Yesterday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said this on a radio show:
[…] 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?”
The fact that at least some elements in Pakistan have to have known about OBL’s whereabouts, and harbored him, and how that would have impacted any joint mission to go get him, is utterly lost on Paul.
This is the fundamental problem with Ron Paul: When it comes to foreign policy, he is not serious and is not credible. He makes no distinctions between real allies like the UK and duplicitous frenemies like Pakistan. And he always always blames America first. That’s his MO.
Exactly. He is not, I repeat NOT, a serious candidate.
Also, yesterday, writing in The Washington Post, Captain Electability (a/k/a Sen. John McCain, R-AZ) says this:
[…] I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means. […]
So, after reading McCain’s op-ed we are left with one of two scenarios: One, he’s calling Leon Panetta a liar since Panetta himself confirmed that enhanced interrogation was directly responsible for information that led to OBL’s capture; or two, Senator McCain is the one not being totally forthright in his recollection of his conversation with Panetta. Either way, we are left with the same old ridiculous “moral” argument that enhanced interrogation is bad, waterboarding is torture, yada yada yada. Let’s face it: we all know that libs and progressives would be the first ones with pliers and cudgel if the issue at hand was important to them. Give me a break.
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has more here.
P.S., is it any wonder the Republican Party is a mess with “candidates” like these two?