He's Through: Ron Paul Makes Political Blunder. Condemns Killing Of Al Qaeda's Awlaki

[Charles_Main]

Thats how I feel about Obama as well, if he could run the economy as well as he targets terrorists we would be in good shape.

That's just it. Targeting Terrorists is easy. The CIA and US military do all the work for him. All he has to do is sign off on killing them.

Um yeah. That's absolute bullsh1t. First, if it was that easy, why didn't Bush do it? Second, there is nothing easy about authorizing our intel & SOFs to operate and then strike in allied countries. The potential for fallout is enormous. But I predicted your exact response so why go on. Obvious where you're coming from...

The Economy is a different Beast all together. There is no CIA and US Military doing all the heavy lifting for Obama on that issue. Not to mention Obama is benefiting from Bush Area Policies that help us get these guys, Policies he opposed as a candidate. With the Economy Obama is running way from Bush Area Policies, instead of embracing them.

I think you mean Bush Era. Unless you are referring to polcies that exist in Texas?

Got it. Everything Bush: Good! Everything Obama: Bad!

Gee, never seen that before...

Not even close to what I said jackass.

I was simply pointing out that the President, Whether it be Bush or Obama. Really do not get these guys. All they do is give the order to carry out a mission or not. The CIA and Military are the ones who find them, and kill them.

While with the Economy. The President, whether it be Bush or Obama, Has to do more than just sign off on missions. They have to know what they are doing.

Clearly Neither one of them did, or does.

 

[IndependntLogic]

That's just it. Targeting Terrorists is easy. The CIA and US military do all the work for him. All he has to do is sign off on killing them.

Um yeah. That's absolute bullsh1t. First, if it was that easy, why didn't Bush do it? Second, there is nothing easy about authorizing our intel & SOFs to operate and then strike in allied countries. The potential for fallout is enormous. But I predicted your exact response so why go on. Obvious where you're coming from...

The Economy is a different Beast all together. There is no CIA and US Military doing all the heavy lifting for Obama on that issue. Not to mention Obama is benefiting from Bush Area Policies that help us get these guys, Policies he opposed as a candidate. With the Economy Obama is running way from Bush Area Policies, instead of embracing them.

I think you mean Bush Era. Unless you are referring to polcies that exist in Texas?

Got it. Everything Bush: Good! Everything Obama: Bad!

Gee, never seen that before...

Not even close to what I said jackass.

I was simply pointing out that the President, Whether it be Bush or Obama. Really do not get these guys. All they do is give the order to carry out a mission or not. The CIA and Military are the ones who find them, and kill them.

While with the Economy. The President, whether it be Bush or Obama, Has to do more than just sign off on missions. They have to know what they are doing.

Clearly Neither one of them did, or does.

Yeah except that setting policies that reversed Bush's "OBL isn't a priority" was something he did and did well. Ordering strikes in two ALLIED countries when the political fallout for failure would be enormous, is not "simple". I mean I guess it is from your living room but from the WH, there's a bit more to it.
But okay I'll modify as I stand corrected!
Obama = Bad.
Got it.
Wait, I could be wrong again! Obviously every president does SOME things badly and SOME things well. What would you say are the 3 best things Obama's done?

 

[Unkotare]

Cheney's order to shoot down a Commercial Aircraft during the 911 nightmare).

He gave no such order. He gave authorization to do so if the aircraft did not respond to orders to divert its flight path toward the capital.

 

[Avorysuds]

The big Government pro war left and pro war right go in and attack! Even if they are wrong it sure feels good to kill people and declare it a political victory!

Oh hey, I have a question, is the war over yet or how many more people have to die before the victory is a real meaningful victory?

 

[Maple]

This should drive a stake in the heart of Ron Paul and his campaign. For him to condemn the killing of a terrorist who even thought was born in the U.S., it is wrong and immoral and it proves that Ron Paul has the Neville Chamberlain pacifist in him. As a president Ron Paul would not defend this nation nor would he go on any offensive if America was attacked by a rogue state or terrorists. This is a fact and it is a fact that I question Ron Pauls patriotism or now lack of patriotism due to him condemning the killing of a major terrorist hell bent on bringing jihad to American citizens. This should be the end of his campaign and I hope his patriotism is questioned at the next debate.

