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

[vechorik]

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

h ttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-denies-saying-that-he-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-killing/



Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:54am by Mike Opelka

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

Mr. Paul‘s truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News’ Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden.

There‘s just one small problem with Paul’s denial, he did say it, several times.

Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.

Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;

So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?

And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:

I don’t think it was necessary. No.

Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman”

So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=4ERrWY5-txQ#t=0s

Ron Paul’s response was consistent with his two previous answers.

Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments.

Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=4X9g_9i81vk#t=0s

That clip from WHO Newsradio 1040 appeared on The Blaze on May 11th.

(H/T: Simon Conway of WHO)

[TheDriver]

No true supporter of Ron Paul expects him to support over-riding the sovereignty of another nation, to kill an unarmed man, although he claims he voted for it after 9-11.

[CaptUSA]

It was the way Baier phrased the question. I'll have to look, but I remember thinking, "That's not an accurate characterization of Paul's position". And I was glad Paul called him out on it.

Anyone want to pull the specific language of that question?

[Nathan Hale]

In a roundabout way, Paul said at the debate that he would not have approved the mission - he said that we should have worked with Pakistan.

[TheDriver]

In a roundabout way, Paul said at the debate that he would not have approved the mission - he said that we should have worked with Pakistan.

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

[TheDriver]

dp

[Original_Intent]

He also stated that he would have supported it IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED. When he said he would not have ordered it or done it like Obama did, it is clearly because he felt there were other options that needed to be pursued first - not that hard to understand, really. (Or maybe I am just a Paulbot!)

[No Free Beer]

I wrote a comment defending Ron.

No, Ron Paul did reinforce what he said.

This is what Ron Paul is saying:

I voted for the bill to go after Bin Laden. I added Marque and Reprisal so that we wouldnt get our eye off the ball. (if someone doesnt know what that is, look it up) What I am saying however, is that you must respect sovereignty of another nation. You cannot just enter another nation when you see fit. Unless there was some prior engagement between Pakistan and us, we cannot just enter a country whenever we sit fit, without the approval of that country. Moreover, we have caught and tried people throughout history, what is so wrong with that? That is his point. This does not mean he wouldnt have ordered a team to go after Bin Laden. It merely means that, if OSB was unarmed, why not just capture him? That is all. I personally, am glad we shot and killed him. But Dr. Paul is right based on the premise of America and international law.

[James Madison]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Too bad there's no evidence OBL was actually there. Plus, he died in 2001.

[TheDriver]

Too bad there's no evidence OBL was actually there. Plus, he died in 2001.

Right, and tower whatever was blown up by the guberment, right? These points could help us plummet to single digits...keep em coming!

[TheDriver]

I wrote a comment defending Ron.

No, Ron Paul did reinforce what he said.

This is what Ron Paul is saying:

I voted for the bill to go after Bin Laden. I added Marque and Reprisal so that we wouldnt get our eye off the ball. (if someone doesnt know what that is, look it up) What I am saying however, is that you must respect sovereignty of another nation. You cannot just enter another nation when you see fit. Unless there was some prior engagement between Pakistan and us, we cannot just enter a country whenever we sit fit, without the approval of that country. Moreover, we have caught and tried people throughout history, what is so wrong with that? That is his point. This does not mean he wouldnt have ordered a team to go after Bin Laden. It merely means that, if OSB was unarmed, why not just capture him? That is all. I personally, am glad we shot and killed him. But Dr. Paul is right based on the premise of America and international law.

Did Afghanistan approve of us invading? If not, why did Ron Paul support it? Then if he didn't want us to get bin Laden anywhere, anytime, why vote for the authorization to get bin Laden in the first place?

[klamath]

Knew this was going to come back and bite. It is one area where RP flip floped and it had to be the one area most critical to the election.

[James Madison]

Right, and tower whatever was blown up by the guberment, right? These points could help us plummet to single digits...keep em coming!

Probably, but that's a side issue.

I tend to trust people like Steve Pieczenik more than known liars and crooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtNiTm99e8

[Travlyr]

Knew this was going to come back and bite. It is one area where RP flip floped and it had to be the one area most critical to the election.Explain how he flip flopped.

[TheDriver]

Probably, but that's a side issue.

I tend to trust people like Steve Pieczenik more than known liars and crooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtNiTm99e8

I don't wear silver, or foil, sorry.

[bluesc]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

He wasn't in any way defending Bin Laden. If his bill to issue letters of marque and reprisal passed back in the day, Bin Laden would have been captured or killed long before he went into hiding in Pakistan

You're just constantly overly critical of Ron, and due to that, you lose all credibility.

[Travlyr]

I don't wear silver, or foil, sorry.

But somehow you believe that Osama hid from the most powerful military the world has ever known for 10 years.. in plain sight.

[James Madison]

I don't wear silver, or foil, sorry.

Ahh, ad hominem attacks, how apropos. Don't debate the facts, just hurl personal insults.

[ItsTime]

Where is the proof that OB was killed during that mission? DNA taken from his sister and matched with the dead body could have been one of his many brothers. That evidence would not hold up in court.

[TheDriver]

But somehow you believe that Osama hid from the most powerful military the world has ever known for 10 years.. in plain sight.
Yes, I believe what Newt implied: They were hiding him from us, and collecting money to hunt him (although Newt didn't add the second thought of that sentence).

Wouldn't be that hard, really. It's not like the Pakistanis like us or anything. Besides being powerful doesn't mean you can find a needle-in-a-haystack. Imo, it's the equivalent of the South hiding Jesse James from the North--wouldn't be that hard during, and immediately following, the Civil War.

Sure there are some reasons to ask questions, especially considering all the mis-information from the President's staff following the event, but not during an election. Which is my point: defending OBL is a losing strategy, even if questioning the events. Ron would do better focusing on the economy.

[TheDriver]

Ahh, ad hominem attacks, how apropos. Don't debate the facts, just hurl personal insults. Nothing personal, I just consider that line of thought--out there.

I watch Alex Jones for entertainment, as I've seeded a few of his stories myself and seen the manipulation. I like what he does, but I don't build my political belief structure around his theories, lol. A better conspiracy on 9-11 would be: who talked these fools into flying these planes into buildings? And most people agree bin Laden and company. Who were they influenced by? I can walk that path, but to ignore the central players and allege imploding is far-fetched in my world. I watched the event live, I told a co-worker that those buildings would fall in less than 2 hours after the second plane hit, as I was working for a fireproofing company. No building has over a 2-hour rating, on fireproofing. We all knew what was going to happen!

[Butchie]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Thank you, I am against unnecessary wars but even I'm starting to think sometimes Ron and this movement ARE naive about foreign affiars, I completely agree it's wrong to go into a sovreign nation but in this case we are talking about a nation that was taking billions of dollars in aid from us all the while hiding a man who helped to kill thousands of our citizens, they deserved no courtesy from us and neither did Bin Laden, questioning him I may say is a reasonable thing to bring up, but I could care less about whether he got a trial or not.

