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

[Travlyr]

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.

Last night Ron did an excellent job of explaining the difference between al-Quaeda and the Taliban. They do not beat to the same drum.

 

[TheDriver]

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

That one! Maybe billions, but not all military spending is spent fighting the war on terror.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

That "same drum" is that they were all at one time on the CIA payroll. Peter Bergan's book "Holy Work Inc" explains how this worked. And it's not some "conspiracy theory". In fact Condi Rice cited his book in a vain effort to "debunk" the conspiracy theory that we funded Al Qaeda. The truth is that we indirectly funded Al Qaeda. We sent the money to Pakistan and they sent it to the most radical jihadists they could find, all with our blessing.

 

[TheDriver]

Last night Ron did an excellent job of explaining the difference between al-Quaeda and the Taliban. They do not beat to the same drum.

When it comes to being connected with the Pakistani government, I disagree. They all have their peeps, and while the Taliban may have different tactics and different motivations, they, like bin Laden's former outfit, are tied to the ISI in some form. Therefore, they're on the same team, imo. Basically the ISI can manipulate any of those groups into action, perhaps even manipulated by our own intelligence service.--that's what I mean by beating to the same drum.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11, any Ron Paul supporter knows that.

 

[Meiun]

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.

^THIS. and.

You are all forgetting the reality that if we had simply minded our own business, had a sustainable and independent energy policy from the get-go we would never have been in this position. So, once again RON PAUL IS RIGHT! The man is a genius, has difficulty with soundbites, but he is correct in his methodology.

 

[jmdrake]

That one! Maybe billions, but not all military spending is spent fighting the war on terror.

Straw man argument. MIC misappropriating trillions does not imply that trillions were spent on the so called "war on terror". The "war on terror" has been a cover for outright theft of trillions. This is what he's most likely talking about.



The day before 9/11 trillions go missing. Then after 9/11 precious little else is heard about it. Cynthia McKinney tried to bring it up again, then they framed her and character assassinated her for standing up for her constitutional rights as a member of congress to go to and from sessions of congress without been harassed or detained by D.C. union thugs cops.

 

[The Free Hornet]

That one! Maybe billions, but not all military spending is spent fighting the war on terror.

Estimated cost of post-9/11 wars: 225,000 lives, up to $4 trillion

I didn't say "all". I said "trillions". If you research, that is the cost of our overseas, anti-terror expenditures. Trillions. Yes, there are more trillions spent oth overseas and domestic that are not directly related to anti-terror but are also wasted.

 

[No Free Beer]

Did Afghanistan approve of us invading? If not, why did Ron Paul support it? Then if he didn't want us to get bin Laden anywhere, anytime, why vote for the authorization to get bin Laden in the first place?

We got military authorization to go into Afghanistan to use force against those responsible for 9/11. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, were they not? With Pakistan, we never got authorization to use force IN Pakistan, therefore you must need an 'okay' from the Pakistani government. Moreover, Pakistan was (and still is) considered an ally of the US. By your logic, we could just bomb anyone, anywhere we wanted in Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. Would we do that or would we ask for their approval first?

Now, I am in agreement that Marque and Reprisal would have solved all of this nonsense. I am also in agreement that there was no official DOW. But, as it happened, it was voted to use force to get those responsible on 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Just to add one last thing,

this is way different that what Congressman Paul was even eluding to last night. All Dr. Paul basically said was:

That he was in favor of using our military to go after Osama Bin Laden. Now, what we did with our military once we were aware of his whereabouts, is another discussion. Some people believe we should have tried to capture him. Others believe that we did the right thing in just taking him out. Again, that is a whole separate issue than what Fox was trying to portray Dr. Paul on. Clear bias.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

He's right. That's why OBL's FBI sheet doesn't connect him to 9/11. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

 

[No Free Beer]

Too bad there's no evidence OBL was actually there. Plus, he died in 2001.

Although, I believe this type of rhetoric is okay on these forums, I do not think this is a winning strategy elsewhere.

If (which I am not saying you do) RP supporters start using this type of language in front of undecided voters, there is no chance in hell we will win this election.

Juss sayin'

 

[TheDriver]

We got military authorization to go into Afghanistan to use force against those responsible for 9/11. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, were they not? With Pakistan, we never got authorization to use force IN Pakistan, therefore you must need an 'okay' from the Pakistani government. Moreover, Pakistan was (and still is) considered an ally of the US. By your logic, we could just bomb anyone, anywhere we wanted in Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. Would we do that or would we ask for their approval first?

Now, I am in agreement that Marque and Reprisal would have solved all of this nonsense. I am also in agreement that there was no official DOW. But, as it happened, it was voted to use force to get those responsible on 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Just to add one last thing,

this is way different that what Congressman Paul was even eluding to last night. All Dr. Paul basically said was:

That he was in favor of using our military to go after Osama Bin Laden. Now, what we did with our military once we were aware of his whereabouts, is another discussion. Some people believe we should have tried to capture him. Others believe that we did the right thing in just taking him out. Again, that is a whole separate issue than what Fox was trying to portray Dr. Paul on. Clear bias.

