Unknowing De Facto leader of the 9/11 Truther movement has spoken and again greeted as Nostradamus with impeccable ratings on his newest YouTube video. Ron Paul speaks in platitudes commonly interweaving his opinions and facts in such a manner that distinguishing the two becomes a chore. His followers seldom question the man as doing so would border sacrilege and continue rabidly distributing Paul's speeches so the rest of us can see the light. Sure, Paul has plenty of great ideas and he is probably the only prolific small government politician with a modicum of media exposure, but his legion of followers are youthful for a reason. Paul appeals to their Utopian and rebellious nature in similar fashion Obama captured the other idealistic liberal youth vote, albeit for entirely different reasons. One must always question and be aware of Paul's approach, his absolutist and often simplistic angles both inspire and dull the senses. If he can stand in front of Congress and state with egotistical certainty that "Israel created Hamas", then he can accuse America of intervening into Iran's peaceful nuclear approach. When a man is willing (either knowingly or not) to level such inane charges against Israel he will stop at nothing to get his agenda across and does so in today's video.

Paul first accuses Obama of being under the influence of "Neocons" - a charge so baseless it's comical. Typical of Paul to utilize a misused term often served as a cryptic anti-semitic slur against anyone in support of Israel. Yes good doctor, Obama's administration support for Israel is indeed nauseating. He then accuses America of pressuring innocent Iran with sanctions, (same Iran vowed to spread Islam by the sword and wipe Israel off the map) suggesting we are simply radicalizing the Iranian base. If they are not radical yet then I can't wait to see what is coming. Lastly he flatly states that Iran has broken no laws and is acting within a legal framework, in stark contrast to IAEA's chief statement: Secret nuclear plant broke transparency law. Is America over involved in the world and overreaching as world police? Possibly, but foreign policy is far more complex than Ron Paul would like you to believe.

Here is some unconventional thought for you. We are not in Iraq because of nuclear weapons, in fact that never the intention. We are in the Middle East for an entirely different reason, to stop Al Qaeda. Many consider AQ nothing more than dwellers, but their sophistication is beyond anything we can imagine. America's military might could not stop AQ in Afghanistan (Tora Bora), a war that may have toppled the Taliban temporarily but ultimately resulted in failure. Bush and his administration understood that stopping Al Qaeda meant stopping financing and virtually all financing flowed through Saudi Arabia. Saudis were not interested in curtailing their radical Wahabi offspring and America was powerless to convince them otherwise. Unfortunately America was perceived as a weakling due to it's numerous military withdrawals and incapable of invasion. Invading Iraq quickly while creating a presence in a vital geographical area was deemed strategic and in our nation's self interest.

Ron Paul is an idealist, blaming 9/11 for our intervention, but his theory only holds water if we could have avoided the following: Angering the mujaheddin by launching bases from Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war - an action that Osama has never forgiven. Creating the mujaheddin via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Trying to stop Soviets from capturing Afghanistan. Encircling the Soviets during the Cold War causing them to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Allying with the Soviets during WW2 giving them an opportunity to take over half of Europe while defeating the Nazis. Perhaps then AQ would not have existed, a most problematic solution. Where does Paul's appeasement end? Every action from supporting Saddam to helping the Shah of Iran to working with Pakistan and hundreds of other relationships easily stem back 50 years or more. Of course to Paul and his supporters life is peaceful and straightforward, if only we could just stop intervening. At that rate, let's remind the Muslims that half the lands they are fighting over were acquired by force and never belonged to them in the first place. Would that be silly? Sure, but it's the equivalent of Ron Paul's debate.

We are not in Iraq wasting our time and the lives of precious Americans, we are in Iraq because we faced a very real enemy, an enemy whose ambition was to acquire a portable 10-kiloton nuclear device and detonate it in Manhattan. A threat heightened after 9/11 to the point where every intelligence agency in the US was paralyzed. Is it a coincidence that we are now more successful against Al Qaeda than ever before? Not at all. Would Ron Paul and his followers ever accept the idea that we are in Iraq to protect ourselves and are accomplishing the task? Never. They instead prefer to pontificate on the oppressing Neocon influence and our insatiable appetite for oil. Ignorance is dangerous.