RP said he wouldnt have had OBL killed?

[TRIGRHAPPY]

A few articles on google news are saying he said he wouldnt have ordered the strike on OBL. Supposedly the articles link to video/audio of it, but i am stuck on an iphone and the links won't play.

I am afraid of what this will do to his chances in the primary. Either way, i would appreciate some investigaton of this.....since i cannot hear it for myself. I'm hoping its just spin on his noninterventionist viewpoint.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-death/

[LisaNY]

who is Simon Conway and why is Ron granting interviews to every tom, dick and harry? Of course this is going to get spun against him, because most people are too stupid to comprehend what he actually said.

[dannno]

I'm guessing he would have preferred to have him tried in a court.

Just listened and that is it. Also emphasized that he was unarmed and so that easily could have been done.

[low preference guy]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

[svobody]

Basically said we only got away with doing it because he was in Pakistan, and if that he was in a London hotel, we aren't sending in a SEAL team with choppers. Which is a very valid point, but one that the emotional American public will just understand as OMG RON PAUL DOESN'T HAVE THE BALLZ TO KILL BAD GUYZ.

[svobody]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

No big deal then, he can just say he did this interview without that knowledge.

[low preference guy]

I'm really disappointed by his answer. It could've been very easily answered without giving up principle. He should've said:

I understand Pakistan actually did authorize it. The reports said he offered resistance, and our people have a right to defend themselves, killing him if necessary.

Follow-up question: What if he didn't offer resistance?

The media reported that if Bin Laden put up his arms and surrendered, they would've captured him without killing him. I would've ordered exactly the same thing President Obama ordered in that situation.

The only way this won't be an issue is if the economy is so bad that foreign policy doesn't matter at all.

[ronpaulitician]

I don't have an issue with his answer.

When I found out Osama was unarmed, my first thought was "So we just executed him, instead of capturing him."

If we were to (knowingly or unknowingly) harbor someone considered a terrorist by another nation, how would we like it if a squad of that nation's paramilitaries swoops in, and kills the unarmed terrorist?

Whether he answers it the way he answered it now, or a month from now, or a year from now. Doesn't matter. He has his opinion, and when asked he will provide it. There's really no point in arguing how an unpopular viewpoint should be phrased or how it can be kept hidden from the public. You either believe in a core idea, and follow that idea through even when it's not easy, or you put on a suit and tie, get some personality coaching, and join the many candidates who will say anything just to get people to vote for them.

Sure, Osama likely complicit in 9/11 and a slew of other mass murders, and it may indeed have been somewhat problematic to actually take him in custody (I have no idea what actually happened in that room, and whether they shot him because they thought he posed a threat or if they shot him knowing he was no immediate threat), but I'd like to think that

[LisaNY]

Ron Paul is doing what every Republican SHOULD be doing. Instead of kissing obama's ass and saying "Great job Mr. President!", they should be attacking and criticizing every thing he does. That's how the left plays and it works. I've been a registered Republican for 22 years and after this primary I am DONE with the party of Hannity.

[AFPVet]

Ron Paul is doing what every Republican SHOULD be doing. Instead of kissing obama's ass and saying "Great job Mr. President!", they should be attacking and criticizing every thing he does. That's how the left plays and it works. I've been a registered Republican for 22 years and after this primary I am DONE with the party of Hannity.

I question both parties.... I only formally recognize the classical liberals who envision this nation as it should be. I only side with Congressmen Ron Paul, Kuchinch and Senator Rand Paul.

[anaconda]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

Just because the Pakistanis "authorize" the assassination of an unarmed and unconvicted person does not mean it is moral, legal, or in any other way defensible for a U.S. President. Ron did not make a big mistake. See Judge Napolitano's recent inspiring rant on this. Furthermore, short of this incident being ultimately exposed as the complete lie and charade that it is, the American People are experiencing a "lack of evidence" fatigue with Barack Obama, and are frustrated and bothered that there is no reliable confirmation of Bin Laden's death. As the weeks grow on there will be much greater support for the capture him alive alternative.

[anaconda]

I question both parties.... I only formally recognize the classical liberals who envision this nation as it should be. I only side with Congressmen Ron Paul, Kuchinch and Senator Rand Paul.

Three good picks there, my friend.:D

These three should form the "Principled Politician Caucus."

[TER]

Whoever kills an unarmed wanted man without allowing him a defense is trying to hide something. Plain and simple. Ron Paul knows that Bin Laden would reveal the most embarrassing things on some of the most powerful people in the world, and that this is why he was silenced.

Ron Paul's position is that we should not be a nation of lies, but of truth and justice and laws in order to preserve and grow our freedoms and liberties. An empire of lies is doomed for failure, and this is what we have become. A nation who kills unarmed ex-CIA funded fanatics in order to hide the lies which infect the halls of the Capital. Ron Paul is right to fight for truth and justice, and this is why he I support him for President.

[BenIsForRon]

Is anybody else getting a COINTEL vibe from some of the comments on the blaze?

[Eric21ND]

How can we spin this? We were doing so well in the polls early on too.

[MelissaWV]

I don't find a problem with this. It fits in with the larger :confused: portion of this story.

When it first came out, people were immediately saying that the intel used to get Bin Laden came from torture and "advanced interrogation." Even though that story has changed, the faith in waterboarding and the like is still renewed. If all of that is true, then why wasn't Bin Laden captured and interrogated? It didn't need to be publicized that Bin Laden had been captured, or by whom, or where he was being held. We might have found out just in time for 9/11/11 that there was a video of a confused, rambling OBL talking about his wives and children and telling us all his major plots and hideouts. If interrogation is so awesome, why execute the biggest font of terrorist knowledge?

Beyond that, Ron is basing his answers on hindsight. That's what everyone who's asked "what would you do" is working off of. None of us knows how it looked to the people kicking down doors and running through the compound, but if only one person was armed (which was the last I heard; forgive me if the story has changed yet again), why were there multiple dead/wounded? If the fear was that Osama was wearing a suicide vest, there were other ways to neutralize him that don't involve putting a huge hole in his head. The reports (again, the latest ones I've seen; sorry if they're now inaccurate) have enough time elapsing for the military to observe OBL was confused and the like, and that he grabbed his wife and threw her, and that someone had time to shoot her, and that someone then took out OBL. Seconds, sure, but it seems like that story would contradict the whole "he was a huge threat" meme that's being put out.

All of that is much more conveniently reduced to two facts: 1. Ron Paul would not have had a huge military presence in the region to begin with, 2. Ron Paul would not have sent in an assassination team to execute OBL.

[LeJimster]

I think Ron should have answered the question slightly different, but I don't disagree that OBL should have been captured especially since he offered no resistance and was unarmed (apparently). He has to emphasize the relief of one of America's enemies being taken out. But the way in which it has been done was totally incorrect and he is right to point this out.

[R3volutionJedi]

I took this position before he made a statement. I would have much rather seen OBL arrested.

[vita3]

Honestly, Osama was used as such a propoganda tool by both radical muslims & westerners , I don't kow what to think about him..

How do you form a solid opinion on a lie on a lie on top of a lie?

That said, going around killing un-armed people is certainly against our laws.

[jmdrake]

Ron made a big mistake. The U.S. actually had authorization from Pakistan, and part of the deal was that they were going to pretend they didn't authorize it. Oh well.

And the evidence you have of this (other than your own rank speculation) is........?

If Pakistan wanted to play this kind of game they could have easily arrested OBL and dropped him off over the border in Afghanistan with an embedded GPS chip. Or they could have at the very least first moved him into the Pakistan mountains or at least further then spitting distance from on of their top military facilities. And don't give me any "they were afraid to move on him" nonsense. There were just a few unarmed people in the compound and if they had been unsure of that he could have been grabbed on the way to dialysis.

[jmdrake]

LOLz at RP's answer. Like others I agree with it on principle, but it fails on a political level. This is like 2008 all over again. If we play the game by their rules and simultaneously try to remained principled we lose. It's time to change the rules. People are afraid that Ron Paul will look crazy if he challenges the rules. But he looks just as crazy staying within the rules and trying to be principled.

