Ron Paul Denies Saying He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan — But Here’s th

[TheDriver]

Ahh, ad hominem attacks, how apropos. Don't debate the facts, just hurl personal insults.

Nothing personal, I just consider that line of thought--out there.

I watch Alex Jones for entertainment, as I've seeded a few of his stories myself and seen the manipulation. I like what he does, but I don't build my political belief structure around his theories, lol. A better conspiracy on 9-11 would be: who talked these fools into flying these planes into buildings? And most people agree bin Laden and company. Who were they influenced by? I can walk that path, but to ignore the central players and allege imploding is far-fetched in my world. I watched the event live, I told a co-worker that those buildings would fall in less than 2 hours after the second plane hit, as I was working for a fireproofing company. No building has over a 2-hour rating, on fireproofing. We all knew what was going to happen!

 

[Butchie]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Thank you, I am against unnecessary wars but even I'm starting to think sometimes Ron and this movement ARE naive about foreign affiars, I completely agree it's wrong to go into a sovreign nation but in this case we are talking about a nation that was taking billions of dollars in aid from us all the while hiding a man who helped to kill thousands of our citizens, they deserved no courtesy from us and neither did Bin Laden, questioning him I may say is a reasonable thing to bring up, but I could care less about whether he got a trial or not.

 

[Travlyr]

Yes, I believe what Newt implied: They were hiding him from us, and collecting money to hunt him (although Newt didn't add the second thought of that sentence).

Wouldn't be that hard, really. It's not like the Pakistanis like us or anything. Besides being powerful doesn't mean you can find a needle-in-a-haystack. Imo, it's the equivalent of the South hiding Jesse James from the North--wouldn't be that hard during, and immediately following, the Civil War.

Sure there are some reasons to ask questions, especially considering all the mis-information from the President's staff following the event, but not during an election. Which is my point: defending OBL is a losing strategy, even if questioning the events. Ron would do better focusing on the economy.

But look where they say they found him TheDriver. In plain sight.

 

[TheDriver]

Thank you, I am against unnecessary wars but even I'm starting to think sometimes Ron and this movement ARE naive about foreign affiars, I completely agree it's wrong to go into a sovreign nation but in this case we are talking about a nation that was taking billions of dollars in aid from us all the while hiding a man who helped to kill thousands of our citizens, they deserved no courtesy from us and neither did Bin Laden, questioning him I may say is a reasonable thing to bring up, but I could care less about whether he got a trial or not.

Yes, we agree. One thing: I do believe we should have taken him alive, if possible, as Americans love trophies. Obama could have probably wrapped up the election dragging bin Laden around to a few stops. "I got him, right here he is!" Seriously, we should have treated him like the Nazi's, as I think that set the kind of example we want our leaders to be judged by, assuming that day ever comes. I did read one version that said bin Laden was actually going for his weapon when shot, not dodging behind a women.

 

[Occam's Banana]

In a roundabout way, Paul said at the debate that he would not have approved the mission - he said that we should have worked with Pakistan.

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Forget working with Pakistan (things were well beyond FUBAR at that point) - we ought to have worked with Afghanistan!

That was where OBL was when this whole mess started up.

And the Taliban offered to come to terms with us on turning OBL over to us.

But that didn't suit the neo-cons' real purpose (which had nothing to do with "getting" OBL).

(And didn't Bush &/or Cheney themselves say at some point that the still-at-large OBL was no longer important?)

Another U.S. diplomacy FAIL.

This has become the modus operandi for U.S. foreign policy - bollix things up & then blame someone else (Pakistan, in this case) for the mess we created.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh for crying out loud! False choice fallacy on Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck. Ron Paul did not say that international law should have constrain America getting Bin Laden. What he did say is that when we cooperated with Pakistan we were able to capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed without violating Pakistan's sovereignty. And maybe, just maybe, this operation could have been carried out without us losing a stealth helicopter and that technology being transferred to China. Ron Paul pushed for letters of Marque and Reprisals right after 9/11 which provided constitutional and international law cover for such covert operations. Beck and Gingrich can go to hell.

 

[TheDriver]

But look where they say they found him TheDriver. In plain sight.

I'm not that familiar with Pakistan, but the "house" didn't look like the normal house you'd see in that part of the world. It looked like a holding compound of sorts. We really don't know what was up. I think it's been proven that Pakistani intelligence, al-Quaeda, the Taliban, and the Mujahideen beat to the same drum. So it's only natural OBL had a support system within the Pakistani government.

The real point: Ron is running for president, and without skillful, thoughtful answers to touchy subjects (like this), his time gets wasted defending OBL, or Iran, instead of using his time to focus on an issue (the economy) that will gain votes without alienating.

 

[jmdrake]

Nothing personal, I just consider that line of thought--out there.

