The main difference between the Republican candidates is that Ron Paul was the only one who opposed the war in Iraq. Certainly all Americans were rightfully enraged over the attack of 911, and we were ready to kill whoever did it. But the thing is, Iraq didn’t do it. President Bush has publicly stated that and he also admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. You can even watch him say so in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM&eurl=http://www.prisonplanet....

We also know from the 911 Report that none of the hijackers were even from Iraq. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden is also from Saudi Arabia. But we haven’t done anything to Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden remains free. In his last visit to Saudi Arabia President Bush was photographed hugging the Saudi diplomats. So how does it make sense that we attack and destroy a country that did nothing to us, while at the same time we embrace representatives of the country whose fingerprints are all over 911? Now I am not suggesting that we attack Saudi Arabia. I’m simply pointing out that there is no logical national security justification for attacking Iraq. It makes no sense either from the perspective of retaliating for 911 or for preventing future attacks.

We’ve lost more people in Iraq than we lost on 911. The cost is now over ½ trillion dollars and will likely be far more than that before it’s all over.
So why is it that the Republican voters want a candidate who would keep us in Iraq for 100 years when they could have Ron Paul who would get us out right away?

This is something we need to understand if we are to have any chance of getting Ron Paul nominated. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?