At the South Carolina GOP Presidential Debate last night Ron Paul denied that he said he wouldn’t have ordered a raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound.
But he did… And there’s video to prove it.

Last year Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asked Ron Paul whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden. Ron Paul said he wouldn’t – three times in two minutes.
The BLaze reported:

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  1. #1 January 17, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Granny commented:

    Senility has set in.

  2. #2 January 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Indiana commented:

    Crazy Uncle Ron is at it again! Call in the guys with the little “white jackets.” They should have been waiting for him to come off the stage after Monday’s debate.

  3. #4 January 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    RS commented:

    One problem with lying is that you have to remember everything else that you have ever said.

  4. #5 January 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    #1AMERICAN commented:

    don’t care what party they are from…every politician is a damn liar

  5. #6 January 17, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    ivykid commented:

    The other candidates hit the issues right on target. Ron Paul hits issues that the others cannot see until we are looking back and realizing that he was right. He warned congress about the escalating back and forth with Bin Laden that led to the 9/11 disaster two years after this video from 1999.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XguvMUUtTtI

  7. #8 January 17, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Algore commented:

    He’s old. You can’t expect him to remember every little detail about whether he’d kill Bin Laden or not. I mean, how many of us had a consistent position on that…what? Oh, all of us? Never mind.

  8. #9 January 17, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    David commented:

    Paul never denied being against the way Bin Laden was killed. He said in the debate that he should have been captured and tried and not invade a sovereign nation without their consent. He’s consistent. You guys just didn’t listen to the debate clearly.

  9. #10 January 17, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    kato commented:

    When Dennis Kucinich grows up, he wants to be Ron Paul.

  10. #11 January 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    RedBeard commented:

    That radio interview gave me a headache, as I tried to follow Paul’s convoluted answers and his painful attempts at nuancing them. It strengthened my belief that the man is unstable and unsuitable for leadership.

  11. #12 January 17, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    RedBeard commented:

    Ron Paul, is he supportive or against the killing of Bin Laden? Well, it depends upon what your definition of “is” is. Holy Slick Willie redux.

  12. #13 January 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    L.E. Liesner commented:

    I’ve heard NBA basketball stars talk less trash then Ron Paul. I suggest that he does less talking and more listening, it might be good for his soul and he just might learn something.

  13. #14 January 17, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Multitude commented:

    What a sad state of affairs we have, when the two choices Americans have for political strategies are:

    1. “The Phantom Obama”: Life one’s entire life without going on any position, remaining stealth, not writing journal articles or stating any objective view to an issue. Embrace cultish platitudes of “hope,” “change”, “prosperity” that can be interpreted by any to mean anything.

    2. “The Opinionated Blowhard”: Establish a track record taking positions, changing them based on the context of the situation, but be certain to have it taken out of context by the media and one’s opinions, thereby rendering one politically unelectable.

    I blame the American people for embracing the former. Real, sincere and honest people live lives, take risks, make mistakes. Only narcissistic nightmares are devious enough to plan one’s very existence as a phantom, never leaving more than a wisp of vapor as proof of their position on issue or principle.

  14. #15 January 17, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    Epic commented:

    Romney & Obama are both funded by the same bankers and Wall Street interests.
    Romney & Obama are both supportive of Carbon Taxes.
    Romney & Obama are both supportive of the treasonous NDAA.
    Romney & Obama both believed the bailouts were a good idea.
    Romney & Obama both talk about budget “cuts” but only to proposed spending increases
    Romney & Obama both agree on Romney-Obama-Care.
    Romney & Obama both agree that the Federal Reserve system is just fine.

    “The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing, but expecting different results.” -Albert Einstein

  15. #16 January 17, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    Gride commented:

    Ron Paul cried win Bin Laden was killed. Paul hates to see fellow Jew haters killed.

  16. #17 January 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    James commented:

    Last night in the debate when ron paul was rambling incoherently about foreign policy/defense issues, I thought he was gonna pull out some marbles and roll them in his hand while he acussed the rest of the nominees of stealing the strawberries.

  18. #19 January 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    CV1 commented:

    “What if he had been in London…Would we have hadled it differently? Wed can’t do that!”

    Nice hypothetical! Totally irrelevant!

    It wasn’t in London, sir. It was in Pakistan! Had it been in London, a city in a country that is on our side, the British would have handled it.

  19. #20 January 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    WillofLa commented:

    Lieing is just plain wrong. I have always tried to teach my kids to tell the truth, and now I am doing it with my grandkids, TELL THE TRUTH!
    These politician’s aren’t in this to tell the truth. They are in this to win. If that means you have to tell a lie every once in awhile, then that’s what you do. Just make sure you don’t get caught because if you do, then people will start thinking “What else have you said that is untrue?”

