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 3 4 5

I’ll bet my farm he’ll never be The President of the United States.

Now, I’ll freely admit in the last couple of weeks I’ve softened my “unreasonable” stance that he’s the only GOP candidate that I wouldn’t vote for. If he wins the primary, I will get all liquored up, hold my nose and reluctantly pull the lever for him. Extremely long shot to even win a Republican Primary. But even if he were to somehow win the primary, he’ll never beat Obama. By the time the media is done with him, he’ll be painted as and believed by the majority of America to be a crazy old extremist, and they will also be able to convince most of the country he is also an Anti-Semite.

Okay, I’m ready to bet the farm, I will consider all like valued property. And of course the bet is that he will not be elected to the US Presidency in 2012.

Who’s game?

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Rebar on May 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Far less concerned with winning friends and influencing people than allowing people prove they are liars by challenging them to back up their claims, and watching them squirm when they cannot.

You made a claim about what I said. I challenged you to put up or be accused of a being a liar.

You failed to put up. Therefore, i assume you are all right with being a liar.

of course, you’ve probably had enough of life being called a liar, that you are used to it by now, so I’m not surprised.

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Who’s game?

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Name the odds.

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Who’s game?

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Who’s game?

And Spathi, your room in the basement doesn’t count, because your parents are the ones who actually own it.

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Ace has an EXCELLENT Analysis of RuPaul’s lack of Thinking and how he argues exactly like the Far-Left, devoid of facts, logic and reason.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/316074.php

jp on May 12, 2011 at 3:01 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM

We’ll let the readers here determine who wins the “credibility” contest.

Win or lose though, you really need to get back on your meds, before you harm yourself or others.

Rebar on May 12, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2011 at 2:12 PM

You didn’t answer my question… do you wager on the outcome of elections, and are you willing to back up your assertion about NH?

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Your first “question” insults my intelligence, so I will pretend you never said it.

The 2 most recent polls here in NH have Ron Paul doing quite poorly. They came out about 7 days ago, and both have him in the 7% range (one poll has him at 6, the other at 8). Meanwhile Mittens is at 35%.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2011 at 3:02 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM

What do you mean, name the odds?

I bet my farm against a like valued property. I give the farm to whoever bets me if Ron Paul is elected POTUS in 2012.

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 3:03 PM

As I’ve said all along, if Ron Paul’s insane foreign policies had been in place after WWII, we would be living in Soviet America today. The man is a complete idiot on the subject – but at least he didn’t do a complete flip-flop on being an isolationist the way he ran away from his lifetime belief in “open borders” when illegal immigration became a concern in his district, the two-faced lying jerk.

Someone needs to interview Baby Paul on this right away, too, so all his swooning fans among the uninformed can see his own lack of seriousness on foreign policy.

Adjoran on May 12, 2011 at 3:05 PM

less than a yr ago, Ron Paul called Conservatives “Haters and Islamophobes” for oppossing the Ground Zero Cordoba Victory Mosque.

why we let him in the GOP period, is the real question. he should have been blackballed out a long time ago just like his idol, Murray Rothbard, was by Buckley and Goldwater along with the Birchers

jp on May 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Didn’t think so.

Later.

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Ron Paul: We must follow “International World Law” and not the US Constitution and Article II, we should not kill Bin Laden.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Ron Paul: We must follow “International World Law” and not the US Constitution and Article II, we should not kill Bin Laden.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Well that’s cause he’s all about following the constitution… he just didn’t say who’s constitution.

sharrukin on May 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I don’t care.

We need Ron Paul to run, and to win, because foreign policy doesn’t matter at all when our domestic policy is such a basket-case. Give him four years to clean up our mess at home, then worry about “elsewhere.”

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 12, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Page 4 of this thread was pretty damn moronic.

Jeddite on May 12, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Feel free to cite ya source and I’ll be happy to s’plain ya error. May I suggest Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739

I’ll be hold’n my breath.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

What page is it on?

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM

You failed to put up. Therefore, i assume you are all right with being a liar.

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Nice logic – People who won’t gamble are liars.

You are a pathetic loser.

Scrappy on May 12, 2011 at 4:05 PM

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM
What page is it on?

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I’m sure there’s probably more than 13 pages.
I’m just curious what page this quote is on in that version.

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I’m actually having a hard time finding a primary source for the 1739 Almanac.
I found this. But a transcritpion is not a primary source.

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Nice knowing you.

LOL!

jawkneemusic on May 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Dude, I don’t see his logic at all…..epic fail.

Oil Can on May 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I found this. But a transcritpion is not a primary source.

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Plus, that quote does not appear there at all.

Feel free to cite ya source and I’ll be happy to s’plain ya error. May I suggest Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739

I’ll be hold’n my breath.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Are you still around?
I just want to know where it’s found exactly.

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM

This is what I found regarding the Frankling quote mentioned:

History of the Quote
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of “s”: “Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard’s Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
“If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
“He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”
“Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”

IDK how they got this info at that site.
Who is Craig? His link to the scanned page is defunct.
I cannot find an exact image showing this quote.
Anybody?

Badger40 on May 12, 2011 at 4:23 PM

This fool actually voted for US Law that says this:

(a) 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.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Just another example of Paul being a nut job..I hope Trump does not run, the two of them would turn the debates into a circus.

Terrye on May 12, 2011 at 4:54 PM

You know I was all against Ron Paul being in the debates because I was afraid he would turn them into a circus.

