Quantcast

Categorized | News

FORMER MI5 HEAD ADMITS: INVASION OF IRAQ MADE UK LESS SAFE! COULD RON PAUL BE PROVEN RIGHT AGAIN?

MI5 is the internal security wing of the United Kingdom; it protects the homeland from espionage and terrorism.  From 2002 to 2007 Baroness Manningham-Buller was the head of it.  She testified before the UK Iraq Inquiry (I thank ConservativeHome.com for this story!) and made some astounding claims (Here’s the video from SkyNews) and here’s the report from the Christian Science Monitor): 

The Baroness asserted that there was no weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.  Then she said (I am trying to write this from the video best I can):

“It’s highly significant.  By 03/04 we were receiving an increasing number of leads to terrorist activity from within the UK and our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens, not a whole generation, a few among a generation, who saw our involvement in Iraq on top of our involvement in Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam.  *  *  *  Although the media had suggested [that the various terrorist attacks in the UK were a surprise that UK born persons were involved] that is not the case.  Because, really, there has been an increasing number of British-born individuals,…attracted to the ideology of UBL and saw the West’s activities in Iraq and Afghanistan as threatening their fellow religionists…”

Baroness Manningham-Buller also stated there was a Iraqi jihad brought about by the West’s invasion.  She also said that while the overthrow of Saddam Hussein prevented his regime from using weapons of mass destruction against the West but it did not prevent such an attack from other avenues.  She also stated that while quick strategy to improve the lives of the Iraqi people after the military victory might have reduced the terror threat, there was a clear increase of the terrorist threat against UK targets:

“…the focus was not foreigners, the rising and increasing threat was the threat from British citizens,…Al-Qaeda had not focused on the UK [until after the Iraq invasion].”

There could be the motive of the Tories seeking to hurt the Labour regime and former PM Tony Blair.  But, the Tories strongly supported Blair in both wars!  So it is still significant.  Besides, Baroness Manningham-Buller seems like a credible witness without an axe to grind politically.  She even admitted she did not specifically advise the PM [Blair] about her concerns prior to the war.  So how does this relate to Ron Paul?

Let’s go back to 2007.  The First South Carolina debate.  the mini-debate between Cong. Paul and former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.  Here’s some pertinent items from the Council on Foreign Relations site (yes I am quoting the enemy!  But it helps Ron Paul!) transcript:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

 Many laughed and sneered at Paul’s assertion of blowback.  But it appears that he was right again.  Intervention has risks.  It can and should only be used when it is in the national interest.  Liberty and the Ron Paul R3volution are on the march!  Be  encouraged.  Every day more and more come to our position.  Is it 2012 yet?  I can’t wait for that exploratory committee to be formed.

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Check out NewsMax!

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Submit a Blog Post!

Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

Google Ad

Google Ad

Follow Us Anywhere!

Google Ad

Archives

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
%d bloggers like this: