Ron Paul explains why he’ll never win the Presidency

Ron Paul told the Politico that he would not have authorized the raid to go into Pakistan and get bin Laden. Instead he believes that President Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government and arrested bin Laden:

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

“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?

Asked by WHO Radio’s Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it “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?”



Alternate title for this post: Ron Paul explains why he didn’t kill or capture bin Laden.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

133 thoughts on “Ron Paul explains why he’ll never win the Presidency

  1.  How would we feel if the Pakistanis, without any consultation with our government, sent a paramilitary hit-squad to perform an illegal assassination on our homeland?  I’m glad the guy is dead, but it is it really so hard to see that these kind of actions, the complete neglect for the sovereignty of other nations, is what stirs up the anti-american sentiment that has become a danger to our security?  Is the entirety of our country now made up moral relativists and jingoists?  I saw the light from a young age, hopefully some day you will too…Ron Paul 2012-live the rEVOLution!  

  2. Appoint this man to be the final chairman of the Fed.  I do not want a president who thinks getting involved in WWII was a mistake. 

  3.  Ok I can’t take it anymore.  For some reason the RonObots always-always stand behind anything Ron Paul says or decisions he would make with reasons that falter in the face of common sense.  

    Let’s look at this for a moment.  Most Ron Paul supporters will say: He’s consistent, He says what he believes, He’s not a shill, etc… 

    OK FINE!  He’s consistent.  So is Obama!  He’s consistently making poor choices as President and RUNNING our country into the ground.  The fact that he stated “Word Law” should send a red flag to begin with.  The fact that he doesn’t seem to remember that during Bush’s Presidency we had an agreement established with Pakistan to go in and get Bin Laden if he was there.  Don’t get me wrong, I like Ron Pauls stance on the economy and I think he is very consistent, but he reminds me of a “Jimmy Carter” when it comes to National Security.  

    Yes we can all have hopefilled dreams at night that the world will appreciate us applying our constitutional values across the seas, but the fact is “THERE IS EVIL IN THE WORLD” and those people don’t CARE about how politically correct we are when rooting out the bad guys!  THEY DON’T CARE! 
    LET ME ASK YOU ONE SIMPLE QUESTION TO PONDER.  Here’s the situation:  You have a daughter, she was taken by an evil person, that evil person is in Mexico hiding.  You have two people to turn to that will go try to rescue your daughter.  One is going to go in and use a special ops team in the dead of night and attempt a rescue effort secretly, the other person says he wants to contact the Mexican gov’t and see if they will go in and arrest him or if they will be ok with us getting her out of there.  WHICH PERSON DO YOU ENTRUST YOUR DAUGHTER’S LIFE TO?  GET IT?!

    1. Very different scenario altogether.  The people Bin Laden’s killed are…well…already dead.  We entrusted the security of our air space to our own government and they failed us miserably that day by standing down.

      Obama?  Consistent?  Maybe in his true principles he is, but the problem is that Obama lied through his teeth to get elected.  He actually said all the wonderful things that people wanted to hear about transparency in the government, broadcasting all the debates about healthcare on C-Span, not being so partisan, closing Gitmo, ending the renditions, immigration reform in his first year, fixing the economy, fixing unemployment, etc…  

      Maybe if Ron Paul was more of a liar, then he probably would’ve won the primaries and maybe (with the exception that many people…friends of mine will admit this…voting for Obama solely because he’s black) won the presidency in 2008.  Who knows.  It seemed pretty easy for people to buy into McCain’s BS to vote him in through the primaries and even now he still flip-flops time and time again…yet he somehow still gets voted into office because he’s a “better debater” and he seems “better at security.”  Valuing security over liberty is what got us into this conundrum we find ourselves in.

      Consistency means saying one thing and actually doing what you say you’re going to do (or at least putting forth the effort to do what you say).  That’s what we mean when we talk about that.  That’s non-existent in most politicians, even the so-called “Tea Party” candidates.

      Here’s some consistency from me…and this has nothing to do with Ron Paul being the only potential candidate I will support thus far.  America is about to implode.  The system will collapse on itself and the dollar is soon to no longer be the world’s reserve currency.  When this happens, everyone’s standard of living will decrease at least 25% if not more.  First world status?  Not anymore.  This is where our country’s heading…and it has nothing to do with Al-Quada.  It’s all our own government’s and the Federal Reserve’s doing.  A big, brown turban man might kill another 3,000 of us?  Millions of us are going to starve to death if what I have seen in my dreams comes true.  That’s what matters most to me and that’s why I stand with the candidate(s) who are dead serious about taking out the TRUE #1 TERRORIST.  So far…Ron Paul’s the only one.  That’s why I support him to the degree I do.

  4. I think what Ron is getting at is we shouldn’t be the child when it comes to our foreign aid policy. Either pakistan works with us, or they don’t get aid. If they are not working with us, im sure he wouldn’t mind sending in a raid. But the fact that we have to raid in an “allied” country is what makes no sense to Ron.

    1. Doesn’t make sense to me.  If they were a true “ally,” we wouldn’t even be having that discussion about “Did they know he was there?” and “How long did they hide him from us?”  Libertarians are the true Gadsden rattlesnakes when it comes to foreign policy.  We don’t play the UN games.  If we are attacked, we will strike back and do so hard.  If we know he’s in your country and you don’t turn him over to us…then you’re our enemy too and you will be attacked as well.  We will truly stop at nothing to get him…only it won’t take us almost 20 years like it did with the past several administrations’ styles of warfare.

    2.  Apparently there aren’t many that do understand the situation in Pakistan. The problem is arises from the fact that there is not one “government”. What most view as the “central” government is in truth three governments each with it’s own allegiances and agendas, you have the civilian, the military and the ISI. Get outside the cities and you have a multitude of tribal governments and petty warlords. This is a very common theme in South Asia with possibly the exception of India. Probably the one Government that really understands this is China, take a look at how China has historically dealt with South Asia sometime,sadly it’s pretty clear that most of our diplomatic corps has not ever looked at the region from that angle.

