Paul Right, Romney Wrong on Iraq and 9/11

John Birch Society ^ | 8-8-07 | Gary Benoit

[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.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Yes, Clinton’s appeasement/doing nothing resulted in the embassy bombings, the barrack attack, the attack on the USS Cole and culminated in 9/11/01. Better to be on offense than defense IMO. Also, as trite as it sounds, better there than here.

[SJackson]

Oh....and al Qaeda was in Iraq before we were. The training camp areas still stand as proof. They are just not being utilized as training camps anymore. ;-)

We're those stewardess training centers?

The relevant whereas' from the Authorization, I've no problem with any of them and the certainly don't say Sadaam was a 9/11 factor, only a future threat. Future threats were the basis of GWB's preemption policy, of which no secret was made.

----------------

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 responsibility 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 terrorist 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;

[LibLieSlayer]

If I can’t say anything nice, I’ll say nothing.

“.........................................................”

LLS

[mnehring]

No terrorist training camps here.. move along, nothing to see..

[mnehring]

Your tag line makes me think of a good question for Paullites.

Does Paul want to kill terrorists? If so, where should we do it?

[ejonesie22]

No real Career College is complete without an Airliner Hijacking Center...

And a cosmtology department...

[Porterville]

I’m not going to say anything about Ross Perot Lite.

[LibLieSlayer]

The stated reason for invasion was Saddam violating his ceasefire agreement and violating 17 UN resolutions along with expelling UN inspectors.

LLS

[ejonesie22]

Oh, now come on, even Ross Perot looks at RP and goes “damn boy!”

[griswold3]

I like your tagline...

Ron Paul reminds me of Robert Taft of WWII fame, a Nattering Nabob of Negativity.( My grandmother , to her dying day, believed we had no business in Europe and Japan was justified in the Pearl Harbor attack because we cut off their oil.) Been there, done that.

Yeah, that worked.

[Allegra]

The relevant whereas' from the Authorization, I've no problem with any of them and the certainly don't say Sadaam was a 9/11 factor, only a future threat. Future threats were the basis of GWB's preemption policy, of which no secret was made.

I'm not arguing that.

I'm a staunch supporter of Operation Iraqi Freedom and reject anything that has to do with cutting and running.

Did you perhaps mean that post for someone else?

[SJackson]

The Iraqi documents prove that Saddam had relations to Al Qaeda and that he trained the foreign Arab terrorists.... . Exactly, I posted some excerpts from the Authorization in post 62, that's what it says. And the connection to 9/11 isn't that Sadaam was directly involved as Pauls supporter tend to distort the issue, rather preemption. Which makes Romney's comments on target. Of course many don't support preemption, in which case acting after the fact, as is Afghanistan is the preferred course of action.

[mimaw]

I bet Patsy Buchanan agrees with Birch Society and Ron Paul too.

[caltrop]

All neocons aren’t Jews. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and William Bennett aren’t Jewish. It is clear, at least to me, that neocons believe American troops should be engaged almost everywhere, unless we’re talking about Africa or the subcontinent where their enthusiasm seems to fall off towards zero. Sending our ground troops to the ME does, however, seem to particularly appeal to them but of the ones I know I’d have to say only some are Israel Firsters.

[mnehring]

So, what’s a neocon?

[curiosity]

John Birch Society? Aren't there rules against posting articles from that place?

[CJ Wolf]

I’m ok with cutting their throats and leaving victorious though.

[LibLieSlayer]

As always JV, thanks for your great work.

LLS

[CJ Wolf]

If there are I apologize.

[mnehring]

I would hope the mods can make an exception in this case.. it is always good when the tinfoil hats can be disassembled by facts and they (via the thread) are available on a Google search for those researching.