He has flirted with blame America firstism before, and even with Truthers a couple of times, but tends to leave himself enough wiggle room so that he doesn’t come off as totally off his nut. That’s gone now.
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?”
The fact that at least some elements in Pakistan have to have known about OBL’s whereabouts, and harbored him, and how that would have impacted any joint mission to go get him, is utterly lost on Paul.
This is the fundamental problem with Ron Paul: When it comes to foreign policy, he is not serious and is not credible. He makes no distinctions between real allies like the UK and duplicitous frenemies like Pakistan. And he always always blames America first. That’s his MO.
Just when you start to like him, he opens his mouth and reminds you why you wouldn’t vote for him. Cue the Paulians in 3, 2…
Number 4…
And number 8
Yes isolationism worked so well in the 20th century.
Ignoring/underestimating threats till they attack a US military base, Pearl Harbor, and bring down two skyscrapers, New York, is so the way to handle foriegn policy. As is having no allies or overseas interests we would be willing to fight for/defend.
Armando, you’re hilarious. You insult a person based upon false information then criticize potential supporters trying to correct your mistakes so you can know the truth instead of an article that is reporting blatant lies? How about you take it upon yourself to do some research and I’m sure you’ll fine you actually like Ron Paul’s views. If you want to continue to be uninformed, then by all means do so, because we “paulians” might not agree with what you say, but we will defend your right of free speech.
You see, this is what I meant when I said “Cue the Paulians”. I write two sentences and I get four paragraphs of histrionics from a guy who apparently thinks I wrote every post critical of Paul in this comment thread.
I mean, where, in my two sentence post, did I insult Paul? All I said was starting to like him up until the point that he said that killing Bin Laden wasn’t necessary. For that, I get accused of ignoring Obama’s failures and being absolutely, positively in love with the current lackluster pool of Republican candidates.
Look, I didn’t say we shouldn’t listen and consider what Paul has to say. I think he’s got a lot of interesting stuff to say about our financial situation and how we can get out of it. If you can state the case for Paul’s policies without delving into fevered conspiracy theories revolving around Zionists and neocons and the NWO, and, most importantly, assuming bad faith on my part, then do so.
But since you apparently know so much about why you dislike Ron Paul, I dare you to review the positive comments about Ron Paul and link us information that disproves ANY of it? Cant? Didn’t think so?
Instead of attacking the obviously failure of a president, Obama, or the HORRIBLE GOP candidates, you are going to attack the only candidate whom actually gives a damn about the people? This is a sad day in America when people are cheering for less freedoms, collapse of our economy, and another rich person with corporate interests to become president.
If you take the time to do some research or at least study what you should’ve learned back in grade school about what our country is supposed to be and how it’s supposed to be run, then compare it to the policies of every candidate and you wont find anyone except Ron Paul and Gary Johnson saying these things.
OBL has, and has been implicated in the attacks on 9/11. He has never been charged, indicted or fingered by FBI as being involved.(check fbi’s website and take a look for yourself) He was a man trained from age 24 to be a cia asset for the US. His family was granted omnipotent rights and contracts to build military bases in saudi arabia(in conjunction with Bush family) He is a man of interest most definitely but would’ve been much more beneificial to have him ALIVE. Plus MIT Phd/Harvard Phd/Army War College prof. Dr. Steve Pieczenik went public stating he’s been known dead by high level intel for 9 years. PLUS the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia NOT Afghanistan, did we enter Saudi arabia?
Paulians are here, armed facts, detailed analyses and heavy dose of adherance to NATURAL LAW. schmucks.
What a carefully constructed set of half truths and conspiracy theories. Were this a satire, it would be an instant classic.
Instead it is a fine example of why luaP noR and his minions are best ignored.
Oh, here’s the 1988 indictment of ObL.
“Dr. Steve Pieczenik went public stating he’s been known dead by high level intel for 9 years.”
Yeah, on Alex Jones’ radio show, the show that never met a conspiracy theory it didn’t like. Did they go into whether Pieczenik is a LIHOP or a MIHOP?