I watch Alex Jones for entertainment, as I've seeded a few of his stories myself and seen the manipulation. I like what he does, but I don't build my political belief structure around his theories, lol. A better conspiracy on 9-11 would be: who talked these fools into flying these planes into buildings? And most people agree bin Laden and company. Who were they influenced by? I can walk that path, but to ignore the central players and allege imploding is far-fetched in my world. I watched the event live, I told a co-worker that those buildings would fall in less than 2 hours after the second plane hit, as I was working for a fireproofing company. No building has over a 2-hour rating, on fireproofing. We all knew what was going to happen!

So explain why this building did not fall?

And "most people" are starting to wake up.

 

[TheDriver]

So explain why this building did not fall?

And "most people" are starting to wake up.

It's not a high skyscraper built with steel. You have a surface fire in a concrete-pillared building. I'm no engineer, just an obvious guess.

 

[brushfire]

Where is the inconsistency, or dishonesty? Ron Paul said that voted to have OBL killed right after Sept 11. He was fine with OBL being killed - it was the way that the US finally ended up killing him.
After the opportunity was missed, and 10 years lapsed, Ron Paul said that he'd rather OBL see a trial, and then be put to death. What's so confusing? Where's the inconsistency? Is the issue that Glenn Beck wants to "Maximize Covert Operations"? Glenn should reconsider Newt - they seem to have more in common than he realizes.

 

[klamath]

Explain how he flip flopped.

He voted to get OBL then condemed it when we did. I am not going to keep hammering this point because the RP campaign is about building a movement and I want him to get as many votes as he can get and this won't help.
What he voted for.

IntroductionBegun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

 

[William R]

It was the same question Brett Baier asked in the last Fox debate and Ron has no set talking points. Get off your lazy ass Ron and work on it.

It is very easy to explain. Ron's position is no different than George W Bush's. We worked with the Pakistan government to get the man who planned the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence that Pakistan was hiding Osama. None. We had the house surrounded with CIA operatives. And as a result of our raid the Chinese now have our super advanced Stealth Helicpoter. The one that malfunctioned.

Very easy to do, but I guess Ron won't take the time to do it. He makes non interventionism look bad because he won't prepare for these debates.

 

[The Gold Standard]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Maybe they would work with us if we weren't raining bombs on their women and children?

 

[nayjevin]

The gall of these people to focus on this with all the skeletons running around on that stage last night.

Clear bias.

 

[Danke]

I don't wear silver, or foil, sorry.

 

[TheDriver]

Maybe they would work with us if we weren't raining bombs on their women and children?

I agree! And I don't support the war in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or Southern Sudan, or Yemen, or Iran, and wherever I missed, for the record.

 

[jmdrake]

It's not a high skyscraper built with steel. You have a surface fire in a concrete-pillared building. I'm no engineer, just an obvious guess.

Ummmm....it is a high skyscraper built with steel. It's not as tall as WTC 7, but it was still tall. The only time steel framed skyscrapers have fallen from fire has been on 9/11. Sure people can "armchair engineer" and come up with some sort of "difference". If a taller skyscaper had not fallen these same people would say "See? It didn't fall because it was taller." The bottom line is that there is zero empirical evidence for anyone to really say they that it was obvious the buildings would fall in a couple of hours. Anyway, enough thread derail.

 

[jmdrake]

He voted to get OBL then condemed it when we did. I am not going to keep hammering this point because the RP campaign is about building a movement and I want him to get as many votes as he can get and this won't help.
What he voted for.

There's no contradiction. You are falling for the same false choice fallacy. Don't forget we captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed in cooperation with Pakistan and when Ron Paul criticizes the OBL raid he ALWAYS does so by first praising the KSM raid! He never criticized that it was done, just how it was done.

 

[ohgodno]

Again - it's all about how he frames his answer.

We KNOW he's against trampling on other people's sovereignty (which is apparently what every SC citizen in attendance loves) – the way to not fall in the trap of the question last night was to redirect:

The reason I voiced displeasure was not because OBL was killed but because it took too long and cost too much to rid the world of that vile human being - he wasn't worth the lives and money we spent in order to kill him. I introduced legislation that was used to eliminate the pirates. Because, like terrorists - the pirates have no country - no allegiance to anyone but themselves. As a conservative I felt we could have killed him faster and cheaper with the legislation I offered in 2001.

You admit to what he was charging BUT you appeal to the bloodthirsty audience by saying you wanted him dead faster - and to their "conservatism" by saying you'd do it cheaper.

Debates are about redirecting and answering the main charge of the question.

FOX carefully crafts their questions to get a desired perception from the response — the goal with their debates is to answer the main charge in the question without giving into the perception they are searching for.

FOX doesn't care about the content of your response - they look to get a desired perception. So if they ask Dr. Paul about FP - it's less about what he'd actually do and more about making him look weak. The goal of any answer Dr. Paul should give is to show a non-interventionist FP is stronger than an interventionist FP.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Right, and tower whatever was blown up by the guberment, right? These points could help us plummet to single digits...keep em coming!

Alright. Pakistan was paid billions. They hid OBL. This allowed the MIC to continue misappropriating trillions. Which statement is false?