      1. It doesn’t appear that any are willing to except for more reasonable people.  Will Paul?  I can’t guarantee that he’d suddenly pull that sort of angle into the table in such a situation…but he’s been the most reasonable so far and would be most likely from any other candidate I’ve seen so far to be able to do that.

        1.  While Ron Paul raises some valid points on some issues,like others, he is still just another career politician at the end of the day dutifully making sure he gets his share of the pork from the “public trough”. I am done with career politicians have been for some time now.

      2. It doesn’t appear that any are willing to except for more reasonable people.  Will Paul?  I can’t guarantee that he’d suddenly pull that sort of angle into the table in such a situation…but he’s been the most reasonable so far and would be most likely from any other candidate I’ve seen so far to be able to do that.

  5. Yeah, hey – work with Pakistan! Why, I’ll bet that hasn’t been tried AT ALL to get Bin Laden in the past 10 years! Thanks for handing us that oh-so-specific nugget of wisdom Ron Paul!

    Ron Paul may be honest enough to speak his mind regardless of others’ impressions of him, but as I’ve mentioned here before, what he says also shows him to be dangerously naive on foreign policy. I’d worry, but Paul has almost zero chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency, so I’ll just file the latest soundbyte under my long list of reasons why I’ll never, ever vote for the man and move on.

    1. I was going to say something like: Would you like to borrow my pistol so you could shoot your other foot as well? But I didn’t. Now I have.

    2. Did the Bush administration ever threaten to cut aid to them…or to any of the other Muslim countries who were receiving our tax dollars merely to laugh in our faces while they hid Bin Laden?  No.  Libertarians don’t play the bribe game.  Plus…if they decide that money isn’t enough of a motivator to give him up to us…then we can always declare war with an actual nation…properly.  We have more in military spending and might than the entire Middle East region.  So…needless to say…it’s not that working with Pakistan hasn’t been tried.  It’s actually motivating them to be helpful instead of just taking our money that hasn’t been tried.  Thank you.  Come again.

      1.  Contradicting yourself?
        “Now, if you haven’t already stated it…you probably think that because
        Al-Quada isn’t an actual nation, but a group of people…you can’t
        actually declare war. On the contrary…you can…and can do so the
        same way with the same objectives and goal-setting as you would if you
        waged war against another nation”  http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-gop-debate-live-9pm-est/
         I’m still waiting for this example or “evidence” of this true or proper declaration of war you keep crowing about.

        1. No contradictions…just poor wording.  You can declare war with a terrorist organization, with a terrorist leader or a nation.

          I’ve already explained that a declaration of war (even the link you sent me is the evidence in itself) will actually define an enemy.  When an enemy is defined…then even though it won’t include it in the declaration…at least there’s an actual target that can be considered an “end-game” or a “stopping point” once taken out.  On other words, there’s an actual plan of action as opposed to just adding more and more targets (many having next to nothing if anything to do with the original war target) as you go along which is as I’ve said plenty of times, what makes this a never-ending and guaranteed cash crop for weapons and armor manufacturers.

          1. Authorization for Use of Military Force

            September 18, 2001

            Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

            107th CONGRESS

            JOINT RESOLUTION
            To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
            those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
            States.
            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,
            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) 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.
            (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

            Approved September 18, 2001.

            1. I get all of that, but what does it have to do with what we have actually done for the last ten years? Conquering nations, supposedly rebuilding them, and killing massive amounts of innocents while protecting oil fields and helping protect and build new pipelines, and growing and protecting opium crops. Disarming entire populations, shooting at anyone who might have a gun, going through residential neighborhoods knocking down doors and shooting people in their homes. Arming radical groups to take out leaders of sovereign nations that we don’t like, but put in power years ago.

              I don’t see how this is protecting us from attack. Neither does Ron Paul. I no longer believe that it was ever intended to.

              Bin Laden was created by the US. (on record and admitted) He was a useful tool to do what our government has done, both abroad and at home.

        2. No contradictions…just poor wording.  You can declare war with a terrorist organization, with a terrorist leader or a nation.

          I’ve already explained that a declaration of war (even the link you sent me is the evidence in itself) will actually define an enemy.  When an enemy is defined…then even though it won’t include it in the declaration…at least there’s an actual target that can be considered an “end-game” or a “stopping point” once taken out.  On other words, there’s an actual plan of action as opposed to just adding more and more targets (many having next to nothing if anything to do with the original war target) as you go along which is as I’ve said plenty of times, what makes this a never-ending and guaranteed cash crop for weapons and armor manufacturers.

  6. Ron Paul is willing to cede logistical superiority to the Chicoms and Russians, all for the fantasy of an invincible, Fortress America. It’s a total misreading of Washington’s warning about foreign entanglements. Washington wasn’t a suicide junkie. He just didn’t like the notion of getting embroiled in someone else’s arguments.

    That’s entirely different from seeing a reason to disallow certain outcomes of those arguments, if they are going to negatively impact the USA.

    If we follow Ron Paul’s foreign policy, we would sail the seven seas only where China and Russia allow. Which is the flaw in his otherwise excellent domestic policy. Free trade requires unimpeded access to markets.

    1. What are you talking about? Where in anything he’s ever said do you think that he’s willing to cede anything to China and Russia? Maybe he is. If him saying that is out there, I haven’t heard it yet…but unless you’re simply making assumptions…please present your evidence.

    2. Then you obviously agree with the neo-cons and liberals. If you think that it is ok to invade anyone who can affect us in any way, then you would also agree that government is doing the right thing by controlling every aspect of our lives because it could possibly affect government or someone else.

      Unless your are an admitted hypocrite, you can’t say that government has limits concerning citizens, but can do whatever it wants to other sovereigns.  

      1.  Do you ever bother to argue points from what people actually write, or do you just live to invent stuff and pretend it’s what the person wrote?

        Your BS “do whatever it wants” routine is way past it’s sell-by date.

        1. Last I checked, Pakistan is a sovereign. Going into their sovereign territory for this purpose is a violation of our laws, and shows our government’s willingness to invade the rights of others as well as ours.

          By saying that this was the way to do it, is giving them room to continue it at home. It is either wrong, or it is right. Invading people because they might affect you in some way, is wrong. It was wrong in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and we have now let Pakistan know where they stand as well. They throw out the whole “harboring” issue to justify it. There are diplomatic and legal ways of handling criminals in other countries. 