Paul is inconsistent, to say the least.
True Libertarians, especially of the America First stripe, would hardly use the line “respect for the rule of law and world law and international law.”
“World law” and “international law” are put in place by unelected, unaccountable foreigners. If we accede to such “law,” it is only by virtue of a treaty, and we can easily abrogate such treaties if doing so is in our national interest.
Paul has had some flirtation with Islamic apologists, and perhaps this is what is speaking. Surely isn’t his libertarian side.
Ron Paul is best against Obama in a recent poll. All the others are warmongering big spender Obama clones.
Bryan,
I warned y’all about this…
“Dr. Ed Ward II”
ABOoRP.
Ron Paul would have done it CONSTITUTIONALLY. He introduced letters of marque to do just that in 2001 and again since then: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076
Obama is not king.
5.LKJ “Ron Paul would have done it CONSTITUTIONALLY. He introduced letters of marque to do just that in 2001″
Sent the scurvey dog to Davey Jones Locker we did arrrrrgh…
All the while, I thought Pieceznik was sane, so much for that notion,
["This is the fundamental problem with Ron Paul: When it comes to foreign policy, he is not serious and is not credible."]
You could not be more WRONG! To many folks who superficially try to represent Ron Pauls ideology are…simply superficial in their knowledge!
In terms of his foreign relations ideology, he firmly believes in international sovereignties (int’l law and treaties) and extending to each, their idenpendent right of governance (int’l law and treaties) whatever that may be, free from any U.S. influences and coercions short of any direct security threat to the U.S. sovereignty. Thats pretty plain and simple, eh? Rather consistent with our nations constitution and international laws, wouldn’t you say?
In terms of foreign trade. Ron Paul believes in America first and a mandatory even playing field for all involved in trade with the U.S.
In terms of domestic issues, it can be summed up in rather short and precise fashion. Ron Paul is a strict federalist constitutionalist.
So, other than the fact Mr. Paul is not some studly photogenic male model looking kind and not the most polished orator, what precisely is your problem with his ‘bottomline’ ideological approach for restoring America constitutionally at home and abroad?
As for the whole situation post 9/11 with UBL and Afghanistan one could easily conclude that the Bush administration constructed a very poor strategic operations plan. UBL and probabably most of his hierarchy to include the Taliban, could have been taken out by various ground and air intel assests, while he still moved freely about in the training camps and throughout Afghanistan. The plan executed the Bush administration only drove the entire UBL operation and hierarchy underground and transitioned into yet another nation building mission in Afghanistan. And lets not forget that it was Clinton who refused to take custody of UBL when offered up and thus 9/11.
Ron Paul who is NO dummy is simply illuminating the poor strategies implemented and the ensuing consequences that redirected and elevated the U.S. once more into a lose-lose nation building situation in the long term….and at the same time ignoring international sovereignties who did not declare war on America. We either respect our constitution and international sovereignty law…or we don’t!
Ron Pauls constitutional and legal premises and assumptions are factually sound whether we, regardless of our pollitical party affiliation, like the facts or not. Ron Paul, as I do also, believes we should not have the numbers of military bases around the world and using our military forces for pre-emptive strikes against sovereign nations who have not declared war nor are directly threatening the sovereign borders of our nation. Again, that is rather fundamental to our constitution!
“Not necessary”?
What about justice? What about closure for the families and friends of the victims of the 9/11 attacks?
bin Laden claimed credit for and lauded the attacks of 9/11. That’s good enough for me. For him to have been allowed to live out his days would’ve been unjust, when he was instrumental in the deaths of over 3,000 people, just on 9/11 alone.
