Skip to comments.Ron Paul Denies Saying He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan — But Here’s the Video
Posted on 01/17/2012 10:03:54 AM PST by mnehring
(Videos at link)
Last nights GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul some problems in the honesty department.
Mr. Pauls truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden:
Theres just one small problem with Pauls denial, he did say it, several times.
Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.
Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;
So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?
And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:
I dont think it was necessary. No.
Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman
So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?
Ron Pauls response was consistent with his two previous answers.
Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know and all these other arguments.
Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.
That clip from WHO Newsradio 1040 appeared on The Blaze on May 11th.
For those interested in the entire question and answer on the topic of the bin Laden killing, we offer this clip, posted by fans of Ron Paul. The portion under scrutiny begins at the 7:40 mark.
Just because it is on video doesn’t make it true - do you neocons believe everything you see and hear with your own eyes and ears? And besides that - Paul is a constitutionalist, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
alterPaul denies all of his crazy words, even when there is massive evidence that he did and said what he said, he and his rabid supports deny it, if it doesn’t fit into their delusion of who the guy is.
You forgot- that isn’t really Tehran Ron on the video, that’s his ghostwriter.
Click: http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/listenlive/ at 4PM Central time - I’m sure Simon will be discussing this.
I like him the least.
Paul says that OBL was unarmed? I guess the AK-47 in his bedroom didn’t count as a weapon.
According to R-U-N Paul, the 9/11/01 attacks against the U.S. were the result of our own misdeeds. Thus, it’s doubtful a Preisdent Paul in 2001 would have engaged in military strikes against the Taliban or Al Queda. Paul is a kook of the Kucinich type.
Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)
I wonder if he received a drool cup for a Christmas gift. Mentally, he’s just a step away from that.
Think about this for a moment.
The United States kills Osama Bin Laden.
The Taliban are silent.
The citizens of Pakistan are silent.
The government of Pakistan is silent.
The U. N. is silent.
The global governments are silent.
The Left in the United States is silent.
The Leftist media in the United States is silent.
Then Ron Paul jumps in to object.
Ron, crawl back under your rock. Don’t do it for me. Do it for your family and yourself.
Ron Paul, if one thing, is consistent. He holds the Libertarian views that the government should be small, not interfere with the economy, only do essential duties that the private sector can’t do such as infrastructure as roads and bridges and keep order by a justice system with predictable outcomes. Most conservatives hold similar ideas.
The Libertarian idea conservatives have a problem with is the idea that our country should stick with problems here and not engage in misadventures abroad, either by pushing democracy or by military intervention. Libertarians believe if a foreign people are dumb enough to have a dictator or nut case ruler, that’s their problem, not ours. Libertarians also believe unless our nation is directly threatened, don’t attack another land or people.
As a conservative I support our military and do believe we have key allies that we need to support, Canada, the U.K. and Israel. It’s the Israel one that gets the Islamists against us, but we can’t let Israel and its people get wiped off the map. Ron Paul doesn’t either as he figures Israel is tough enough to survive without our troops. Whether he is too soft on Islamists is a perception you or I have to figure out. I do believe if Paul is the GOP candidate he will lose to Obama and if Paul runs 3rd party, the GOP candidate will lose.
I’ve never seen anyone in my entire life with such a combination of brilliant and idiotic ideas.
So in Jefferson’s time the islamist where against us because of Israel?
alterPaul is not constant, he is a fraud.
Ron Paul is nuttier than squirrel poop - and so is anyone who supports him!
Ron Paul serves as proof that a mental health evaluation needs to be administered to every potential political candidate - regardless of party - with the results being made available for public fodder.
We all get upset when we see pictures of Obama bowing to foreign leaders. Ron Paul, if he met Osama bin Laden or Ahmadinajad, would go straight to his knees.
Paul may well be as dangerous as Obama in a different way.
Like Obama he is not a bumbling idiot. I mean the fact that he is a liberal libertary in a Republican primary and in 3rd? place is quite an accomplishment in itself.
Think about this too..alot of people dismissed Obama,too and Perot and McCain.
