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.
Ah yes, fluoridation of water ... a gift to America from Nazi science used in the death camps...
Osama said the same thing.
Paul is a terrorist apologist.
And what did Ron Paul say or do at the time? Was he advocating that the US invade Afghanistan to take out AQ?
I’m pretty sure Paul wouldn’t let that stand like our other leaders did. Nor would he let future attacks stand.
Yeah, right. He was elected to Congress in 1996 and took office in January 1997. Bin laden had issued his declaration of war against us in his 1996 fatwa. And our embassies were attacked in 1998. What was Ron Paul's response to these attacks? Why did he vote against the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Why did he vote against the 1997 U.S.-Taiwan Missile Defense Cooperation bill?
Ron Paul is weak on national security issues and defense.
As a cut-and-run apologist, perhaps.
Or to give $20 billion in weapons to the country in which 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from.
“I’m pretty sure Paul wouldn’t let that stand like our other leaders did. Nor would he let future attacks stand.” LOL! I don’t know what makes you think he would have gone after the terrorists over the Cole. It is pretty clear from Paul’s speeches that he considered the Cole attack a “warning” — but the context of his speech suggests that his answer to that “warning” was not to go after the terrorists, but to pull out of the Middle East.
Kind of reminds one of bin Laden being in Dubai before 9/11 for medical care. I don’t recall know what the story in the British Press said precisely, but I think he was treated at the American Hospital. Oh well, Dubai wasn’t in the crosshairs after all we were going to give them our ports...
Of course, the doctrine of pre-emption is incompatible with official Roman Catholic as well as classical teaching on just war theory. The doctrine of pre-emption does open the door to other states making the same sorts of claims whether they are factual or not.
We are not giving Saudi Arabia anything. They are paying full price. The Saudi Royal family is a prime target of AQ, which wants to remove them from power. The government of Saudi Arabia is not the enemy. We have UK citizens who have been involved in terrorist plots against us. Do we hold the government of the UK responsible?
How about us stop sticking our noses into the Middle East completely after we take out the trash. Stop giving weapons to Saudi Arabia or saving Kuwait’s ass. I don’t care about a bunch of people who blow themselves up to make a point, apparently you do, you want us to “give” freedom to the Iraqi people who seem to don’t want it. We should have left after we captured Saddam and concentrated more of our forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border. Let the various Muslim sects kill each other.
And the Saudi money keeps rolling in to build Wahabbist mosques, Islamic centers, and camps all across the USA ... which makes no sense at all when the terrorist originate from Saudi Wahabbist Islam.
What was Slick's response? Paul wasn't commander-in-chief you know.
Where's the video clip of Clinton's phony tears at?
The government of Saudi Arabia is not the enemy.
And illegal aliens are just here to do the jobs Americans won't do.
If tyrannical/terrorist regimes such as Iran or Syria or North Korea try to do pre-emptive wars then they must be destroyed pre-emptively by the United States.
The Russians have an arms deal with Iran for 20 billion plus dollars. We are off setting the influence of the Iraninas and the Russians by assisting the Saudis. IMO I am glad we are doing it. I do not want the Iranians and Russians influence growing there. The Saudis are not calling for the extermination of Israel. Iran is and the Russians would allow it to happen.
It annoys me to see these guys waste so much popcorn.
Just war is a basic principle. Justify pre-emption for your own nation, and another nation like a great Russian bear will use the same to justify pre-emptive strikes. Such has already happened many times. We used to condemn it, but now it is “the Bush doctrine” and it is a terrible mistake in tactics and philosophy.
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.