Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”

posted at 8:48 am on May 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed.  On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever.  In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate.  MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India.  Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound.  The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.

I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him.  He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath.  Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him.  Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.

Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut.  Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.

Update: I forgot to hat-tip Jammie Wearing Fool — my apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

The good doctor is absolutely not a BRAIN SURGEON.

The Rock on May 12, 2011 at 8:51 AM

What can one say…

Gohawgs on May 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Stepping on PBHO’s new corpse buddy like that, Paul is racist against arabs AND blacks.

Bishop on May 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Done-zo.

blatantblue on May 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM

moRon Paul.

the_nile on May 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM

His cult members will find a way to excuse this.

anniekc on May 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM

At least this position seems consistent with his non-interventionist foreign policy views in general…

cynccook on May 12, 2011 at 8:54 AM

So Ron Paul is naive on foreign policy – that’s not a winning stance.

Dr Evil on May 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM

So long, farewell, alfreidezein, good-bye.

Good-bye … Good-BYE … GOOD-BYE!!!

DuctTapeMyBrain on May 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM

The Paulnuts are going to be insufferable over this.

myrenovations on May 12, 2011 at 8:56 AM

I’m reminded of a verse from “Send in the Clowns”:

Don’t you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

Rod on May 12, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Ron Paul/Rosie O’Donnell 2012

Baxter Greene on May 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Ron Paul is a foreign policy moonbat!

csdeven on May 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM

His cult members will find a way to excuse this.

anniekc

How right you are. Should be flooding the thread any minute now.

tree hugging sister on May 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM

This is just one of the many reasons he will never be a serious candidate for POTUS…

d1carter on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

I hope Rand Paul runs away from his father politcally. Ron should have sat this election out and let his son build up his chops in the Senate for the next 4 years untarnished by this nutcase.

That is the real sad part here. Ron Paul’s increasingly insanity threatens to cut short the politca career of his son. I hope Rand Paul comes out and rebukes his father on this.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

And this guy is my representative. In my defense I did vote for one of his opponents in the primary last year. In fact I met the dude I voted for in the parking lot(more than 100 yards away, don’t worry) at the precinct. Nice guy, but I knew he didn’t have a prayer of knocking off Ron Paul. He’ll probably be in that seat til he croaks.

Doughboy on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

eh… I find myself in agreement with him on this. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mourn the death of Bin Laden.

My wife and I had a champagne toast when we heard the news, but the minute the story started changing, and has continued to do so, I have been increasingly uncomfortable with the whole thing. I think they should have taken him alive. I’m not really buying the “he can’t stand trial” stuff right now.

Jim T on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

If your Republican campaign speaking has Republicans/Conservatives/Independents agreeing with our current Socialist/Marxist/Thug President over you…

YOU. ARE. DOING. IT. WRONG.

Thune on May 12, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Paul….is otherwise a nut….lives in a fantasy world.

This, of course, is an understatement the size of Godzilla standing on top of Mount Everest while balancing the Dubai Burj Khalifa Tower on his head!

pilamaye on May 12, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Oh, Heaven help me!
I’m agreeing with Ron Paul…
(Hang my head in shame)

Haiku Guy on May 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

The Paulnuts are going to be insufferable over this.

myrenovations on May 12, 2011 at 8:56 AM

more likely they will simply pretend he never said it or he misspoke. I don’t see how they can defend a comment like this. I know I take great comfort in knowing that I will never have to defend such a boneheaded comment from my candidate.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

eh… I find myself in agreement with him on this. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mourn the death of Bin Laden.

My wife and I had a champagne toast when we heard the news, but the minute the story started changing, and has continued to do so, I have been increasingly uncomfortable with the whole thing. I think they should have taken him alive. I’m not really buying the “he can’t stand trial” stuff right now.

Jim T on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

You think Pakistan would help in the arresting of Usama, after protecting him for 10 years?

the_nile on May 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Jim T on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Notwithstanding the fact that Paul’s an utter crackpot, taking him alive was an unreasonable move considering bin Laden’s affinity for booby traps and suicide bombs.

