Ron Paul Wouldn’t Have Ordered Osama Bin Laden Raid

Because of “international law” or something. Which is why I could never support Ron Paul for President.

(Briefing Room) — Likely GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said this week he would not have authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, raising concerns about international law.

Paul, a congressman from Texas with a libertarian bent, said that he would have rather worked with the Pakistani government to track down the al Qaeda leader responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

When asked by Iowa radio station WHO if he would have ordered the mission, in which U.S. forces raided bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, Paul said “Not the way it took place, no.”

Paul has said he is happy that bin Laden is dead, but has expressed skepticism about whether it has made the U.S. safer and has used it to push for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

The likely candidate indicated that to capture bin Laden, he would have worked with Pakistan on a mission like the one that nabbed with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was captured by Pakistani intelligence forces and transferred into U.S. custody.

“What’s wrong with that? Why can’t they work with the government?” Paul asked.

We couldn’t work with Pakistan because, by all appearances, it looks like elements in the Pakistani government were cooperating with bin Laden to keep him hidden.

For all Paul’s prowess on domestic policy – and I have a great deal of admiration for him in that area – he’s a bit of a babe in the woods on foreign policy. It would be nice if we could end hostilities simply by withdrawing our troops from the world. It would be nice if capturing or killing someone like Osama bin Laden were as simple as working with the Pakistani government.

Sadly, the world just doesn’t work that way.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Brenarlo

    Perhaps a President Paul would’ve nabbed Bin Laden in 2001.

    • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing
    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      And then after that he might have walked on water and turned water into wine.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Perhaps he would have used US forces instead of relying on the Northern Alliance too much?

        But according to Rob Port, you must be a divine god to have done better than Bush. Interesting.

      • Guest

        i thought only el rushbo was chosen by god

    • Jamermorrow

      We also would not be broke. Who cares if we got Bin Laden if we go bankrupt doing it? Taxation is theft and fighting wars requires taxation.

  • DopeyDem

    Only if he were hiding out in Cleveland. RP doesn’t believe in leaving our borders.

    • Brenarlo

      You’re wrong.

      • DopeyDem

        On which point?

        • Guest

          You only made one point, dumbass. The other is a counter-factual which sets up your point.

          • DopeyDem

            I’m sorry Miss Manners, I’m wrong. So he would have not caught him if he was hiding in Cleveland? Or that RP doesn’t believe in leaving our borders?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            He didn’t make the statement, he just called you out on the difference between the two. Have you figured out which one is the “point”, yet? Or are you still confused about who made the statement about you being wrong?

          • Guest

            Most people use facts, not fiction, to make points.

            Conservatives, following Ms Rand, have a preference for fictions.

            You understand my confusion?

      • Brenarlo

        That RP “doesn’t believe in leaving our borders.”

    • Jamermorrow

      He wants to trade with other countries not spend money we don’t have on other countries.

  • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

    Ron Paul sought letters of marque to get OBL Constitutionally 10 YEARS agohttp://tinyurl.com/42tdyf6 Obama is not King.

    • HG

      That doesn’t change the fact that Paul woulnd’t have gone in after OBL today. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, is not going to remove a threat today.

      • Brenarlo

        Your statement is just flat out wrong. He said that the way it was done was wrong. He didn’t say that he wouldn’t go after him.

        • HG

          When asked by Iowa radio station WHO if he would have ordered the mission, in which U.S. forces raided bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, Paul said “Not the way it took place, no.”

          When I said “go after him” I meant it in no uncertain terms. Paul would have passed on the opportunity the President was given. That is unacceptable. Paul is not Presidential material for this reason alone.

          • Brenarlo

            Again, you’re wrong. He just said he would’ve gone about it differently.

          • HG

            Well you have fun parsing his words. The rest of us will take him at his word.

          • Brenarlo

            “Paul, a
            congressman
            from Texas
            with a libertarian bent, said that he would have rather worked with the
            Pakistani government to track down the al Qaeda leader responsible for
            the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”

            Where in that did he say he doesn’t want to go after Osama?

