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.
Then where Iraq is concerned Ron Paul fans would know why Gary Benoit has his head up his posterior.
RP actually sees things very differently from the “Blame America” crowd, but I think you are basically right on the end result.
Was it WMDs?
I honestly don't recall what specifically was the real reason we went into Iraq. What was it?
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
Uh...Thanks for that. But could you kind of boil it down to 3 or 4 sentences?
You know, I am always suspicious of those that get real wordy when asked simple, direct questions. Nothing against you of course.
Actually if Ron Paul were president, the USS Cole bombing wouldn’t have happened.
I’ll quote him on it.
“No one should be surprised by the terrible USS Cole tragedy. If the administration understood the history of the region, it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port....The USS Cole disaster was needless and preventable. The loss of this vessel and the tragic deaths of 17 Americans were a direct consequence of an interventionist policy. This policy has led to a lack of military readiness by spreading our forces too thin, increasing the danger to all Americans and our servicemen in that region in particular. It’s positively amazing we do not have the ability to protect a $1 billion dollar vessel from a rubber raft, despite our $300 billion military budget. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets, and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane. It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event. It is incapable even of investigating the incident, since the FBI was brought in to try to figure out what happened.”
Dude, you will if they have someone like a Khomeini in charge of the world’s largest exporter of oil and with the world’s largest proven oil reserves. The global economy depends on the free flow of oil from the Middle East. It is a political reality dude. I suggest you put down the reefer and get informed.
The big difference is that AQ is located in 60 different countries. There will be no negotiated settlement on the USS Missouri. We didn’t have to kill most of the Japanese or Germans to win WWII. In this one, we will have to wipe these vermin off of the face of the earth.
Failure to comply with the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war.
Failure to comply with weapons inspectors.
Continued development of WMD programs.
Failure to disclose fate or whereabouts of documented banned weapons.
Support of terrorist organizations.
Aggressive actions against their neighbors.
Aggressive actions against US assets.
Genocide against it’s own population.
There is no purge.
It is no secret. The US retains the right to use nuclear weapons first if we believe it is justified to defend this country. It is our stated policy. We will not wait until we are attacked by nuclear weapons.
I won't address the rest of your scatological comments, which have nothing to do with the subject of preemptive attacks.
Let’s say that all of our troops are home in, say, oh, five years. Let’s just say. Let’s pretend (excuse me) that Iraq will be genuinely sovereign again in five years. I don’t believe it will happen, but let’s pretend (hope, okay.)
Will the government in Baghdad be friendly to the United States? Will they not be a threat to Israel? Will terrorism be expunged from Iraq and remain so under the law enforcement and military of the Iraqis themselves? This is very hard to believe.
I believe the policy in Washington (not just the Bush administration) is to remain in Iraq indefinitely.
I believe that an ever-improving intelligence network, air and sea forces with high-tech weaponry, and sparing use of special forces would have been the answer from the time of 9/11 to the present. This is the answer to the nukes as well — hightail weaponry.
If we were not afraid to invade a nation using our hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, then we should not have been afraid AT THAT TIME to take out anything we wanted to take out from the air, INCLUDING Iran’s nuke research and bomb-making facilities.
From 2001 to the present, we should have continued a high-tech missile and bombing campaign on any target suspected of being a terrorist training camp or hole-up. I believe that continued bombing and missile attacks(not indiscriminately, but with an ever-bettering intelligence program, expecting mistakes, but going forward) would have made the common population turn against the terrorists faster than anything else.
I firmly believe we could have been making major bullseye attacks on terrorist targets from the air and sea, from where the terrorists themselves could not have touched us. And keep it going — and keep it going — and keep it going!
To make this work, however, we needed a president who did not feel that the news media, in time of war, needed any information whatsoever, until, say, 30 days minimum after an attack was completed and the results properly analyzed for intelligence purposes. All operational news would have been 30 days old, and this to keep our enemies from getting anything at all before hand.
If we are at war, I don't believe that the American people truly understand that. I am not convinced FIGHTING and WINNING and ENDING a WAR is the priority of the Bush administration. I'd be more comfortable to see us FIGHTING, WINNING and getting the job DONE. NOT nation-building. At present we are looking for ways to let the One-World Government have more power in Iraq, according to recent news reports. A hand-picked corp of journalists and historians could be bunkered at the Pentagon, under a gag order, the schedule of news releases provided by our military planners, to assure nothing in the news compromises the success of the next mission. Any unauthorized release of news would mean PRISON time for that journalist or historian.
Nation-building? I’m against it. The Iraqi government we leave when we pull out will support and fund and train our enemies, or they will turn a blind eye to those within their borders who do.
That’s a much more coherent position than the fiction that Paul would have attacked bases, presumably in Yemen. The Cole shouldn’t have been there and the rules of engagement were insand. But under President Paul our Navy wouldn’t have been in the region at all, it would have been a Soviet/Iranian lake, more likely Soviet/Iraqi since sanctions would have been off for years. The Soviets would have gone for Sadaam. Needless to say Kuwait would be a provence, the Saudis, they could have cut a deal.
We killed enough to defang them as a viable threat. You’re right, with a mobile address, as a percentage we’ll have to kill lots more, or convince the nations harboring them to do the job for us. While I appreciate the sentiment, we won’t be able to wipe radical Islam off the face of the earth, it will reappear periodically.
Yemen wasn't our enemy. We weren't at war with Yemen. We have an embassy there and Yemen has an embassy in Washingon. Other ships had gone into the port for services. More Paul logic....
The loss of this vessel and the tragic deaths of 17 Americans were a direct consequence of an interventionist policy
Blame America again. The deaths of our personnel are our fault. US warships travel the globe. We have a right to do so. It is not a provocation. And so I guess the Paulistic solution is to keep our ships at home and not venture abroad. Then there would be no attacks.
Can you give me an example of his cultist behaivior, I'm particularly looking for his support of clearly illegal and/or immoral activity.
Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news then, FR is a very patriotic site. You will need extra tylenol if you are going to hang around here. Better get used to the fact we love the Great Ole USA! Red, White and Blue through.
“It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event”
Now why exactly did we not have that intelligence. That could be answered when you examine Bill Clinton and Senator Torricelli bill they passed through the Senate that limited our intelligence.
Our Navy performs well when they recieve support from leaders that don't loath our military.
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.