Some of us seem to think the battle is here, the battle is on TV, and that is where Ron bumbled and stumbled. He didn't have a good rehearsed answer, and fluttered. I know he wants to stand up for certain things, but this is the most hated man America knows, a man he wanted to terminate at one time, you can't get all willy-nilly when running for president on an issue like this. Mistakes like this are preciously why we can't put the other candidates away. That's the point none of you can gloss over, and the only point that matters. If you're going to take a stand like this, you better have your ducks-in-a-row. Fox nailed his ass last night--face it! Luckily they don't want to talk about him, so they're ignoring it.

 

[RickyJ]

The blaze again? Why post this stuff, they are a totally discredited online news site. Ron Paul did not lie, they are just trying to make it look like a lie. I am glad to see you posted this in media spin unlike the hit piece you posted on Ventura from the blaze that you posted in grassroots central and agreed with before even knowing if it was true or not.

 

[Tankbot85]

OBL would have already been dead already if paul was president.

There would have been no need to go after him later and there would be no approval for a raid that wold not be taking place.

 

[RickyJ]

Too bad there's no evidence OBL was actually there. Plus, he died in 2001.

+1

You are correct of course, but the sheep will believe anything their TV talking heads tell them to believe. The seal team that was credited with killing him all got taken out in a helicopter crash not long after Bin Laden was announced killed. Dumping his body in the ocean just hours after killing him with no time to do a proper DNA test to know if this was him or a double. And then they admit he was unarmed. Why would you kill an unarmed man that you could possibly get more information out of to stop future planned terror attacks? There is no logical reason to do so, none at all. The government's story on the killing of Bin Laden does not add up at all. If only the sheep would just think instead of believing everything their TV tells them.

 

[klamath]

We got military authorization to go into Afghanistan to use force against those responsible for 9/11. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, were they not? With Pakistan, we never got authorization to use force IN Pakistan, therefore you must need an 'okay' from the Pakistani government. Moreover, Pakistan was (and still is) considered an ally of the US. By your logic, we could just bomb anyone, anywhere we wanted in Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. Would we do that or would we ask for their approval first?

Now, I am in agreement that Marque and Reprisal would have solved all of this nonsense. I am also in agreement that there was no official DOW. But, as it happened, it was voted to use force to get those responsible on 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Just to add one last thing,

this is way different that what Congressman Paul was even eluding to last night. All Dr. Paul basically said was:

That he was in favor of using our military to go after Osama Bin Laden. Now, what we did with our military once we were aware of his whereabouts, is another discussion. Some people believe we should have tried to capture him. Others believe that we did the right thing in just taking him out. Again, that is a whole separate issue than what Fox was trying to portray Dr. Paul on. Clear bias.

Wrong! Here is what RP voted for. Show me where it only said Afganistan?
Introduction Begun 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

 

[bolil]

Perhaps Dr. Ron Paul understands that certain precedents ought not be set. One good example is the fortuitous dumping of an alleged mass murderers alleged body in the ocean... to respect his religious beliefs? He allegedly killed thousands of innocent people. You might wonder why I say "alleged", I say it because there was not trial held to establish guilt. Too bad, guess OBL gets an asterisk in the annals of history.
Some of us understand.

 

[EBounding]

Paul needs to be clear in what he would do if he was in Obama's position. Obviously, he would have done things differently 10 years ago, but that's in the past. If he was President in May and had the same intel, what would he do? What if it was clear that Pakistan would not cooperate like they did with KSM and there were no diplomatic options on the table? What's the next step?

 

[Butchie]

Some of us seem to think the battle is here, the battle is on TV, and that is where Ron bumbled and stumbled. He didn't have a good rehearsed answer, and fluttered. I know he wants to stand up for certain things, but this is the most hated man America knows, a man he wanted to terminate at one time, you can't get all willy-nilly when running for president on an issue like this. Mistakes like this are preciously why we can't put the other candidates away. That's the point none of you can gloss over, and the only point that matters. If you're going to take a stand like this, you better have your ducks-in-a-row. Fox nailed his ass last night--face it! Luckily they don't want to talk about him, so they're ignoring it.

Your comments, tho correct are lost here, more and more I'm starting to realize the great bulk of RP supporters are as blindly loyal to Ron as the Libs and Cons are to Dem and Rep party's. I support Ron, think he is the best politician I've ever known and would make a great Pres, but that doesn't mean he's always right and always "does great", and his way of explaining FP is a disaster and none of these guys want to face that reality, instead they resort to calling you a troll and accussing you of trying to turn Ron into a plastic politician which is just false.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It was a gotcha question. Brett Baier framed the question around international law, and was trying to get Ron to say that international law trumps US law. Ron didn't fall into the trap.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, ...

You and Newt have no proof of that. It's just another in a long line of pro-war propaganda points.

Was the US government hiding terrorists when we controlled Iraq and Afghanistan? Those countries were filled with terrorists, the US controlled the country, therefore the US was hiding them. There's an example of the logic being used here. Just because someone in Pakistan may have known where Bin Laden was hiding does not equate to "Pakistan was hiding him".