[Travlyr]

Yes, I believe what Newt implied: They were hiding him from us, and collecting money to hunt him (although Newt didn't add the second thought of that sentence).

Wouldn't be that hard, really. It's not like the Pakistanis like us or anything. Besides being powerful doesn't mean you can find a needle-in-a-haystack. Imo, it's the equivalent of the South hiding Jesse James from the North--wouldn't be that hard during, and immediately following, the Civil War.

Sure there are some reasons to ask questions, especially considering all the mis-information from the President's staff following the event, but not during an election. Which is my point: defending OBL is a losing strategy, even if questioning the events. Ron would do better focusing on the economy.
But look where they say they found him TheDriver. In plain sight.

[TheDriver]

Thank you, I am against unnecessary wars but even I'm starting to think sometimes Ron and this movement ARE naive about foreign affiars, I completely agree it's wrong to go into a sovreign nation but in this case we are talking about a nation that was taking billions of dollars in aid from us all the while hiding a man who helped to kill thousands of our citizens, they deserved no courtesy from us and neither did Bin Laden, questioning him I may say is a reasonable thing to bring up, but I could care less about whether he got a trial or not.

Yes, we agree. One thing: I do believe we should have taken him alive, if possible, as Americans love trophies. Obama could have probably wrapped up the election dragging bin Laden around to a few stops. "I got him, right here he is!" Seriously, we should have treated him like the Nazi's, as I think that set the kind of example we want our leaders to be judged by, assuming that day ever comes. I did read one version that said bin Laden was actually going for his weapon when shot, not dodging behind a women.

[Occam's Banana]

In a roundabout way, Paul said at the debate that he would not have approved the mission - he said that we should have worked with Pakistan.


And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Forget working with Pakistan (things were well beyond FUBAR at that point) - we ought to have worked with Afghanistan!

That was where OBL was when this whole mess started up.

And the Taliban offered to come to terms with us on turning OBL over to us.

But that didn't suit the neo-cons' real purpose (which had nothing to do with "getting" OBL).

(And didn't Bush &/or Cheney themselves say at some point that the still-at-large OBL was no longer important?)

Another U.S. diplomacy FAIL.

This has become the modus operandi for U.S. foreign policy - bollix things up & then blame someone else (Pakistan, in this case) for the mess we created.

[jmdrake]

Oh for crying out loud! False choice fallacy on Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck. Ron Paul did not say that international law should have constrain America getting Bin Laden. What he did say is that when we cooperated with Pakistan we were able to capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed without violating Pakistan's sovereignty. And maybe, just maybe, this operation could have been carried out without us losing a stealth helicopter and that technology being transferred to China. Ron Paul pushed for letters of Marque and Reprisals right after 9/11 which provided constitutional and international law cover for such covert operations. Beck and Gingrich can go to hell.

[TheDriver]

But look where they say they found him TheDriver. In plain sight.

I'm not that familiar with Pakistan, but the "house" didn't look like the normal house you'd see in that part of the world. It looked like a holding compound of sorts. We really don't know what was up. I think it's been proven that Pakistani intelligence, al-Quaeda, the Taliban, and the Mujahideen beat to the same drum. So it's only natural OBL had a support system within the Pakistani government.

The real point: Ron is running for president, and without skillful, thoughtful answers to touchy subjects (like this), his time gets wasted defending OBL, or Iran, instead of using his time to focus on an issue (the economy) that will gain votes without alienating.

[jmdrake]

Nothing personal, I just consider that line of thought--out there.

I watch Alex Jones for entertainment, as I've seeded a few of his stories myself and seen the manipulation. I like what he does, but I don't build my political belief structure around his theories, lol. A better conspiracy on 9-11 would be: who talked these fools into flying these planes into buildings? And most people agree bin Laden and company. Who were they influenced by? I can walk that path, but to ignore the central players and allege imploding is far-fetched in my world. I watched the event live, I told a co-worker that those buildings would fall in less than 2 hours after the second plane hit, as I was working for a fireproofing company. No building has over a 2-hour rating, on fireproofing. We all knew what was going to happen!

:rolleyes: So explain why this building did not fall?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49982000/jpg/_49982586_49981723.jpg

And "most people" are starting to wake up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQSX2VMcT0

[TheDriver]

:rolleyes: So explain why this building did not fall?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49982000/jpg/_49982586_49981723.jpg

And "most people" are starting to wake up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQSX2VMcT0

It's not a high skyscraper built with steel. You have a surface fire in a concrete-pillared building. I'm no engineer, just an obvious guess.

[brushfire]

Where is the inconsistency, or dishonesty? Ron Paul said that voted to have OBL killed right after Sept 11. He was fine with OBL being killed - it was the way that the US finally ended up killing him.
After the opportunity was missed, and 10 years lapsed, Ron Paul said that he'd rather OBL see a trial, and then be put to death. What's so confusing? Where's the inconsistency? Is the issue that Glenn Beck wants to "Maximize Covert Operations"? Glenn should reconsider Newt - they seem to have more in common than he realizes.

[klamath]

Explain how he flip flopped.
He voted to get OBL then condemed it when we did. I am not going to keep hammering this point because the RP campaign is about building a movement and I want him to get as many votes as he can get and this won't help.
What he voted for.

IntroductionBegun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

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

[William R]

It was the same question Brett Baier asked in the last Fox debate and Ron has no set talking points. Get off your lazy ass Ron and work on it.

It is very easy to explain. Ron's position is no different than George W Bush's. We worked with the Pakistan government to get the man who planned the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence that Pakistan was hiding Osama. None. We had the house surrounded with CIA operatives. And as a result of our raid the Chinese now have our super advanced Stealth Helicpoter. The one that malfunctioned.

Very easy to do, but I guess Ron won't take the time to do it. He makes non interventionism look bad because he won't prepare for these debates.

[The Gold Standard]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, how the hell can we work with them? Ron ignores this, and looses voters defending OBL.

Maybe they would work with us if we weren't raining bombs on their women and children?

[nayjevin]

The gall of these people to focus on this with all the skeletons running around on that stage last night.

Clear bias.

[Danke]

I don't wear silver, or foil, sorry.


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

[TheDriver]

Maybe they would work with us if we weren't raining bombs on their women and children?
I agree! And I don't support the war in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or Southern Sudan, or Yemen, or Iran, and wherever I missed, for the record.

[jmdrake]

It's not a high skyscraper built with steel. You have a surface fire in a concrete-pillared building. I'm no engineer, just an obvious guess.

Ummmm....it is a high skyscraper built with steel. It's not as tall as WTC 7, but it was still tall. The only time steel framed skyscrapers have fallen from fire has been on 9/11. Sure people can "armchair engineer" and come up with some sort of "difference". If a taller skyscaper had not fallen these same people would say "See? It didn't fall because it was taller." The bottom line is that there is zero empirical evidence for anyone to really say they that it was obvious the buildings would fall in a couple of hours. Anyway, enough thread derail.

[jmdrake]

He voted to get OBL then condemed it when we did. I am not going to keep hammering this point because the RP campaign is about building a movement and I want him to get as many votes as he can get and this won't help.
What he voted for.

