Spend a Lot of Time On Free Republic
Eating Like a Bird (Twice Your Weight Each Day)
Give Back a Little and Donate
Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and others will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up
A. I. Lazamataz needs our help.
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 ...
No it is not reasonable. Pakistan is clearly a sketchy ally at best. We barely trust their intelligence services and there is clear evidence that some within the ISI and military actively support terrorists. Here we have a chance to get UBL, the #1 terrorist in the world and responsible for all the death and carnage of 9-11 and Ron Paul thinks we should have worked with the Pakistani's? No thanks Paul. This nation got a good shot at taking Bin Laden down and properly went for it. Sitting around trying to work with the with the ISI and hoping the Paki's don't tip off the targets would have been lunacy. For some low level targets, sure work with the Pakistani's. But for the big enchilada, no way you trust Pakistan.
See, this is the lunacy you get from a libertarian like Ron Paul. Shame too, because he is so right in many areas dealing with the economy. Unfortunately, as a libertarian his nutty foreign and defense policies would be downright disastrous for this country.
Ron Pauls real name is Richard Cranium
THIS is why Wrong Paul should never be elected President. Is this wingnut so out of touch to NOT understand how Pakistan has screwed us in the past???? So, I take it Wrong would've preferred a negotiated surrender. Pakistan would've alerted bin Laden and his family, spirited them out of the area, then turned to us with a shrug and a "We dunno... he's just gone!"
There are some good points Wrong Paul brings up in the fiscal arena, but clearly... foreign policy and counterterrorism are NOT his forte. He's just not grounded in reality.
So.. are you paying attention, you PaulBots out there in FReeperLand? You REALLY think this deluded old fart is the best choice???
IMO, yes, he'd still be a wingnut. And no, he'll never get my vote.
hehehe...go back and research some of the articles from juan mcQueegs 'run' at the POTUS gig...many FReepers formed an attack squadron over any voice that said FUJM...
RP wont get nominated, but it would be pure popcorn festival ifn he did...
Because he will lead in every online poll and end up finishing fifth or worse. Now, why is that?
I would guess he’s the Macintosh of politics: a fanatical fan base, but never that much market share in the general population.
Absolutely hare-brained as is much of what he says. This guy’s living in la-la land. Sickening that he’s announcing yet another presidential run tomorrow. I’m so afraid that he’ll be another million or so vote spoiler again due to disgruntled supporters if he doesn’t get the nomination (and I pray he doesn’t!)
Another example that Ron Paul doesn’t walk his talk.
Paul voted yes to allow the president to use the military to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9-11-2001.
feh...
While I’m not at all opposed to killing Bin Laden, I’m not sure sending a military strike team into a country whom we are not at war with to do it is the best idea that could be put forth. Maybe it was, but there are a lot of folks here on FR that would raise hell if Spetznaz was sent here to whack someone the Russkies didn’t like.And since I’m convinced Zero did it for personal political gain, and not for America, the whole operation stinks to me, although I’m glad Osama is dead.JMHO....
“There is a libertarian streak in most of us Cons, but where we part ways with the true “believers” is on National Defense and Security.”
Agree on both points, and that last one is a HUGE deal-breaker for me. I get po’d every time he makes some nitwit remarks about how we’re essentially to blame for 9/11 and that “they’d” leave us alone if only we’d get out of the middle east and “stop meddling in their business”. Also, his advocating that we should let Israel fend for itself -
Blech.
“I wonder what the opinion of Ron Paul would be here, IF he should get the Republican nomination.”
About what it was when John McCain got it.
As far as “toeing the party line”, the only way to at least TRY to unseat BHO, the most dangerous and ineligible White House occupier in our lifetime, is to VOTE AGAINST HIM.
“I wonder why Ron Paul doesn’t go 3rd party before the primaries even begin?”
A third party will guarantee BHO’s second term. I PRAY neither RP nor Trump will go that route - at least Trump’s vocalized publicly that he knows a 3rd party will assure an Obama victory. So he gets it. I don’t think RP has a clue how really dangerous BHO is to this country - or else he doesn’t care.
Anyone who supports this jackass is a few cards short of a full deck. Ron Paul is a reprobate, a moral relativist. He is a leader of fools.
“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.”
OMG - that’s frightening. Ollie North just said on Hannity that until we get a change of administration, Israel knows she’ll have to stand alone.
Ron Paul would continue that “policy”.
“I don’t know why anybody is still talking about Ron Paul.”
Because he’s back - and he’s going to be a problem - again. He raised a million bucks after the Repub debate - that same night, I was told. For sure within 24 hours following it.
Ron Paul might be able to save the economy, but what good would it do us? His position on defense would eventually leave us all dead!
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.