Rep. Ron Paul, a soon-to-be presidential candidate known for opposing U.S. military intervention overseas, said if he were president, he would not have duplicated President Obama’s plan for taking out the man responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Paul plans to announce his candidacy Friday in New Hampshire, two sources told Fox News. Ahead of that announcement, he suggested in a radio interview Tuesday that the U.S. government could have worked with Pakistan to secure Usama bin Laden’s capture instead of unilaterally entering the country and killing him — despite concerns that the Pakistanis could have tipped him off.
“It was absolutely not necessary,” Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.
The Texas congressman questioned whether Obama could have gotten away with the operation if Usama bin Laden had been in a country other than Pakistan.
“What if he had been in a hotel in London?” Paul said on Newsradio 1040 WHO. “So would we have sent the … helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out? No, you don’t want to do that.”
Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government.
“They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us,” Paul said, suggesting the same formula should have applied to bin Laden.
Though Paul is credited by some with inspiring the Tea Party movement, one faction of that movement was not happy with the comment.
“If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it,” Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said on his website. “For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, ‘not necessary,’ is simply nuts.”
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
i cant believe the press covers ron paul, incompetent that he is.
if OBL was in london we would have told the PM because he is trustworthy for something like this
A. OBL wouldnt be in London because MI5 can actually get things done…. and the UK doesnt KNOWINGLY harbor terrorists.
B. Ron Paul just took himself out of the running. As if he had a shot anyway.
John McCain said pretty much the same thing during the 2008 campaign.
Ron Paul tends to see things in black and white while most politicans see shades of gray
In Ron Paul’s mind we violated internation sovergntiy and for that and that alone, he would not have ordered the mission. Notice how he didnt say “Bin Laden was innocent” or anything like that. All he was concerned about was the law.
On paper he’s right that we should have worked with the Pakistani government to have Bin Laden arrested,but the reality is that despite pouring billions of dollars in aid into Pakistan, no one is really sure which side they are playing for.
But just think what could have happened had he been taken alive.
The media is doing a great job to keep the mainstream scared of Ron Paul and it’s sad because this country could use him in the White House
Paul is right on a lot of stuff, but this is way wrong. Even Israel would be better off with Paul since he would cut foreign aid to the Palestinians, rememver the US is the #1 donor to Hamas.