Now Im glad he is because he appears as the clown he has always been.

The more Ron talks the lower his polls will go.

William Amos on May 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM

I bet my farm against a like valued property. I give the farm to whoever bets me if Ron Paul is elected POTUS in 2012.

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 3:03 PM

So essentially you want the entire GOP field, plus Barack Obama, against Ron Paul.

And you want an even money bet.

So, you are claiming that Ron Paul is an even money bet to win the Presidency?

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM

This would be a far better country if we had a “nut” like Paul in office.

CVMA-Dredd on May 12, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Ron Paul is his own worst enemy. Some day, the Libertarians are going to offer a candidate who isn’t a kook. No one knows for sure when that is going to be, though.

It’s stuff like this, and his never ending “blame America first” kookerisms that totally turn off anyone but the most blinded of minions.

Not to mention that Paul is a perpetual whiner. He’s always whining. Whiners are not leaders.

BruthaMan on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I don’t care.

We need Ron Paul to run, and to win, because foreign policy doesn’t matter at all when our domestic policy is such a basket-case. Give him four years to clean up our mess at home, then worry about “elsewhere.”

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 12, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Of course you don’t care and I applaud your honesty. If you say you do care, then you have to justify a disagreement with Herr Doktor. At least – on this one issue – you and JG23 are right where you guy is dead wrong.

If FP doesn’t matter, why comment on it at all? Why let it be made an issue? Run on the domestic side and see what happens.

But you got Herr Doktor to run (again!). But he hasn’t a snowballs chance of winning and you know it.

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 6:03 PM

I’d rather have Ron Paul than 90% of congress. He can appear to be a little extreme, but at least it is on the right side of extreme.

TDBURN on May 12, 2011 at 6:47 PM

I don’t agree with Paul that killing bin laden was wrong on any level, but at least he is being true to his non-interventionist policy, which would have served America far better than the Clinton/Bush/Obama policy of spending money we don’t have in islamic hellholes. I hope his son thinks like him, but is smarter than to open his mouth and make enemies with the GOP establishment and its base.

keep the change on May 12, 2011 at 7:07 PM

I’d rather have Ron Paul than 90% of congress. He can appear to be a little extreme, but at least it is on the right side of extreme.

TDBURN on May 12, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Herr Doktor does not appear to be extreme. He is. His position on this very issue is only the most recent incarnation of it.

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Wow! Two Republican nominees crash and burn in just one day. We should have our candidate by next Friday.

elfman on May 12, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Ron Paul is his own worst enemy. Some day, the Libertarians are going to offer a candidate who isn’t a kook. No one knows for sure when that is going to be, though.

BruthaMan on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

LOL! Okay, but until then, it’s garbage in – garbage out.

elfman on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

The more Ron talks the lower his polls will go.

William Amos on May 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Then we’re both in agreement that he should talk. I think he’s brilliant.

elfman on May 12, 2011 at 9:11 PM

So essentially you want the entire GOP field, plus Barack Obama, against Ron Paul.

And you want an even money bet.

So, you are claiming that Ron Paul is an even money bet to win the Presidency?

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM

No, I’m betting he doesn’t have a freaking chance.

WTH are you talking about? You all are pushing Ron Paul here on Hot Air like there’s no tomorrow. Why? Because you think he can win…the…presidency.

If you don’t think he can win, what’s the point of wasting your time touting his every gas passing?

I’m sure he won’t be president. You must be sure too if you won’t bet even money.

If you want to bet odds that he get a certain percentage but still loses the presidency or even a primary, I again ask, what is your point? Pick a candidate that has a chance of winning.

Odds, what a freaking joke. I thought you were serious.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Another loser is Ron Paul.

Sherman1864 on May 13, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Guess I’m late to the party.

Anyways…

I don’t have a problem with Paul’s statement here, either. Here’s why:
1. We had managed to get Pakistan to do what we want before with the arrest of KSM.
2. Had we gotten him alive, there’s at least the off chance we can get more information out of him. Can’t do that at all when he’s dead.
3. Now that he’s dead, Al Qaeda has their martyr. That wouldn’t be true if we had managed to take him alive.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the fact he is dead, but taking him alive would have been better.

Badger State Dave on May 13, 2011 at 8:27 AM

There are so many flaws in this logic that I do not know where to begin. How do you compare a stable, rule of law nation like England to a dysfunctional entity like Pakistan?

stuartm650 on May 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM

International law??? I think we should one of those that are trying to kill us every Sunday before 11pm since the Apprentice has moved to Thursday.

Rea1ityCheck on May 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I have no idea why everyone thinks the GOP are war hawks.

Notorious GOP on May 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM

absolutely necessary to not repeal Obamacare so that RP can be the first guinea pig in the “Death Panel,” in Obamacare. If there was reincarnation this dude would be a dung beetle in his next life just like he is as a Republican candidate. LOL-he is sorry piranhabait for the GOP base.

mdetlh on May 13, 2011 at 11:13 PM

mdetlh on May 13, 2011 at 11:13 PM

WTH?

hawkdriver on May 14, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Feel free to cite ya source and I’ll be happy to s’plain ya error. May I suggest Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739

I’ll be hold’n my breath.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

I guess you’re not interested in telling me where tis quote is.
Looks like there is some contention regarding this quote.
Just bcs you say it’s so, doesn’t mean it is.
I’m not impressed.

Badger40 on May 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5