Ron Paul thinks the Pakistani government is above board

I was like, “No way. He didn’t. There’s no way that numbskull said we should’ve ‘worked with the Pakastani government’ to get a man they were protecting for years.” But yeah…he said it. And this is why Ron Paul is not fit to be dogcatcher much less President.

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?”

It’s dumb things like this which prevent the “big L” Libertarians from ever being taken seriously (I know, we’re all supposed to pretend Ron Paul is a Republican. It’s BS.). This is naive. It’s stupid. It’s reckless, ignorant, and not a little myopic. It’s Ron Paul all over. The man isn’t fit to be block captain of my neighborhood watch with naivete like that. I’m sorry, I know that Republicans are almost nothing but a disappointment and we desperately need legitimate third & fourth parties but not this man, and not in these times.

Paul also said:

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?”

Ed at Hot Air added:

For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate.

Duh. Paul’s showing his ass on this one for sure.

Hat tip: Jammie Wearing Fool via Hot Air via Ace.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    Ron Paul is like the crazy uncle we keep locked up in the basement.

    These statements are consistent with he ones he has already made about America being occupiers, that is why they attack us and that dialogue alone can solve the terrorists problems in the world.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000

    Yeah, this is the reason he went off the rails in 2012. I think it was Lee who said that he liked the message but he became convinced that Ron Paul was the wrong messenger.

    Thumb up 0

  3. JimK *

    Exactly…I like a libertarian perspective. But I’m also a realist and I know that projecting power is simply part of being a large & world-dominating nation. That has always been, and that will always be. Pretending otherwise is dangerous, IMHO. And if we’re talking basic human justice, the fucker got what he needed to get is all. When the protectors of the law we are supposed to respect are openly defying it and rubbing our noses in it, well…we can’t work with them, and we had a duty to bring U/OBL to justice. Paul is just being a typical big L libertarian here…no foreign projections of power are ever really acceptable, which is why I am libertarian-esque and not a Libertarian. Big L Libertarian doctrine ignores human nature, and in fact attempts to reject and subvert it rather than work with it and around it.

    But then I have this theory. I think self-hate, self-doubt or self-loathing drive huge amounts of motivation for people who become public figures. But self-delusion is powerful…and so they convince themselves that they can rise above basic human nature. Then that gets warped into “And if I am going to try, I am going to force you to do it with me.” One thing leads to another, dominoes fall and the next thing you know we’re shooting at each other, but it’s not because we’re basically violent, but because “our cause is just.”

    Or we end up confiscating wealth and giving it to “the poor,” who somehow end up not being the poor but rather friends and cohorts, or worse – potential voters. All because we believe that we’re better, evolved, more “compassionate.”

    I’m not explaining this theory very well, but one of these days (like, before I die) I will do a pale imitation of a Bill Whittle essay on what I think drives people to embrace obviously naive positions and dig in hard when challenged.

    Thumb up 0

  4. West Virginia Rebel

    I don’t think it’s self-loathing in Paul’s case…I think he knows he’ll never get to the White House and is sticking to his positions because that’s what he’s always done and wants to be a protest candidate.

    He’s kind of like Ralph Nader without the smarmy attitude.

    Thumb up 0