RP said he wouldnt have had OBL killed?

^No shit? You mean they don't want to admit that they had been sharing a neighborhood with a mass-murderer and the world's most wanted man?

The Pakistanis hate America. They are the most anti-American country in the region. Now, they may have some very good reasons too, but they will go out of their way to blame us for every single thing
 
Last edited:
I just rewatched the video and its official, you are all freaking out over nothing.

RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.

YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.

Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.

America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...

have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.
 
Last edited:
This is not catastrophic. Judge Napolitano has been complaining about how this was carried out all week- and last week too. Now Ron will get an opportunity to explain how it all could have gone down constitutionally.

I just hope he's able to really get into how HR 3076 "September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001" would have gotten the same result 10 years sooner, without bankrupting the country, or leaving us with thousands of dead and maimed soldiers or "collateral damage" - all within the confines of the constitution.

:( If only.
I remember that episode of Freedom Watch and I remember the Judge making his esoteric case. I was also cringing and saying numerous thanks to Aqua Buddha, that Ron Paul didn't share this view. Now I'm not so sure. It's going to be a huge distraction in the campaign now, if there even is one after this.
 
I just rewatched the video and its official, you are are freaking out over nothing.
RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.
YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.
Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.
America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...
have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.

And Obama had no congressional approval to do it! geezus people. To approve of this is to say that the president can send troops wherever and whenever he feels like it without consulting congress. I thought we and RP were already on record as being against that.
 
I just rewatched the video and its official, you are are freaking out over nothing.

RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.

YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.

Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.

America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...

have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.

Yes, have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons! :)
 
Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s totally out of control, although the resolution did say that he was to go only after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Well, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So it’s being used outrageously. So you’re right; they have been able to justify this authority to go to any place, anytime they want. It’s endless war, and of course, they use this as a declaration of war, therefore, then they can set up their military courts and their tribunals and all the rest that goes on. So, the whole idea of our foreign policy needs be reversed. This idea that we are the policeman of the world and that we should be everywhere, telling everybody what to do, is an insane policy, and it’s coming back to haunt us. The sooner we wake up, the better
This is why I feel RP has jerked the rug out from under my defences of him.
 
Last edited:
I just rewatched the video and its official, you are are freaking out over nothing.

RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.

YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.

Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.

America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...

have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.
I need to hear Dr. Paul say that. The impression he gave in the WHO interview was that he would've done nothing, except perhaps talk to the Pakistanis and have them turn him over, which they wouldn't have, so in effect Ron does nothing to get OBL. Bin Laden lives out the rest of his days eating fruit and watching home movies...
 
I remember that episode of Freedom Watch and I remember the Judge making his esoteric case. I was also cringing and saying numerous thanks to Aqua Buddha, that Ron Paul didn't share this view. Now I'm not so sure. It's going to be a huge distraction in the campaign now, if there even is one after this.
I suspect the Judge knows exactly what Ron Paul's views are, and he intends to give him the platform to rebut the inevitable spin.
 
...Bin Laden lives out the rest of his days eating fruit and watching home movies...

You are a very strong believer in mainstream Bin Laden stories. You do know which country originally trained and armed his 'brave fighters' don't you?
 
Ron Paul's last line on this subject was (paraphrased) "I wouldn't have done it the way it was done."
Yes, but would he or not go into Pakistan to capture Bin Laden? Up until the last 24 hours, I was under the impression Ron would have...now I'm not so sure.

Would Ron be so naive to share intel with the Pakistanis so they can tip off Bin Laden? That raises some serious questions in my mind.
 
Why exactly? did the resolution give the president the authority to go into pakistan?

This is WHAT Ron Paul voted for. You tell me.

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

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, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
 
This is WHAT Ron Paul voted for. You tell me.

Well, admittedly it is pretty broad. So in order for this to be valid the President had to have determined that Pakistan aided or harbored bin laden. Is it safe to say we are officially at war with Pakistan now? Or the president can "determine" that anybody anywhere had something to do with 9/11 and send troops in? It seems there is absolutely no oversight. It is a pretty bad bill, I think Dr. Paul has said that himself.
 
Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s totally out of control, although the resolution did say that he was to go only after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Well, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So it’s being used outrageously. So you’re right; they have been able to justify this authority to go to any place, anytime they want. It’s endless war, and of course, they use this as a declaration of war, therefore, then they can set up their military courts and their tribunals and all the rest that goes on. So, the whole idea of our foreign policy needs be reversed. This idea that we are the policeman of the world and that we should be everywhere, telling everybody what to do, is an insane policy, and it’s coming back to haunt us. The sooner we wake up, the better
This is why I feel RP has jerked the rug out from under my defences of him.



According to Dick Cheney, Osama is NOT responsible for 9/11.

So, Ron's statement that you bolded holds water. No?
 
He said he wouldn't have done it THE WAY IT WAS DONE. Obama said he was only 50% sure OBL was even IN Pakistan. It was an extremely dangerous mission, American lives were at risk, we were violating the sovereignty of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, and we executed multiple people in the mission - people who's guilt had not been predetermined or proven. RP never said he wouldn't have gotten OBL, he just said he would have done it differently.

I fail to see the issue, once he clarifies. Additionally, it did not sound as if RP was aware that the Pakistani gov't had agreed to let us carry out this mission. He can simply rebut that if we had permission, it was fine, but that he does not believe in executions. Simple...
 
Back
Top