KingGold on May 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Debate Question:

Mr. Paul, If Congress, exercising its constitutional powers, declared war on a foreign power, could you fully, faithfully and zealously carry out the duties of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Services?

tmitsss on May 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM

“I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. …”

For someone who is suppose to be libertarian, he sounds a lot like a one world governance via the UN type of dude.

mizflame98 on May 12, 2011 at 9:05 AM

What is the point of relocating fire ants?

OBL willingly gave up any claim to being human and he damn sure wasn’t worth putting in a zoo. Fish food wasn’t a bad outcome for him.

Limerick on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM

I think they should have taken him alive. I’m not really buying the “he can’t stand trial” stuff right now.

Jim T on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

that’s good but that isn’t what Ron Paul said. I think we should have taken him alive held a fast trial then upstreamed the hanging and allowed America to see him twitch his last seconds of life away. But again that isn’t what Ron Paul said.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM

I think Ron might be going a little senile. I dont mean any disrespect in saying that, it`s just there is no logical explaination for a statement like that. He has had some gerat policy positions in the past (eg Gold standard) and some really wacky ones. But nothing can explain moonbattery like this. Ron Paul has never come across as Mike Moore style moonbat, so I just dont understand why could lead an intelligent man to say something so ignorant and stupid.

gozzak on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Well he does have a point: Why do we have laws if we don’t have to obey them?

Notorious GOP on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM

There’s a fine line between genius and insane. Ron Paul apparently can’t find it.

locomotivebreath1901 on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM

When Obama made the “gutsy” decision, I said that every other candidate from 2008 would have done the same thing – probably a little more promptly – except Ron Paul.

forest on May 12, 2011 at 9:07 AM

ED: Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut. Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.

True’r words never spoken.

Amadeus on May 12, 2011 at 9:07 AM

I halfway agree with him.
I think we should have gone in without talking to Pakistan first, but I think we should have taken him alive, if possible, and it looks like it was possible.

bridgetown on May 12, 2011 at 9:08 AM

You think Pakistan would help in the arresting of Usama, after protecting him for 10 years?

the_nile on May 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

nope, but they didn’t cooperate with us shooting him either.

Listen, the yarn the pres**ent spun after the event, I was totally OK with that, if that’s how it went down. Bin Laden’s last stand, a gun fight, using his wife as a shield, “you’ll never take me alive” the whole bit, if that’s how it happened, I’d be totally fine with it.

It’s not how it happened though, and the story has devolved from an intense gun battle to one where there was likely extremely limited resistance, which leads me to thinking it would have been very easy to take him alive.

I feel gross questioning it, like i was listening to an alex jones radio marathon, but you have two scenarios, both are good, one is better. I think the better scenario, in this case may be to have take him alive, but we don’t know the circumstances, because the administration has completely botched the entire thing from the moment Zero opened his mouth.

Jim T on May 12, 2011 at 9:08 AM

The Paulnuts are going to be insufferable over this.

myrenovations on May 12, 2011 at 8:56 AM

darwin-t on May 12, 2011 at 9:08 AM

good lord!
Makes me feel bad for Rand Paul.

james23 on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 AM

The Libertarians start with the premise that ALL wrong in the world can somehow be connected to US policy in that region (and to Kevin Bacon, I suppose).

RP revealed this stupid and dangerous tendency when he went on defense for the underwear bomber by blaming US drone bombings in Yemen (or wherever)… of course, it was later revealed that he had purchased his tickets before the bombings, but RP and the Libertarians are incapable of moving from the premise… except to blame Israel.

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Notwithstanding the fact that Paul’s an utter crackpot, taking him alive was an unreasonable move considering bin Laden’s affinity for booby traps and suicide bombs.

KingGold on May 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM

If the SEALs were given an order to capture him for interrogation , they would have done so.
I think the primary reason Obama wanted him killed and not captured is that the circus would destroy his presidency.

the_nile on May 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM

If it was a Kill only mission = a crime.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

“War on terror” is a criminal justice issue not a war.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

that’s good but that isn’t what Ron Paul said. I think we should have taken him alive held a fast trial then upstreamed the hanging and allowed America to see him twitch his last seconds of life away. But again that isn’t what Ron Paul said.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM

That’s fair, I guess I only sort of agree with him. I wouldn’t have said anything to Pakistan.

