Republicans had Congress and the Presidency for 6 years.Well, Bush chose to spend all his political capital in Iraq. I supported that war, and still do, but maybe, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, maybe it would have been better to keep the overflights and enforcing the no-fly zone, and use 9/11 as the excuse needed to build a strong border fence. I think his popularity would have soared, in that case, instead of plummeted. But he believed in the war, believes in the war, as did I. As do I. But war has a price.
Now, what did Ron Paul mean by that? Did he mean that US foreign policy has been bad, and that terrorists are rightfully riled up over it? That appears to be how many have interpreted his remarks. But perhaps he just meant that, although US foreign policy may have been reasonable, it nevertheless has caused terrorists to wrongfully be offended. If that's what he meant (and I don't pretend to know,) then there is an analogy between his remakrs and yours: namely, that even policies that are reasonable (or even excellent) on the their merits alone, may not be wise in a larger, strategic context.
Bush could have used 9/11 to get rid of illegal immigration, deport the illegals, cut down on government waste to pay for the war, maybe even reform entitlements to pay for the war. But that would have been a great and a good President. Not Bush.