  7. Interesting… HOTAIR.COM ran the EXACT SAME HIT-PIECE.

    It’s okay, because as soon as I saw the polling data I knew the neocons would circle the wagons against Ron Paul.

    However, a big caveat to working with Pakistan to arrest Bin laden would be that we’d find out if they were protecting or hiding him. We also would have an opportunity to live up to our TALK about the rule of law. Holy Roller, Glenn Beck always says we’re a nation of laws and not of men. Well, not anymore. The nerve of Ron Paul to do what’s right.

    You fascists, suck.

    1. Of course HotAir did. They won’t be the only ones. In fact, you’ll find nearly anyone with neurons that actually connect would write the same “hit piece.” It practically writes itself.

      1. It’s definitely a hit piece when you try your best to assume that he would just let Osama get away. It’s definitely a hit piece when you put headlines to it such as “explains why he won’t win presidency.” It’s a hit piece plain and simple. Libertarian politics have simply not been tried, yet the conservatives act like they have any idea how America would operate if we had such policies. Conservatives at every opportunity will attack a libertarian harder than a liberal. It happens every time. Anytime somebody presents reason that’s contradictory to the old guard ways…the old guard will lash out viciously like a guard dog that feels like its territorial boundaries have been crossed.

        1. That’s a bit oversensitive. Why not actually “present reason” rather than slander people as “attacking” and “old guard” and “vicious?”

          1. I try not to resort to such insults and they’re not really so much a “You’re an old guard” or “You’re vicious,” but rather pointing out the manner in which social conservatives and people who believe that the never-ending war, intrusions into our private lives and TSA grope-downs are actually keeping us “safe” will attack someone who’s actually further “right” on a political spectrum than they are even harder than they’ll attack the “left.”  Point being that big government is still big government, but to the false R vs D mantra…it only matters which letter is in power.  That’s where the absurdity lies.

            1. I think you are making too much of the usual social conflict. Particular people will be tough on other particular people. Most people aren’t tough on anyone. My guess is that you experience flames when you hit hot-button issues.

              With me for example, I don’t tell an Iraq theater vet that I think we should cut and run from Afghanistan. Nor would I tell a marching pro-lifer that a woman’s body is her property.

              I caucus with Conservatives because the left has nearly succeeded in destroying this country.  Until we get that problem fixed, I’ll shut up, sit down, and have a few beers with the most “paleo” of paleocons, and we’ll be damned good friends. When the country is safe, I’ll consider fighting with conservatives. Now I hang out with vets, and prefer the company of religious folks to atheists, because they don’t tell me what I’m allowed to do.

              Here’s how 9-11 and Obama have changed me:

              Like you, I was strongly Libertarian/Objectivist/whatever, and I have spent decades studying philosophy, so I have some sort of basis for forming an opinion. After the left took over education, and all of the major organs of the state, and especially after 9-11, I decided, “you know, a woman not having the right to control her own body isn’t much of an issue if the country has fallen into Marx-inspired totalitarianism.”

              For now (I repeat…for now) I don’t care if it takes 300 years to resolve Row vs. Wade, or even if the Paleos succeed in getting an amendment to the Constitution eliminating any and all forms of contraceptive, abortion, or genetic engineering. If the left succeeds in making this place Europe, that potential, draconian solution to the Roe v Wade problem just doesn’t.freaking.matter.

              At all.

      2. Would you like me to list the number of times you neoconservatives have ACTUALLY failed in the area of foreign policy? You’ve failed time and time again, so if you want to go this route – we can, but you’ll lose.

        Ron Paul was merely suggesting that we not let a mass murderer like Osama Bin Laden destroy our respect for the rule of law. Of course, for the failed neoconservative fascists, that makes him “unelectable”.

        The good news is you guys don’t have the power you used too. Ron Paul polls better than all other GOP candidates against Obama and THAT’S the true motivation for this hit piece. I guess we should all fully expect a hit piece from David Horowitz later. The irony is a lot of GOPers suggest Ron Paul “can’t win versus Obama”, yet several polls show exactly the opposite of that.

        Just admit it – YOU’D PREFER PRESIDENT OBAMA OVER RON PAUL.

        1. You need to get over yourself and your hypersensitivity over people who may have issues with your candidate. I would also recommend that you take a bit of time to get your facts straight on ideologies. Tantrums like you’re throwing here do nothing to convince anyone on the candidate you support, in fact it’s a guaranteed turn off. You are coming off like a diehard Obama supporter accusing someone of being a racist because they don’t like his policies or his politics.

  8. The possibility that Bin Laden was actually dead years ago and they’re just now pulling this “kill scenario” out of the woodworks…Paul is again right.

    Everyone has their price and either through threatening to cut their aid or possibly giving them a very high reward for capturing him and handing him over to us would have been money well-spent.

    Instead, we have the man shot dead and buried at sea…with only what’s been saved to his files instead of the actual man alive to give us further intelligence as to what activities are happening where.

  9. I like Ron Paul. But Osama was directly responsible for 9/11 (lovely typing the was there . . . him being dead and all that). It was an act of war. We won. Osama lost. It just took 10 years.

    1. It wouldn’t have taken that long under a more direct manner of warfare as opposed to our nation-building.

    2. You Constitution has a clause specifically meant for dealing with people just like Bin Laden, and it wasn’t the part about declarations of war.

      It’s the bit about letters of marque and reprisal.

      1. No need for that when there was an act of war against us and we had troops in the field and the commander’s location. If Goering was in Switzerland in WWII, we’d have got him if we could and dealt with the Swiss later.

        1. Have you ever heard the debates between Beck and Stossel about potentially privatizing our military? That’s what the marque and reprisal is about. We could’ve hired mercenaries to take care of this at a much lower cost and we most likely would’ve taken out Bin Laden and all the rest of these “successors” years ago because mercenaries don’t (bleep) around.

          Heck…for the same price we’ve paid just to track down and kill Bin Laden…we could’ve had mercenaries taking out Sadam, Ghadaffi, and all these other 3rd world dictators to even include the Somali warlords and other African dictators who cause massive starvation.