Isn’t this sort of an about face for Paul though? At one point during the last campaign he was talking about “Letters of Marque and Reprisal: to go get bin laden.

That’s sort of consistent with what we did here, without the formality.

Jim T on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

I’m also sad that they shot him, I would have preferred they gut him.

wheelgun on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut.

That’s not exactly true. I would put it this way: Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but manages to turn them into something as nutty as his other ideas.
I agree with the first tenet of the Ron Paul faith that we should get rid of the Federal Reserve, but that agreement masks a massive disagreement. I think we should get rid of the Fed for the reasons most economists could cite. The Ron Paul cult thinks that the Fed is a sinister evil force that “got us into World War I and every war since.” To believe this Fed conspiracy is reject the implications of libertarian economic theory. Libertarian economic theory implies that peace is more profitable than war for the larger economy. Something as big as Fed would usually (if not all the time) find it much more profitable to keep the country at peace.

thuja on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Hey! Stupid! Don’t let your mouth spoil your chances, and by the way; don’t let your mouth spoil your son’s chances either. No wonder this moron attracts other morons to his cause.

Old Country Boy on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Ron Paul is not a serious person on foreign policy. Period.

CatoRenasci on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

“War on terror” is a criminal justice issue not a war.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Thanks for your input Mr. Clinton

darwin-t on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

This is why I think Paul supporters are certifiable lunatics. Just as their object of obsession is himself.

TheBlueSite on May 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law.

I can think of 3000 souls, (and their families), that would disagree with Mr. Paul, along with our military, and in this case their CIC.

As a sidenote, slickwillie posted a stunning observation yesterday:

Isn’t it funny that in this case the liberals aren’t blaming the gun for the killing?
slickwillie2001 on May 11, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Liberal hypocrisy is alive and well.

Rovin on May 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

The good doctor is absolutely not a BRAIN SURGEON.

The Rock on May 12, 2011 at 8:51 AM

I wouldn’t say “absolutely”.

Shy Guy on May 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Think McCain would have made a good president? Think again
McCain Proposes Indefinite Detention Without Trial for U.S. Citizens

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.” The bill, which has eight cosponsors, explicitly names U.S. citizens as among those who can be detained indefinitely without trial

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

So Ron Paul is naive on foreign policy – that’s not a winning stance.

Dr Evil on May 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM

To paraphrase Reagan, it isn’t that he doesn’t know anything, it’s that so much of what he knows is wrong.

I’d still like to see someone appoint him Fed secretary. That would be a hoot.

Kafir on May 12, 2011 at 9:15 AM

If the SEALs were given an order to capture him for interrogation , they would have done so.
I think the primary reason Obama wanted him killed and not captured is that the circus would destroy his presidency.

the_nile on May 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Either possibility could be true. I agree with you insofar as he wanted to keep Eric Holder as far away from Osama bin Laden as possible – and Hell is pretty far away.

KingGold on May 12, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Paul supports habeas corpus and local government.

John McCain supports military junta\dictatorships.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:16 AM

“War on terror” is a criminal justice issue not a war.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

John Kerry posts at Hot Air now? Jehn-gis Kahn….

james23 on May 12, 2011 at 9:16 AM

thuja on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Do you have anymore straw men for us to burn?

Notorious GOP on May 12, 2011 at 9:17 AM

I don’t pay attention to hardly anything Ron Paul says, so I can’t vouch for as fact that this is the most spectacularly lazy thinking that has ever past his lips, but I can’t imagine one much worse than it.

Dusty on May 12, 2011 at 9:17 AM

I’m surprised to see so many people in here who love the Fed.

Notorious GOP on May 12, 2011 at 9:18 AM

If it was a Kill only mission = a crime.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

He resisted…He pushed his 23 yr old wife at a SEAL…

Gohawgs on May 12, 2011 at 9:19 AM

We need to defund JSOC in my opinion as the president should not get an assassination force.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:19 AM

I hadn’t planned to vote for paul. This is just one of many reasons.
L

letget on May 12, 2011 at 9:19 AM

He resisted…He pushed his 23 yr old wife at a SEAL…

Maybe? Or so goes the governments version of the story.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:20 AM

ProfessorMiao,

A i’ve already said. There is no “war on terror.” It’s nothing more than a criminal justice issue.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Paul supports habeas corpus and local government.