[jmdrake]

I don't find a problem with this. It fits in with the larger :confused: portion of this story.

When it first came out, people were immediately saying that the intel used to get Bin Laden came from torture and "advanced interrogation." Even though that story has changed, the faith in waterboarding and the like is still renewed. If all of that is true, then why wasn't Bin Laden captured and interrogated? It didn't need to be publicized that Bin Laden had been captured, or by whom, or where he was being held. We might have found out just in time for 9/11/11 that there was a video of a confused, rambling OBL talking about his wives and children and telling us all his major plots and hideouts. If interrogation is so awesome, why execute the biggest font of terrorist knowledge?


Cause Michael Scheuer says that torture works on everybody except Osama Bin Laden. And folks wonder why I question him? (M.S. that is).



Beyond that, Ron is basing his answers on hindsight. That's what everyone who's asked "what would you do" is working off of. None of us knows how it looked to the people kicking down doors and running through the compound, but if only one person was armed (which was the last I heard; forgive me if the story has changed yet again), why were there multiple dead/wounded? If the fear was that Osama was wearing a suicide vest, there were other ways to neutralize him that don't involve putting a huge hole in his head. The reports (again, the latest ones I've seen; sorry if they're now inaccurate) have enough time elapsing for the military to observe OBL was confused and the like, and that he grabbed his wife and threw her, and that someone had time to shoot her, and that someone then took out OBL. Seconds, sure, but it seems like that story would contradict the whole "he was a huge threat" meme that's being put out.

All of that is much more conveniently reduced to two facts: 1. Ron Paul would not have had a huge military presence in the region to begin with, 2. Ron Paul would not have sent in an assassination team to execute OBL.

You're thinking logically. And you are 100% right. But if the average voter thought logically we would have won in 2008.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

Principal or not, this sounds like a campaign ending political mistake. No chance in the primary now. He should bow out and have Rand step in.

Neocons will not vote for him. I'm with him on this, but we must recognize the reality that we just lost the majority of the republican and independent vote. Either he drops out and Rand enters or we have another neocon win the primary and Obama the general.

[jmdrake]

Principal or not, this sounds like a campaign ending political mistake. No chance in the primary now. He should bow out and have Rand step in.

Neocons will not vote for him. I'm with him on this, but we must recognize the reality that we just lost the majority of the republican and independent vote. Either he drops out and Rand enters or we have another neocon win the primary and Obama the general.

Well he's not dropping out and Rand's not jumping in until 2016. If you've given up all hope (I haven't) you can always support Gary Johnson. Ron could change the rules and get 30% nationally and swamp the GOP primaries. But alas I don't think he'll do that.

[Justinjj1]

The answer he gave was just fine and I would expect no less of him to give an honest answer.

[MRoCkEd]

Principal or not, this sounds like a campaign ending political mistake. No chance in the primary now. He should bow out and have Rand step in.

Neocons will not vote for him. I'm with him on this, but we must recognize the reality that we just lost the majority of the republican and independent vote. Either he drops out and Rand enters or we have another neocon win the primary and Obama the general.

Ugh... I won't go as far as you but this is really bad electorally...

[jmdrake]

The answer he gave was just fine and I would expect no less of him to give an honest answer.

It's fine for people who already support Ron Paul in general and it may be fine for liberals who support his foreign policy already, but it won't win over the "Rand Paul republicans". Not by itself anyway. Had he thrown in something about letters of marquee and reprisal, or changes the rules of the game in some other respect he could connect with those people at an emotional level. Anyway, we play the hand we're dealt. We need to convince enough dems and independents to vote for Ron in the primary.

[Justinjj1]

Any neocon jingoist that is offended by this answer was never going to vote for him in the first place.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

I'm with him regardless. I supported him last time....i even drove across the country to see him at the debate in florida..... But he cannot win the republican primary now. At best, he can spread the message again...but i want to WIN. I still love him and i will still support him either way....but i acknowledge the political reality of what he said. I will be brought up in every debate and will be used to undermine him....and it will work. I do pray that Rand steps in.

[Justinjj1]

I'm with him regardless. I supported him last time....i even drove across the country to see him at the debate in florida..... But he cannot win the republican primary now. At best, he can spread the message again...but i want to WIN. I still love him and i will still support him either way....but i acknowledge the political reality of what he said. I will be brought up in every debate and will be used to undermine him....and it will work. I do pray that Rand steps in.

I want a candidate that challenges the status quo. Rand would be indistinguishable from the rest of the Republican field.

[demolama]

All Americans regardless of political affiliation are ecstatic with the death of OBL. This article plays on the highly emotional nationalistic feeling Americans are experiencing right now. These articles pick the most juicy parts of the interview in an attempt to make Paul look extremely weak in an area most people who follow politics feel he is the weakest. It plays on the emotions. It was a great gotcha moment for them. Will the average person look into the actual video?... nope. But then again they wouldn't have bothered looking up any of his solutions to the problem and are simply fine with media telling them what they should think on any issue.

Media has never been the friend to liberty. Nineteenth-century newspapers were filled with partisan and biased news and will always be so. Democracy doesn't work and never will. People are busy with working 40+ hours, watching tv, raising children, etc. to look deeply into political issues on their own and will always vote by how people tell them they should.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
— Thomas Jefferson

[jmdrake]

Any neocon jingoist that is offended by this answer was never going to vote for him in the first place.

Believe that if you will even though it's not true. Devvy Kidd, a big time Ron Paul supporter in 2008, jumped ship and attacked RP over his DADT vote. While this is different, I can imagine others who supported RP up to a point, but might jump ship over this.

[civusamericanus]

This article and video of Cheney are pretty convincing, that Bin Laden has never been connected to 9/11... They can spin it all they want, but its never been proven.


Interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nX-KQbYXnk



Interview With Osama bin Laden. Denies His Involvement in 9/11 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/obl-2001-interview.html)

Full text of Pakistani paper's Sept 2001 "exclusive" interview

Daily Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001




Ummat's introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa'idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily "Ummat", he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, "we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives".

Following is the interview in full detail:

.

[specsaregood]

who is Simon Conway and why is Ron granting interviews to every tom, dick and harry? Of course this is going to get spun against him, because most people are too stupid to comprehend what he actually said.

Its one of the biggest radio stations in Iowa, reaches a lot of folks.

[John of Des Moines]

Its one of the biggest radio stations in Iowa, reaches a lot of folks.

What ^^^^ he ^^^^ said times ten.

If Ron Paul is to win the Iowa straw poll and caucus he needs to go on WHO radio early and often. Paul needs to go on the Jan Mickelson show for an hour every other week from now to the caucus - and it was offered last time.

[klamath]

I am afraid Paul is lossing it. He has absolutely no electoral sense. First saying we should legalize Heroin, now this? I guess I will stick around for Rand even thought I am starting to question Rand's quietness pushing a resolution about libya. I guess I will save a bunch of money this election cycle. Sad day.

[Badger Paul]

Once again we have principled RP standing up for what he believes in rather than doing what's politically expdient, which would have been saying "Oh yeah, I would have killed the bastard." That's not who he is and if want him to run you have to put up with it.

However, it should be pointed out Ron's position is not much different than McCain's when he was asked during a debate in 2008 if he would authorize a raid into Pakistan to get OBL.

Just remember while successful U.S. forces were also extremely lucky. This raid could have been a bloody fiasco which could have set us on a collision course with a nuclear armed Pakistan. If things had turned out different, would saying "Yeah, I would have killed the bastard," have been any more popular? A lot of people would saying the same thing RP is.

But that's water under the bridge. Bottom line is OBL is dead. Period. It doesn't matter anymore. We need to focus on the future and getting out of the region so we don't breed a future generation of bin Laden's Over 60 percent people want the war in Afghanistan to end. That's why they were cheering bin Laden's death, because they want this war to end. RP has to tap into this war weariness in order to win. He's got to say "I'm the only candidate running who is going to end this war" and that's what will get him votes.

