Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden 'absolutely not necessary'
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.
Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com/tatler
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/ron-paul-says-killing-osama-bin-laden-absolutely-not-necessary