Ron Paul isn’t gonna be nominated, isn’t gonna be elected, and now isn’t gonna be taken seriously. All he’s gonna do is to split the vote and jeopardize efforts to unseat Obama when he inevitably decides to run as an Independent (just like before). He needs to stick with the job he’s doing now. =>[.]<=
The Constitution does not empower the President to order extrajudicial killings in foreign nations in order to accomplish “justice” or bring about “closure” for the victims of criminal actions. But of course, we can always depend upon the warfare statists to abandon their supposed devotion to the Constitution and the Rule of Law whenever those things become inconvenient.
To be brutally honest, the Paul supporters remind me of the supporters of Obama. Same “whatever he says is right, because he says it” attitude.
Think about it… has any Paulian ever criticized anything Ron has said? I honestly can’t recall ever seeing that happen.
Prove me wrong, Paulians… if you can.
The better question might be…precisely what part(s) of the ideology that Ron Paul fundamentally supports is so bizarre to you? Constitutional branches of government? A constitutional treasury and currency system? A constitutional military? Constitutional States rights? What?
Wow propaganda.. . . . . Let’s blow all the brown people up. haha American Foreign policy is backed by lead, evolve or go naturally select yourself and your water head children. thanks— from a real american— PS Just because you pick up a gun, doesn’t mean you are a hero. Like I said, please EVOLVE.
Wow. This article is a horrible hit piece with no facts whatsoever. Ron Paul stated that he feels this whole process was an unnecessary process of being in all these countries because after all these years, how did we find him? Not by troops, but by a small team of members sent out to do so. He stated that is what we should’ve done to begin with and we shouldn’t have gotten involved in all of these wars when it’s obvious that we didn’t have to.
If you want to report on somebody, why not report FACTS? If you dont, then you are NOT a journalist, you are a biased person with no credibility.
Remember the ’07 – ’08 campaign …
Remember what they did, remember who did it.
nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan
This time an entire citizen army of every stripe stands behind Dr Ron.
Your commentary about what Ron Paul said during the interview is taking what he did say out of context. But that is not surprising since your statement that Ron Paul does not put America first is a lie. You must have a real problem with freedom or an agenda to say the things you said in this article. There are many like you in both parties (so called progressives), and errors like this will be pointed out each time.
Thank you
Although I dont like the London anology, He makes a valid point considering the Pakistinian govt did arrest Khalid Sheiekh and handed him over to us. Also considering that Osama bin Laden had a bounty on his head , people in the Pakinstinian goverment acting in thier own selfish interests could have found that recieving a huge amout of money was more inportant than being loyal to bin Laden The was giving Pakistan money in foriegn aid. US govt has NO PROMBLEM with giving millions and billions of borrowed, taxed or money printed out of thin air to corrupt US, Isreal hating countries that were probally withholding information that could led to Osama bin ladens killing or capture.
Even if you find what he said to be nutty, dont you think that giving millions an billions of money in foriegn aid corrupt countries with evil leaders who eiher harbour terorists or informatoin. This was being done in the Bush administration and it is being done in the Obama administration.
Ron Paul was warning about the economic crisis long before it happened not just about the goverment, banks, GSE’s like Freddie and Fannie Mae but also the destuctive policies of the Federal Reserve. On the house floor back in 2003 and earlier he was warning about these things and why they were going to happen.
Considering that we had a bounty on Osama bin Ladens head I think it would be reasonable to suspect that the people in the Pakistinian government being as they are would probally act in thier own selfish interests and be more interested in a huge sum of money than be loyal to bin Laden.
How long did you take, Levin, to write this most subtle, scholarly, witty, deeply researched and reasoned blog-op Summary of Paul’s Foreign Policy to showcase on your show, to convince the convinced and unconvinced they’re CRAZY TOO if they vote for Paul?
MOVE OVER LAME STREAM Boob-Tube! You got nuttin’ on Levin.
The quote below [par 3/3] has YOUR MO all over it — you’ve said it a quadrillion times—only about Obama.
This is the fundamental problem with [Obama] Ron Paul: When it comes to foreign policy, he is not serious and is not credible. He makes no distinctions between real allies like the UK and duplicitous frenemies [Witty, eh?] like Pakistan. And he always always blames America first. That’s his MO. [emphasis mine]
Will the real drive-by blogger please stand up?