[specsaregood]

Once again we have principled RP standing up for what he believes in rather than doing what's politically expdient, which would have been saying "Oh yeah, I would have killed the bastard." That's not who he is and if want him to run you have to put up with it.

However, it should be pointed out Ron's position is not much different than McCain's when he was asked during a debate in 2008 if he would authorize a raid into Pakistan to get OBL.

Just remember while successful U.S. forces were also extremely lucky. This raid could have been a bloody fiasco which could have set us on a collision course with a nuclear armed Pakistan. If things had turned out different, would saying "Yeah, I would have killed the bastard," have been any more popular? A lot of people would saying the same thing RP is.

But that's water under the bridge. Bottom line is OBL is dead. Period. It doesn't matter anymore. We need to focus on the future and getting out of the region so we don't breed a future generation of bin Laden's Over 60 percent people want the war in Afghanistan to end. That's why they were cheering bin Laden's death, because they want this war to end. RP has to tap into this war weariness in order to win. He's got to say "I'm the only candidate running who is going to end this war" and that's what will get him votes.

^That. AND He is the only one that has been pushing to STOP foreign aid to Pakistan from the beginning. While it seems we have been paying Pakistan billions of dollars, just to result in them hiding Bin Laden from us.

[radiofriendly]

Principal or not, this sounds like a campaign ending political mistake. No chance in the primary now. He should bow out and have Rand step in.

Neocons will not vote for him. I'm with him on this, but we must recognize the reality that we just lost the majority of the republican and independent vote. Either he drops out and Rand enters or we have another neocon win the primary and Obama the general.

Not quite that bad, but he does need to bring Rand in as an advisor!
Remember, this does give him a chance now for all of the media to follow up and ask him
what he means by "that." Also, don't get too depressed about tweets...these aren't the normal
Republican voters. Stay strong...let this play out for another 24 hrs.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

Not quite that bad, but he does need to bring Rand in as an advisor!
Remember, this does give him a chance now for all of the media to follow up and ask him
what he means by "that." Also, don't get too depressed about tweets...these aren't the normal
Republican voters. Stay strong...let this play out for another 24 hrs.

He will get A LOT of bad publicity over this... However, it's publicity...and he can use it to justify what he said by bringing up the Letter of Marque legislation he introduced after Sept 11th. He would have to further explain that, he would have issued a letter of marque to capture him. That would have allowed us to go in and get him constitutionally.

However, it will still be used against him in 30 second soundbites by all his rivals. It will still be an effective tactic against him, and it will still hurt his chances. He also has never been good at responding in interviews to justify what he says by bringing up past legislation that he has authored. He'd better get GREAT at it or he is going to have his campaign crash and burn over this.

[civusamericanus]

I am afraid Paul is lossing it. He has absolutely no electoral sense. First saying we should legalize Heroin, now this? I guess I will stick around for Rand even thought I am starting to question Rand's quietness pushing a resolution about libya. I guess I will save a bunch of money this election cycle. Sad day.
He's been consistent from the beginning, he'd be losing it if he started candy coating every thing and telling everyone what they wanted to hear. And damn it he never said he wanted to legalize heroin, he explained in detail how the federal government should stay out of what is clearly a states rights issue and that the federal governments failed war on drugs, has accomplished nothing!

I hope you explain this to people who bring this up, otherwise you're feeding into the games the MSM plays!

[georgiaboy]

I just gotta shake my head and grin.
Expect the unexpected. Another Ron Paul truth-bomb-o-rama.

[FunkBuddha]

Whoever kills an unarmed wanted man without allowing him a defense is trying to hide something. Plain and simple. Ron Paul knows that Bin Laden would reveal the most embarrassing things on some of the most powerful people in the world, and that this is why he was silenced.

Ron Paul's position is that we should not be a nation of lies, but of truth and justice and laws in order to preserve and grow our freedoms and liberties. An empire of lies is doomed for failure, and this is what we have become. A nation who kills unarmed ex-CIA funded fanatics in order to hide the lies which infect the halls of the Capital. Ron Paul is right to fight for truth and justice, and this is why he I support him for President.

Yep.

[Badger Paul]

"Republican voters. Stay strong...let this play out for another 24 hr"

Agreed, especially when tomorrow is the official announcement.

[civusamericanus]

Whoever kills an unarmed wanted man without allowing him a defense is trying to hide something. Plain and simple. Ron Paul knows that Bin Laden would reveal the most embarrassing things on some of the most powerful people in the world, and that this is why he was silenced.

Ron Paul's position is that we should not be a nation of lies, but of truth and justice and laws in order to preserve and grow our freedoms and liberties. An empire of lies is doomed for failure, and this is what we have become. A nation who kills unarmed ex-CIA funded fanatics in order to hide the lies which infect the halls of the Capital. Ron Paul is right to fight for truth and justice, and this is why he I support him for President.
^^

[Inkblots]

LOLz at RP's answer. Like others I agree with it on principle, but it fails on a political level. This is like 2008 all over again. If we play the game by their rules and simultaneously try to remained principled we lose. It's time to change the rules. People are afraid that Ron Paul will look crazy if he challenges the rules. But he looks just as crazy staying within the rules and trying to be principled.

My thoughts exactly. I don't entirely agree with Ron on this, but, as always, I respect his principles. However, if he didn't think at the time this answer would massively harm his campaign effort, and likely become fodder for future debate questions to attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the base, that's pretty darn tone deaf. Ron should have spoken about letters of marque, or how capturing him alive would have given us an invaluable trove of intelligence; he really needs to learn to dodge questions by highlighting the parts of his position the base will like best.

[Aratus]

we via chopper invaded a pakistani compound and
over~rode their sovreignty, but who did we kill???

[klamath]

He's been consistent from the beginning, he'd be losing it if he started candy coating every thing and telling everyone what they wanted to hear. And damn it he never said he wanted to legalize heroin, he explained in detail how the federal government should stay out of what is clearly a states rights issue.

I hope you explain this to people who bring this up, otherwise you're feeding into the games the MSM plays!

I know exactly what RP was saying however if RP had any electoral sense he would never have played with the heroin term. Yes the MSM can spin it but RP made it damned easy for them. Time magazine this morning just made the comment this morning that the only thing that made the Republican debate stand out was RP saying we should legalized heroin.
This deal with OBL goes to the heart of RP's weakness. A hell of a lot of republicans have come over to RP's beliefs and were only holding off because of the belief that RP is not a decisive strong leader. This whole thing reinforces that image. Coordinate with Pakistan? Give me a break, Pakistan is about the least trusted country in the world right now. Almost nobody believes that if we had told Pakistan about OBL they would have turned him over to us or would not have warned him to get out of town.

[johnrocks]

Not his best political move;imho. I have been a Ron Paul fan for thirty years and;on the surface; I simply disagree with him on shooting OBL although I do agree with what he's attempting to say, most voters are more into thirty second soundbites though and will be more enthused by "Yay, we got OBL" than RP trying to educate and explain causes ,effects and unintended consequences of our disasterous foreign policy.

[Aratus]

on 60 MINUTES our POTUS knew he was thusly sending the two exotic & highly expensive
heliocopters over the afganistan border into pakistan without warning anyone in pakistan.
he felt taking down OBL was well worth the risk. if the mission actually was well planned
and took down an AL~QAEDA intranet, and old video footage of OBL was on some of the
harddrives... the dicey nature of the diplomatic blowback is in the wake of this decision.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGexershHu8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95xo9Indh2Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlvm3VhOqek

[Aratus]

had OBL died earlier? was Ms. Bhutto quite correct?
was the compound simply AL~QAEDA and internet?

[georgiaboy]

Not his best political move

Last I checked, Ron never moves politically.

[Bruno]

Why did we kill OSB if we want to question his wives for intel? Would he not have had far more intel than his wives? Was he not more valuable to use alive than dead?

