes for troubling double-takes and "did he really say that out loud?" moments. These are not things to be proud of, despite the Paulites proclamations to the contrary. Common sense can be our friend over and above "lofty" and "idealistic" thinking about the Constitution.
I think Thomas Jefferson's response to the Barbary Pirates could be instructive with regards to our Middle East "entanglements" and the struggle with "radical Islam." Or maybe Jefferson's not Constitutional enough.