Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

He may have a point but to say something like this is downright stupid.

Ron Paul Would Not Have Given Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

In a recent interview on WHO Radio, Congressman Ron Paul told Simon Conway, WHO Radio’s new afternoon host, that if he were president, he would not have given the go-ahead on the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind of the 9-11 attacks that killed 3000 Americans and injured 6000 others.

Below is a transcript and video of the exchange, which occurred on Tuesday.

Conway: If we take all you said, then are you asking us to believe that a President Ron Paul could have ordered the kill of Bin Laden by entering another sovereign nation?

Paul: No, I think things could have been done somewhat differently. I would suggest that the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed, who was the real ringleader … of 9-11, and we went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. In matter of fact, the same thing happened on the release of the people who had to do with the bombing in 1993, I believe, when they first attempt …. They were all captured, brought, and tried in a civilian court and have all been punished, so no, what’s wrong with that? Why can’t we work with the government?

Conway: I just want to be clear: a President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of Bin Laden, which only could have taken place by entering a another sovereign nation?

Paul: I don’t think it was necessary. No. It absolutely was not necessary, and I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he had been in a hotel in London? I mean, should, you know, 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? No. You don’t want to do that.

Conway: I think you have been very clear, sir. You have been very clear. I definitely don’t want to put words in your mouth. Though you are telling me that a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the Bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan?

Paul: Not the way it took place, no. I mean, he was unarmed and all these other arguments.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2011/ ... bin-laden/

Yeah it sucks that he answers honestly and doesnt play to peoples emotions.

I wish he would just be political and act the part like the other assh*le robots.

Perhaps Paul was inferring that it wouldn't happen the way it took place because if he had his way we wouldn't be over there at ALL.

AZGrizFan wrote:Perhaps Paul was inferring that it wouldn't happen the way it took place because if he had his way we wouldn't be over there at ALL.

So Osama would still be chillin at his crib watching America's Got Talent

yeah... THIS was what will hold him back... i was nervous there for a second

i honestly would not be surprised to see paul get the GOP nod. Will be tough to win over the whole GOP base but he is pro-life which definetly helps. Who really else is there? Romney isnt as strong right now as he was in 2008 it seems, Trump is all hype like Giuliani was in 2007-2008, and Huckabee could make a run. I think it will end up with Paul or Huckabee

Huckabee is a pretty damned likable guy, and with a name so close to Huckleberry, he'll nail down a lot of red state votes.

I like Ron Paul a lot, but his inflexibility from his script does make him a liability. People do need to compromise from time to time. You can tell Ron Paul, when he was a kid, was the one who would fold his arms and go stand in the corner and pout when he didn't get his way.

93henfan wrote:Huckabee is a pretty damned likable guy, and with a name so close to Huckleberry, he'll nail down a lot of red state votes.

I like Ron Paul a lot, but his inflexibility from his script does make him a liability. People do need to compromise from time to time. You can tell Ron Paul, when he was a kid, was the one who would fold his arms and go stand in the corner and pout when he didn't get his way.

When you truly believe in what you claim to believe, it's hard to go "off script." No one likes a flip flopper, just ask John Kerry.

ming01 wrote:i honestly would not be surprised to see paul get the GOP nod. Will be tough to win over the whole GOP base but he is pro-life which definetly helps. Who really else is there? Romney isnt as strong right now as he was in 2008 it seems, Trump is all hype like Giuliani was in 2007-2008, and Huckabee could make a run. I think it will end up with Paul or Huckabee

Paul's support is an incredibly loud 2-3%... until he pulls 10% of an ACTUAL REAL VOTE... I'll continue to mock him.

GSUhooligan wrote:

93henfan wrote:Huckabee is a pretty damned likable guy, and with a name so close to Huckleberry, he'll nail down a lot of red state votes.

I like Ron Paul a lot, but his inflexibility from his script does make him a liability. People do need to compromise from time to time. You can tell Ron Paul, when he was a kid, was the one who would fold his arms and go stand in the corner and pout when he didn't get his way.

When you truly believe in what you claim to believe, it's hard to go "off script." No one likes a flip flopper, just ask John Kerry.

Yeah... we see how well being a rigid and inflexible ideologue worked for RP in 08...

93henfan wrote:Huckabee is a pretty damned likable guy, and with a name so close to Huckleberry, he'll nail down a lot of red state votes.