[georgiaboy]

Ron Paul's position is that we should not be a nation of lies, but of truth and justice and laws in order to preserve and grow our freedoms and liberties. An empire of lies is doomed for failure, and this is what we have become. A nation who kills unarmed ex-CIA funded fanatics in order to hide the lies which infect the halls of the Capital. Ron Paul is right to fight for truth and justice, and this is why he I support him for President.

+rep

[trey4sports]

Well the best move would be to let this calm down (in fact i haven't heard much of it in the news) and then when its brought up, just clarify it.

[The Moravian]

I wouldn't let the commenters on The Blaze make us think something that's not true. If someone was really considering supporting RP, they would at least want to know what else he said as the video trailed off. Even if someone just wants to hear the whole answer because they want to hear RP out fairly, they would be asking about where to hear the rest of the interview, they wouldn't let a 2 minute snipet of the interview "change their mind".

If they were really "starting to warm up" to RP they wouldn't write him off without listening to the video carefully at least a couple of times, instead of boiling it down to "he would have asked Pakistan to hand OBL over", etc.

[The Moravian]

Trey4sports, it will be in the news, I guarantee it! And you will have friends challenge your support of RP over this, I'm sure, along with anyone you talk to in the coming campaign canvassing, etc. Just be ready with a good answer from the immense library of RP videos, he's talked about this for several years now, so you don't need to come up with your own answer.

If we do our RP research, we can quote the good Dr. in response to these questions. There's plenty more that RP could have said that isn't in this 2 minute video. This is most likely the easiest 2 minutes for The Blaze to twist and distort.

[johnrocks]

Last I checked, Ron never moves politically.

One of the things I love about him; I trust him even on the rare occassion that I might disagree with him; I know he's honest.

[tmg19103]

So let the press jump all over RP on not killing OBL and heroin.

He will explain it in a manner that will win votes by turning it on its head in regards to wrong headed policies like all these wars in the Middle East, the "war on drugs", and how these failures are helping along the bankruptcy of this country.

[SilentBull]

Man, those comments are shit.

[SilentBull]

The conclusion I have come to is that the biggest problem in our country is actually the fact that voters really do not care for Liberty and Justice. They don't want liberty for their neighbors, only for themselves. They don't really believe in the rule of law. They only believe in what benefits them. This, my friends, is the biggest obstacle. The people are hypocritical garbage. "Live and let ME live, but please don't let my neighbor smoke, gamble, or do anything else I find offensive." F**k these a**holes!

[Romulus]

The conclusion I have come to is that the biggest problem in our country is actually the fact that voters really do not care for Liberty and Justice. They don't want liberty for their neighbors, only for themselves. They don't really believe in the rule of law. They only believe in what benefits them. This, my friends, is the biggest obstacle. The people are hypocritical garbage. "Live and let ME live, but please don't let my neighbor smoke, gamble, or do anything else I find offensive." F**k these a**holes!

Absolutely 100% Correct.

That is what we are up against.

+ rep.

[low preference guy]

Just because the Pakistanis "authorize" the assassination of an unarmed and unconvicted person does not mean it is moral, legal, or in any other way defensible for a U.S. President. Ron did not make a big mistake.

I was referring to his statement that he wouldn't have gone in.

[ronpaulitician]

All it takes is one well-thought out written statement by Ron Paul regarding this issue. That's really ALL it takes for any of these soundbites that can be spun against him.

"That Ru Paul dude is off his medz. He is unhappy that Obama bin Laden got killed!"

Reply: "Well, that is indeed how it is being spun by the mainstream media. Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the issue. <link to statement>."

[cornell]

Can someone clarify a point brought up on Page 1: was RP aware of the Pakistani authorization of a US raid on OBL before he gave this radio interview?

[AmericaFyeah92]

I agree this was a mistake. He should really consider the consequences of what he's saying.

He's also making himself seem ignorant. The "consensus" is that Pakistanis can't be fully trusted (whether that is true or not) and his answer is that he would basically rely on the Pakistani's.

How does this square with his original plan for Letters of Marque and Reprisal? He needs to differentiate himself from Obama while at the same time sounding sufficiently badass when answering this question.

[klamath]

I agree this was a mistake. He should really consider the consequences of what he's saying.

He's also making himself seem ignorant. The "consensus" is that Pakistanis can't be fully trusted (whether that is true or not) and his answer is that he would basically rely on the Pakistani's.

How does this square with his original plan for Letters of Marque and Reprisal? He needs to differentiate himself from Obama while at the same time sounding sufficiently badass when answering this question.
Unfortunately this it it. Do a poll right now and find out how many americans believe pakistan didn't know OBL was there. The majority believe they knew including myself. Tell the pakistanis and they would have tipped him off. It contradicts the arguemnt that I have been using for RP's defence that he would have gone directly for those responsible for 911. Well aparently not!

[low preference guy]

I agree this was a mistake. He should really consider the consequences of what he's saying.

The answer RP gave is the answer I would've given if I tried my best to destroy my electoral chances. Still, I think RP might be able to explain it away.

[AmericaFyeah92]

I thought he had good people working for him now? Someone needs to get out with a clarifying statement right quick.

[Romulus]

This is a bunch of neocons trying to make hay out of this.... they don't like RP to begin with they can go support the O campaign.

That is officialy my answer to someone frothing at the mouth about RP didn't want to kill Osama!!!

Obama/Cheney 2012
War & Blowback Forever

[cornell]

Unfortunately this is being spun out of control, it's hit Fox News and other mainstream sites already.

As a RP supporter I can understand his principled approach, but 30-second soundbites from this will really hurt him, especially if it is happening at the same time as he announces his candidacy. He or someone from the campaign really needs to clarify this or issue an explanatory statement to nip it in the bud.

It also seems somewhat inconsistent with other things he has said, specifically with this being a vindication of his position that foreign aid is a poor investment.

[Eric21ND]

I agree this was a mistake. He should really consider the consequences of what he's saying.

He's also making himself seem ignorant. The "consensus" is that Pakistanis can't be fully trusted (whether that is true or not) and his answer is that he would basically rely on the Pakistani's.

How does this square with his original plan for Letters of Marque and Reprisal? He needs to differentiate himself from Obama while at the same time sounding sufficiently badass when answering this question.
Precisely! We failed to get OBL at Tora Bora because we outsourced the job to the Pakistanis, and with a wink and a nod they let him escape. Ron's answer no matter how you slice it sounds, either ignorant of the debacle at Tora Bora or pacifist in nature.

[Eric21ND]

Unfortunately this it it. Do a poll right now and find out how many americans believe pakistan didn't know OBL was there. The majority believe they knew including myself. Tell the pakistanis and they would have tipped him off. It contradicts the arguemnt that I have been using for RP's defence that he would have gone directly for those responsible for 911. Well aparently not!
Yup I know the feeling. I'm getting blasted on other message boards because I defended Ron so vehemently about his small elite force, special forces, or mark and reprisal approach.

Now I'm just like, well then...

[Eric21ND]

This is a bunch of neocons trying to make hay out of this.... they don't like RP to begin with they can go support the O campaign.

That is officialy my answer to someone frothing at the mouth about RP didn't want to kill Osama!!!

Obama/Cheney 2012
War & Blowback Forever
It's not just neocons, its ABC news, CBS, etc...

[JoshLowry]

He announces tomorrow. I'm sure this isn't coincidental timing.

[belian78]

I'm with him regardless. I supported him last time....i even drove across the country to see him at the debate in florida..... But he cannot win the republican primary now. At best, he can spread the message again...but i want to WIN. I still love him and i will still support him either way....but i acknowledge the political reality of what he said. I will be brought up in every debate and will be used to undermine him....and it will work. I do pray that Rand steps in.

GTFO then, good luck to ya. Seriously, someone that signed up in 07 and has under 70 posts saying 'oh I lubs me some Ron Paul but he can't win now'?... Forgive me if I'm not moved by this rock of a supporter.