John McCain supports military junta\dictatorships.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:16 AM

That’s gonna leave a mark! There are a LOT of HUGE McCain supporters at HA.

/

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 9:21 AM

If it was a Kill only mission = a crime.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

ROFL…I guess you missed all those wanted dead or alive posters in the old west. I suppose now you are saying that killing outlaws is a crime? OBL admitted his role in the death of 3,000+ Americans and in thousands of more deaths across the world. 1) His admission of guilt made a tial unneeded. 2) he was not a U.S citizen and had no rights under our laws. 3) he was an enemy of this country and declared that he was in a state of war with this country. 4) Paul is an idiot.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Government says that Al Qaeda\Taliban killed Pat Tillman too.

Take their story with a grain of salt.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Give that man a rocking chair, and the time to use it.

hillbillyjim on May 12, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:20 AM

You don’t believe your Govt???

Gohawgs on May 12, 2011 at 9:23 AM

I had never listened to R/P until the debate but I realized I hadn’t missed much.

ohiobabe on May 12, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Man, this guy is really worth investing a lot of time in! /s

search4truth on May 12, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Gah! Good grief, man!

Keef Overbite on May 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Think McCain would have made a good president?
Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Nope. Never once thought that.

fesofee on May 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM

If it was a Kill only mission = a crime.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Should we have sought to arrest Yamamoto? Was that a crime?

I’ll give you a moment to look it up. Hint: He doesn’t have a Facebook page.

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

If this a mere criminal justice issue then we should forget the SEAL’s, send in the Utah State Patrol next time a high value “criminal” surfaces in Pakistan.

Bishop on May 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM

ProfessorMiao,

A i’ve already said. There is no “war on terror.” It’s nothing more than a criminal justice issue.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:21 AM

So if someone declares war on you, blows up two of your embassies and a naval ship, killing hundreds, and then attacks your sovereign territory killing thousands, it isn’t war?

Bye troll.

ProfessorMiao on May 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM

No, only countries can declare war. The bloods and the crips don’t count.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Paul knows his supporters will stuff his mattress after statements like this. He’ll play the role all the way to the day after someone else is elected and then giggle while he counts his greenbacks. Nobody has run a circus this well since whats-his-name.

Limerick on May 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

War on Terror is just another excuse for the Federal government to exist.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

So I guess in Paul’s mind when Pres Bush stated that Osama was wanted dead or alive Bush was a war criminal?

Bin Laden is wanted: dead or alive, says Bush

PRESIDENT Bush said yesterday that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile, “dead or alive” in some of the most bellicose language used by a White House occupant in recent years.

“I want justice,” he said after a meeting at the Pentagon, where 188 people were killed last Tuesday when an airliner crashed into the building. “And there’s an old poster out West that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’ ”

He then seemed to temper his remarks by adding: “All I want and America wants is to see them brought to justice. That’s what we want.”

The blunt, Texas-style rhetoric, delivered off the cuff, came a day after Vice-President Dick Cheney said he would willingly accept bin Laden’s “head on a platter”. Some advisers said that although the comments might be popular in America, they would not be welcomed by European or Arab allies.

Mr Bush had just received a briefing on the call-up of military reservists and plans for Operation Noble Eagle, the name given to the “war on terrorism” that the president has vowed to prosecute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1340895/Bin-Laden-is-wanted-dead-or-alive-says-Bush.html

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I agree, Osama should have been captured and waterboarded until he told us everything he knew that would help us destroy what is left of Al Qaeda. But instead, President present did the weakest possible action under the least favorable situation it could have been determined. He sent the seal team into harms way because he was too scared they would not get DNA evidence to prove that Obama killed Osama.

Forced to act because wikileaks outed what intl America got, months after it was posible, he chose to do a kill only mission. Osama dead means he does not have to make any hard decisions about what to do with him. What a coward President Obama is. What a pathetic excuse for a human being our President Obama is for hating not just babies enough to want them snuffed before they get their first breath, but everyone he sends nothing but drones after, and then a kill only mission against the person with the most infomration on our enemy. So sickening, and yet…

Yet, if we nominate anyone other than true blooded conservative (constitutional), I will pull the lever for Obama this election as protest. I am sick of the halfwits called Republicans.

astonerii on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

No, only countries can declare war. The bloods and the crips don’t count.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

So non-countries can engage in acts of war, but it isn’t war.
Fruitloop.