          • HG

            You related to Hannitized? You seem to have the same trouble listening and no trouble ignoring the context.

            Knock yourself out.

          • ellinas1

            You related to robert180?

            Answer Brenarlos question: Where in that did he say he doesn’t want to go after Osama?

          • HG

            Not you too, E.

            Already answered.

          • ellinas1

            Please answer it again: Where in that did he say he doesn’t want to go after Osama?

          • HG
          • ellinas1

            OK! He would not do it like Obama.

            He would do it differently.

            Thank you for answering the question. Now I can understand the quibble.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            if your answer is that you didn’t mean to say what you said, than you forfeit the argument. The fact that you can’t say what you mean doesn’t loosen anyone’s foothold on reality, it makes you a dishonest person who plays with words and spins the truth in order to avoid embarrassment.

          • robert108

            Stop lying and go threaten someone with homosexual rape, princess.

          • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

            Check my link for his letters of marque specifically to go after OBL. You are just floundering, now.
            Ron Paul sought letters of marque to get OBL Constitutionally 10 YEARS ago http://tinyurl.com/42tdyf6Obama is not KING

          • HG

            Yeah, and it didn’t work. Paul didn’t get OBL ten years ago.

            You paulians have a hard time with reality.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The reality is Paul said that he would have gone after OBL differently, not the way Obama had. You are claiming he would not have gone after him. You are lying, the rest are being rational adults.

            Why are you afraid of an honest debate?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You are twisting his words, the rest of us are honest.

      • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

        He introduced this repeatedly over the years. He wouldn’t have violated the Constitution, no. He would have gotten OBL Constitutionally.

        • HG

          Mighty big claim. Sounds a little to slavishly hopeful. But hey, believe whatever your heart tells you.

        • robert108

          Terrorists don’t get Constitutional rights. Only a liberal nut would try that kind of crap.

          • Jamermorrow

            Who is a terrorist? Point them out for us 108. You should spend your own money and take your old ass over to the middle east and fight yourself. We all know you are too big of a pussy to do it yourself.

          • robert108

            You really don’t know that OBL was a terrorist, political smoker? That’s weapons-grade ignorance.

            Glad to see you have nothing other than personal attack when I smack you with the truth.

      • Jamermorrow

        We understand you need the government to protect you. God forbid private businesses or people protect themselves. Conservatives claim to support the 2nd Amendment but forget that the second Amendment is about protecting yourself. Just because you are a pussy and need government protection does not mean we all do.

        • HG

          I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, and I’m pretty sure you don’t either.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        You mean he wouldn’t have gone after OBL without the Pakistani’s help or permission. Big difference. Why are you pretending you don’t understand the difference? You don’t understand the difference?

  • HG

    Paul is just plain wrong. It seems to me that a people are responsible for the gov’t they have. It also seems that in many cases, gov’t has a responsibitlity to confront unjust actions of other gov’ts. Occasionally, that confrontation takes the form of force.

  • Guest

    You say you could never support Paul for Pres, but after the last election you were all begging for a chance to have him be pres.

    Your memory and your positions change with the weather, girls.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Does it bother you nutters that bush was offered bin Laden on a silver platter a few weeks after he started bombing Afghanistan and he turned the offer down?

    • HG

      Does it bother you that Clinton was offered OBL on a silver platter and did nothing?

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

        Does it bother you that bush did not accept the offer that would have put America’s #1 enemy, the guy who planned the attacks that killed about 3000 of us, in prison?

        • HG

          Does it bother you that had Clinton taken OBL when given the opportunity, 3000 more of us would still be alive?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            That’s debunked junk, HG.

            Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer

            By Kathy GannonAssociated Press WriterSunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 1:50 p.m. EDT

            JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.

            President Bush quickly rejected the offer

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

          • HG

            Debunked? Hilarious. Where, at the KOS?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            (why can’t nutters click on links)

          • HG

            Your link debunks nothing.