[Eric21ND]

He announces tomorrow. I'm sure this isn't coincidental timing.
It stems from the WHO radio interview he did the other day in Des Moines no less. *Double face palm*

I don't know about you all, but this really let the wind out of my sail. We probably lost any chance of the nomination with this fumble.

[Romulus]

It stems from the WHO radio interview he did the other day in Des Moines no less. *Double face palm*

I don't know about you all, but this really let the wind out of my sail. We probably lost any chance of the nomination with this fumble.

I think you might be panicking.... RP has never endorsed a 'kill at will' policy that Obama is taking on. The MSM is finding something to make hay out of... Neocons are up in a tizzy.. nothing new..

[belian78]

Heh... GD and I thought people here were more stalwart than this. You are being played like a fiddle, and going right along with it. Giving up before the official announcement... WTF.

[Immortal Technique]

the comments over there at the Blaze are straight outta freerepublic

[Eric21ND]

I think you might be panicking.... RP has never endorsed a 'kill at will' policy that Obama is taking on. The MSM is finding something to make hay out of... Neocons are up in a tizzy.. nothing new..
I hope you're correct and I am simply overreacting. We were really starting to gain some traction there and now this ugh! Ron needs to clarify his statements like pronto because he WILL get asked about this over and over now. He can save himself if he stresses the intelligence we could have gleamed from OBL had he was captured and not killed.

[Lucille]

Doherty (http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/12/ron-paul-for-president-its-ver):


This very controversial position is in line with his general sense that the U.S. should not and need not act like a power that can do whatever it wants wherever it wants, and that other people and nations in the Middle East generally deserve to be treated with the same sympathy and empathy as any other. He's held firm to these stances, and seems like he'll continue to, though it remains to be seen how many GOP primary voters will go along with him.

[Eric21ND]

Heh... GD and I thought people here were more stalwart than this. You are being played like a fiddle, and going right along with it. Giving up before the official announcement... WTF.
It has nothing to do with being "played". I was listening to the WHO interview, since it was in Des Moines and thus 10 times more important to give good answers in this setting and when Ron said this I just put my head down and muttered a few four letter words, because our job in Iowa just got 10x harder now. Imagine going door to door in Iowa and people saying, "Ron Paul wouldn't even go after OBL!!" *Bam door slam* Makes us look limpwristed in every way, shape, and form.

[klamath]

Doherty (http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/12/ron-paul-for-president-its-ver):[/QUOTE

[QUOTE]Then why did he vote for this?
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

This gave the president the authorization to Get OBL even if he was in England. RP is the one being inconsistent here.

[teacherone]

It has nothing to do with being "played". I was listening to the WHO interview, since it was in Des Moines and thus 10 times more important to give good answers in this setting and when Ron talked said this I just put my head down and muttered a few four letter words, because our job in Iowa just got 10x harder now. Imagine going door to door in Iowa and people saying, "Ron Paul wouldn't even go after OBL!!" *Bam door slam* Makes us look limpwristed in every way, shape, and form.

you're making me nervous here...

[low preference guy]

[QUOTE=Lucille;3268964]Doherty (http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/12/ron-paul-for-president-its-ver):[/QUOTE



This gave the president the authorization to Get OBL even if he was in England. RP is the one being inconsistent here.

Did it give authorization to gel OBL if he was in England WITHOUT authorization from England? In other words, did it give the government authorization to break laws?

[Indy Vidual]

I hope you're correct and I am simply overreacting. We were really starting to gain some traction there and now this ugh! Ron needs to clarify his statements like pronto ...

overreacting?
Perhaps

clarify?
Would you prefer Ron tells people OBL died in 2001? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html)

Why did he feel the need to grossly expand the size of his nose? :p

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/11/article-1212851-03FC7589000005DC-998_224x423.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/11/article-1212851-004F274300000258-290_224x423.jpg

[AuH20]

It has nothing to do with being "played". I was listening to the WHO interview, since it was in Des Moines and thus 10 times more important to give good answers in this setting and when Ron said this I just put my head down and muttered a few four letter words, because our job in Iowa just got 10x harder now. Imagine going door to door in Iowa and people saying, "Ron Paul wouldn't even go after OBL!!" *Bam door slam* Makes us look limpwristed in every way, shape, and form.

Yup. Catastrophic mistake. He's officially done. It's not even about compromising principles, but there are ways to approach certain questions.

[klamath]

[QUOTE=klamath;3268980]

Did it give authorization to gel OBL if he was in England WITHOUT authorization from England? In other words, did it give the government authorization to break laws?

OK, well why did RP vote for it?

[low preference guy]

[QUOTE=low preference guy;3268984]

OK, well why did RP vote for it?

To go after Osama, but that doesn't mean he was going to violate the sovereignty of other countries. It is possible to try to get Osama following international law.

[klamath]

[QUOTE=klamath;3268998]

To go after Osama, but that doesn't mean he was going to violate the sovereignty of other countries. It is possible to try to get Osama following international law.

Have you read the law that Ron Paul voted for?

[teacherone]

Yup. Catastrophic mistake. He's officially done. It's not even about compromising principles, but there are ways to approach certain questions.

ok... now this is overreacting.

[ronpaulitician]

Ron Paul is a traitor. He's saying that he would've preferred capturing bin Laden alive. If he had been president in 2001, he likely would've just sent this elite team to capture bin Laden, instead of allowing us to bomb the hell out of a couple of countries for more than a decade. And if he had been president in 2011, he would have given the order to capture instead of the order to kill.

We cannot elect a man like this in 2012, or soon we won't be allowed to bomb any more countries.

[low preference guy]

Yup. Catastrophic mistake. He's officially done. It's not even about compromising principles, but there are ways to approach certain questions.

He might be able to clarify it today or tomorrow. See what happens then before giving up.

[SilentBull]

Guys, remember the Civil Rights Act answer Rand gave Maddow. Many were depressed over that one. Rand is senator now. This is just the beginning. Ron has plenty of time. This won't end anything. He can figure out how to give a better answer when asked about this. Most people aren't even paying attention to this race yet. This issue will be mostly forgotten in a few months.

[Indy Vidual]

Yup. Catastrophic mistake. He's officially done. It's not even about compromising principles, but there are ways to approach certain questions.

Catastrophic: Oh NO!!!!
“Men of intemperate mind never can be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” - Edmund Burke


Guys, remember the Civil Rights Act answer Rand gave Maddow. Many were depressed over that one. Rand is senator now. This is just the beginning. Ron has plenty of time. This won't end anything. He can figure out how to give a better answer when asked about this. Most people aren't even paying attention to this race yet. This issue will be mostly forgotten in a few months.

Yes, I remember. :)

[AuH20]

ok... now this is overreacting.

You don't think this is going to be hammered in the next debates? This is going mainstream. He's not going to be known as the champion of constitution, but rather the fruitcake who wants to give heroin to your teenagers and the guy who won't chase down for Bin Laden. Of course, I understand what we was TRYING to communicate. His enemies in the media cleverly created the narrative and he stuck his head in the noose willingly.

[AuH20]

Guys, remember the Civil Rights Act answer Rand gave Maddow. Many were depressed over that one. Rand is senator now. This is just the beginning. Ron has plenty of time. This won't end anything. He can figure out how to give a better answer when asked about this. Most people aren't even paying attention to this race yet. This issue will be mostly forgotten in a few months.

But that was Maddow hammering a tired Rand Paul for about twenty minutes minus commercial breaks, in search for some objectionable soundbyte on lunch counters.

[SilentBull]

You don't think this is going to be hammered in the next debates? This is going mainstream. He's not going to be known as the champion of constitution, but rather the fruitcake who wants to give heroin to your teenagers and the guy who won't chase down for Bin Laden. Of course, I understand what we was TRYING to communicate. His enemies in the media cleverly created the narrative and he stuck his head in the noose willingly.

Just like Rand was officially done and was going to be known as some racist that wanted blacks to be kept out of businesses

[teacherone]

under the geneva convention is it legal to shoot an unarmed solider in his pajamas?