          1. I haven’t heard the debates with Beck and Stossel. What you are saying may make sense regarding using mercenaries. And I don’t have a problem with us having taken out Osama with the SEALs. Hayward over at Human Events put it very well; paraphrased, it isn’t a violation of principle to understand that certain ideas may require a bit more polish in the way they are presented for them to be understood by the public. Ron Paul is a gadfly and an important one. I love him. That said, it does make him highly, highly unlikely to actually be elected.

            1. I don’t have a problem with SEALs being used either. If we have more small surgical strike teams taking out more of the head guys instead of 150,000+ troops who aren’t even that well-trained being in these war zones doing very little and taking out just the foot soldiers who can easily be replaced…we might be a litle more effective in our “War on Terror.”

              There’s only one reason above all else why Paul wouldn’t be elected this time and his critics on this very site have made that very clear.

              He’s HONEST. People don’t want honesty in politics. Even George Carlin once said if we actually had honesty in the system, then the entire thing would collapse. Either way…it would appear that entirely too many people aren’t having any of that.

          2. Letters of Marque and Reprisal were intended to supplement the military in order to free up resources,not to replace it. BTW we have been employing mercenaries for some time now we just call them “private contractors” now.

            1. That goes back to the lack of an actual goal or objective through an actual declaration of war debate we’ve been having, Ken. Even the best-paid and more well-trained mercenaries can’t really do much when there’s no actual plan of action.

              1. You are still confusing a Declaration of War with Prosecution of a war. A declaration is merely a government action saying a state of war exists, it has nothing what so ever to do with carrying out or prosecuting that war. While the President as CIC of the Armed Forces can and will (sometimes) issue an order to the Generals for the “end game” or conditions for declaring victory,this is not something that a declaration of war addresses,never has.

                1. Just to add to that point, once any such declaration exists, the President has the Constitutional authority to declare, via treaties and other methods, an end to the state of war, not Congress. Congress can always defund the “war” if they believe the President has exceeded any reasonable mandate.

                  The Senate can also refuse to accept any treaty the President makes, which can, in a way, incite a continuation of the state of war, even if the President has declared it over. These are fuzzy situations, and not likely, but it’s how the Constitution set it up.

                2. Yes, I am aware of how it works. As I have previously stated the Constitution isn’t perfect but I have yet to see any better alternatives.

                3. A true declaration of war states exactly who you’re at war with. With that, tends to come conditions which must be met to no longer be at war. This so-called “war” does not do either of those two things. As long as there is some boogeyman in a turban that can be claimed as a “terrorist leader,” then this war will continue until our nation can no longer pretend that it’s not bankrupt.

                4. It had a very clear enemy.  We didn’t declare one, though we could have.  That’s why an actual declaration is important.  If your enemy is clear, then the rest of the details do not need to be written down.  Sorry.  Maybe I should’ve clarified that in the last statement.

                  Point is…had we waged war on Al-Quada and declared it…we could’ve been concentrating on Bin Laden and his network this whole time until we eliminated all who were responsible for our attacks instead of getting side-tracked which even now with Osama’s death…we’ll continue to be time and time again.

                  No matter how you try to frame the argument…unless proven otherwise, this so-called “war” is clearly designed to never end.  It’s nothing but a guaranteed cash cow for the military-industrial complex.

            2. I heard someone say that we are basically replacing troops with mercenaries, then reporting draw downs of troops. 

              1.  I would be interested in seeing the source for that. Although as I said to Tyler in another conversation, we have been employing mercenaries for some time, now a days we call them “Private Contractors”. The much storied Studies and Observations Group (S.O.G.) of the Vietnam War was about 70% mercs.

                1. There is a lot of that which goes on, but I think I was just drawing a parallel between the US reductions in troop numbers and the increases in private security forces. Some of my family who served over there were talking about the deals they could have had on converting over to private security. 

            1. It is what it is. Honesty matters more than anything else. So, some of them might be considered “better” as far as foreign policy…but they’re lying scumbags who will tear our country apart from within. That’s why I don’t take any of these guys on their words alone.

  10. The issue in Pakistan,is not the government itself,but the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). The US was warned many years ago by the first Pakistani head of the service,Lt. Gen. and later Foreign Minister Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan that the service was out of control and working to support a hard line Muslim agenda,this came predates the Russian misadventure in Afghanistan. Many ranking members have been involved over the years in attempts to subvert the more moderate government,as well as being suspected to have played an active if not major role in the assassination of the current President’s wife, Benazir Bhutto. Before our resident conspiracy theorists jump in, the ISI was founded by the British, namely one Major General R. Cawthome, an Australian born British army officer who had been serving as a Deputy Chief of Staff in the Pakistani Army.

  11. The good news: Paul’s honest.
    The bad news: He’s too divorced from reality to make a decent President.

    Is it too much to ask for a candidate who is both honest AND sane?

    1. We could have worked with them. Of course, the fact that Obama didn’t try to work with the Pakistanis instead is more proof to me that this whole thing is one giant conspiracy and that my gut feeling is more right that Osama has actually be dead for years and they’re just now putting together this scenario for us to make him look good when Americans have seen no effort to fix the economy and unemployment.

  12. I find myself agreeing with Ron Paul on this one. We would know for sure where we stand with Pakistan if we followed this coarse of action. If they got him we could keep propping them up with money, if they didn’t well sorry the well would go dry. Either way we would have the moral high ground still, plus we would have an invaluable new resource to water board more secrets out of. Provided we had someone in power willing to make the tough choices required to keep this country safe.

    1. It’s not even that. If it’s a matter of Bin Laden using his inherited oil money to pay off the government…we just need to A) make it clear that if they don’t cooperate, they won’t receive future funds and B) if they help us get him…we can basically be the “highest bidder.” If you’re going to throw away hundreds of billions into this so-called “war,” you might as well bribe these foreign countries properly to actually achieve objectives.

      1. We never had to go to war if getting this guy was actually an objective.  If he died of disease in 2002, the whole thing is mute.

        You are right. Why not just put up a billion bucks reward and call it good? The answer is that you can’t use him to take out most of the middle east and control them.