          • Spartacus

            Au contraire. His link(s) debunk his nom de plume.

          • HG
          • robert108

            Real Americans don’t negotiate with terrorists.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            But Raygun did.

          • robert108

            Another of your usual lies, drama queen. We were fighting the Soviet Union at the time, and we were aiding allies at the time, not terrorists. They became your terrorist pals later, under Carter.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Something something something…Big 180 McCain voter, Iran Contra, something something.

          • robert108

            More unproved allegations.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Big 180 McCain voter, tell that to the 30 or so traitors who went to jail over it.

            “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for
            hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but
            the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board
            reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its
            implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my
            own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we
            had in mind.”

            Terrorist Negotiator in Chief

          • robert108

            The real traitors were the Dem Congressmen who supported the communist Sandinistas, not the real Americans who fought communism. Of course, as a lying commie, you just hated President Reagan for fighting and defeating your fellow commies.

          • Bat One

            Your link doesn’t “debunk” anything. All it does is state that Clinton backtracked on his previous statements and that other “officials” have also gone wishy-washy.

            According to the London Sunday Times, there were actually three separate offers made to the Clinton administration. One from the Sudanese, one from UAE via Mansoor Ijaz (a Clinton supporter and contributor), and one from the Saudis. All three were rejected by the Clinton administration officials, who considered bin Laden’s expulsion from Sudan to Jalalabad, Afghanistan to be a “victory.” Some f*cking “victory”, huh?

          • HG
          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            That right wing author was debunked by the 9/11 commission:

            “Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to
            expel bin Laden to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

            Wanna chat about Curveball?

          • HG

            So you don’t believe the former Sudanese officials, but you believe a senior taliban offiicial?

          • Bat One

            Wanna chat about Jamie Gorelick?  Her mere presence pretty much cancels whatever credibility that 9-11 commission may have claimed

            How about Sandy Berger and the files he stole from the National Archives and destroyed?  Wanna chat about Berger?

            Denials by “Clinton officials” aren’t worth a wet cigar.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Is that victory anything like the same kind of f*cking “victory” we had when thousands of terrorist left Afghanistan and went to Iraq to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis? Mission accomplished!

            Not to mention Pakistan…..huey.

          • HG

            A senior Taliban? Jeez, you’re dumber than I gave you credit for. That’s how screwed in the head you are. You trust the Taliban.

          • Guest

            Nice retort, asshat. Nothing he has said involves him trusting the Taliban. Also, while we are talking about trusting the Taliban, perhaps you can talk about Reagan.

            It was mighty freedom-loving when they started blowing up those Buddhas, right after Reagan helped install them.

          • HG

            Really? Trusting a Taliban’s word that he would follow through on delivering OBL isn’t trusting?
            Wake up Sparkie.

          • Guest

            Can you believe they ‘trusted’ any of the intel they got from A-rabs? Astounding, since we all know the only virtuous people are European-descended Christians.
            http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

          • HG

            Why no distinguishing between the Taliban and “A-rabs”?

          • Guest

            Is that directed at me or at the RNC propaganda machine?

          • HG

            You’re the one who wrote it.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Why did Reagan trust them when he was negotiating with them and arming them?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Poor reality bereft boob. I’ve heard the audio where Clinton himself admitted turning down the opportunity to take custody of bin Laden. And please, tell us about all the hard hitting measures Clinton took after the first World Trade Center attack to make sure America would be safe.

        • Guest

          If Bush got Osama that early, he wouldn’t have been able to drive the country into the ditch and give all our money to his pals. Duh.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            “drive the country into the ditch”

            No points for originality.

          • robert108

            No points for truth, either. It was the Dem affirmative action home loan mandates that crashed the economy, despite President Bush’s long record of economic growth and low unemployment.

          • Guest

            When you do all your spending on credit and have a long track record of ‘wrecks’ (variously interpreted), it’s fine terminology.