I contend Ron Paul is actually MORE DANGEROUS to our security than even NerObama is, and having someone that anti-semitic and crazy that we really don’t know in the oval office may be worse than the Marxist we do know.
Piss on them both. Paul is running to do nothing more than to destroy the “neocon” party which he hates as much as the Democrats do.
RON PAUL WINS AL QAEDA ENDORSEMENT
ALSO LEADS IN POLLS IN IRAN, PAKISTAN, EGYPT, GAZA...
I’m with you, Logical me.
Cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone in his right mind could actually support this guy for any position of responsibility whatsoever.
The man is totally incoherent.
How would you like to diagram one of his sentences?
The hypocrite, draft dodging who never served in the military, serial wife cheater who believe in man made global warming Newt? The pig face that wants us grow bigger federal government and be the policeman of the world? This is the same hypocrite that was lecturing Clinton about Lewenski while cheating on his own wife at the very same time. He is right up their with Jessie Jackson. Thats your candidate??? You trust that??? I remember old Newt saying it was about character and how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife LOL!
Or is it the Socialist Mitt Romney??? The guy who has flip flopped on every issue. Who introduced Socialized Medicine in Massachusetts. Who is also a gun grabber. Thats your candidate???? You call a Socialist Conservative now???
“The Libertarian idea conservatives have a problem with is the idea that our country should stick with problems here and not engage in misadventures abroad...”
So to apply libertarian foreign policy to 6th grade history, libertarians are/should be against the Louisiana Purchase, Texas independance, the entire western US being in the union and the California Republic since all these landmarks in American History would have constituted “misadventures abroad”.
By his own libertarian logic, Ron Paul has no right to even be a congresman since Texas was part of Spain. Silly.
Yeah you are right the Founding Fathers were crazy... (sarcasm off)
I guess the definition of Conservative to you is Big Federal Government and being the Policeman of the World while we are going broke. To YOU that is Conservative...
Texas won it’s independence from Mexico and was an independent nation, just like the Unites States before it joined the Unites States. Read a little history.
“Texas won its independence from Mexico and was an independent nation...”
...due to American meddling in Mexico’s territorial affairs. Since you know history, you also know that there were a number of ‘filibusters’ by American citizens to raise freebooters with the specific purpose of invading Tejas with the express aim of overthrowing the government there. The final revolution was just one of a number of attempts. To pretend that the Texas revolution wasn’t supported by the US is the kind of Ron Paul denial that is to be expected.
More to the point, libertarians, per positions expressed by Ron Paul, would have been againt all this meddling.
Please document the involvement of the United States in the Texas war of independence. I am pretty sure Texans both of US origin and Spanish origin decided on their own that independence from Mexico was in their best interest and I am pretty sure that it was the Texans that fought and defeated Santa Anna without the help of the government of United States, if you have information otherwise I’d like to see it.
And what has RuPaul done about the growth of government ?
Passed one bill in twenty years ?
You Paulbots are just like the Obama Drones. Same blind faith in an empty suit.
“Please document the involvement of the United States in the Texas war of independence.”
Santa Ana and the Mexican loyalists absolutely believed in an American plot against Mexico. Are you kidding? The border was a huge issue between the 2 countries. Mexican law forbade further American settlement in Texas, forbade slavery, and reinstated certain taxes; which the “Texans” generally ignored.
You can do your own studying on this topic since your perspective on the Mexican point of view seems lacking.
And that’s the point about Ron Paul. The man adopts the rhetoric of our enemies. You are presenting the American perspective. He presents the enemy perspective.
That is why I confidently say that, had Ron Paul and the Libertarians been around then, they would never have supported American meddling in the internal affairs of Mexico.
Maybe you need to retake 6th grade history. Texans won independence on our own we received no help from the US.
My political views aren't just crazy, THEY'RE INSANE!
Gee, do you mean Ron Paul is a liar? Do you mean he just makes things up to suit his purposes? Do you mean you can’t believe anything he says?
What a surprise. Who could have guessed.
And why would a Ron Paul oppose the Louisiana Purchase? It was a legal purchase of a vast territory. Your claims are nonsensical.
Ron Paul is the perfect personification of a broken clock.
In his defense, he probably didn't know where he was when he woke up this morning.