Simply the truth, regardless of who recognizes it.
Now, unless Ron Paul thinks he knows more or better than Tommy Franks about the first hand situation in the fight, he really need to get a clue.
You said this was a “true” statement:
“...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...”
Well, surely you remember that we did help the Afghans drive the Soviet army out of their country in 1989. Then, we just “went away” (as has been proposed by Ron Paul as his “prescription” for Iraq).
As a result, the Taliban arose to fill the power vacuum left by the retreating Soviets. The Taliban were ruthless and primitive and, without an iota of gratitude, provided the training camps al Qaeda needed to prepare to attack Americans in the US on 9/11.
Surely, you remember all that? Hey, you COULD look it up. That is, if you’re not afraid to challenge your precious dogmas. OK. OK. Maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe you weren’t even born in 1989.
From that cut-and-run catastrophe, I should think it would be pretty obvious that leaving a “power vacuum” in a former war-zone (as Afghanistan was and Iraq would be) is a really, really STUPID policy.
On the other hand, “Nation-building” has been proved to be a really SMART policy by the examples of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Italy, Greece, Italy, Austria, etc. etc...
If you (and Ron Paul) really “think” that a post-WWII Germany and Japan (as examples) would have become allies of ours WITHOUT some “nation-building” after WWII, then one has to wonder if you are smoking some of Dr. Paul’s “special cigarettes”...
Hmmm...
Why am I NOT surprised that Ron Paul has announced that he is “in favor of” the STUPID policy?
Regarding our so-called “unjustified” attack on Iraq, it should be obvious that Saddam Hussein’s many attacks on our patrol aircraft clearly broke the terms of the “Cease Fire agreement” that ended the First Gulf War. Surely, you understand that if a “Cease-fire Agreement” is broken by one party, then the other party has the RIGHT to resume hostilities? There is nothing “unjustified” about it, DUmmie rants notwithstanding...
I mean, just how STUPID would you have to be to “think” that a “Cease-fire Agreement” would bind only ONE party to that agreement?
Ooops... Ron Paul IS one of “those” too, isn’t he?
I do think it’s funny that Ron Paul’s overly-fastidious objection to our initiating the Iraq compaign (”There was no “Declaration of War”!” None! Zilch! Nada! Un-lawful!) is seldom contrasted with Ron Paul’s prior support for invading Afghanistan, where there was ALSO no “Declaration of War”.
Ooops...
I wonder why more Paulistas’ heads have not exploded trying to “explain” that little piece of Paulian illogic?
Based on his fact-challenged statements, I have to conclude that Ron Paul is just another un-principled politician, pandering to the gullible. So I am not surprised that he seems to be planning to sweeten his retirement with un-spent “campaign funds”, much of which (logically) has been “contributed” by al Qaeda sympathizers.
That’s “blood-money”, IMO. Shame on him...