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.
Naïve. Deterrence is based on espionage and the determination of what your enemy's got that could destroy you.
LOL. I'm sorry I wasted my time with you. Start with learning the meaning of words in the English language. Have a nice day.
Do a little research and you will discover that some of the World Trade Center attackers were in the US on IRAQI PASSPORTS!!!
No, not the 9/11 attack, but the 1993 attack, which killed six people and injured dozens of others, if I'm not mistaken.
In fact, I recently won a $100 bet with some liberal joker when I bet him that some of the WTC attackers had Iraqi passports.
The lib, of course, doesn't even consider 1993 to be terror, because it happened under Clinton.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for payment. Libs are not only loonies politically, they are cheapskates who can't admit when they've been outsmarted.
I believe that capturing Bin Laden was lower in priortiy than preventing another attack on the scale of 9/11. I’m surprised that you would not share that belief. Would you really trade the lives of 3000 Americans for Bin Laden’s capture?
Where we differ most is in our criteria for classifying Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism. I understand full well the "nuances" of our relationship with the Saudi govenment. I also understand the Saudi's difficult situation vis a vis al Qaida's desire to topple them and establish a fundamentalist regime there. We are in agreement on the realities and differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran - we merely differ on our definitional and categorical criteria.
I would restate your characterization by saying that Iran is an overt state sponsor of terrorism, while Saudi Arabia is a covert, unofficial but de facto sponsor. The Saudis don't provide the arms, training bases, sanctuary, etc. as the Iranians do, but by funding the fanatical Wahhabist madrassas, mosques, "cultural centers", etc. which inculcate Islamist ideology around the world they are also acting as sponsors of terrorism, albeit indirectly.
These real distinctions between the Iranians and Saudis which you noted, and with which I agree, require very different strategies to counter them. Toppling the Saudi government would be disastrous, for the very reasons you outlined. Removing the Iranian regime, however, would be immensely beneficial to the cause of "world peace".
For the moment, and for a myriad of reasons, we have to play ball with the Saudis. And officially, we must make nice and "call them friend". Were I speaking in an official government capacity, I too would never state that they are state sponsors of terrorism. That is the reality, though, and in non-official discussion fora such as Free Republic I believe it is important for us to remember and acknowledge the dark reality underlying the polite "diplospeak" we must necessarily employ officially.
The reality is the Saudi Wahhabist fanatics hate and despise us as much as the Iranian Shiite fanatics. They both want our eventual destruction and the world-wide triumph of their preferred flavor if Islam. The Saudis just don't want to fight us; they believe they can accomplish their goals via subversion and indirection. The analogy in socialist ideology would be that the Iranians are the equivalent of the marxists/communists, favoring a violent overthrow of the infidel "proletariat", while the Saudis would be the Gramscians, preferring to follow a strategy of gradual cultural infiltration, co-option and transmutation.
One final comment:
RE:The big fear is that we make this into a religious war that will radicalize the billion plus Muslims in the world. Politicians tread lightly in how they describe the enemy and what needs to be done. It is obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is spreading throughout the world from Indonesia to Turkey. Our challenge is to marginalize the radical Islamic fringe and enlist the majority of Muslims to join our efforts.
Of course. This is the only sane way to proceed. There is no need for our government to use religious characterizations in formulating and implementing national policy to counter the threats these hostile states and their non-state proxies present. Conventional criteria for international relations between nation-states are sufficient.
We don't need to justify taking-out the Iranian regime by stating we abhor their fanatical beliefs, even if we do. It is more than sufficient to remove them simply because they are directly and indirectly attacking and killing people around the world, regardless of whether they do so in observance of those beliefs or just because they're miffed.
At the official government policy level there's no need to even comment on their religious beliefs - it's their ACTIONS which are unacceptable and which merit their destruction. It is long past time for the governments and leaders of the nations of the civilized world to emphatically declare and enforce some limits and boundaries on the behavior of these rogue nations. We don't have to discuss their beliefs, just let them know that certain types of behavior will be punished. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that our leaders lack the will to do this, and that is why we will pay such a bloody price in the days to come.
Did you miss the reports in the last few days of the president wanting the UNO to take on more in Iraq?
That ain’t ONE WORLD anymore than UN troops in any other country
That’s still ONE WORLD, and it’s still too much internationalism. You have merely given up and acquiesced to it. Many of us have not.
If anything there should be a multinational force in the ME because once again we are carrying the load for the European
wimpouts who have as much at stake as we do but they are too damn dumb to know it
Problem is their military probably ain’t worth diddly even if they come to their senses
Islam is a worldwide threat but once again we are the main water carriers ( well Britain and Australia are some help)
The UNO is also made up of nations who are very clearly backing, supporting and training our enemies. To think that when the UNO is involved with its perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace troops, that our enemies aren’t informed about military operations is ludicrous. You can’t get much more anti-America than the UNO.
European nations are no more obligated to contribute troops to this cause through the UNO than they are without the UNO.
We don’t need the UNO — at all(!) — and we should not be lending any more to its supposed credibility.
You don’t really think the UN is going to supply troops do you
BTW I think we should just get out of the UN
But that has nothing to do with this inane argument about Nation Building or Empire expanding
Since we now don’t have a big enough military to seize and hold the oil fields ( which we should have done under Bush I )
we may be screwed
GTH
Official Site of Racist Dirtbag David Duke
Refers to Ron Paul as “Our King” [Vanity]
10/06/2007 | Me
Posted on 10/11/2007 2:32:49 AM EDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909612/posts
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.