LOL. You must do better, Levin, if you neocons are to win.
Because there are so many things FUNDAMENTALLY RIGHT and NOT PROBLEMATIC with Paul.
There’s a FUNDAMENTALLY wrong thing, however, with neocons, and as we already suspected, Progressives:
They love empire [Government] building, spare no one and no cost, here OR there. And now we have an Emperor to go with it. Just like Levin can accuse the Progressives of unconstitutional Wealth redistribution, so we can accuse the neocons of Wealth Redistribution. Whose paying for these UNDECLARED wars? That $1Billion+ cost per Terrorist since 9/11? Hmmmmm. Does that include the collateral damage?
[[Whom has gained from Globalism? [hint] No ordinary much less struggling citizen, small business owner, Entrepreneur, [UNCONNECTED, NON-INSIDER POOR SLOUCH] No country, No place, on the face of the earth, that has a pot to piss in. So much for Peace and Prosperity, Rich-as-An-Argentine, Living the American Dream! BOO-YAH
Progressives, you s*** the SAME!: Your Daddy’s the same.
You see, Levin, that’s why your rants on how “the Dems and Repubs are not the same!” are Shillist: They all follow Daddy’s orders. THEIR DADDY’S THE SAME! AND HE’s NOT PAUL’S DADDY! AND WE CRAZY PAULIAN KOOKS GET IT!
Whose Paul’s Daddy? Well for starters, The Founders , who by law gave us a true Republic, you know, the Constitution with its Bill of Rights fully functional [until Lincoln] and not the least of which, the Declaration of Independence, Austrian Economics, of all things.
It’s been a 100+ years since the Tree of Liberty got watered, and Ron Paul is – - -The SCENT OF WATER.
Levin, you can be spot on about domestic, ruinous, and unconstitutional policies, but you really got a blind spot when it comes to Israel and Foreign Policy—kinda like the Roman’s mind-set in 400 A.D. [Gibbons, Vol. 4—"What happened? We spread it world wide! Did somebody say Decline and Fall? Huh? Nah! Really? Un-UN!, No way!" ]
— To put it kindly: You are part of the cancerous world problem that is the USA Elite, NOT the solution, not us. Invoke Reagan, the ‘Shining City on a Hill’ ’till you’re blue in the face. Paul understands it’s meaning: It’s about Example, not Force. You want Force? Then do your own shooting. Adios, and Good Riddance. From a long time listener.
P.S.- For all you Levinian sheeple out there – If there’s evidence, IT’S NO LONGER A CONSPIRACY, IT’S A PROBABILITY. OK? Apply THAT REALITY to whatever so-called Conspiracy Theory your little herd-like heart desires.
IT’S TIME TO BRING THE WAR HOME- WE’RE UNDER SEIGE AT HOME.
V for Victory
Here we go with the Ron Paul hit piece. First of all Osama has been dead for more then 10 yrs. Secondly it was not necessary to kill him if what the say is true which it isn’t. Why because according to one for the official stories that change everyday osama was unarmed,and used his wife as a shield in which they shot and killed her in the first account and the next day the story was They didn’t kill her but only shot and wounded her in the leg. Stop promoting Propaganda. Who ever wrote this article will not have favor with their masters when it hit the fan. They could have caught him and interrogated him.
They caught Saddam Husein right?Wrong.But aleast they made it look that way.
By the way has Obama ended the war yet?Why not?Has he closed Gitmo?why not? send your answers to ave383@twitter.com dying to hear your response.
I bet you take scripture out of context when you read a bible; so it suits your whim.
He wanted Osama dead in 2001, he’s opposed to the thousands dead through violence and collateral damage since then in this war.
If you spent less time nodding your head to Fox news you might be able to stop the headaches and study some truth.
Question is, how many brothers and sisters do you have?
When you answer that with the amount from your household; your looking at a glass half empty. Your just another part of the problem.