RP said he wouldnt have had OBL killed?

[TRIGRHAPPY]

A few articles on google news are saying he said he wouldnt have ordered the strike on OBL. Supposedly the articles link to video/audio of it, but i am stuck on an iphone and the links won't play.

I am afraid of what this will do to his chances in the primary. Either way, i would appreciate some investigaton of this.....since i cannot hear it for myself. I'm hoping its just spin on his noninterventionist viewpoint.

 

[TRIGRHAPPY]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-death/

 

[LisaNY]

who is Simon Conway and why is Ron granting interviews to every tom, dick and harry? Of course this is going to get spun against him, because most people are too stupid to comprehend what he actually said.

 

[dannno]

I'm guessing he would have preferred to have him tried in a court.

Just listened and that is it. Also emphasized that he was unarmed and so that easily could have been done.

 

[low preference guy]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

 

[svobody]

Basically said we only got away with doing it because he was in Pakistan, and if that he was in a London hotel, we aren't sending in a SEAL team with choppers. Which is a very valid point, but one that the emotional American public will just understand as OMG RON PAUL DOESN'T HAVE THE BALLZ TO KILL BAD GUYZ.

 

[svobody]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

No big deal then, he can just say he did this interview without that knowledge.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm really disappointed by his answer. It could've been very easily answered without giving up principle. He should've said:

I understand Pakistan actually did authorize it. The reports said he offered resistance, and our people have a right to defend themselves, killing him if necessary.

Follow-up question: What if he didn't offer resistance?

The media reported that if Bin Laden put up his arms and surrendered, they would've captured him without killing him. I would've ordered exactly the same thing President Obama ordered in that situation.

The only way this won't be an issue is if the economy is so bad that foreign policy doesn't matter at all.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I don't have an issue with his answer.

When I found out Osama was unarmed, my first thought was "So we just executed him, instead of capturing him."

If we were to (knowingly or unknowingly) harbor someone considered a terrorist by another nation, how would we like it if a squad of that nation's paramilitaries swoops in, and kills the unarmed terrorist?

Whether he answers it the way he answered it now, or a month from now, or a year from now. Doesn't matter. He has his opinion, and when asked he will provide it. There's really no point in arguing how an unpopular viewpoint should be phrased or how it can be kept hidden from the public. You either believe in a core idea, and follow that idea through even when it's not easy, or you put on a suit and tie, get some personality coaching, and join the many candidates who will say anything just to get people to vote for them.

Sure, Osama likely complicit in 9/11 and a slew of other mass murders, and it may indeed have been somewhat problematic to actually take him in custody (I have no idea what actually happened in that room, and whether they shot him because they thought he posed a threat or if they shot him knowing he was no immediate threat), but I'd like to think that

 

[LisaNY]

Ron Paul is doing what every Republican SHOULD be doing. Instead of kissing obama's ass and saying "Great job Mr. President!", they should be attacking and criticizing every thing he does. That's how the left plays and it works. I've been a registered Republican for 22 years and after this primary I am DONE with the party of Hannity.

 

[AFPVet]

Ron Paul is doing what every Republican SHOULD be doing. Instead of kissing obama's ass and saying "Great job Mr. President!", they should be attacking and criticizing every thing he does. That's how the left plays and it works. I've been a registered Republican for 22 years and after this primary I am DONE with the party of Hannity.

I question both parties.... I only formally recognize the classical liberals who envision this nation as it should be. I only side with Congressmen Ron Paul, Kuchinch and Senator Rand Paul.

 

[anaconda]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

Just because the Pakistanis "authorize" the assassination of an unarmed and unconvicted person does not mean it is moral, legal, or in any other way defensible for a U.S. President. Ron did not make a big mistake. See Judge Napolitano's recent inspiring rant on this. Furthermore, short of this incident being ultimately exposed as the complete lie and charade that it is, the American People are experiencing a "lack of evidence" fatigue with Barack Obama, and are frustrated and bothered that there is no reliable confirmation of Bin Laden's death. As the weeks grow on there will be much greater support for the capture him alive alternative.

 

[anaconda]

I question both parties.... I only formally recognize the classical liberals who envision this nation as it should be. I only side with Congressmen Ron Paul, Kuchinch and Senator Rand Paul.

Three good picks there, my friend.

These three should form the "Principled Politician Caucus."

 

[TER]

Whoever kills an unarmed wanted man without allowing him a defense is trying to hide something. Plain and simple. Ron Paul knows that Bin Laden would reveal the most embarrassing things on some of the most powerful people in the world, and that this is why he was silenced.

Ron Paul's position is that we should not be a nation of lies, but of truth and justice and laws in order to preserve and grow our freedoms and liberties. An empire of lies is doomed for failure, and this is what we have become. A nation who kills unarmed ex-CIA funded fanatics in order to hide the lies which infect the halls of the Capital. Ron Paul is right to fight for truth and justice, and this is why he I support him for President.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Is anybody else getting a COINTEL vibe from some of the comments on the blaze?

 

[Eric21ND]

How can we spin this? We were doing so well in the polls early on too.

 

[MelissaWV]

I don't find a problem with this. It fits in with the larger portion of this story.

When it first came out, people were immediately saying that the intel used to get Bin Laden came from torture and "advanced interrogation." Even though that story has changed, the faith in waterboarding and the like is still renewed. If all of that is true, then why wasn't Bin Laden captured and interrogated? It didn't need to be publicized that Bin Laden had been captured, or by whom, or where he was being held. We might have found out just in time for 9/11/11 that there was a video of a confused, rambling OBL talking about his wives and children and telling us all his major plots and hideouts. If interrogation is so awesome, why execute the biggest font of terrorist knowledge?

Beyond that, Ron is basing his answers on hindsight. That's what everyone who's asked "what would you do" is working off of. None of us knows how it looked to the people kicking down doors and running through the compound, but if only one person was armed (which was the last I heard; forgive me if the story has changed yet again), why were there multiple dead/wounded? If the fear was that Osama was wearing a suicide vest, there were other ways to neutralize him that don't involve putting a huge hole in his head. The reports (again, the latest ones I've seen; sorry if they're now inaccurate) have enough time elapsing for the military to observe OBL was confused and the like, and that he grabbed his wife and threw her, and that someone had time to shoot her, and that someone then took out OBL. Seconds, sure, but it seems like that story would contradict the whole "he was a huge threat" meme that's being put out.

All of that is much more conveniently reduced to two facts: 1. Ron Paul would not have had a huge military presence in the region to begin with, 2. Ron Paul would not have sent in an assassination team to execute OBL.

 

[LeJimster]

I think Ron should have answered the question slightly different, but I don't disagree that OBL should have been captured especially since he offered no resistance and was unarmed (apparently). He has to emphasize the relief of one of America's enemies being taken out. But the way in which it has been done was totally incorrect and he is right to point this out.

 

[R3volutionJedi]

I took this position before he made a statement. I would have much rather seen OBL arrested.

 

[vita3]

Honestly, Osama was used as such a propoganda tool by both radical muslims & westerners , I don't kow what to think about him..

How do you form a solid opinion on a lie on a lie on top of a lie?

That said, going around killing un-armed people is certainly against our laws.