            Also, if this were a testing ground for originality, we would obviously be screwed. This blog prizes sycophants who fling epithets in ways which are wholly sanctioned by their ‘group’.

            Some appear to escape this ditch, such as Rob and r108, but they are merely members of a set of groups, and the set diverges from those of most of you in slight and perceptible ways. It’s clear that Rob has some Yankee conservative inclinations, here and there, and that r108 is a extremely salient example of a contemporary American fascist.

            The rest of you however either don’t air your personal views enough, or merely revert to sycophant safety such that you just agglomerate into a massive blob with no interesting or unique identifying characteristics. You stick out, for example, only because you consistently make it a habit of chasing me around this blog. I can’t let accidents like that color the generalizations which I draw, having observed this dreck for some 5 or 6 years now. You get no points for political originality of individual thought. None. I recognize you only from the chasing, stalker.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Sycophants? Explain.

            I do not chase you, I chase stupid. You are often involved.

          • Guest

            syc·o·phant
            [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]
            –noun
            a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Gee, you’re good at that. You should write dictionaries. Probably your most original comment. Now then, my dull but unoriginal child, a sycophant is a sycophant to someone. What sycophantee do you have in mind (let me know after you, in your unique way, inform me that there is no such word as “sycophantee”).

          • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ Goon

            Flamemeister, its just the leftards parroting George Soros lines.

          • Guest

            Yea. It’s a big conspiracy. We all have little chips which George controls with a joystick…

            you f#cking tool.

  • Jimmypop

    as a BIG TIME ron paul fan, i get where he is coming form, but there is a time and place for this; this was not the time.

    • borborygmi

      He should just toss out principles and lie? The fact that he does speak his mind makes him appealing.

      • robert108

        Unless you want to vote for him, your opinion is meaningless. Speaking his mind is only a virtue if what is in his mind is valuable and true.

  • Bat One

    Ron Paul is absolutely determined to demonstrate just how good a president of the US he would be… if only this was 1811, not 2011!

    • Guest

      I thought you folks were stuck in the late 1700s? Paul is too progressive for you? He thinks that women and non-whites should not be ‘property’ and so you throw him under the bus, eh?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Maybe Bat can explain why he has a preference to belittle non-whites, particularly those crossing the border illegally, vs Europeans coming on planes and staying illegally? I am certain his efforts to explain the difference between a Lithuanian and Mexican (who is native American) will be quite interesting. I personally look forward to the historic references that explain how it is Mexicans (with native American blood) found themselves caught up in a capitalist society, that all but ignored them for centuries, that they are now forced to participate in.

        There are perfectly good reasons for disparaging non-whites, in his mind.

        • Guest

          Europeans come on boats (and planes).

          And cons love Cuban mercenaries. We might add that qualifier.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Maybe he’s just repulsed by the desire to take care of oneself or family? I guess you can always make yourself feel superior by overlooking the different historic factors that shape socioeconomic realities?

            “Funny… the illegal aliens huddled on the early morning street corners looking for day labor work don’t look very Lithuanian to me. ” – BatOne

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I’m not saying that there should be encouragement or an endorsement of illegal immigration from any country or people, but I think that those who look to target specific people without understanding the realities speaks more to bigotry than it does having an educated position on immigration and history.

        • Bat One

          Race card alert! 

  • Mr. Murphy

    Just when I thought Ron Paul was gathering support from not simply the libertarians. This marked the beginning of the end for him. Ron Paul supporters should move on to his son, Rand. Rand is libertarian, yet is electable.

    • Jamermorrow

      Rand has not proven himself yet. We need to wait and see how he votes in the future. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have proven themselves with their votes.

      • Mr. Murphy

        I agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues nearly 100%. Him in the primary is a great thing because obviously it allows a another perspective that otherwise would not be discussed.

        • Jamermorrow

          Yea I get sick of debates where Republicans just go in circles agreeing with each other.

          • robert108

            You know nothing of real debate, political smoker.

Top