I like Ron Paul a lot, but his inflexibility from his script does make him a liability. People do need to compromise from time to time. You can tell Ron Paul, when he was a kid, was the one who would fold his arms and go stand in the corner and pout when he didn't get his way.

Huckabee isn't going to run (thank god!). He's letting his operatives in Iowa go to other people. He knows he will get crucified on the rapist he released that went on to rape and murder another woman.

HI54UNI wrote:

93henfan wrote:Huckabee is a pretty damned likable guy, and with a name so close to Huckleberry, he'll nail down a lot of red state votes.

I like Ron Paul a lot, but his inflexibility from his script does make him a liability. People do need to compromise from time to time. You can tell Ron Paul, when he was a kid, was the one who would fold his arms and go stand in the corner and pout when he didn't get his way.

Huckabee isn't going to run (thank god!). He's letting his operatives in Iowa go to other people. He knows he will get crucified on the rapist he released that went on to rape and murder another woman.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about his own Willie Horton moment. Yep, that'll ruin a candidacy.

[youtube][/youtube]

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ming01 wrote:i honestly would not be surprised to see paul get the GOP nod. Will be tough to win over the whole GOP base but he is pro-life which definetly helps. Who really else is there? Romney isnt as strong right now as he was in 2008 it seems, Trump is all hype like Giuliani was in 2007-2008, and Huckabee could make a run. I think it will end up with Paul or Huckabee

Paul's support is an incredibly loud 2-3%... until he pulls 10% of an ACTUAL REAL VOTE... I'll continue to mock him.

Why the need to mock him? I like him, but I don't expect him to have any real shot at winning the nomination. Most of the Republican voters aren't really conservatives.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
Paul's support is an incredibly loud 2-3%... until he pulls 10% of an ACTUAL REAL VOTE... I'll continue to mock him.

Why the need to mock him? I like him, but I don't expect him to have any real shot at winning the nomination. Most of the Republican voters aren't really conservatives.

Because he, and his supporters seem to be deluded enough to think that they have FAR more support than they do... then come up with a million and one excuses for why they lost... most of which are bizarre rants that involve the use of the word "sheeple" more times than I care to count. When in reality... they lost because, while they may not like it, most of this country simply doesn't agree with their fringe agenda.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Why the need to mock him? I like him, but I don't expect him to have any real shot at winning the nomination. Most of the Republican voters aren't really conservatives.

Because he, and his supporters seem to be deluded enough to think that they have FAR more support than they do... then come up with a million and one excuses for why they lost... most of which are bizarre rants that involve the use of the word "sheeple" more times than I care to count. When in reality... they lost because, while they may not like it, most of this country simply doesn't agree with their fringe agenda.

That sounds like most candidate's supporters. I don't know, I'm sure those make it on TV and to TP gatherings. Most of the RP supporters I know understand he has no real shot, but they believe in his policies.

Do you think his entire agenda is "fringe?" I don't think so. Sure, parts of his agenda people find "fringe," (or at least disagreeable) but again, like many candidates. I would think there are quite a few Americans that agree with his social libertarian stances--and most who disagree with him do so on economic policies. I think most Americans have at least a little libertarian streak in them...

I'll admit I'm biased as I agree with much of his so-called "fringe" agenda. However, I readily admit that there's not enough of us to do much about it--other than on a policy here-and-there.

I have no problem with Paul's stance on this. I think McCain said something similar during the 2008 election.

I give Obama credit for having the balls to make a tough call like he did, but I won't hold it against Paul when he says that he would not have ordered forces into Pakistan.

It also oocurs to me that if Paul were President he might have done what Obama did even though he says otherwise now. It's one thing to say something during a campaign, it's another to follow through on it when you hold office.

What's this? Being the same person when running for president as you are when running for your current office instead of re-inventing yourself? Oh brave new world that has such people in it!

BlueHen86 wrote:It's one thing to say something during a campaign, it's another to follow through on it when you hold office.

This is so true, just like with Obama's campaign promise to close Gitmo. It's easy to say things as a presidential candidate, but once you take office and are informed of all of the details about certain things, you end up doing something more pragmatic.

This is basically why I can't stand Paul, stuff like this and his some of his nutjob supporters who will not admit to any of his flaws.