Ron Paul Condemns U.S.-Backed Killing of al Qaeda Figure and U.S. Cititizen Anwar al-Awlaki - Washington Wire - WSJ

Snippet from article:

GOFFSTOWN, N.H.–Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul condemned the U.S.-backed killing of al Qaeda figure and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

“If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Yes, what a moron to align yourself with the ACLU, political suicide.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting questions on the whole matter. We had the extra legal murder of an american citizen overseas. I am not arguing the guy didn't earn his murder. Karma is a bitch. But....
how far this path of assassination and murder do we want to go? What limits are put on this behavior? It wasn't that long ago that the Chilean government blew up a guy they didn't like in his home in Washington DC.
Are we giving Obama a no bag limit hunting licence?

It is an interesting question. Other interesting questions are Obama's order to kill OBL, Cheney's order to shoot down a Commercial Aircraft during the 911 nightmare; Bush's order to bomb residential neighborhoods in an effort to kill Saddam's son's, Truman's order to drop the bomb, twice, and Carter's decision not to ask the Congress to decare war on Iran, etc.

POTUS (and sometimes VPOTUS) is not an easy job, especially when partisan hacks question most everything one does and everything one says, have said (and never said, too).

Nice to see a liberal supporting the actions of Bush for once. Way to go!

In terms of airstrikes in residential neighborhoods I'm on the side of most Americans and all sane human beings - what Bush allowed in that circumstance was evil. btw, I'm libeal on some issues, conservative on a few, and radical on one or two others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This should drive a stake in the heart of Ron Paul and his campaign. For him to condemn the killing of a terrorist who even thought was born in the U.S., it is wrong and immoral and it proves that Ron Paul has the Neville Chamberlain pacifist in him. As a president Ron Paul would not defend this nation nor would he go on any offensive if America was attacked by a rogue state or terrorists. This is a fact and it is a fact that I question Ron Pauls patriotism or now lack of patriotism due to him condemning the killing of a major terrorist hell bent on bringing jihad to American citizens. This should be the end of his campaign and I hope his patriotism is questioned at the next debate.

Ron Paul Condemns U.S.-Backed Killing of al Qaeda Figure and U.S. Cititizen Anwar al-Awlaki - Washington Wire - WSJ

Snippet from article:

GOFFSTOWN, N.H.–Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul condemned the U.S.-backed killing of al Qaeda figure and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

“If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Yeah--this is the end of Ron Paul's campaign. Hopefully his son Rand Paul is taking notes--because I believe he is going to be in a position one day to run for POTUS. While most people agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say--most also disagree on his foreign policy statements--especially his terrorist policies.

Rand Paul is the dust on the fringe of the right wing.

 

[CentristFiasco]

This should drive a stake in the heart of Ron Paul and his campaign. For him to condemn the killing of a terrorist who even thought was born in the U.S., it is wrong and immoral and it proves that Ron Paul has the Neville Chamberlain pacifist in him. As a president Ron Paul would not defend this nation nor would he go on any offensive if America was attacked by a rogue state or terrorists. This is a fact and it is a fact that I question Ron Pauls patriotism or now lack of patriotism due to him condemning the killing of a major terrorist hell bent on bringing jihad to American citizens. This should be the end of his campaign and I hope his patriotism is questioned at the next debate.

Ron Paul Condemns U.S.-Backed Killing of al Qaeda Figure and U.S. Cititizen Anwar al-Awlaki - Washington Wire - WSJ

Snippet from article:

GOFFSTOWN, N.H.–Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul condemned the U.S.-backed killing of al Qaeda figure and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

“If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Ron Paul's been done every time he states, "End the Fed".

 

[Loststar111]

I agree with Ron Paul on this. If American forces had an active part in it then it was wrong and is only giving further fuel for continued extremism in the world. I know it's expeditious and convenient to have all of these "masterminds" killed but it sets a very dangerous precedent, one that knows no borders including our own. On the other hand if Yemen was the major player with only intelligence from the U.S. then it's fine to be a spectator and be happy that another one went away, of course we'll be blamed for it but Yemen can do within it's borders whatever Yemen wants to do.

 

[dcbl]

Here why I STILL like Ron Paul:

The man has integrity. In droves.

He STANDS for what he believes in. He is consistent. He can be counted on to do what he believes is the right thing to do.

That's something that really can't be said about 99% of politicians...

I disagree with him on this, but still like & respect him.

He would be IDEAL for his domestic policy ideas. And a disaster for his foreign policy.

And he won't win the presidency & really had little to no chance before this statement, so it's a moot point...