There's no contradiction. You are falling for the same false choice fallacy. Don't forget we captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed in cooperation with Pakistan and when Ron Paul criticizes the OBL raid he ALWAYS does so by first praising the KSM raid! He never criticized that it was done, just how it was done.

[ohgodno]

Again - it's all about how he frames his answer.

We KNOW he's against trampling on other people's sovereignty (which is apparently what every SC citizen in attendance loves) – the way to not fall in the trap of the question last night was to redirect:


The reason I voiced displeasure was not because OBL was killed but because it took too long and cost too much to rid the world of that vile human being - he wasn't worth the lives and money we spent in order to kill him. I introduced legislation that was used to eliminate the pirates. Because, like terrorists - the pirates have no country - no allegiance to anyone but themselves. As a conservative I felt we could have killed him faster and cheaper with the legislation I offered in 2001.

You admit to what he was charging BUT you appeal to the bloodthirsty audience by saying you wanted him dead faster - and to their "conservatism" by saying you'd do it cheaper.

Debates are about redirecting and answering the main charge of the question.

FOX carefully crafts their questions to get a desired perception from the response — the goal with their debates is to answer the main charge in the question without giving into the perception they are searching for.

FOX doesn't care about the content of your response - they look to get a desired perception. So if they ask Dr. Paul about FP - it's less about what he'd actually do and more about making him look weak. The goal of any answer Dr. Paul should give is to show a non-interventionist FP is stronger than an interventionist FP.

[The Free Hornet]

Right, and tower whatever was blown up by the guberment, right? These points could help us plummet to single digits...keep em coming!

Alright. Pakistan was paid billions. They hid OBL. This allowed the MIC to continue misappropriating trillions. Which statement is false?

[Travlyr]

I'm not that familiar with Pakistan, but the "house" didn't look like the normal house you'd see in that part of the world. It looked like a holding compound of sorts. We really don't know what was up. I think it's been proven that Pakistani intelligence, al-Quaeda, the Taliban, and the Mujahideen beat to the same drum. So it's only natural OBL had a support system within the Pakistani government.

The real point: Ron is running for president, and without skillful, thoughtful answers to touchy subjects (like this), his time gets wasted defending OBL, or Iran, instead of using his time to focus on an issue (the economy) that will gain votes without alienating.

Last night Ron did an excellent job of explaining the difference between al-Quaeda and the Taliban. They do not beat to the same drum.

[TheDriver]

Alright. Pakistan was paid billions. They hid OBL. This allowed the MIC to continue misappropriating trillions. Which statement is false?

That one! Maybe billions, but not all military spending is spent fighting the war on terror.

[jmdrake]

I'm not that familiar with Pakistan, but the "house" didn't look like the normal house you'd see in that part of the world. It looked like a holding compound of sorts. We really don't know what was up. I think it's been proven that Pakistani intelligence, al-Quaeda, the Taliban, and the Mujahideen beat to the same drum. So it's only natural OBL had a support system within the Pakistani government.

The real point: Ron is running for president, and without skillful, thoughtful answers to touchy subjects (like this), his time gets wasted defending OBL, or Iran, instead of using his time to focus on an issue (the economy) that will gain votes without alienating.

That "same drum" is that they were all at one time on the CIA payroll. Peter Bergan's book "Holy Work Inc" explains how this worked. And it's not some "conspiracy theory". In fact Condi Rice cited his book in a vain effort to "debunk" the conspiracy theory that we funded Al Qaeda. The truth is that we indirectly funded Al Qaeda. We sent the money to Pakistan and they sent it to the most radical jihadists they could find, all with our blessing.

[TheDriver]

Last night Ron did an excellent job of explaining the difference between al-Quaeda and the Taliban. They do not beat to the same drum. When it comes to being connected with the Pakistani government, I disagree. They all have their peeps, and while the Taliban may have different tactics and different motivations, they, like bin Laden's former outfit, are tied to the ISI in some form. Therefore, they're on the same team, imo. Basically the ISI can manipulate any of those groups into action, perhaps even manipulated by our own intelligence service.--that's what I mean by beating to the same drum.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11, any Ron Paul supporter knows that.

[Meiun]

Oh for crying out loud! False choice fallacy on Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck. Ron Paul did not say that international law should have constrain America getting Bin Laden. What he did say is that when we cooperated with Pakistan we were able to capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed without violating Pakistan's sovereignty. And maybe, just maybe, this operation could have been carried out without us losing a stealth helicopter and that technology being transferred to China. Ron Paul pushed for letters of Marque and Reprisals right after 9/11 which provided constitutional and international law cover for such covert operations. Beck and Gingrich can go to hell.

^THIS. and.

You are all forgetting the reality that if we had simply minded our own business, had a sustainable and independent energy policy from the get-go we would never have been in this position. So, once again RON PAUL IS RIGHT! The man is a genius, has difficulty with soundbites, but he is correct in his methodology.

[jmdrake]

That one! Maybe billions, but not all military spending is spent fighting the war on terror.

Straw man argument. MIC misappropriating trillions does not imply that trillions were spent on the so called "war on terror". The "war on terror" has been a cover for outright theft of trillions. This is what he's most likely talking about.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

The day before 9/11 trillions go missing. Then after 9/11 precious little else is heard about it. Cynthia McKinney tried to bring it up again, then they framed her and character assassinated her for standing up for her constitutional rights as a member of congress to go to and from sessions of congress without been harassed or detained by D.C. union thugs cops.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJK3RvkSJFg

[The Free Hornet]

That one! Maybe billions, but not all military spending is spent fighting the war on terror.

Estimated cost of post-9/11 wars: 225,000 lives, up to $4 trillion (http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts)

I didn't say "all". I said "trillions". If you research, that is the cost of our overseas, anti-terror expenditures. Trillions. Yes, there are more trillions spent oth overseas and domestic that are not directly related to anti-terror but are also wasted.

[No Free Beer]

Did Afghanistan approve of us invading? If not, why did Ron Paul support it? Then if he didn't want us to get bin Laden anywhere, anytime, why vote for the authorization to get bin Laden in the first place?

We got military authorization to go into Afghanistan to use force against those responsible for 9/11. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, were they not? With Pakistan, we never got authorization to use force IN Pakistan, therefore you must need an 'okay' from the Pakistani government. Moreover, Pakistan was (and still is) considered an ally of the US. By your logic, we could just bomb anyone, anywhere we wanted in Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. Would we do that or would we ask for their approval first?

Now, I am in agreement that Marque and Reprisal would have solved all of this nonsense. I am also in agreement that there was no official DOW. But, as it happened, it was voted to use force to get those responsible on 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Just to add one last thing,

this is way different that what Congressman Paul was even eluding to last night. All Dr. Paul basically said was:

That he was in favor of using our military to go after Osama Bin Laden. Now, what we did with our military once we were aware of his whereabouts, is another discussion. Some people believe we should have tried to capture him. Others believe that we did the right thing in just taking him out. Again, that is a whole separate issue than what Fox was trying to portray Dr. Paul on. Clear bias.

