Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Ron Paul eliminates himself from presidential contention very early

It’ll be interesting to see if the Paulnuts will try to polish this turd:

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

Asked by WHO Radio’s Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it “absolutely was not necessary.”

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

Seriously?  Seriously?

Let’s see: if bin Laden had been holed up in a London hotel room, we could have counted on, with 100% certainty, cooperation from the British intelligence services and military.  However, we had evidence that Pakistan’s intel may not have exactly had our best interests at heart and concealed OBL for years now.  So you can forgive a rational being for thinking that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn’t have been a wise decision to send our playbook to the opposing team seconds before kickoff.

If Dr. Paul cannot see the difference between the “London hotel vs. Pakistani palace” scenario, then he has absolutely no business being commander-in-chief.  Dude, how sad is it that B.O. has more street cred on national defense than Republican Ron Paul?

Advertisements

May 12, 2011 - Posted by | Osama bin Laden, Ron Paul

7 Comments »

  1. Actually, Ron Paul only said he wouldn’t have done it ‘That way’. Obama isn’t king and needs to follow the Constitution. Ron Paul DID introduce letters of marque to do it the RIGHT way, ten years ago and again since then: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076

    Comment by KL | May 12, 2011

  2. Ron Paul has consistently proven himself to be unfit for the top job. But you’re right, this most recent example ices the cake quite nicely.

    Comment by fullmetalpatriot | May 12, 2011

  3. Ron Paul has “some” good ideas, but they’re overshadowed by occasional outbursts of craziness. PLEASE Mr. Paul…if you REALLY love this country, DO NOT run for President and guarantee us another 4 years of the Marxist!

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | May 12, 2011

  4. Man oh man, you have been on fire lately. You are hitting the nail right on the head. By the way, for those wondering, bin Laden was an unlawful combatant, and international agreements allow for killing him.

    Yea, Ron Paul does a lot that’s good. But, he is unbalanced on some things, and confused thinking leads to confused, nutty conclusions. Keep that man out of the White House!

    Comment by George | May 13, 2011

  5. Thanks, George. I had forgotten about the “unlawful combatant” thing, but you’re right. Plus, everyone recalls that Bush said in 2001 that we will make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbor them. So Pakistan should be thankful we’re not raining MOABs on them for hiding that SOB for 5 years.

    I respect Paul’s libertarian leanings, but pure libertarianism is incompatible with defending this country from terrorism.

    Comment by crushliberalism | May 13, 2011

  6. I agree KG. But I guess even conservatives “might” have a few moonbats now too. This is all Leno needs to add to his monolog about how crazy the republicans can be!

    Comment by tnjack | May 13, 2011

  7. “Some good ideas” excuse absolutely NOTHING when it comes to retarded, urine-poor comparisons! Yeah, RP said he wouldn’t have done it “that way”. Heck, REAGAN would have done it THAT way…or something close to it.
    Crush is right, libertarianism in its purest form [sic] is totally incapable of fighting terrorism. Of course, so is liberalism. It took a Chicago liberal following the lead of the right’s “play book” in order to get OBL. Hey, how ’bout them Cuba interrogations?!

    Comment by Kevin | May 14, 2011


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: