Ron Paul Denies Saying He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan — But Here’s the Video

The Blaze ^

[mnehring]

(Videos at link)

Last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul some problems in the “honesty” department.

Mr. Paul‘s 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:

There‘s just one small problem with Paul’s 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 don’t 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 Paul’s 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.

[jpsb]

Your (erroneous) point was that Texas would not be independent had the USA not intervened on Texas behalf and that Ron Paul would have opposed that intervention. "libertarians are/should be against the Louisiana Purchase, Texas independence" that is a lie and you have not provided any documentation to back that up. Texas won independence on their own. Just like all the other Paul bashers you resort to lies, distortions and revisionist history.

And why would a Ron Paul oppose the Louisiana Purchase? It was a legal purchase of a vast territory. Your claims are nonsensical.

[Fresh Wind]

Ron Paul is the perfect personification of a broken clock.

[cincinnati65]

If you look very carefully at his policies, you'll see that Ron Paul wants to roll us all the way back to the 1840's.

In his defense, he probably didn't know where he was when he woke up this morning.