[heavenlyboy34]

Right, and tower whatever was blown up by the guberment, right? These points could help us plummet to single digits...keep em coming!
He's right. That's why OBL's FBI sheet doesn't connect him to 9/11. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

[No Free Beer]

Too bad there's no evidence OBL was actually there. Plus, he died in 2001.

Although, I believe this type of rhetoric is okay on these forums, I do not think this is a winning strategy elsewhere.

If (which I am not saying you do) RP supporters start using this type of language in front of undecided voters, there is no chance in hell we will win this election.

Juss sayin'

[TheDriver]

We got military authorization to go into Afghanistan to use force against those responsible for 9/11. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, were they not? With Pakistan, we never got authorization to use force IN Pakistan, therefore you must need an 'okay' from the Pakistani government. Moreover, Pakistan was (and still is) considered an ally of the US. By your logic, we could just bomb anyone, anywhere we wanted in Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. Would we do that or would we ask for their approval first?

Now, I am in agreement that Marque and Reprisal would have solved all of this nonsense. I am also in agreement that there was no official DOW. But, as it happened, it was voted to use force to get those responsible on 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Just to add one last thing,

this is way different that what Congressman Paul was even eluding to last night. All Dr. Paul basically said was:

That he was in favor of using our military to go after Osama Bin Laden. Now, what we did with our military once we were aware of his whereabouts, is another discussion. Some people believe we should have tried to capture him. Others believe that we did the right thing in just taking him out. Again, that is a whole separate issue than what Fox was trying to portray Dr. Paul on. Clear bias.

Some of us seem to think the battle is here, the battle is on TV, and that is where Ron bumbled and stumbled. He didn't have a good rehearsed answer, and fluttered. I know he wants to stand up for certain things, but this is the most hated man America knows, a man he wanted to terminate at one time, you can't get all willy-nilly when running for president on an issue like this. Mistakes like this are preciously why we can't put the other candidates away. That's the point none of you can gloss over, and the only point that matters. If you're going to take a stand like this, you better have your ducks-in-a-row. Fox nailed his ass last night--face it! Luckily they don't want to talk about him, so they're ignoring it.

[RickyJ]

The blaze again? Why post this stuff, they are a totally discredited online news site. Ron Paul did not lie, they are just trying to make it look like a lie. I am glad to see you posted this in media spin unlike the hit piece you posted on Ventura from the blaze that you posted in grassroots central and agreed with before even knowing if it was true or not.

[Tankbot85]

OBL would have already been dead already if paul was president.

There would have been no need to go after him later and there would be no approval for a raid that wold not be taking place.

[RickyJ]

Too bad there's no evidence OBL was actually there. Plus, he died in 2001.

+1

You are correct of course, but the sheep will believe anything their TV talking heads tell them to believe. The seal team that was credited with killing him all got taken out in a helicopter crash not long after Bin Laden was announced killed. Dumping his body in the ocean just hours after killing him with no time to do a proper DNA test to know if this was him or a double. And then they admit he was unarmed. Why would you kill an unarmed man that you could possibly get more information out of to stop future planned terror attacks? There is no logical reason to do so, none at all. The government's story on the killing of Bin Laden does not add up at all. If only the sheep would just think instead of believing everything their TV tells them.

[klamath]

We got military authorization to go into Afghanistan to use force against those responsible for 9/11. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, were they not? With Pakistan, we never got authorization to use force IN Pakistan, therefore you must need an 'okay' from the Pakistani government. Moreover, Pakistan was (and still is) considered an ally of the US. By your logic, we could just bomb anyone, anywhere we wanted in Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. Would we do that or would we ask for their approval first?

Now, I am in agreement that Marque and Reprisal would have solved all of this nonsense. I am also in agreement that there was no official DOW. But, as it happened, it was voted to use force to get those responsible on 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Just to add one last thing,

this is way different that what Congressman Paul was even eluding to last night. All Dr. Paul basically said was:

That he was in favor of using our military to go after Osama Bin Laden. Now, what we did with our military once we were aware of his whereabouts, is another discussion. Some people believe we should have tried to capture him. Others believe that we did the right thing in just taking him out. Again, that is a whole separate issue than what Fox was trying to portray Dr. Paul on. Clear bias.
Wrong! Here is what RP voted for. Show me where it only said Afganistan?
Introduction Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,


Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

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

[bolil]

Perhaps Dr. Ron Paul understands that certain precedents ought not be set. One good example is the fortuitous dumping of an alleged mass murderers alleged body in the ocean... to respect his religious beliefs? He allegedly killed thousands of innocent people. You might wonder why I say "alleged", I say it because there was not trial held to establish guilt. Too bad, guess OBL gets an asterisk in the annals of history.
Some of us understand.

[EBounding]

Paul needs to be clear in what he would do if he was in Obama's position. Obviously, he would have done things differently 10 years ago, but that's in the past. If he was President in May and had the same intel, what would he do? What if it was clear that Pakistan would not cooperate like they did with KSM and there were no diplomatic options on the table? What's the next step?

[Butchie]

Some of us seem to think the battle is here, the battle is on TV, and that is where Ron bumbled and stumbled. He didn't have a good rehearsed answer, and fluttered. I know he wants to stand up for certain things, but this is the most hated man America knows, a man he wanted to terminate at one time, you can't get all willy-nilly when running for president on an issue like this. Mistakes like this are preciously why we can't put the other candidates away. That's the point none of you can gloss over, and the only point that matters. If you're going to take a stand like this, you better have your ducks-in-a-row. Fox nailed his ass last night--face it! Luckily they don't want to talk about him, so they're ignoring it.

Your comments, tho correct are lost here, more and more I'm starting to realize the great bulk of RP supporters are as blindly loyal to Ron as the Libs and Cons are to Dem and Rep party's. I support Ron, think he is the best politician I've ever known and would make a great Pres, but that doesn't mean he's always right and always "does great", and his way of explaining FP is a disaster and none of these guys want to face that reality, instead they resort to calling you a troll and accussing you of trying to turn Ron into a plastic politician which is just false.

[Brian4Liberty]

It was a gotcha question. Brett Baier framed the question around international law, and was trying to get Ron to say that international law trumps US law. Ron didn't fall into the trap.

[Brian4Liberty]

And Newt rightly pointed out the obvious: Pakistan was hiding him, ...

You and Newt have no proof of that. It's just another in a long line of pro-war propaganda points.

Was the US government hiding terrorists when we controlled Iraq and Afghanistan? Those countries were filled with terrorists, the US controlled the country, therefore the US was hiding them. There's an example of the logic being used here. Just because someone in Pakistan may have known where Bin Laden was hiding does not equate to "Pakistan was hiding him".

[Danke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xC7C322MRc&feature=player_embedded

[donnay]

Flashback:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8GoThBBhY&feature=related


"We need to borrow $10 billion from China to give it to Mursharf who is a Military Dictator who overthrew and elected government and then we go to war-- we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq--I mean what is going on here?"