[Indy Vidual]

You don't think this is going to be hammered in the next debates? This is going mainstream....

This is also mainstream now:
Would you prefer Ron tells people OBL died in 2001? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html)

[SilentBull]

But that was Maddow hammering a tired Rand Paul for about twenty minutes minus commercial breaks for some objectionable soundbyte on lunch counters.

It was still something that went viral. Everyone was talking about it. Everyone! All networks. He still won!

[low preference guy]

Just like Rand was officially done and was going to be known as some racist that wanted blacks to be kept out of businesses

They're very different things. I witnessed both and I wasn't nowhere near alarmed as I'm now, I thought the CRA was a non-issue that most people didn't care about. Still, Ron can still clarify it.

[AuH20]

This is also mainstream now:
Would you prefer Ron tells people OBL died in 2001? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html)

I don't think he has a choice. I'd prefer him to go with that one. Hell, you have nothing to lose at this point.

[Indy Vidual]

I don't think he has a choice. I'd prefer him to go with that one. Hell, you have nothing to lose at this point.

There is still Hope for North America. :)

[belian78]

I just find it absolutely amazing that after all these years of having Rons stances skewed and maligned, after all the success and triumph of ideas in spite of the attacks and spin, with all the early success this campaign has had before its officially started.... Some of you are ready to go hide under your beds and cry. And what for? The media misrepresenting something Ron said? Something that he will be vindicated for as he always has been? Amazing...

[klamath]

Just like Rand was officially done and was going to be known as some racist that wanted blacks to be kept out of businesses

Not even in the same league. Racism charges in a state that voted almost 2 to1 against a black president was not going to get traction.

[ronpaulitician]

It's not even about compromising principles, but there are ways to approach certain questions.
Agree.

You can either give your honest opinion, or you can spin, lie, and avoid.
You can answer to best please your audience, or you can answer to best please your conscience.

"If i might add something relating to your previous question. I grew up in a meat packing town, I was in a union for seven years. My family is a union family. My brothers and sisters many work in unions to this day or have worked in unions. I understand this issue." (Pawlenty, 5/5/2011 in answering a question about creationism vs evolution)

"God bless you and God is blessing America." (Herman Cain, 5/5/2011 when given a chance to send a final message to viewers)

[Indy Vidual]

I just find it absolutely amazing that after all these years of having Rons stances skewed and maligned, after all the success and triumph of ideas in spite of the attacks and spin, with all the early success this campaign has had before its officially started.... Some of you are ready to go hide under your beds and cry. And what for? The media misrepresenting something Ron said? Something that he will be vindicated for as he always has been? Amazing...

+1776 :)

Ron's been at this a long time:
Something that he will be vindicated for as he always has been...


The Moral Promise of Freedom

by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
The Free Market
March 1994

The moral promise of a free society involves the boundaries of private property. The promise is this: property boundaries cannot be legally invaded or trampled upon. When property is protected, people can keep the fruits of their labor and investment, and not have them plundered by others. People can own land, for example, and this land can be used as the owners see fit. Private property allows wide latitude for experimentation. Property holders can form communities with internal cultures. Just as business can conduct its own affairs, people can separate themselves out entirely from the rest of society if they so desire. They need only respect the rights of others to do the same.

It's the nature of private property and a free society that it allows room for diversity of work, modes of production, and ways of life. That's how Mr. Jefferson wanted it, and that's what the authors of the Constitution promised. In the sixties, for example, hippie communes sprang up all over the country. The participants were eccentric and the utopias didn't work, but the attempts were tolerated by society and state.

Today the promise of private property is routinely violated by both private criminals and government. The attack on property began subtly at first, but today it has become explicit, sometimes brutal, and sometimes even deadly.

The community of faith that once lived at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, believed the promise of free society. They chose to separate themselves from society, as so many others have done in our nation's history. This was not allowed in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China. That's one reason we regard these regimes as tyrannical.

Yet in its dealings with the Waco religious dissenters, the central government revealed that it has become intractably opposed to any individual or group that represents a challenge to its singular authority. To counter this challenge, the central government resorted to tactics that resulted in the death of 86 men, women, and children. As for the survivors, the government has put them on trial.

This sort of brutality is inevitable in a system of absolute and centralized power. A government that invades private business by demanding confiscatory taxes, imposes unbearable regulations, and rules over business culture through pervasive labor controls, builds an appetite for even more power. As the power builds, so does the extent of corruption at the top and the disinformation that covers up the truth about its tyranny.

So it was in Waco, where the tragic events combined all the elements of a government out of control. Most of what the public thinks it knows about David Koresh, the group's spiritual leader, is false. But as with war, military invasions, and other acts of state – as J.S. Griffey of the University of Houston argued in an outstanding article in the Southern Partisan – the first impression is the one that lasts.

For example, most people probably believe that the government attacked the Waco Christians because they were "stockpiling" weapons. Were they? Texans own 60 million firearms, about 3.5 per person. At Mt. Carmel there were two firearms per person, most of them locked away. The rest of their protection consisted of hay bales and plywood.

The stockpiling accusation was an act of projection, for the real stockpiler was the government. In the attack on Waco, agents used MI 13 personnel carriers, M2AO Bradley fighting vehicles, Sikorsky Blackhawks, Apache and UH-1 Bell helicopters, Abrams MI tanks, 7.62mm machine guns, FBI SWAT snipers, two varieties of hand grenades, and the FBI's psychological warfare experts. The government even fired canisters of CS gas, banned in warfare by international treaty, through windows and walls.

The BATF got their helicopters from the Texas National Guard. Under the law, the military cannot be involved in domestic law enforcement. But a special provision of the U.S. Code allows the government to use military equipment in drug cases. So the BATF told Texas governor Ann Richards that they suspected Mount Carmel had a drug lab. This canard was not in the BATF's search warrants and it hasn't been mentioned since.

Did Koresh want a confrontation with law enforcement agents? All evidence indicates he desired good relations with the law. In 1992, Koresh had actually invited the BATF into the compound so agents could see for themselves. But the government reneged. "Why do you all have to be so big all the time?" Koresh asked the FBI during the month-long standoff. "Why didn't you just talk to me?"

Did the community have a death wish? Twenty minutes before the fire began, the community hung out a sign reading: "We want our phones fixed." (The government had cut them off, along with the electricity.) That's not a message sent by people hungering for the Apocalypse. None of the survivors report discussion of suicide plans.

There is still no evidence that the religious people set the fire that destroyed their building. The place was a firetrap, entirely made of wood and sealed shut. Since the government had cut off their electricity, lanterns were their only light. The government shot out the windows, so sheets were their only protection from the weather. The tanks that battered the building probably set the fire, either accidentally or deliberately.

The initial raid was on February 28, 1993. Several people say the government shot through the roof from a helicopter, but we cannot know for sure. The physical evidence is reduced to ashes, and the government plowed the land over a week after the home went up in flames.

As the standoff continued, the women and children were upstairs because they were afraid of the government. The tanks destroyed the stairways that would have allowed them to escape the fire. The underground shelter was destroyed as well.

After the fire, the FBI made three claims it later retracted. First, the Bureau said that two agents saw community members lighting a fire. Second, the Bureau said one agent saw someone dressed in black "cupping his hands," as if to light a fire. Third, the Bureau said some members trying to flee the fire were shot by others. All assertions were false and were subsequently dropped.

The Justice Department contributed its share of lies. Spokesmen said an "independent arson investigator" concluded that members of the community started the fire. But the "independent investigator" turned out to be Paul Gray, an agent for the BATF from 1962 to 1990 whose wife stills works for the agency as secretary to the man who planned the raid. They apparently could not be sure a genuinely independent investigator would come to the preordained conclusion.

The stated purpose of the raid was to save children from abuse. Yet Janet Reno lied about that too. The information she used was already discredited, and she later admitted it. The real child abuse was committed by the government: to harass community members, the FBI turned on massive floodlights at night and played recordings of Buddhist chants, dental drills, and screaming, slaughtered rabbits. Reno herself ordered the house to be saturated with CS gas, knowing that the community's gas masks couldn't fit the children.

