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.

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.

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...

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.