[dodgers2213]

troofers are logically flawed. They'll fully believe, correctly so like most of us Ron Paul supporters, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs--often screwing up and this needs little digging into further.
However, government is inefficient but at the same time managed to pull a veil over the entire the world except for a small band of enlightened individuals and orchestrate the attacks on 9/11....somehow cause this hoax of the WTC, Pentagon, and flight 93....the people who called their families are fakes, the government somehow managed to wire the buildings to blow up, depending on the troofers there weren't even planes (but those the "crazy ones" amongst the troofers). All this masterfully covered up, pretty rock solid so much so that every year "people come out" but make zero movements towards uncovering the criminals involved

Please, this hysteria hurts Ron Paul. Troofers bring enthusiasm to Ron Paul rallies and grassroots efforts but at the same time once they open their mouths, damage all of us with inconsistent logic, factually flawed youtube videos from Alex Jones or some other loon, misleading "facts", and essentially nothing of substance. You can't even discuss troofers the absurdity of their positions because they'll bombard you with endless questions and if they run across one you cannot answer, it makes it seem like are winning the argument--mirrors the silliness of psychics in cold reading :rolleyes:

[Travlyr]

troofers are logically flawed. They'll fully believe, correctly so like most of us Ron Paul supporters, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs--often screwing up and this needs little digging into further.
However, government is inefficient but at the same time managed to pull a veil over the entire the world except for a small band of enlightened individuals and orchestrate the attacks on 9/11....somehow cause this hoax of the WTC, Pentagon, and flight 93....the people who called their families are fakes, the government somehow managed to wire the buildings to blow up, depending on the troofers there weren't even planes (but those the "crazy ones" amongst the troofers). All this masterfully covered up, pretty rock solid so much so that every year "people come out" but make zero movements towards uncovering the criminals involved

Please, this hysteria hurts Ron Paul. Troofers bring enthusiasm to Ron Paul rallies and grassroots efforts but at the same time once they open their mouths, damage all of us with inconsistent logic, factually flawed youtube videos from Alex Jones or some other loon, misleading "facts", and essentially nothing of substance. You can't even discuss troofers the absurdity of their positions because they'll bombard you with endless questions and if they run across one you cannot answer, it makes it seem like are winning the argument--mirrors the silliness of psychics in cold reading :rolleyes:
Liars are logically flawed. They are all over the media. People have been lied to for so long that they "can't handle the truth."

[James Madison]

troofers are logically flawed. They'll fully believe, correctly so like most of us Ron Paul supporters, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs--often screwing up and this needs little digging into further.
However, government is inefficient but at the same time managed to pull a veil over the entire the world except for a small band of enlightened individuals and orchestrate the attacks on 9/11....somehow cause this hoax of the WTC, Pentagon, and flight 93....the people who called their families are fakes, the government somehow managed to wire the buildings to blow up, depending on the troofers there weren't even planes (but those the "crazy ones" amongst the troofers). All this masterfully covered up, pretty rock solid so much so that every year "people come out" but make zero movements towards uncovering the criminals involved

Please, this hysteria hurts Ron Paul. Troofers bring enthusiasm to Ron Paul rallies and grassroots efforts but at the same time once they open their mouths, damage all of us with inconsistent logic, factually flawed youtube videos from Alex Jones or some other loon, misleading "facts", and essentially nothing of substance. You can't even discuss troofers the absurdity of their positions because they'll bombard you with endless questions and if they run across one you cannot answer, it makes it seem like are winning the argument--mirrors the silliness of psychics in cold reading :rolleyes:

Your argument doesn't make sense. The only reason people believe the government can't keep secrets is because the secrets it can't keep are already known to the public. Imagine all the secrets they actually keep secret. They're better at it than you think.

[Butchie]

Your argument doesn't make sense. The only reason people believe the government can't keep secrets is because the secrets it can't keep are already known to the public. Imagine all the secrets they actually keep secret. They're better at it than you think.

Secrets wasn't the issue, he's claiming that pulling off the things conspiracy theorist suggest most of the time are just not humanly possible. Even if there is some secret group out there hell bent on this and that at the end of the day they would still be flawed human beings. To suggest they can control large scale wars, market crashes, etc all with air tight perfection where not one little thing ever goes wrong is something that belongs in a James Bond movie.

Do govts lie to us, ofcourse, are the rich and powerful always trying to get more rich and powerful, ofcourse - does that make every major negative event in life a secret conspiracy - No.

[heavenlyboy34]

troofers are logically flawed. They'll fully believe, correctly so like most of us Ron Paul supporters, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs--often screwing up and this needs little digging into further.
However, government is inefficient but at the same time managed to pull a veil over the entire the world except for a small band of enlightened individuals and orchestrate the attacks on 9/11....somehow cause this hoax of the WTC, Pentagon, and flight 93....the people who called their families are fakes, the government somehow managed to wire the buildings to blow up, depending on the troofers there weren't even planes (but those the "crazy ones" amongst the troofers). All this masterfully covered up, pretty rock solid so much so that every year "people come out" but make zero movements towards uncovering the criminals involved

Please, this hysteria hurts Ron Paul. Troofers bring enthusiasm to Ron Paul rallies and grassroots efforts but at the same time once they open their mouths, damage all of us with inconsistent logic, factually flawed youtube videos from Alex Jones or some other loon, misleading "facts", and essentially nothing of substance. You can't even discuss troofers the absurdity of their positions because they'll bombard you with endless questions and if they run across one you cannot answer, it makes it seem like are winning the argument--mirrors the silliness of psychics in cold reading :rolleyes:You're right that the government alone isn't competent to orchestrate 9/11 or anything like it. That's why they outsource that work to people who are competent. Example-as a translator, I can tell you that the CIA hires outsiders to train spies who work (spy) in other countries. The Rosetta Stone program is roughly modeled on what the CIA uses.

[RickyJ]

You and Newt have no proof of that. It's just another in a long line of pro-war propaganda points.

Was the US government hiding terrorists when we controlled Iraq and Afghanistan? Those countries were filled with terrorists, the US controlled the country, therefore the US was hiding them. There's an example of the logic being used here. Just because someone in Pakistan may have known where Bin Laden was hiding does not equate to "Pakistan was hiding him".

They have no proof Pakistan was hiding him and they also have no proof that they even killed Bin Laden or that he was even living there.

[RickyJ]

Your argument doesn't make sense. The only reason people believe the government can't keep secrets is because the secrets it can't keep are already known to the public. Imagine all the secrets they actually keep secret. They're better at it than you think.

They actually suck at keeping secrets but as long as they have the main stream media covering for them, they don't have to worry about it. The American public has been conditioned to believe their talking heads on established media outlets and to discount other accounts in non-established media as "conspiracy theories" despite even overwhelming evidence.

[jmdrake]

troofers are logically flawed.

At least truthers have logic. You clearly do not.



They'll fully believe, correctly so like most of us Ron Paul supporters, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs--often screwing up and this needs little digging into further.