    The liberals don’t have a problem with telling lies, just look at ACORN!! Their total existance is a lie. They are supposed to be a “non-partisan” organization that is just trying to make sure poor can find out where the voter polls are and if they need transportation, to provide a ride or whatever that person or person’s need so that they can exercise their right to vote. But what are they, really? They are a voter fraud wing of the Democrat Party. They get a couple of signitures and then fake a couple of hundred all over town. All you have to do is look at the cities where ACORN is the strongest, most represented, and you will find Democrats always win in those districts. It’s my guesstimation that over three fourths of all Democrats holding Federal Congressional and Senatorial seats got there by fraud.

    We all know what happened up in Minnisota when Al Frankin was running for the Senate against a good Republican. Everytime the count showed the Republican won, Frankin’s people would come up with a couple more ballots found in the trunk of some car. It happened three or four times. After the last time the count showed Frankin ahead the election was called in favor of Frankin. The Republican said he challanged Frankin’s votes and ordered a recount everytime some car trunk ballots were found, and this last time it came out that Frankin had legitimate ballots. How that happened, I don’t know, but the count was always just two or three hundred, just enough to win and be enough so it wouldn’t be contested.

    Ron Paul is not presidential. He has this time to run and by law that is it, he can’t run anymore. Three times is all you get to run for a certain office, and it may be that the presidential race that has limits. But it seems to me that it ought to be all political offices. Otherwise a person could run unlimited times and mess up any election they try to do, like Ron Paul is doing.

    Ron Paul is not a Republican…period. He’s a Libertarian…period!!! He has nothing to add to the Republican campaign of any candidate, let alone his campaign. He has nothing but cause trouble for all the other candidates and as far as I’m concerned he was put there by his leftist friends to do exactly what he is doing, and that is cause as much confussion and doubt as he can for a Party that needs as much unity as possible.

  21. #22 January 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    Gary commented:

    Craig,
    Your silence is deafening, pal.

  22. #23 January 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Mary commented:

    Sad. Very sad. He gets on one of his tangents and gets himself all confused. It was painful to watch and listen to his rambling Monday night. Did he complete a sentence? He is passionate and has served his country for a long time. Maybe retirement is in order. Enjoy your Golden Years, Dr. Paul.

  23. #24 January 17, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    MJ commented:

    This must make Ron Paul a
    NEO
    CON!

  24. #25 January 17, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    bg commented:

    ++

    David #9 January 17, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    so when he denied he said that, he meant the way he said it?? /s/

    ==

  26. #27 January 17, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    TiminPhx commented:

    Dear God help me, but I would rather have that idiot Obama in there than this very, very dangerous loon in office.

  27. #28 January 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    exceller commented:

    to the Paulbots it won’t matter how many kooky, stupid, antiquated, or hypocritical ideas or statements you post about Ron Paul. It’s a cult and facts don’t matter, much like the Obama cult.

  28. #29 January 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    bg commented:

    ++

    TiminPhx #27 January 17, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    oh not to worry, you are not alone (and neither is Prager, albeit
    ironically, seems both sides agree on Paul being to the left of O)..

    ==

  29. #30 January 17, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    vityas commented:

    On the internet, everything is forever. Nor Luap may not understand that concept. Most of those in the government do not. Yet.

  30. #32 January 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    kozanne commented:

    Ron Paul is NO conservative. I think it was Bret Baier last night that told Ron that his position on the bin Laden kill was left of Left? And I really liked Gingrich’s introduction of the billions of dollars we send to Pakistan to be our ‘friend’, yet bin Laden lived in a major Pakistani city within a mile of a military academy and the Paki ISS didn’t know?

    Ron Paul is as much a threat to national security as any terrorist. All he and most of his supporters seem to do is spout supposedly “Constitutional” rhetoric with absolutely no thought of the realities of the world we live in or the situation this country finds itself in. As far as I’m concerned, the “Ron Paul is the ONLY one” crowd are just using it as an excuse for their own inaction when it comes to changing the state of this nation. All you’ve got to do is vote for Ron Paul and you’ve done a great service to the nation?

  31. #33 January 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Mahdi Al-Dajjal commented:

    #10 January 17, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    kato commented:

    When Dennis Kucinich grows up, he wants to be Ron Paul.

    ——————–

    Dennis Kucinich returned from the future under the name Ron Paul.