  13. Oh, no! A man with integrity and the courage of his convictions!

    Seriously though, the Pakistani government could not be trusted. Ten years ago, the Pakistani government authorized covert operations to take out bin Laden should there be actionable intelligence. There were good reasons to kill bin Laden and remove his body before it became a shrine to future martyrs. This is a war, not a police action.

    1. That’s just the problem though. This thing has been a police action for the last several decades. Otherwise, we probably couldn’t gotten this guy long before he slowly moved his old, decrepit hide into Pakistan.

  14. The thing is, is it any wonder that millions of people around the world don’t like America when the federal government thinks it can just walk in, invade the sovereignty of a country and do what it likes?

    Imagine if the Chinese saw that America was protecting someone on China’s most wanted list and they then decided to send their military into the United States to kill the guy. We’d be outraged! “How dare the Chinese invade our sovereignty without our permission!”… and so on.

    THIS is why America is disliked. Not because we’re “free” (which we clearly aren’t, when you compare the current state of affairs to the Constitution), it’s because of the arrogance.

      1. By ‘they’ I assume you mean Muslims. If our foreign policies do not breed hate, what then is the cause of their anger? “They don’t hate us because we’re rich and free they hate us because we’re over there” Ron Paul

        1. The Muslim world hates us because we represent the antithesis of what they believe. We are infidels that stand in their way of creating a caliphate. They want to destroy Israel and western culture because of their ‘prophet’.

          Let me guess, you also believe that the ‘dispute’ in Israel is over land…eh?

          1. The Muslims aren’t the only ones who hate us, Scoop…and those who aren’t couldn’t care less that we’re Christian or Muslim. We really have become a very imperialistic nation who has decided that it not only doesn’t have to follow the laws of other nations when dealing with them, but don’t even have to follow our own when dealing with militarism as well as our own domestic policies (i.e. Patriot Act, random checkpoints, TSA, etc.)

            Our country is in the wrong direction here and our foreign policy truly is a great example of this. Since we tend to throw money at the “War on Terror” without even doing a cost-benefit analysis anyway…how much worse could the idea of oh…I dunno just bribing the Pakistanis to let us go in and arrest Bin Laden actually be in comparison to now.

            On other words…if all that data on those disks and hard drives and diaries are so valuable…wouldn’t having captured the actual man himself and interrogating him have been even more valuable? No…we’ll just kill him and dump his body into the sea.

            1. I agree, but have a hard time even believing that it was Bin Laden, and for some of the reasons you mentioned. Not to mention that government lies to us on a regular basis.

              1. There’s no point trying to convince people that there might actually be something to the report back in December 26, 2001 that stated that Osama had already died and been buried in the mountains then.  At this point, I just frame anything I have to say on the presumption that they really did just now kill him after all this time of not really seeing much of him and what little we see being old re-hashed videos just to remind us of the big, bad turban man.

                1. Pretty much. I don’t really care when he died, or how. His death, or life is of no concern to me other than what government used him for.

          2. I
            agree SOME Muslims follow this caliphate I wouldn’t say the entire Muslim world
            does. Do you think our foreign policies have nothing to do with creating
            radical Muslims? The continued presence of U.S. troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia
            was one of the stated motivations behind the 911 terrorist attacks. I support Isreal and its right to protect its self from all threats it faces using whatever means it deems necessary and WITHOUT support or intervention from the USA. Maybe after we can no longer afford to police the world we’ll mind our own business. Good Luck.

            1. I would only add “realize” after “we” in your last sentence and you’ll be dead-on.

        2. Look into the Koran. They hate us because we do not worship the Prophet. Becise we don not, their religion and law (Sharia) demands they force into submission, or kill us if we refuse.

          This is the most fundamental tenet of Isalm. It has not changed in over 1500 years and will never change. There is no foreign policy or other appeasement that will change it.

          Islam may not be our enemy, but we are their mortal enemy.

          1. sDee. This is insignificant, but Islam didn’t get started until the mid 600’s. 1500 years would be off by 100 years 🙂

            But, I get the point. Right on.

          2. OMG @a14faad9336d87bf724febde7cbe4460:disqus you are so right! It’s amazing how many people who are actually involved in foreign policy don’t “get” this basic truth. “Islam may not be our enemy, but we are their mortal enemy.” Nail hit on head.

            Ron Paul is totally wrong. They DO hate us because we are rich and free. “Infidels” should be suffering while the “faithful” should be prospering. Something is wrong with the world that only a vestful of dynamite seems to be able to resolve. Who cares if he’s honest if he’s wrong!

      2. so when exactly did america become the great satan to them?
        when we blasted their pirates at tripoli 200+ years ago?
        no, because we settled that with a treaty.

        hmm, so maybe it was wilson and fdr’s novel approaches to spreading democracy that did it.
        the cia’s installation of dictators
        the corporate resource abatement of these countries, and military industrial complex.
        i wonder if obama would have talked to london if ubl was there?
        maybe our barry just wants to continue poking the beehive

        1. America is not an Islamist nation. We do not accept the Prophet Muhammed and we do not submit to Shaira law. We must submit or die. We are their hated enemy because we exist.

          Before America, this is how Islam attacked all nations or peoples that did not submit to the Prophet and Sharia. Read about the fall of Constantinople and you shall see your fate.

          1. as with any nation, america was birthed in religion, matured in industry, and wane in worship of our profit.
            the pendulum swings, and islam is rising now, as we wither, and china blooms.

            if we were not so self-absorbed, perhaps we would begin to notice how islam and china view eachother. for if they join hands as hitler and islam did, fate would truly show its hand.

            1. See…now THAT’S a bit of a concerning thought (China & Islamic jihadists joining hands against us)…more so than just “Oh no. Who’s Al-Quada’s next leader going to be?”

              Even if THAT happens though…we’re still spending more than a HALF TRILLION more on our militarism and have a great military capacity than all the people who hate us combined. They don’t stand a chance, so if they’re serious enough to do that…then we’ll become serious enough to defend our country against them and win…because might-against-might NOBODY beats America.

            2. “worship of profit”

              I’m not sure I could come up with a criticism that’s as damning of your post as your use of that phrase.