You mean like the FBI "screw up" by having their informant in the 1993 WTC bombing plot use real explosives and "accidentally" kill 7 Americans? That's admitted you know.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

Also do you believe the moon landing was faked? I mean personally I don't by that conspiracy theory put out by people who believe, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs. Seriously, you can't have it both ways. Either the government is too incompetent to pull of 9/11 or they are so incompetent that they had to have faked the moon landing.

I won't address the rest of your stupidity.

[RickyJ]

Liars are logically flawed. They are all over the media. People have been lied to for so long that they "can't handle the truth."

That is what is all boils down to, people afraid to admit they have been duped their whole lives basically by their government and the established media. Once you can admit this, then you will never see the world the same way again. The truth might hurt to hear, but it is better known than not known. You can't begin to change this country and world until you know who it is you should be fighting to change it.

[phill4paul]

troofers are logically flawed. They'll fully believe, correctly so like most of us Ron Paul supporters, that government is inefficient and incapable of running programs--often screwing up and this needs little digging into further.
However, government is inefficient but at the same time managed to pull a veil over the entire the world except for a small band of enlightened individuals and orchestrate the attacks on 9/11....somehow cause this hoax of the WTC, Pentagon, and flight 93....the people who called their families are fakes, the government somehow managed to wire the buildings to blow up, depending on the troofers there weren't even planes (but those the "crazy ones" amongst the troofers). All this masterfully covered up, pretty rock solid so much so that every year "people come out" but make zero movements towards uncovering the criminals involved

Please, this hysteria hurts Ron Paul. Troofers bring enthusiasm to Ron Paul rallies and grassroots efforts but at the same time once they open their mouths, damage all of us with inconsistent logic, factually flawed youtube videos from Alex Jones or some other loon, misleading "facts", and essentially nothing of substance. You can't even discuss troofers the absurdity of their positions because they'll bombard you with endless questions and if they run across one you cannot answer, it makes it seem like are winning the argument--mirrors the silliness of psychics in cold reading :rolleyes:

Perceived government efficacy =/= actual efficacy.

[donnay]

Last night Ron did an excellent job of explaining the difference between al-Quaeda and the Taliban. They do not beat to the same drum.

And let us not forget they were propped up by the US when needed. The Taliban are on a rampage because we are protecting the poppy fields now. The Taliban wanted them destroyed.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1521930473326&id=479630c513310ddab31f8d2650eac15d&url=http%3a%2f%2felitemultimedia.mobi%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2011%2f12%2fUS-military-admits-to-guarding-assisting-lucrative-opium-trade-in-Afghanistan-.jpg

Just like Dr. Paul says we prop up tin-pot dictators all over the globe and then are surprised when there is blowback.

[NewRightLibertarian]

However, government is inefficient but at the same time managed to pull a veil over the entire the world except for a small band of enlightened individuals and orchestrate the attacks on 9/11....somehow cause this hoax of the WTC, Pentagon, and flight 93....the people who called their families are fakes, the government somehow managed to wire the buildings to blow up, depending on the troofers there weren't even planes (but those the "crazy ones" amongst the troofers). All this masterfully covered up, pretty rock solid so much so that every year "people come out" but make zero movements towards uncovering the criminals involved

The bumbling puppets in Congress are incredibly incompetent but those who work in the CIA and Pentagon certainly aren't. They're experts in terror, and they've benefited hugely from the staged 9/11 terror attacks.


Troofers bring enthusiasm to Ron Paul rallies and grassroots efforts but at the same time once they open their mouths, damage all of us with inconsistent logic, factually flawed youtube videos from Alex Jones or some other loon, misleading "facts", and essentially nothing of substance. You can't even discuss troofers the absurdity of their positions because they'll bombard you with endless questions and if they run across one you cannot answer, it makes it seem like are winning the argument--mirrors the silliness of psychics in cold reading

So you're saying that you cannot answer the questions of 9/11 truthers? Doesn't surprise me. It's very pathetic to see your rambling post try to compensate for your lack of smarts.

And it doesn't surprise me to see you not mention the controlled demolition of Building 7 and mention that the government lied and withheld information during the 9/11 Commission Hearing. You should be calling for a real investigation of this cover-up, but instead you're just hurling insults like a coward.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Again - it's all about how he frames his answer.

We KNOW he's against trampling on other people's sovereignty (which is apparently what every SC citizen in attendance loves) – the way to not fall in the trap of the question last night was to redirect:



You admit to what he was charging BUT you appeal to the bloodthirsty audience by saying you wanted him dead faster - and to their "conservatism" by saying you'd do it cheaper.

Debates are about redirecting and answering the main charge of the question.

FOX carefully crafts their questions to get a desired perception from the response — the goal with their debates is to answer the main charge in the question without giving into the perception they are searching for.

FOX doesn't care about the content of your response - they look to get a desired perception. So if they ask Dr. Paul about FP - it's less about what he'd actually do and more about making him look weak. The goal of any answer Dr. Paul should give is to show a non-interventionist FP is stronger than an interventionist FP.

Ron has actually questioned why OBL was killed at all; that he should have been captured instead.

So that type of statement wouldn't quite mesh with his previous statements on the issue.

[bolil]

Perceived government efficacy =/= actual efficacy.That, +rep

[dodgers2213]

Like i said, I won't argue with the ironically brainwashed conspiracy theorists; You cannot win with them because they go off in tangents, lack focus, and their answers are not satisfactory on how utterly illogical their ideas really are. I will leave a link to the James Randi forums (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where there are plenty of threads addressing and openly discussing the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy so you can get your debate over there with someone who actually may care to entertain you. The 911 guide including debunking your prized WTC7 argument
(http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/wtc.htm) is here
I do not agree with the Randi forums flaming liberal politics, but they do very very well at crushing conspiracies :cool:

fun fact, 4 years ago in high school I was an outspoken troofer but broke out of that nonsense when I looked upon it with more scrutiny. I changed in character to be more skeptical and dropped religious faith all together, found new heroes in Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins, and others. The point of fact, 911 Troof and other popular conspiracy theories were incompatible with reason and evidence

[phill4paul]

Like i said, I won't argue with the ironically brainwashed conspiracy theorists; You cannot win with them because they go off in tangents, lack focus, and their answers are not satisfactory on how utterly illogical their ideas really are. I will leave a link to the James Randi forums (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where there are plenty of threads addressing and openly discussing the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy so you can get your debate over there with someone who actually may care to entertain you. The 911 guide including debunking your prized WTC7 argument
(http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/wtc.htm) is here
I do not agree with the Randi forums flaming liberal politics, but they do very very well at crushing conspiracies :cool:

fun fact, 4 years ago in high school I was an outspoken troofer but broke out of that nonsense when I looked upon it with more scrutiny. I changed in character to be more skeptical and dropped religious faith all together, found new heroes in Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins, and others. The point of fact, 911 Troof and other popular conspiracy theories were incompatible with reason and evidence

I gave you a short concise rebuttal to your first rant. You chose to ignore it because it exposed a flaw in that earlier diatribe. The FACT is it was never investigated to the fullest extent. And in this simple fact I am a 'troofer.' I don't know exactly what went down when it went down but I sure as hell would like to.

