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.
You misunderstood me. The only deterrence that works is killing enough of them that they're no longer a threat. Not much different than state actors.
Oh I have read the claims. And you are absolutely right about the difference between sodium fluoride and monobase.
I love that graphic! LOL
The Birch Society supports its fair-haired boy.
Was it WMDs?
I honestly don't recall what specifically was the real reason we went into Iraq. What was it?
“Let’s try to keep this to the subject of the thread all.”
Okay.
Ron Paul is insane.
I apologize, I didn't realize you were being sarcastic (considering the source of the article, I should have guessed).. sometimes some nuts come around spreading this crap and they don't even have a high school understanding of chemistry, they just read something on a website or in The New American and think it is true... a lot of us are quick to watch out for the foil hats..
It is certainly understandable that nations who feel threatened undertake extraordinary actions. Having porous national borders with Mexico and Canada underlines the problems with the present policies because any number of terrorists and weapons could be in the USA already.
I am critical of the decisions taken with regard to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but I do not disagree with the need for immediate intervention in Afghanistan. I remain doubtful about our failure to fire-bomb the poppy fields in Afghanistan which had been the source of money that kept Taleban and warlords going. But these things will be better studied and evaluated fifty years hence.
I really should use the “/ sarcasm” tag more often.
I think everyone needs to be reminded as everyone thinks it is their one pet thing, not a litany of issues:
(I apologize in advance for the length)
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the dis- covery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress con- cluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction pro- grams threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unaccept- able breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the Presi- dent ‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitu- tion and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’; Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace Oct. 16, 2002 [H.J. Res. 114] VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243Page 3 116 STAT. 1499 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return prop- erty wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsi- bility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international ter- rorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repres- sion of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neigh- bors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being con- sistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243Page 4 116 STAT. 1500 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Con- gress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a demo- cratic government to replace that regime; Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sep- tember 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza- tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40); and Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
You are obviously unaware that John Birch never heard of the John Birch Society. I respectfully suggest you need to "study-up" a little...
“And by the way, what parts are unconsitutional and who has challenged its constitutionality in court?”
***CRICKETS***
Just remember this though: Paul's supporters are not going to be denied. If Paul is not nominated or treated like dirt from the GOP establishment, these folks are going to stay home or vote 3rd party. And their staying home will give the Rat the edge in the general election.
My advice to you guys would be to work with Paul and not against him, disagree with him on Iraq like adults, but revere him for his views of limited government and a return to Constitutional principles. Let him speak at the GOP convention. Ask him to endorse Hunter or Fred Thompson if you want to see the Republicans victorious in November.
Or you can bash him like you're doing now, laughing at him and his supporters, calling him names, kook, nut, etc. at this man who has been a devout Christian all his life. (And here I thought FR was a site full of respectful Christians) But when the feces hits the fan in November 2008, you same guys are going to be whining and moaning that "those stupid Losertarian" voters didn't vote for the GOP nominee.
Consider this my Opus from the Paul threads. Goodbye, and may God bless Ron Paul, America, FR, and our troops serving in Iraq.
FYI: You and the other Paulanistas are changing NO ONE with your incessant Paul spam.
Ultimately all you are doing is....pleasuring yourself.
Well when the John Birch society and moveon are on thesame page that says a lot.
BTW is R Paul aware of Iraqi’s complicity in the first WTC bombing?
IS he naive enough to buy into the idea that so long as the supporters of terrorist have a veneer of plausible deniability they should be able to get away with supporting groups like Al Queda, Hamas and Hezbollah?
“Enough with the over-patriotic B.S, not normal patriotisim but the pretentious, holier-than-though patriotisim that the Sean Hannity types display.” Wow. You can NEVER have to much patriotism. Loyalty to ones comrades, country and God is a great thing and I say let us see much more of it.
Are you sucking this out of your thumb? Ron Paul did not call for a declaration of war in 1998 or 2000 after AQ attacked us. You can posit whatever you want, but Ron Paul is an islolationist who will not take action when it counts. He is part of the "Blame America" crowd that believes 9/11 was our fault.
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.