              1. believe me, i share your sentiment.

                as Ron Paul said,
                “a nation that lives beyond it’s means, is destined to live beneath it’s means”

                and as beck recently pointed out, we have exchanged our principlesfor “stuff”

                i do hope enough of us wake up soon enough. life is not a shopping mall and a credit card as the globalist cabal hopes we will believe. we should engage the world from a stance of liberty and justice for all, not guns with some butter for our friends.

      3. I have posted here several times but have been a casual observer lately. It bothers me that John makes a very valid point and he is attacked and dismissed by the moderator of the site. I am a conservative gay man (yes we exist in large numbers) and I find the arrogance and disregard of the rights of others by this nation to be appalling. I think we need to keep our best interests as a nation as the top priority, but doing so at the cost of our values and freedoms is, in my opinion, a ghastly trade off. Just my two cents but I agree with John and Ron Paul here.

        Thanks for allowing these conversations on your site RS

        1. A) John wasn’t attacked. B) I was simply trying to point out that he is wrong in his assumption. C) He wasn’t dismissed, he was engaged. D) Thanks!

          1. I agree TRS. 3 years ago I would have agreed with John. We must question our assumptions and conventionnal wisdom. This is no election. This is war. The enemy is within and has aligned with the Islamists.

            There is no long time for big umbrellas or inclusive platforms. Obama’s election has forced the end game. America is the obstacle. They will never have this chance again in their lifetimes.

            It is no longer politics. It is time to recognize your enemy and choose sides. The Marxists, Globalists and Islamists are dead serious. Are we?

            1. The enemy within has been hand-picked by the globalists for decades now. The first Bush, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama…these guys are clearly globalists…not Islamists. The Islam thing is just a distraction from the much greater issue of those who wish for a one-world government to actually pull some strings without our knowledge.

              1. Spot on Tyler. Everyone is missing the forest for the trees. It is too easy and convenient to blame everything on Islam and say that they hate us because we are not muslim. People are consumed by hating and blaming Islam when they should pull back the curtain and see that Islam (and all that goes with it) is just a tool in the hands of the globalists, its not the real problem. The globalists are the real enemy and should be the focus of people’s vitriol and anger, not those scary beareded men in turbans. Sadly, most people will never see through this deception and will continue to focus on the wrong enemy.

      4. But Scoop, if we pretend we’re Pakistani for a minute, wouldn’t we prefer it if the US government discussed with the Pakistani government over how to get Bin Laden, rather than going into our country (Pakistan) without permission? I think it’s a fair point.

        I just think there should be formal, international rules to how we engage with other countries. If we aren’t a country based on the rule of law (and instead simply act out on the whim of the president), then anything is possible, including things that may some day affect us.

        I don’t think it sets a good example. Other countries should look to America as the example of how to conduct one’s nation. If America violates the national sovereignty of another country, what message does this send to China, North Korea, Iran etc?

        1. It all sounds nice in a vaccuum, but what if the United States believed the Pakistans, or at least enough of them in the government/military were actually supportive of Bin Laden and telling them and informing them would only give them the chance to warn him.

          So if that’s the case, we do what? Declare war on Pakistan or just let Bin Laden be? Because that’s where Ron Pauls purist foreign policy ideology takes him.

          And this notion that they hate the United States because we throw our weight around doesn’t hold up when you look at other major terrorist attacks by Muslim groups. Why, then, do they also hate Spain? Or England? Or France? Those countries surely aren’t throwing their weight around, yet they were either hit with a major attack or had major Islamic riots. They hate them and us, because we are the infidels. This is also something Ron paul refuses to admit

          And finally, when you have two legitimate nations with well defined borders and a stable society, then one should consult the other about these matters. So the idea that China could just come into the United States doesn’t hold up because Pakistan has giant sections of it’s country that aren’t controlled by it’s government and the governemnt itself is barely barely hanging on. When you have a country and a govt. that isn’t really legitimate then what sovereignty do they have the right to claim?

          1. @769d8f1fa258b0381a217f43cd615df4:disqus I agree with your basic sentiment and think you have a valid point from a logical standpoint. But consider what @713efa920a9924f0f0ce43e7b419fc1f:disqus is saying. Also, you must realize that Pakistan very likely knew about UBL’s presence and either did nothing (so we were right to ignore their sovereignty) or they secretly supported our mission because they could not do so overtly (and we were not really ignoring their sovereignty).

            1. Rich and Steprock,

              I admit you make a good point about the extent to which Pakistan is in control of it’s own country. From the sounds of things, their government does have problems governing. However, at the end of the day, the terrority is still Pakistani and permission should surely be needed in order to enter.

              But this leads to another point you raise – namely, did the Pakistani authorities know that Bin Laden was there? I agree that this would pose some problems. If we coordinated with their authorities, they may have simply leaked the plans to Osama and he could have escaped.

              I suppose there’s an interesting balance to be made between principles and actual situations. Whilst we must be grounded in solid foundational beliefs, there may be times when strict adherence to these principles must be put aside for a greater good. For example, one can be 100% pro-life, but if both the mother and the unborn child will die if she gives birth, what do you do (of course, this is rarely ever the situation in abortions)? Or if you’re against war, but Hitler is taking over Europe and killing millions of people, what do you do?

              The problem in today’s politics, however, is that we have too many compromisers and people who make decisions divorced from a sound foundation, particularly a foundation of liberty and natural law. In this light, I think it’s very important that we have someone like Ron Paul in Congress. Whatever you may think of him, it’s good to have someone who sticks to his principles at all times.

              1. Thanks for sticking to reason instead of name-calling.

                I think that the point you make here is that you have to take the high ground, but you allow for a strict interpretation of when compromise would be allowable. In the case of Pakistan and in the case of Bin Laden, I would argue that it falls into even a strict interpretation of when compromising a principle is in order.

                Admittedly, I really do believe that either Pakistan knew and did nothing or were quietly involved in our actions. Also, my view is that Pakistani sovereignty is not at all comparable to more established nations. These assumptions, coupled with the fact that UBL is our #1 enemy, is reason enough for me that the US not take the highest of high ground with regard to sovereignty. Comparing this to us going in to London, for example, would not be valid.

