-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Ron Paul’s incoherence on foreign policy is shining through. He says he voted to authorize action against Osama bin Laden but that it took too long to kill him. Yet he also said that once we had bin Laden in our sights “we didn’t go through enough of a process” and should have put him on trial instead.
Newt Gingrich put things far more succinctly when it came to our enemies: “Kill them.”
View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/16/paul-on-killing-bin-laden-didn
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tom| 1.16.12 @ 10:15PM
Is anyone REALLY shocked at Dr. Notjob's statement??
Jack in Wi.| 1.16.12 @ 10:43PM
Why would we kill Bin Laden when we could have easily captured him? He could have been put on trial and then he would have told his story. Oh! that's right. If his story was told he might be believed. Why was his body disposed of so fast and without some independent witness? I don't believe anything Obama or the neocons tell me unless it is witnessed by someone unbaised and trust worthy. you would have thought that the the intelligence community would have loved to get ahold of Bin Laden and interogated him.
Dai Alanye | 1.16.12 @ 11:59PM
We should have captured bin Laden and waterboarded him until we drained all useful information from him. It was a waste to kill him. But after our getting needed intelligence he should have been put before a military commission, found guilty of terrorist acts, then hung.
bigspike| 1.17.12 @ 6:03AM
nothing that falls out of Dr Derp's flapping yap surprises me anymore; as the campaign goes on, expect him to become even more delusional
ayrnieu| 1.16.12 @ 10:18PM
It's especially odd as Paul wanted Letters of Marque and Reprisal as the response to bin Laden (HR 3076 and HR 3074, in 2001). What kind of process was he expecting from privateers?
albert constantine jr.| 1.16.12 @ 10:34PM
I had a similar thought. Instead of sending Seal Team 6 to Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, suppose we issued a letter of marque to whatever Blackwater was calling itself at the time. If they entered Pakistan and killed him, is this somehow more acceptable to Ron Paul?
Mike 3/505| 1.16.12 @ 11:42PM
it's not any MORE legal...but it would work just as well...BTW...a letter of marque doesn't have to be issued to a privateer. It could be issued to the Armed Forces. of course, THAT might engender a small separation of powers discussion. :-)
Regards,
Mike
Clint| 1.16.12 @ 10:24PM
Do Your Homework Before You Run Your Israel Firster Smear Bund Mouth, Thomasina.
"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until May of 2011."
Dr.Ron Paul Voted For The Use Of Force In Afghanistan.
Dr.Ron Paul, " I'll ask Congress for a Declaration Of War against Iran, if necessary,"
bigspike| 1.17.12 @ 6:01AM
"Drronpaul" lied his weaselly @$$ off, trying to deny that he never said that he would not have ordered bin laden's assassination. the man is a lyuing sack of chicken dressing, a fraud, a huckster, and a nutcase...and YOU follow him like a wooly widdle wamb...how SAD is THAT????
Skip| 1.17.12 @ 9:24AM
Why not do YOUR homework before opening your Eisatzgruppen, 14/88ing, stormfront fapping, Alex Jones kool aid drinking yapper, Clint?
I'm still looking for the rationale behind "Having the US military kill bin Laden" didn't "follow international law", but somehow, sending in privateers would?
Perhaps you should have gone, keyboard commando? You could have joined Gary Brooks Faulkner with your collection of throwing stars.
Tom| 1.17.12 @ 5:40PM
So, Herr KKKlint; how many times have you kissed your golden swastika today??? It does match well with your closet full of white sheets.
Howard Land| 1.17.12 @ 12:18AM
I disagree. I have always believed we should have put him on trial like any other Criminal. Don't do my thinking for me. We either put mass murders on trial or we don't. We can't be both way's. Why wld. we not want to have him put on trial????
Ryan| 1.17.12 @ 8:26AM
Terrorists abrogate certain civil rights by their acts. It's a military, not criminal, engagement.
albert constantine jr.| 1.17.12 @ 8:52AM
While I think a case can easily be made that Bin Laden is a mass murderer, it is more than a matter of semantics that he declared war on us. That is why we send our military.
If he was merely an international Ted Bundy killing people for a thrill, or an extortionist doing it for money, or a figure in organized crime eliminating criminal rivals, a law enforcement approach might have merit.
On the other hand, when you use a fatwa that encourages and demands your loyal forces kill Americans, you should be prepared to expect some of our war making apparatus (including Predator drones, Seal Team 6, and 6th MEB) to be employed to discourage and defeat you.
video converter ultimate| 1.17.12 @ 1:53AM
OS X Recovery,
video to dvd creator mac
john dubose| 1.17.12 @ 7:16AM
Seems to me that our goal should be larger than just killing the bad guys. We want to establish a decent and orderly world where justice is done and seen to be done. By just shooting Bin Laden, we sort of gave up on that effort.
Unfortunately, there are those in this world who see George Bush and maybe Obama himself as war criminals like we see OBL. This will be messy either way.
Skip| 1.17.12 @ 9:25AM
Why not do YOUR homework before opening your Eisatzgruppen, 14/88ing, stormfront fapping, Alex Jones kool aid drinking yapper, Clint?
I'm still looking for the rationale behind "Having the US military kill bin Laden" didn't "follow international law", but somehow, sending in privateers would?
Perhaps you should have gone, keyboard commando? You could have joined Gary Brooks Faulkner with your collection of throwing stars.