Bye for serious. I can’t take this kind of ‘discussion’.

ProfessorMiao on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

A i’ve already said. There is no “war on terror.” It’s nothing more than a criminal justice issue.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:21 AM

It’s worms like yourself that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, which is exactly why I don’t trust Ron Paul’s sorry excuse for “foreign policy.”

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Think McCain would have made a good president?

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Nope. I voted for his VP pick.

Fallon on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Doesn’t matter the paulnuts will still be out in full force during the primaries sucking votes from legitimate candidates

cmsinaz on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

War on Terror is just another excuse for the Federal government to exist.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

No, you dumbsh!t. The Constitution is the reason our federal government exists. Are you the product of a public screwl edjoocayshun, or what?

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

I think it’s time for Rand to build Pops a room in the attic ….

Jerome Horwitz on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Hey Ed….
I can tolerate putting “respect for the rule of law and world law and international law” on the side in certain situations. Especially when we are dealing with people that don’t have that respect themselves. However, what I find deplorable, is an administration and propaganda machine, that touts the load of intel they grabbed on the way out. Seems to me. They has the mother load of all intel right under the towel on top of his head and they decided to bust a cap in it instead. Not a real bright move. Especially when ya have a Harrrrrrrvard Deeegreeeee.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

No, only countries can declare war. The bloods and the crips don’t count.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

So if I set up bases in Greenland, line up tens of thousands of followers, declare war on France and start a systematic bombing of French cities… the French are obligated to arrest me… killing me would be a crime?

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

How many did Bush kill in Iraq?

1/2 million or so? The Federal Government at work.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

No, only countries can declare war. The bloods and the crips don’t count.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Willful ignorance or just contrarian?

Who cares?

hillbillyjim on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

How many did Bush kill in Iraq?

1/2 million or so? The Federal Government at work.,

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

War on Terror is just another excuse for the Federal government to exist.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

the difference bewtween a conservatives, liberals and libertarians is that conservatives remember that government is a necessary evil whereas libertarians just remember the evil part and liberals just remember the necessary part.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM

How many did Bush kill in Iraq?

1/2 million or so? The Federal Government at work.,

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

How many did Washington kill in the Revolutionary War, douchebag? Gimme a break!

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM

“War on terror” is a criminal justice issue not a war.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM

You have totally lost any credibility. Any comments you make are irrelevant. This is not a criminal matter. It is war. Failure to understand that tells me you don’t understand what’s going on in the world. Bin Laden was head of a transnational organization designed to change the geopolitical nature of the world. Criminals in general are in it for money (a few make it personal – domestic violence, or else have a diseased brain), this is political. And Bin Laden purposefully targeted civilians, and hid among civilians. He did not deserve the option of surrender. He could have been butt naked, hands in the air, and cried “I surrender” in perfect English. I still would have put a bullet in his head. The same as with a rabid dog, with apologies to rabid dogs everywhere.

There’s a reason I stopped voting Libertarian. Spathi, you are that reason.

rbj on May 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

The shame of it for Paul and his supporters, of which I am one on fiscal issues, is that if he would just keep his damn mouth shut on foreign policy and take an ambivalent, Herman Cain “I’ll listen to my generals” approach, he would gain a lot more support for what he’s doing.

If he did that, and focused strongly on fiscal measures and eliminating the Fed, he’d have a chance to actually end any foreign interventions he wanted to, since ending the Federal Reserve system would necessarily remove the ability to expand capital enough to finance such actions. He’d have an easy means to his own desired foreign policy end if, ironically, he would just be more of a politician about it.

But he just can’t help himself. He’s been with the pompous Rockwell crowd too long and just has to try to prove that he’s got the better ideas in the room on everything, whether it helps him or not.

aic4ever on May 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

But Osama wasn’t in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM

+100

Oh, I am so gonna use that!

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5