        2. If America violates the national sovereignty of another country, what message does this send to China, North Korea, Iran etc?

          MEXICO!!!

      5. I keep waiting to hear…anyone…explain exactly why it is that they hate us.

        To me it seems simple…
        Our western way of life presents an alternative to the repressive, totalitarian rule of Islam.
        So they demonize us, in order to cling to the power over their people which Islam affords.

        But this explanation does not fit with the idea of Multiculturalism that has been rammed down our throats, does it.
        And it is not politically correct to talk about the brutality and fascism that Islam brings into every country that it infests.

        1. If you read one of my earlier posts…it’s not just Islamic jihadists who hate our guts and I’ve explained the reasoning why those who are not do as well.

        2. 1. US installed the fascist thug Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1953.
          2. The US and Saudis made nice with Iran’s next door neighbor in order to contain the Shi’a islamic revolution. Largely because the Saudi oil fields are all in the regions where the Saudi shi’a live.
          3. Charlk up one more brutal dictator being supported and funded by the US.
          4. The US’s new buddy Saddam got too big for his britches and invaded Kuwait without US permission and was threatening unrest in the bordering Saudi Arabia and adjacent shi’a surrounded oil fields (Saddam was a Sunni Baathist)
          5. The US lands military hardware and bases on the Arabian penninsula (“the land of Mecca and Medina”) in response to their runaway pet Iraqi.
          6. The US then began sanctions against Iraq after Desert Storm. Supposedly to disarm the nation but really to get rid of Saddam while bombing and no-fly zones continued.
          7. Part of those sanctions was the US blockade of Iraq that killed 500,000 Iraqi children by starvation. In response to this Madeline Albright said it was “worth it.”
          8. Then theres the occupation of Afghanistan and imposition of a new corrupt as hell government in the place of the overthrown Taliban (which are not the same thing as AQ)
          9. Then there is the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that had NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism against the us. It was all just unfinished business for the US.
          10. The US then handed over the formerly Sunni controlled Iraq to the Iranian puppet shi’a factions.
          11. The “war on terror” has caused the deaths of over 900,000 people and counting.
          12. The US has now invaded a THIRD sunni arab country called Libya, bombing people, killing children relatives of Gaddafi, and openly looking for more “regime change.”
          13. Presumably, after Gaddafi abdicates or dies there will be more rigged elections and another US name brand dictatorship in charge under another false democracy.
          14. Then there’s the financial and political support of the dictators of Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

          Do you think that possibly, MAYBE, those reasons and many more real world political reasons could be why people hate the US in that part of the world? There is plenty more to list too.

          1. 1. Pahlavi actually came to power in 1941, he was “reinstalled” in 1953 by a US and UK backed coup.

            6.& 7. The sanctions were a UN mandate, yes backed by the US and several other nations but still a UN “blockade”. Saddam’s government could have prevented the tragedy of the starvation that occurred but chose to divert funds from the equally corrupt UN administration of the “oil for food” program to line the pockets of Hussein ,his cronies and his military.

            The facts are out there in broad daylight, while several US administrations have “blood on their hands” in these matters they are far from alone in this. The fault in this lies at the feet of the entire “West” the US just happens to be the most
            visible and convenient “Satan”.

            1. 1. Yup, because the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh was about to nationalize the oil fields.

              6 & 7. The UN security council at the time was more or less the United States.

              The US is the most visible and convenient because of all of the international powers making up “the West,” the US is the only one that is over there, all over the place. If the US left is there really any doubt that the Marxists, nationalists, Wahabists, Imami Shi’a, fascists, monarchists, separatists, and racists wouldn’t return to their old distractions of hating and killing each other?

              1. 1. Yes I am aware of the “reasoning” that was behind the coup.

                6.& 7. The security council has several other “permanent” members all of whom have veto power. All of whom allowed the measure to be implemented.

                1. 6&7. One of which is the US, another is the US’s pet corgi, then there’s the French who are only peaceful when it directly suits their interests and are otherwise ambivalent. As for China and Russia, this was in the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion and ejection from Kuwait. Neither government (or any government) cares about the humanitarian costs of anything, so what reason would they have to object?

                  This was back before Colin Powell’s ridiculous speech, when the US throwing it’s weight around the security council actually meant something.

                2.  What reasons have China or Russia ever had for using their veto power the countless times they have exercised it? They have individually and in concert used it many times to block sanctions and resolutions for no other reason than to flex political “muscle”. I have yet to see any “modern” government that hasn’t been an egotistical monster only out to garner more power and influence unto itself.

              2. Not to mention that we have the military industrial complex funded by the private Fed Res who’s currency is the world reserve currency. Kind of hard to compete with that. Add a fearful, dependent, nationalistic society to the mix and you have America.

                1. You forgot “ignorant and proud of it.”

                  I swear if I hear one more person call for an attack on Iran I’m going to scream myself horse at them, the tv, or the computer screen until the stupid ideas stop coming out of their face.

                  I hate Obama, but can you imagine if “we’re all Georgians now” McCain had won, as far as the war issue goes?

                2. McCain would have been much better or worse. I really don’t think that they set the agenda. Who is in there only effects the way that they present it to us. 

        3. Judging by the hordes of people willing to risk death to come here, we are liked more than hated, in general.

          The “they” who hate us can list any reasons they want, and they usually come from lists maintained and distributed by enemy states, certain wealthy internationalist power brokers, conspiracy kooks, and lovers of slavery everywhere.

          Just like “exes” in a breakup: none of those reasons matter.

    1. What’s more arrogant than a goal to dominate the world and subjugate all it’s people?

      Maybe we should also stay out of these country’s every time a major disaster takes place in one of them. We should keep our money out of them too.

      We are a beacon of freedom (albeit dim at times) and these are beacons of slavery. People deserve to be free if they want to be. Women should be treated with every bit of respect as a man.

      Pakistan was supposed to be our partner in finding this guy. I don’t think we have an agreement like that with China. Evil needs to be called out…not cajoled.
      If they are going to be cajoled, they should be cajoled, right upside the cajonies with something like a steel-toed boot. Hallmark cards don’t work with barbarians.