It is ignorant to say Paul has no shot. The GOP field is very weak and the 2012 race will come down to the economy and jobs. That's Paul's strong suit. Sure, he supports legalizing drugs and private businesses having the choice to hire based on race, but these are minor flaws and will not decided the GOP nod. A lot more people are listening to what he says now and a lot of his ideas are more acceptable and understood then they were back in 2006-2008. Paul would appeal to many independents and left-leaning voters. Half of the GOP field may not like him now, but I wouldnt be shocked if he ended up with the nod, they would prefer him over Obama.

ming01 wrote:It is ignorant to say Paul has no shot. The GOP field is very weak and the 2012 race will come down to the economy and jobs. That's Paul's strong suit. Sure, he supports legalizing drugs and private businesses having the choice to hire based on race, but these are minor flaws and will not decided the GOP nod. A lot more people are listening to what he says now and a lot of his ideas are more acceptable and understood then they were back in 2006-2008. Paul would appeal to many independents and left-leaning voters. Half of the GOP field may not like him now, but I wouldnt be shocked if he ended up with the nod, they would prefer him over Obama.

RP doesn't change the root of the problem, unfortunately.

ming01 wrote:It is ignorant to say Paul has no shot. The GOP field is very weak and the 2012 race will come down to the economy and jobs. That's Paul's strong suit. Sure, he supports legalizing drugs and private businesses having the choice to hire based on race, but these are minor flaws and will not decided the GOP nod. A lot more people are listening to what he says now and a lot of his ideas are more acceptable and understood then they were back in 2006-2008. Paul would appeal to many independents and left-leaning voters. Half of the GOP field may not like him now, but I wouldnt be shocked if he ended up with the nod, they would prefer him over Obama.

1. He is loathed by the religious right - who comprise AT LEAST 25% of the GOP base (likely much, much more)
2. He favors legalization of drugs - a non-starter among so-called "swing voters"
3. He is in favor of repealing anti-discrimination laws in a country that is less and less white
4. While Libertarian-types always seem to think vast swaths of the country support their vision... they've never gotten more than about 5% in a meaningful election.
5. Even though it seems he can raise an assload of money - he is seemingly incapable of running a competent campaign with it.
6. Paul would have very little appeal to moderate or left leaning voters... especially when his record and past statements start making their way in to national advertising.

Paul has NO SHOT. NONE AT ALL.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ming01 wrote:It is ignorant to say Paul has no shot. The GOP field is very weak and the 2012 race will come down to the economy and jobs. That's Paul's strong suit. Sure, he supports legalizing drugs and private businesses having the choice to hire based on race, but these are minor flaws and will not decided the GOP nod. A lot more people are listening to what he says now and a lot of his ideas are more acceptable and understood then they were back in 2006-2008. Paul would appeal to many independents and left-leaning voters. Half of the GOP field may not like him now, but I wouldnt be shocked if he ended up with the nod, they would prefer him over Obama.

1. He is loathed by the religious right - who comprise AT LEAST 25% of the GOP base (likely much, much more)
2. He favors legalization of drugs - a non-starter among so-called "swing voters"
3. He is in favor of repealing anti-discrimination laws in a country that is less and less white
4. While Libertarian-types always seem to think vast swaths of the country support their vision... they've never gotten more than about 5% in a meaningful election.
5. Even though it seems he can raise an assload of money - he is seemingly incapable of running a competent campaign with it.
6. Paul would have very little appeal to moderate or left leaning voters... especially when his record and past statements start making their way in to national advertising.

Paul has NO SHOT. NONE AT ALL.

Wait, I thought Paul was in favor of race not being a factor in hiring decisions. That means he's against discrimination laws. Now your saying he is for discrimination laws that take race into account in hiring practices? When did Paul change his stance?

He's in favor of businesses hiring whomever they want and on whatever basis. He's also in favor of people boycotting the piss out of a business they think is run by bigots. In other words, he's for letting the market run its course instead of the nanny state stepping in.

Ron Paul will never be president because he masterbates on a pile of gold.

In his latest attempt to increase the price of his gold pile Paul grills Bernanke and asks: "is gold money?" Don't be absurd; gold jewelry fell out of fashion years ago. So... why do we hold a soft metal and pretend it's money? According to Bernanke it's just tradition.

http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2 ... not-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;