  32. #34 January 17, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    PK commented:

    He said he wouldn’t have ordered it the same way. Instead, he would follow the rule of law as was done with KSM. Also, it would have been better to capture him alive if possible, for intelligence purposes. That’s not inconsistent with his comments last night.

  33. #35 January 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Paddy commented:

    International law that the likes of Ron Paul keep referring to includes the laws of war. The laws of war contemplates that enemy combatants can and will be killed when they are located. The Geneva conventions concerning the rights of prisoners does not apply to stateless enemy combatants, including terrorists.

    The anti-war types constantly demand that we apply the rules from our civil laws to war situations. However, our civil and criminal laws and the laws of war follow two separate and distinct tracks. There is no crossover or mixing principals from one to the other.

    Properly applied, our civilian courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider cases and controversies governed by the laws of war. Through the end of WWII, our civilian courts recognized the separate jurisdictions involved and declined to consider war cases, leaving them to be considered in military tribunals. Since then, activists civilian courts have gradually been undercutting this principal and intermixing civilian and war laws to the detriment of our ability to fight and win wars.

    Liberals screaming about the necessity to apply civilian laws to wartime are idiots.

  34. #36 January 17, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    PK commented:

    The question was “you believe international law should have constrained us from tracking down and killing the man responsible for 9/11?”

    Ron Paul said no and that’s correct. His point said that you could accomplish these things without breaking the law, not that the law should have made it impossible for us to accomplish these goals.

    Is this really that hard to understand? He gives the example of KSM as a person who was captured through the correct legal process. That proves it can work just fine and he wants to stick to it.

  35. #37 January 17, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    PK commented:

    The U.S. laws of war are that you don’t invade other countries without a declaration of war. If you want to target a non-state actor, use the constitutional method of letters of marque and reprisal.

  36. #38 January 17, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Mama Grizzly commented:

    They should have captured Bin Laden and made him talk. He would have, I’m sure. Then . . . execution for his little “bring down America” party in New York City.

  38. #40 January 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    paz commented:

    Ron Paul voted to go after OBL in 2001 and it could’ve been taken care of in 2001. Tora Bora is in Afghanistan.

    OBL was killed in Pakistan. When did we formally declare war (like the Constitution requires) in Pakistan? Or Iraq?

  39. #41 January 17, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    bg commented:

    ++

    paz #40 January 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    wow, you sure have lots of homework to do before
    you even come close to catching up.. good luck..

    ==

  40. #42 January 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Patty commented:

    He is a very strange person. The facts about him are out there in his own words. I am beginning to think and I am not being mean but he could have some sort of health problems. On set of dementia.

    Just can’t seem to understand this man. He is right about the spending but I am afraid he will go to far with our Military and leave us all up a creek without a paddle.

  41. #45 January 17, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Molon Labe commented:

    I frankly am impressed with Ron Paul. How can he keep track of the many lies he spreadswithout tripping up more often? He must have an amazing memory. Especially since he is the political equivalent of Wiley Coyote.

  42. #46 January 17, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    bg commented:

    ++

    Molon Labe #45 January 17, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    this is pretty impressive too.. /s/

    we’re screwed 9 ways to & including Sundays..

    ==

  43. #47 January 17, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    Molon Labe commented:

    #46

    BG

    You’re right as usual. For all intents and purposes Ron Paul is brain dead. I wonder if he has ever thought of hiring Johnny Cochrance? His case is hopeless.

  44. #48 January 17, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    SierraBear commented:

    You are all war mongers. We have bombs, Israel has bombs, Pakistan has bombs, and everybody has bombs…why shouldn’t they have a bomb? We are always bombing them. So, they want to bomb us. We want to bomb them, they want to bomb us. We bomb, they bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, everybody bomb-bomb! We need to stop all these wars!

    “My name is Bomb Paul and I approve of this message.”

    Not really…I am the inventor of Mr. Sock.

  45. #49 January 18, 2012 at 6:27 am

    RedBeard commented:

    Ron Paul is the flip side of General Jack D. Ripper. As soon as Paul starts rambling about his precious bodily fluids, it’s time to get a net.

  46. #51 January 31, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Major_Freedom commented:

    At the debate, Ron Paul said he doesn’t agree with the moderator’s insinuation that international law should trump US law.

    At the radio show, Ron Paul said he thought getting Bin Laden could have done differently, on the basis that it is US law not to invade other nations without a declaration of war.

    How in the hell is this Ron Paul “lying”, or even a contradiction?

    You people are all morons. He didn’t deny saying he wouldn’t have ordered a hit. He said he didn’t say exactly what the moderator said about international law trumping US law.

© Copyright 2012, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Web Development By Arlington Kirk