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

[vechorik]

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

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

h ttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-denies-saying-that-he-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-killing/



Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:54am by Mike Opelka

Last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul serious problems in the “honesty” department.

Mr. Paul‘s truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News’ Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden.

There‘s just one small problem with Paul’s denial, he did say it, several times.

Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.

Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;

So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?

And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:

I don’t think it was necessary. No.

Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman”

So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?



Ron Paul’s response was consistent with his two previous answers.

Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments.

Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.



That clip from WHO Newsradio 1040 appeared on The Blaze on May 11th.

(H/T: Simon Conway of WHO)

 

[TheDriver]

No true supporter of Ron Paul expects him to support over-riding the sovereignty of another nation, to kill an unarmed man, although he claims he voted for it after 9-11.

 

[CaptUSA]

It was the way Baier phrased the question. I'll have to look, but I remember thinking, "That's not an accurate characterization of Paul's position". And I was glad Paul called him out on it.

Anyone want to pull the specific language of that question?

 

[Nathan Hale]

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.

 

[TheDriver]

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.

 

[TheDriver]

dp

 

[Original_Intent]

He also stated that he would have supported it IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED. When he said he would not have ordered it or done it like Obama did, it is clearly because he felt there were other options that needed to be pursued first - not that hard to understand, really. (Or maybe I am just a Paulbot!)

 

[No Free Beer]

I wrote a comment defending Ron.

No, Ron Paul did reinforce what he said.

This is what Ron Paul is saying:

I voted for the bill to go after Bin Laden. I added Marque and Reprisal so that we wouldnt get our eye off the ball. (if someone doesnt know what that is, look it up) What I am saying however, is that you must respect sovereignty of another nation. You cannot just enter another nation when you see fit. Unless there was some prior engagement between Pakistan and us, we cannot just enter a country whenever we sit fit, without the approval of that country. Moreover, we have caught and tried people throughout history, what is so wrong with that? That is his point. This does not mean he wouldnt have ordered a team to go after Bin Laden. It merely means that, if OSB was unarmed, why not just capture him? That is all. I personally, am glad we shot and killed him. But Dr. Paul is right based on the premise of America and international law.

 

[James Madison]

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.

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

 

[TheDriver]

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

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

 

[TheDriver]

I wrote a comment defending Ron.

No, Ron Paul did reinforce what he said.

This is what Ron Paul is saying:

I voted for the bill to go after Bin Laden. I added Marque and Reprisal so that we wouldnt get our eye off the ball. (if someone doesnt know what that is, look it up) What I am saying however, is that you must respect sovereignty of another nation. You cannot just enter another nation when you see fit. Unless there was some prior engagement between Pakistan and us, we cannot just enter a country whenever we sit fit, without the approval of that country. Moreover, we have caught and tried people throughout history, what is so wrong with that? That is his point. This does not mean he wouldnt have ordered a team to go after Bin Laden. It merely means that, if OSB was unarmed, why not just capture him? That is all. I personally, am glad we shot and killed him. But Dr. Paul is right based on the premise of America and international law.

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?

 

[klamath]

Knew this was going to come back and bite. It is one area where RP flip floped and it had to be the one area most critical to the election.

 

[James Madison]

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

Probably, but that's a side issue.

I tend to trust people like Steve Pieczenik more than known liars and crooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtNiTm99e8

 

[Travlyr]

Knew this was going to come back and bite. It is one area where RP flip floped and it had to be the one area most critical to the election.

Explain how he flip flopped.

 

[TheDriver]

Probably, but that's a side issue.

I tend to trust people like Steve Pieczenik more than known liars and crooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtNiTm99e8

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

 

[bluesc]

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.

He wasn't in any way defending Bin Laden. If his bill to issue letters of marque and reprisal passed back in the day, Bin Laden would have been captured or killed long before he went into hiding in Pakistan

You're just constantly overly critical of Ron, and due to that, you lose all credibility.

 

[Travlyr]

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

But somehow you believe that Osama hid from the most powerful military the world has ever known for 10 years.. in plain sight.

 

[James Madison]

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

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

 

[ItsTime]

Where is the proof that OB was killed during that mission? DNA taken from his sister and matched with the dead body could have been one of his many brothers. That evidence would not hold up in court.

 

[TheDriver]

But somehow you believe that Osama hid from the most powerful military the world has ever known for 10 years.. in plain sight.

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.