Ron Paul and Bob Barr are those of a libertarian stripe and are completely different in cause and purpose than liberals. You can lump them all together as anti-war cookes, but that really doesn’t fit. The libertarian opposition to the war may seem to overlap with liberal opposition, but the opposition stems from entirely different principles for each group.
Liberals don’t like any wielding of military might unless they are the ones doing it for their own purposes. Because they view the military as tool to wield power in their own selfinterest, they are cynical about whenever anyone else does it, even if it is for some obvious greater good such as the physical and economic safety of the whole. Their cyniscism is not surprising since they are the closest thing to communists that America is willing to tolerate and could never possibly understand a leader who is acting in the best interest of the nation as whole, rather than simply serving party interests. Their opposition to the Patriot Act comes mostly from their own fear that they personally will be targeted and their secret agendas exposed.
Libertarians on the other hand loath government power, period, and would rather have the government focused on economic and constitutionally sanctioned activities only. They would prefer America stick to founding intent to not have standing armies for more than a period of 2 years. To them, national defense means calling up the militia to defend against invaders, not going on the offensive and kicking butt half way across the world, deserved or not. If Iraq had direct participation in 9/11, their opposition may not have been so strong, but the guilt by association thing was just too much for them.
I personally did not understand their desire to vacate the battle field once the Iraq War had started. It appeared more to me that they were partnering with liberals (making deals with the devil) in a common political purpose, one having little to do with the war itself, but more to do with punishing republicans for ditching them. If this was the case, it was a rather short sighted strategy as any traction gained was to the benefit of liberals and libertarians would get nothing for it (and they haven’t). When was the last time Cato was represented on a congressional hearing panel, three years ago?
Ron Paul is really the only one of the bunch of names you listed who can explain in detail so one can map cause and effect of why he opposed the war. None of the other people can, at least in public and that leads me to believe there is far more in their rhetoric than meets the eye.
Iraq had as much or more to do with 9/11 but it doesn’t fit the left wing talking points.
Many books and docs prove this, including “Both In One Trench” Saddam’s Secret Terror documents”
“Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda” etc.
Living in a city with the largest concentration of military and having several relatives who have fought and
some still in Iraq and Afgan you have more first hand information than the left wing MSM