[GopBlackList]

Right, and tower whatever was blown up by the guberment, right? These points could help us plummet to single digits...keep em coming!

Thanks for saying that. It is conspiracy-tards that are hurting the campaign.

[BW2112]

//

[phill4paul]

Thanks for saying that. It is conspiracy-tards that are hurting the campaign.

Ya know I don't bring up the 9/11 stuff when I engage the average Joe. It's not something that I even respond to when asked. But you can stop with the negativity towards those that would like to have a full and transparent investigation. Some call me a Paultard. You would call someone like me a conspiracy-tard. Turn down your rhetoric.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Like i said, I won't argue with the ironically brainwashed conspiracy theorists; You cannot win with them because they go off in tangents, lack focus, and their answers are not satisfactory on how utterly illogical their ideas really are. I will leave a link to the James Randi forums (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where there are plenty of threads addressing and openly discussing the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy so you can get your debate over there with someone who actually may care to entertain you. The 911 guide including debunking your prized WTC7 argument
(http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/wtc.htm) is here
I do not agree with the Randi forums flaming liberal politics, but they do very very well at crushing conspiracies :cool:

fun fact, 4 years ago in high school I was an outspoken troofer but broke out of that nonsense when I looked upon it with more scrutiny. I changed in character to be more skeptical and dropped religious faith all together, found new heroes in Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins, and others. The point of fact, 911 Troof and other popular conspiracy theories were incompatible with reason and evidence

Like I said before, you are a coward. You won't address the legitimate concerns that power elite analysts give you and instead you choose to throw insults around. What a pathetic, feeble-minded wimp you must be.


Thanks for saying that. It is conspiracy-tards that are hurting the campaign.

No, actually they're the ones who are responsible for getting the campaign off the ground. It's a good thing that Dr. Paul doesn't stab loyal followers in the back. It's a good thing he has so much more integrity than the pathetic establishment wannabes around here who have no spine.

[jmdrake]

Like i said, I won't argue with the ironically brainwashed conspiracy theorists; You cannot win with them because they go off in tangents, lack focus, and their answers are not satisfactory on how utterly illogical their ideas really are. I will leave a link to the James Randi forums (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where there are plenty of threads addressing and openly discussing the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy so you can get your debate over there with someone who actually may care to entertain you. The 911 guide including debunking your prized WTC7 argument
(http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/wtc.htm) is here
I do not agree with the Randi forums flaming liberal politics, but they do very very well at crushing conspiracies :cool:

fun fact, 4 years ago in high school I was an outspoken troofer but broke out of that nonsense when I looked upon it with more scrutiny. I changed in character to be more skeptical and dropped religious faith all together, found new heroes in Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins, and others. The point of fact, 911 Troof and other popular conspiracy theories were incompatible with reason and evidence

If you ever were a "troofer" you clearly didn't think it through on your own and just watched a few videos. You haven't shown the slightest bit of an intelligent argument and you've only relied on ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacy. Rather than put forward and argument yourself you're all about "Listen to James Randi forums" or "link to this BS website". Learn to think for yourself dude. You are the only one who's brainwashed. Grow up.

Last point. You are the one hurting the campaign with your stupidity. This thread isn't about 9/11 truth. It's about defending Ron Paul's position. You want to take it off topic for your childish rants. If someone says something you don't agree with on 9/11, you could just ignore it instead of trying to insult and bully people.

[jmdrake]

Wrong! Here is what RP voted for. Show me where it only said Afganistan?
Introduction Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

You are wrong. The authorization extended only to countries that the President determined were involved in the 9/11 attacks or were harboring Al Qaeda. From the text itself.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) 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.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution
supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

In order to use such an argument for the Pakistan raid the president would have to make the determination that Pakistan was not the ally in the GWOT we claim they are but were in fact actively harboring OBL. No such determination has been made or declared by president Obama. Newt Gingrich has made that allegation, but he is NOT president. Further in order to justify this, Obama would have to give real evidence that he actually had Osama Bin Laden's body. Oh yeah, I know. Nobody wants to hear from the "conspiracy theorists". But this is a legal issue. All we can say for certain is that there was a raid, that we lost a stealth helicopter and that there were people killed. For some reason we can show everybody's dead body except OBL. We are supposed to believe that the Muslim world won't get mad about seeing Saddam hanged or little kids with their arms and legs blown off, but they will freak out about seeing the body of a man who is responsible for far more Muslim deaths than Christian deaths.

Anyway, without producing independently verified proof all we have is baseless accusation. And even with the proof that OBL was actually killed in that raid, that still doesn't change the fact that Pakistan told us long ago that OBL was likely hiding in Pakistan. Sure the safe house was near a Pakistani military base, but 9/11 hijackers trained at U.S. military bases (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/us/after-attacks-missed-cues-saudi-may-have-been-suspected-error-officials-say.html) and Anwar Al Awlaki dined at the Pentagon (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/).

[r3volution]

you people attacking others for believing in something need to stop .
you people trying to inject what you believe into this campaign need to stop .
you are lucky if once every 100yrs or so a man like Ron Paul is even in a position to become president so get focused . there will be plenty of time for discussion about things like this after he is elected . but we have little time right now to make that happen .

[NewRightLibertarian]

you people attacking others for believing in something need to stop .
you people trying to inject what you believe into this campaign need to stop .
you are lucky if once every 100yrs or so a man like Ron Paul is even in a position to become president so get focused . there will be plenty of time for discussion about things like this after he is elected . but we have little time right now to make that happen .

Look, I'm with you completely. I don't inject 9/11 being an obvious inside job into my spiel when I'm talking to voters or campaigning for Ron Paul. But when scum are spreading bullshit on this forum, I'll stand for the truth.

[klamath]

You are wrong. The authorization extended only to countries that the President determined were involved in the 9/11 attacks or were harboring Al Qaeda. From the text itself.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) 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 harboredsuch 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.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution
supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

In order to use such an argument for the Pakistan raid the president would have to make the determination that Pakistan was not the ally in the GWOT we claim they are but were in fact actively harboring OBL. No such determination has been made or declared by president Obama. Newt Gingrich has made that allegation, but he is NOT president. Further in order to justify this, Obama would have to give real evidence that he actually had Osama Bin Laden's body. Oh yeah, I know. Nobody wants to hear from the "conspiracy theorists". But this is a legal issue. All we can say for certain is that there was a raid, that we lost a stealth helicopter and that there were people killed. For some reason we can show everybody's dead body except OBL. We are supposed to believe that the Muslim world won't get mad about seeing Saddam hanged or little kids with their arms and legs blown off, but they will freak out about seeing the body of a man who is responsible for far more Muslim deaths than Christian deaths.