In ways that have become typical, the media and government worked together in this disaster. One day before the raid, the Waco Tribune-Herald started a series on "The Sinful Messiah." On the morning of February 28, 1993, before BATF arrived at Mt. Carmel, at least 11 reporters were on the scene already. After the religious community was torched, the entire media participated in the beatification of Janet Reno for her actions in Waco.

The consequences for the victims were public humiliation and death. There were zero consequences for the perpetrators, unless we consider the three agents who were suspended with pay and perks, which is no punishment at all.

The methods and strategies of the government's assault against Waco had been used for years by the military, but against foreign governments and their leaders, not against the domestic citizenry. The most familiar case of foreign intrigue was the government's attack on Manuel Noriega, in which it used similar tactics (blaring music, planting evidence, spreading disinformation), and therein lies the connection between foreign policy and domestic. Anything a government allows itself to do to foreign countries will eventually be done at home. That's one reason George Washington warned us against foreign entanglements.

We may never know the full truth about Waco or the extent of government perfidy, but we can draw lessons from the experience. This particular event was a fiasco, but it also tells something about what our government has become: "the organizer-in-chief of society," as Bertrand de Jouvenel said, which is "making its monopoly of this role ever more complete." It is a parasite and a monster that acts to protect itself. Mises was right: government's nature is coercive. It is "beating, killing, hanging." Coercion is necessary in society to protect the rights of property holders against those who do not respect property. But when government itself become the source of arbitrary violence, we have tyranny. That's why unchecked power should never be invested in a centralized government, even one with a democratic mandate. This power will invariably be exercised at the expense of peaceful social relations.

In its dealings with the community of believers at Mount Carmel, the central government abandoned the moral promise of a free society, and, as all tyrannies eventually do, ignored its own standards of law and ethics. But it paid the price of losing some measure of public confidence, which is already at historic lows. A government that governs by fear alone eventually finds itself unable to govern at all.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[Eric21ND]

[QUOTE=klamath;3268980]

Did it give authorization to gel OBL if he was in England WITHOUT authorization from England? In other words, did it give the government authorization to break laws?
What if Bin Laden was hiding on the dark side of the Moon!! Let's deal with reality and not esoteric hypotheticals. Bin Laden was in Pakistan, they have zero interest in turning him over to us and someone would've tipped him off had we shared intelligence with them. What do you do? Do you let him live out the rest of his years there because we can't impose on our wonderful friends the Pakistanis?

[AuH20]

I just find it absolutely amazing that after all these years of having Rons stances skewed and maligned, after all the success and triumph of ideas in spite of the attacks and spin, with all the early success this campaign has had before its officially started.... Some of you are ready to go hide under your beds and cry. And what for? The media misrepresenting something Ron said? Something that he will be vindicated for as he always has been? Amazing...

But by the very same token Ron does a poor job of explaining himself fully. This can be partially attributed to the shortened debate format.

[Eric21ND]

I just find it absolutely amazing that after all these years of having Rons stances skewed and maligned, after all the success and triumph of ideas in spite of the attacks and spin, with all the early success this campaign has had before its officially started.... Some of you are ready to go hide under your beds and cry. And what for? The media misrepresenting something Ron said? Something that he will be vindicated for as he always has been? Amazing...
Listen to the WHO interview.

[Indy Vidual]

...Bin Laden was in Pakistan...

Watch this!
BBC News: "It's all a fake"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJduLyB_yO4

[AuH20]

Not even in the same league. Racism charges in a state that voted almost 2 to1 against a black president was not going to get traction.

It's not even that. The CRA was written in 1964. A majority of American high school students think the Allies defeated the Soviet Union in WW2. This OBL thing is widely known in the realm of Justin Beiber and the Shamwow.

[Romulus]

What if Bin Laden was hiding on the dark side of the Moon!! Let's deal with reality and not esoteric hypotheticals. Bin Laden was in Pakistan, they have zero interest in turning him over to us and someone would've tipped him off had we shared intelligence with them. What do you do? Do you let him live out the rest of his years there because we can't impose on our wonderful friends the Pakistanis?

No by using letter of marque you arrest and try him in a court of law - not just assassinate anyone you like wherever you like. Its not Constitutional... he said "Not in that way" he never said he would NOT go after him just like he never said he would legalize heroin.. its spin..

People need to be spoonfed if they can't grasp that..its out job to move the block of cheese through the grader..

[Valli6]

This is not catastrophic. Judge Napolitano has been complaining about how this was carried out all week- and last week too. Now Ron will get an opportunity to explain how it all could have gone down constitutionally.

I just hope he's able to really get into how HR 3076 "September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001" would have gotten the same result 10 years sooner, without bankrupting the country, or leaving us with thousands of dead and maimed soldiers or "collateral damage" - all within the confines of the constitution.

:( If only.

[AuH20]

[QUOTE=Eric21ND;3269051]

No by using letter of marque you arrest and try him in a court of law - not just assassinate anyone you like wherever you like. Its not Constitutional... he said "Not in that way" he never said he would NOT go after him just like he never said he would legalize heroin.. its spin..

People need to be spoonfed if they can't grasp that..its out job to move the block of cheese through the grader..

Unless we take over the Department of Education that's not going to happen. LOL

[specsaregood]

This gave the president the authorization to Get OBL even if he was in England. RP is the one being inconsistent here.

I think key here is that the Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have been the congress AUTHORIZING the action or future actions. As it stands the President did not have any authority for this action. He had authority to go into Afghanistan to get OBL, not Pakistan.

This is nothing less than the President starting another war without the approval of congress.

Approving of this mission, means you also agree that Obama had the authority to go into Libya or wherever he damn well pleases.

[Eric21ND]

Watch this!
BBC News: "It's all a fake"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJduLyB_yO4
It's generally good to be openminded, but not to the point your brain falls out.

[Indy Vidual]

It's generally good to be openminded, but not to the point your brain falls out.

Did you even watch it Eric?
49 out of 50 locals say he was not living there.

[AmericaFyeah92]

^No shit? You mean they don't want to admit that they had been sharing a neighborhood with a mass-murderer and the world's most wanted man?

The Pakistanis hate America. They are the most anti-American country in the region. Now, they may have some very good reasons too, but they will go out of their way to blame us for every single thing

[Romulus]

I just rewatched the video and its official, you are all freaking out over nothing.

RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.

YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.

Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.

America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...

have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.

[Eric21ND]

This is not catastrophic. Judge Napolitano has been complaining about how this was carried out all week- and last week too. Now Ron will get an opportunity to explain how it all could have gone down constitutionally.

I just hope he's able to really get into how HR 3076 "September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001" would have gotten the same result 10 years sooner, without bankrupting the country, or leaving us with thousands of dead and maimed soldiers or "collateral damage" - all within the confines of the constitution.

:( If only.
I remember that episode of Freedom Watch and I remember the Judge making his esoteric case. I was also cringing and saying numerous thanks to Aqua Buddha, that Ron Paul didn't share this view. Now I'm not so sure. It's going to be a huge distraction in the campaign now, if there even is one after this.

[specsaregood]

I just rewatched the video and its official, you are are freaking out over nothing.
RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.
YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.
Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.
America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...
have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.

And Obama had no congressional approval to do it! geezus people. To approve of this is to say that the president can send troops wherever and whenever he feels like it without consulting congress. I thought we and RP were already on record as being against that.

[Indy Vidual]

I just rewatched the video and its official, you are are freaking out over nothing.

RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.

YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.

Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.

America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...

have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.

Yes, have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons! :)

[Eric21ND]

Did you even watch it Eric?
49 out of 50 locals say he was not living there.
So? People say a lot of things. A significant percentage of the population sees ghosts and claim to be abducted by aliens.

