« John Edwards rallies against nuclear weapons |Main| McCain jokes about draft for Mideast wars »


September 04, 2007

Ron Paul: Why are we still over there?

Ron Paul published a devastating critique of Iraq war policy today:

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?

Not only was the justification to invade Iraq in the first place severely lacking, but the justification to stay is completely absent. Paul continues:

we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

"Surrender Should Not Be an Option" By Ron Paul

UPDATE: Congressman Ron Paul at the Fourth GOP Presidential Debate 9/5/07 on Youtube


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul: Why are we still over there?:


The comments to this entry are closed.

About the CandidatesHave Questions for the Candidates? Take Action on the Web Find out when they'll be in your area Report Back About the Campaign

Get Updates Via Email

Enter your email address:

Donate Now

Google Search