Anyway, without producing independently verified proof all we have is baseless accusation. And even with the proof that OBL was actually killed in that raid, that still doesn't change the fact that Pakistan told us long ago that OBL was likely hiding in Pakistan. Sure the safe house was near a Pakistani military base, but 9/11 hijackers trained at U.S. military bases (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/us/after-attacks-missed-cues-saudi-may-have-been-suspected-error-officials-say.html) and Anwar Al Awlaki dined at the Pentagon (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/).
Thanks JM you even proved my case more. There is absolutely nothing in there about limiting the operation to Afganiststan.There is absolutely nothing about excepting assumed allies from action. It gave the president exclusive power to determine.

And as a side note why do you claim that the only thing we know for certain was the raid took place? Were you there?

[jmdrake]

Thanks JM you even proved my case more. There is absolutely nothing in there about limiting the operation to Afganiststan.There is absolutely nothing about excepting assumed allies from action. It gave the president exclusive power to determine.


If you think I proved your case then you need to brush up on your legal reading. Once again the president has made no official determination that Pakistan was harboring OBL. OBL just being in Pakistan does not give authority for unilateral action under the language of the 2001 AUF. If you don't understand that...then you just don't understand.



And as a side note why do you claim that the only thing we know for certain was the raid took place? Were you there?

There's something called evidence. Look at it like a crime scene. You don't have to actually have been at the crime scene to be able to draw reasonable inferences from available evidence. In this case they (the government) didn't give us (the general public) any objective evidence. Supposedly there were video tapes...but then there weren't any because the cameras supposedly "malfunctioned". Supposedly there was a body...but the body was buried at sea so as to not offend Muslims...even though a burial at sea under those circumstances actually goes against Islam. So all we have is the word of a government that we can't trust. Maybe that's good enough for you. It's not good enough for me.

[klamath]

If you think I proved your case then you need to brush up on your legal reading. Once again the president has made no official determination that Pakistan was harboring OBL. OBL just being in Pakistan does not give authority for unilateral action under the language of the 2001 AUF. If you don't understand that...then you just don't understand.



There's something called evidence. Look at it like a crime scene. You don't have to actually have been at the crime scene to be able to draw reasonable inferences from available evidence. In this case they (the government) didn't give us (the general public) any objective evidence. Supposedly there were video tapes...but then there weren't any because the cameras supposedly "malfunctioned". Supposedly there was a body...but the body was buried at sea so as to not offend Muslims...even though a burial at sea under those circumstances actually goes against Islam. So all we have is the word of a government that we can't trust. Maybe that's good enough for you. It's not good enough for me.
Nope you just embrace evidence that agrees with your preconcieved ideas and discard evidence that disagrees with it. The government told you there was a raid and you believe that but when the government tells you they have a dna match for OBL it is a lie. I can guarentee that the intent of congress was NOT to have the president to stand before them and the world and say OBL is in this compound in Pakistan and now I am going to raid that empty compound.
So consider that you lawyer speak and grasping at straws to prove your case failed. You failed in front of this jury.

[jmdrake]

Nope you just embrace evidence that agrees with your preconcieved ideas and discard evidence that disagrees with it.

Bull. There has been no evidence to embrace.



The government told you there was a raid and you believe that but when the government tells you they have a dna match for OBL it is a lie.


Read this and inform yourself. http://crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab

http://articles.cnn.com/1997-04-15/us/9704_15_fbi.crime.lab.update_1_crime-lab-inspector-general-michael-bromwich-lab-agents?_s=PM:US

DNA can and has been successfully challenged by independent analysis. In this case there was no chance for any independent analysis. It's just all taking the government's word for it. But hey, if you just trust the government then go fine. Some of us are smarter than that. If this were a trial the government wouldn't be able to say "We have DNA evidence". They would have to authenticate that evidence.



I can guarentee that the intent of congress was NOT to have the president to stand before them and the world and say OBL is in this compound in Pakistan and now I am going to raid that empty compound.


I guarantee that the wording of the AUF was not that the president would have a blank check to violate the sovereignty of allies without first making some determination that they (the allies) weren't really allies and were actively harboring OBL. I guarantee Ron Paul didn't vote for that. And really that's what this thread is about. What did Ron Paul understand he was voting for. Just because some random RP supporter is gullible enough to misread the language as a blank check doesn't mean he did.



So consider that you lawyer speak and grasping at straws to prove your case failed. You failed in front of this jury.

If I were trying a case I'd be sure and strike you. Unless I was the government. In that case I would fight to keep you on because I know you're gullible enough to believe whatever the government says without thought or question.

Of course who's on trial here? The thread is about whether Ron Paul has been honest. I say he was. You seem to think otherwise. You trust Obama more than Paul? Regardless, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to prove your position and not the other way around.

[robert9712000]

So let me make sure im understanding Rons position,Ive read different interpretations

He believes the Osama raid was wrong because violated another Nations sovereignty

My confusion though is what he would be ok with heres the different versions ive read on his stance

1. We could violate there sovereignty and go in without there permission if we got it approved by congress

2. We could violate there sovereignty thru using letters of marque and having mercenaries go kill him.

3. (this is the one i think he means)We could go in by either a approval of congress or by using letters of marque (which would be prefered so we dont get distracted from the primary goal)as long as we have there permission to conduct the operation in there country

[robert9712000]

^still unsure on this ^

[jmdrake]

So let me make sure im understanding Rons position,Ive read different interpretations

He believes the Osama raid was wrong because violated another Nations sovereignty

My confusion though is what he would be ok with heres the different versions ive read on his stance

1. We could violate there sovereignty and go in without there permission if we got it approved by congress

2. We could violate there sovereignty thru using letters of marque and having mercenaries go kill him.

3. (this is the one i think he means)We could go in by either a approval of congress or by using letters of marque (which would be prefered so we dont get distracted from the primary goal)as long as we have there permission to conduct the operation in there country

I think you've got it. And yes it's difficult to wrap your arms around this. I'd never heard of letters of marque before Ron Paul was talking about them to get OBL.

But I also think there's a broader issue Ron Paul is bringing up when he talks about how we napped KSM with Pakistan's help. Pakistan went from being a dictatorship that at times openly supported terrorism that we cooperated with, to a democracy dedicated to fighting terrorism who's sovereignty we violate. What have we done to our "allies" in Pakistan? Could the raid have been done better from a geopolitical standpoint? Of course in a "rah rah we got OBL" emotional moment (again, no proof that we actually got OBL), the average person will forget that.

Oh, and for all those who want to dismiss the "conspiracy theories", there was clearly a cover up and IMO of a botched raid. Remember the picture of OBL watching TV?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384573/Osama-Bin-Laden-sat-glued-watching-TV-pictures-Barack-Obama.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/08/article-1384573-0BF44FE100000578-636_634x321.jpg

I turned out to be fake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13329078

http://www.economicvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/the-ears-have-it-2.jpg

Think about it. Saddam Hussein had body doubles as well as his sons. There's even been a recent movie about that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auE1FAGP1Kc

So why couldn't OBL? Say if the SEALS killed a body double? Say if they initially thought it was OBL? That would explain the live video feeds that all of a sudden didn't work anymore. That would explain the need for the burial at sea. It would explain what there was initially an image of the killed OBL released but quickly retracted. They killed somebody and that person looked something like OBL, but he wasn't the real thing.