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.
Entirely different situations. The former CIC's bombing of Bosnian Serbs and his intervention into Haiti had nothing to do with US national security. The war in Iraq against Islamic jihadists has everything to do with our long-range national security, our economic stability, and the very future of the world.
1997
“Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey’s policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who’s controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians.
The main goal of American policy appears to be to kill Hussein. If there was a clear understanding of this region, one would realize that this would probably lead to more chaos, more hatred toward America, and most likely cause a greater threat of terrorism here in the United States.
Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel.
A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East. “
Klaus, which country you from, anyway, boy?
I assume this ramble is by Paul? If so, was it made around a campfire with a bunch of other people who believe if we just leave everyone alone, they won't hate us? Maybe we should just surrender now?..
..now everyone do the Paul Peace Chant..Ohm Ronnie Paulll Hummmmmm and visualize whirled peas...
I don’t like Sean Hannity at all, he’s a simpleton, though a bulldog. But the previous comparison was ludicrous.
Yes you asked for something that predated the Cole.
Who is Sean Hannity?
IMO, the most important thing that Paul and his supporters (and others) seem to forget is that Saddam defied all of the UN Resolutions that ended the first war (and allowed him to remain in power!), Desert Storm, and after years and years of defiance, he was finally brought to justice. For that reason alone, we and our allies were absolutely right in toppling Saddam and his regime.
Is that an order?
I should have pinged you on #269 as well!
“That isn’t a specific policy, that is isolationist platitudes..”
It’s more of a non-interventionists policy he suggests. The other policy he describes is what got us to this point.
In the day, “Our foreign policy is without sense or reason.”
Hi Allegra! It’s always good to “see” ya. Hope all is well wherever you are tonight. You’re one of my favorite folks because you support the troops, their mission, and your personal observances of the situation in Iraq are so interesting and enlightening. :)
I’m against the UN so naturally I don’t agree with that. I don’t think we should ever use the UN to justify our sending troops in. On the other hand, if we said Saddam had a hand in 911, tried to kill George Bush, gave anthrax to Atta and these are the reasons for a full out declaration of war against Iraq. Then I’d be happy with it.
Most Paul supporters don’t like the UN.
Actually, most Paul supporters claim that UN resolutions are not Constitutional justifications to go to war. Of course, they completely ignore Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10 which authorizes Congress to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations. In other words, Congress is given the right to decided if an international law/agreement is in the US's best interest to 'define and punish'.... they may not agree, but the unConstitutionality is bogus.
I don’t like the UN either, but I still believe (with or without UN approval) we should have gone into Iraq and taken care of Saddam and his regime.
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.