      1. Rshill7,

        I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said. But I just think there are sometimes better ways of achieving our goals.

        Certainly, I’m not against federal money to help out people affected by natural disasters (though I think private charity is more effective). And I’m not against all military interventions (though given the current economic problems and debt, I think interventions these days are VERY unwise and unaffordable).

        However, we’re not at war with Pakistan – we’re only at war with some people who are hiding in the country. I think it’s better for international relations to be more cooperative. It gives us the higher moral ground and the advantage in the public relations war against terrorists who want everyone to believe that America is bad, arrogant and so on.

        1. Look, when Pakistan becomes a sound, stable country that actually has rule over it’s entire land, and not just parts of it while other parts are ruled by foreign entities like the Taliban, then they can talk about sovereignty. But as of right now, Pakistan has about as much claim to sovereignty over their nation as the Taliban does and is about as stable as the Sudan.

        2. Thanks. I think getting Bin Laden right out from under their noses is/was quite telling. I loved it.

          ‘Tis a toughy to have agreements with non-truth tellers. Like boxing with padded gloves while the other guy uses brass knuckles.

          Carry on sir. Welcome 🙂

      2. We should support allies when the people are willing to fight for their rights. If they are not, why are we there? To free natural slaves who walk back to it?

        We talk so much of building democracy and freedom while we stand idlely by as the Constitution, the bedrock of our own freedom, is systemically dismantled by our own politians and judges.

        The democracy builders and the one world order UN nation builders bring us to the same ugly place. Democracy is incompatible with Islam’s Sharia and will always fail there. Capitalism and a constitutional republic are the only way to avoid the slide to totalitarianism. Unless the people demand these fundamentals, our efforts will fail there too. Our failures often seem to devolve into dictatorships and other totalitarian regimes.

        The nation America needs to step in and fight for is itself.

        1. Excellent. Two thumbs up. Would that I had a third, but then I’d be freakish.

          no offense to anyone out there with three thumbs

        2. WE DO REALISE, i am sure, that Ron Paul is earning his wings with every additional post.
          we are talking about real issues, no one is calling each other names, and the moderator hasn’t even stricken my posts from the record.

          yet.

          congrats america, we are developing a unique spirit again.
          it’s been gone so long, i’ve really missed it

          thank you Ron Paul

    2. Your characterization is disingenuous. These decisions are not taken lightly, even when it’s a nacissitic, leftist President stuck with the decision.

      “Doing what it likes” = Rape of Nanking

      “Being responsible” = Killing Bin Ladin

    3. We are invaders of sovereignty. That is what we do. Invade, disarm, control, and kill. Why would they hate us for that?

  15. If we are fortunate enough to elect a non-Progressive, all they have to do is point Ron Paul at the Fed and the Treasury. With carte blanche, he could do more to recover our freedom there than he could as President, IMHO.

    If we do not elect a non-progressive none of this matters because after four more years under the Obama Soros regime we will either be curled up sucking our Socialist thumbs or in the streets in armed rebellion.

    If you think that is exaggerated, read the latest from New Zeal on Obama’s deep Marxist ties.

    http://trevorloudon.com/2011/05/lula-and-baracks-common-marxist-ties/

    1. The majority of the potential candidates so far are all progressive either by the ideas that spew out of their mouth or by their flip-flops on things they’ve said or supported in the past that they’ve backtracked on since….except for Ron Paul. As a few have already said, he remains consistently honest even when it looks bad for him. He’s the ONE TRUE NON-POLITICIAN out of them all. Some of the others are just now saying some of the wonderful ideas about liberty and limited government that he has for decades.

      Just because you don’t like this guy and don’t want him to win the presidency Scoop…how about you not be so biased in your headlines? No…this isn’t me saying you’re “out to get him.” It’s simply me pointing out how biased your headline is.

  16. young neo-cons may one day mature to Ron Paul’s reality. unfortunately, the neo-con leaders are too infantile to grow except through austerity measures.

    1. “neo con” leader is an oxymoron. Getting through the RNC/DNC process ensures the candidate is a spineless globalist schill.

      A true leader who knows this America’s last stand will know how to use people like Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, etc. There are very few true Americans in DC so the team will be lean.

    1. Better to have honest people in government than ones who just say what they think you will want to hear.

      1. Honesty doesn’t make up for being an idiot. If Ron Paul doesn’t know that Pakistan was protecting Bin Laden and would have tipped him off, then he is a lot dumber than I thought.

        1. The U.S. already likes bribing foreign governments.  Why would it be so different when it comes to us just giving them enough money to not only let us know he’s there, but to actually drag his sorry butt out and hand him over to us…alive, so we can actually interrogate him and let him rot in jail for the rest of his pathetic life instead of getting a respectable burial at sea?

          1. So the 3 Billion dollars we are already paying Pakistan in bribes isn’t enough for you, Tyler?  How much more do you want us to pay?  

            Ron Paul says some things I agree with but he contradicts himself when it comes to foreign affairs. He says that the reason the Arabs hate us over there is because we soiled their precious holy desert sand by daring to step foot in Saudi Arabia. Never mind that we did it in cooperation with the Saudi government to protect their holy land from invasion by Saddam Hussein. Never mind that we never got close to any of their holy sites. And never mind that we took none of their oil in payment for our protection. They can hate us and ban us and our churches entirely from their lands, but we must welcome them and their mosques on our land. 

            Now Mr. Paul says we should have cooperated with the Pakistani government to capture Bin Laden. So, it was wrong to cooperate with the Saudi government but it’s just fine to cooperate with the Pakistani government? Make up your mind Mr. Paul. Anyone with a lick of common sense would realize that had we done exactly what Ron Paul is now advocating, he would have found a reason to criticize the operation anyway. If you want to worship Ron Paul and bow toward Mecca and criticize everything America does, go right ahead. But count me out. 

  17. Ron Paul sought letters of marque to do what Obama did with OBL TEN YEARS AGO — but Constitutionally.
    http://tinyurl.com/42tdyf6 As it is, Obama has no more Congressional authority to be in Pakistan than he has for Libya, and Obama needs to realize he is not King.

Comments are closed.