Posted on 05/12/2011 6:46:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Ron Paul wouldn't have approved Osama bin Laden operation
By: Juana Summers May 12, 2011 07:27 AM EDT
Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.
"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"
Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."
"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I spoke to him on a talk show the day before the Iowa caucuses. When asked what he would do if a ship was heading from N. Korea to Iran with nuclear missles, he answered that he would do nothing. That forever disqualified him from being commander in chief.
I don’t know why anybody is still talking about Ron Paul.
Thank you. Sure am glad to see someone appreciated the facts. ;*)
Why are you asking such a ridiculous hypothetical question? Republicans will never nominate this idiot. He is crazy.
:-)
I wish he would call himself something other than a Republican. He is strange.
*Hangs head in shame, looks desperately for coffee*
To get the reaction from folks that disagree with Ron Paul. And to see if the reaction is the same as when I post that I would never vote for Mit Romney and some of the other candidates running for the nomination. I also find it interesting the ad hominem attacks Paul draws. To me it shows just how close Republicans really are to Democrats.
Please post for us where the US Constitution alows for the invasion of another soveriegn nation without the declaration of war.
Our nation was not founded to build and empire sir but to protect the intrests of its citizens. If our miltary was at home defending our borders and not those of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, England, Kuwait, Bahrain, and several South American countries I argue that terrorists could not have brought us to harm as they did on 9/11.
It's Ron Paul who apparantly ignores them.
They're not really 'ad hominem' when they're based on something specific Paul has said, are they?
To me it shows just how close Republicans really are to Democrats.
Some are, yes......and they're the ones we're trying to defeat. But Libertarians are far closer to Dems than conservative Republicans are.
Ron Paul has said something really, really stupid here. He's more in line with Rosie O'Donnell about this than with any freeper, or any Republican of any stripe for that matter.
Early 1800s, Tripoli, Corsairs, Tom Jefferson(a founding dad) this book (READ IT): http://www.amazon.com/Shores-Tripoli-Birth-Marines-Bluejacket/dp/1557509662/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1305214685&sr=8-4
He broke the very laws wich he helped write.
He decided to side with a mercenary, deposed pirate king to have a friendly port in the area and used the Marines and US Navy to begin America’s foray into empire building.
I would have used the knowledge of Bin laden’s residence in Pocky-stan as a cudgel to remove ALL aid we send those throwbacks. Tell them they want their aid, we want Bin Laden, Let’s make a deal or no more aid EVER.
That’s an amazing flip flop on Ron Paul’s part...
from the House archives:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=390&Itemid=
and FR archives:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/527806/posts
09/17/2001 – United States Representative Ron Paul begins Calling Upon Congress to Issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Terrorist Elements — Text of speech provided by Demidog, in liaison with Representative Paul’s staff.
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
Mr, Speaker,
Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we’re offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.
There are a couple of serious points I’d like to make.
For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap. Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.
Huh?! For calling out LRon as the nutjob that he is?!! A little Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul votes to homosexualize the US Military
Ron Paul: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents are “Islamophobes.”
I could go on … and on … and on …
credit: FReeper humblegunner, artist of the PaulTard collage.
How can an honest “constitutional conservative” argue with this speech?
Our nation was not formed to make the world a better place, it was formed to make OUR country a better place.
Leave the rest of the world to the Church. That’s her mission, not the government’s.
Ron Paul is in a different category than other politicians. He is disqualified for any consideration for president because he is an irrational nutjob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.