Therein illustrates the problem with Ron Paul and his supporters. This is a blatant liberal lie. The Iraq war was not based on lies or false pretenses and to say so is blatantly dishonest. Regime change in Iraq was policy across both parties leadership and based on Saddam Hussein repeatedly breaking his agreement to end hostilities in 1991. Hussein was both a destabilizing force in the region and a threat to the US. He was funding much of the suicide bombers in Israel (notice how that has become so much less frequent since Hussein was removed?). He was a tyrant and needed to go. We can debate whether it was wise to go in a ground war or how it was prosecuted, but the justification was there absolutely. Why was the UN so focused on resolutions against Iraq if no threat was there? The fact hat they wimped out and were corrupted in the process does not change the justification.
Saddam became a "tyrant that needed to go" in the Middle East after we stopped propping him up in his war with Iran in the 80's. How many billions did we give him when he was our "ally"?
"Destabilizing force?" He was left in power after Desert Storm because, according to the Republicans, Iraq served as a "buffer" between Iran and Israel. When did this doctrine change? After Hussein stopped taking dollars for oil. Our special interests could not let that happen. Check this article, and check the date:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html
I really don't expect you to look into it, because your little fantasies about the United States government freeing people from oppression are much more soothing.