[klamath]

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s totally out of control, although the resolution did say that he was to go only after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Well, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So it’s being used outrageously. So you’re right; they have been able to justify this authority to go to any place, anytime they want. It’s endless war, and of course, they use this as a declaration of war, therefore, then they can set up their military courts and their tribunals and all the rest that goes on. So, the whole idea of our foreign policy needs be reversed. This idea that we are the policeman of the world and that we should be everywhere, telling everybody what to do, is an insane policy, and it’s coming back to haunt us. The sooner we wake up, the better
This is why I feel RP has jerked the rug out from under my defences of him.

[Eric21ND]

I just rewatched the video and its official, you are are freaking out over nothing.

RP is not going to order the assassination of ANYONE.

YES he would have gone after OBL - but not assisnate him.

Capture and Try him in a court of law to prove he was guilty.

America does not send out hit squads like whats being done to Gaddfi...

have a backbone ppl... stand up to ignorant Neocons.
I need to hear Dr. Paul say that. The impression he gave in the WHO interview was that he would've done nothing, except perhaps talk to the Pakistanis and have them turn him over, which they wouldn't have, so in effect Ron does nothing to get OBL. Bin Laden lives out the rest of his days eating fruit and watching home movies...

[ronpaulitician]

I need to hear Dr. Paul say that.
Ron Paul's last line on this subject was (paraphrased) "I wouldn't have done it the way it was done."

[Valli6]

I remember that episode of Freedom Watch and I remember the Judge making his esoteric case. I was also cringing and saying numerous thanks to Aqua Buddha, that Ron Paul didn't share this view. Now I'm not so sure. It's going to be a huge distraction in the campaign now, if there even is one after this.
I suspect the Judge knows exactly what Ron Paul's views are, and he intends to give him the platform to rebut the inevitable spin.

[specsaregood]

This is why I feel RP has jerked the rug out from under my defences of him.

Why exactly? did the resolution give the president the authority to go into pakistan?

[Eric21ND]

Here's the link to podcast of yesterday's Paul appearance on the Simon Conway, WHO Radio 1040 AM Des Moines.

http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=simonconway&selected_podcast=WHO-05-10-1700.mp3

[Indy Vidual]

...Bin Laden lives out the rest of his days eating fruit and watching home movies...

You are a very strong believer in mainstream Bin Laden stories. You do know which country originally trained and armed his 'brave fighters' don't you?

[Eric21ND]

Ron Paul's last line on this subject was (paraphrased) "I wouldn't have done it the way it was done."
Yes, but would he or not go into Pakistan to capture Bin Laden? Up until the last 24 hours, I was under the impression Ron would have...now I'm not so sure.

Would Ron be so naive to share intel with the Pakistanis so they can tip off Bin Laden? That raises some serious questions in my mind.

[klamath]

Why exactly? did the resolution give the president the authority to go into pakistan?

This is WHAT Ron Paul voted for. You tell me.


To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

[specsaregood]

This is WHAT Ron Paul voted for. You tell me.

Well, admittedly it is pretty broad. So in order for this to be valid the President had to have determined that Pakistan aided or harbored bin laden. Is it safe to say we are officially at war with Pakistan now? Or the president can "determine" that anybody anywhere had something to do with 9/11 and send troops in? It seems there is absolutely no oversight. It is a pretty bad bill, I think Dr. Paul has said that himself.

[JoshLowry]

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s totally out of control, although the resolution did say that he was to go only after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Well, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So it’s being used outrageously. So you’re right; they have been able to justify this authority to go to any place, anytime they want. It’s endless war, and of course, they use this as a declaration of war, therefore, then they can set up their military courts and their tribunals and all the rest that goes on. So, the whole idea of our foreign policy needs be reversed. This idea that we are the policeman of the world and that we should be everywhere, telling everybody what to do, is an insane policy, and it’s coming back to haunt us. The sooner we wake up, the better This is why I feel RP has jerked the rug out from under my defences of him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nX-KQbYXnk

According to Dick Cheney, Osama is NOT responsible for 9/11.

So, Ron's statement that you bolded holds water. No?

[svobody]

He said he wouldn't have done it THE WAY IT WAS DONE. Obama said he was only 50% sure OBL was even IN Pakistan. It was an extremely dangerous mission, American lives were at risk, we were violating the sovereignty of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, and we executed multiple people in the mission - people who's guilt had not been predetermined or proven. RP never said he wouldn't have gotten OBL, he just said he would have done it differently.

I fail to see the issue, once he clarifies. Additionally, it did not sound as if RP was aware that the Pakistani gov't had agreed to let us carry out this mission. He can simply rebut that if we had permission, it was fine, but that he does not believe in executions. Simple...

[Eric21ND]

You are a very strong believer in mainstream Bin Laden stories. You do know which country originally trained and armed his 'brave fighters' don't you?
I probably know more than you. Read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll and catch up on your Michael Scheuer as well. Another good book is "Holy War Inc" by Peter Bergen.

Bin Laden was very much an independent operator.

[klamath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nX-KQbYXnk

According to Dick Cheney, Osama is NOT responsible for 9/11.

So, Ron's statement that you bolded holds water. No?
It has been a long time since I believed anything Cheney says. If RP doesn't believe OBL did it then why in the interview did he say he would have pakistan turn him over to us?

[S.Shorland]

Knowing what 'we' know.America might be the least trustworthy country in the World right now?Sending people to war on lies.Torture.incarceration without trial.For an honest man like Paul,the jingoism doesn't ring true like it does to the mindless 'USA,USA!' chanters.The interviewer knew it and pressed the right buttons.Maybe America is ready for an honest man to be President?

I know exactly what RP was saying however if RP had any electoral sense he would never have played with the heroin term. Yes the MSM can spin it but RP made it damned easy for them. Time magazine this morning just made the comment this morning that the only thing that made the Republican debate stand out was RP saying we should legalized heroin.
This deal with OBL goes to the heart of RP's weakness. A hell of a lot of republicans have come over to RP's beliefs and were only holding off because of the belief that RP is not a decisive strong leader. This whole thing reinforces that image. Coordinate with Pakistan? Give me a break, Pakistan is about the least trusted country in the world right now. Almost nobody believes that if we had told Pakistan about OBL they would have turned him over to us or would not have warned him to get out of town.

[JoshLowry]

It has been a long time since I believed anything Cheney says. If RP doesn't believe OBL did it then why in the interview did he say he would have pakistan turn him over to us?

Because Osama did commit crimes that had nothing to do with 9/11?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ideas are very important to the shaping of society. In fact, they are more powerful than bombs or armies or guns. And this is because ideas are capable of spreading without limit. They are behind all the choices we make. They can transform the world in a way that governments and armies cannot. Fighting for liberty with ideas makes much more sense to me than fighting with guns or politics or political power. With ideas, we can make real change that lasts.

- Ron Paul

If anyone wants Ron to change the way he operates to make a run at the president, you're backing the wrong guy.

[klamath]

Because Osama did commit crimes that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Have you ever heard RP say he doesn't think OBL had a part in 911? If so please post a link.

[Lucille]

"Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past ten years have proven."
--Ron Paul

He should have stuck with that.

[klamath]

"Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past ten years have proven."
--Ron Paul

He should have stuck with that.

That was such a perfect statement. This is how I always defended him.

[S.Shorland]

Watching Matt Collins' posting of Judge Napolitano.Obama should have asked Pakistan for Bin Laden and if they refused,declare war for the express purpose of seeking (not killing) him.I'm actually glad now that RP told the truth.Your country is a Republic.A country based on the rule of law.If a man like Paul becomes your President,the World will be a much better place for all of us.It would be the hope we all had for Obama realised and increased manifold.Also,I'm looking forward to them questioning him further!He won't back down and play for political purpose.When are we going to get a man like this in British politics!?He's like El Cid.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5e1L5ocXUw

[ronpaulitician]

"Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past ten years have proven."
--Ron Paul

He should have stuck with that.
That works as a general statement. Not as a direct answer to a question.
The only time Ron Paul doesn't directly answer a question is when he misunderstands a question.