Ron Paul Would Not Approved The Mission To Kill Osama Bin Laden

Ron Paul has stated that had he been President, he would not have approved the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound: 

"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?"

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?"

Ron Paul is absolutely wrong in his assertion that Pakistan would have cooperated with the Americans in capturing Osama bin Laden. America intentionally kept Pakistan in the dark about the mission because the goverment couldn't be trusted with the information and were not told about bin Laden's death until after the attack on the compound.  

There is good reasons for not giving Pakistan advanced notice of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. The evidence strongly points to the fact that Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden. For example, we know that a senior Pakistani Army major lived next door to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, the city is filed with many people who work for the military which is not surprising since there is a major military academy just a few hundred yards down the road from Osama's home.

There are additional facts that suggest Pakistan knew he was there. We know that he compound was specifically built for Osama Bin Laden in 2005.  Some people think he may have been living in that compound in Abbotabad for as long as three years or as short as six months. According to bin Laden's wife, she was in that house since 2006. And that house didn't blend in with the community of Abbottabad. It stuck out like a sore thumb. It was the only mansion in town. Moreover, that house had high walls topped with barbed wire.

Let's not forget the fact that Bin Laden was found to have money and some phone numbers sown into his clothing which indicates he was ready to escape at a moment's notice. Perhaps he was prepared in case someone from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) tipped him off that the U.S. was coming for him.

While there is room for reasonable debate whether or not Pakistan was protecting bin Laden or if it was rouge elements within the military and intelligence community that was protecting him. However, it doesn't matter if there was official or unofficial assistance given to Osama bin Laden. The bottom line was someone or a group of people with considerable power was shielding him from the United States. Its clear that had we given advanced notice that we were comming to get Osama bin Laden, that advanced notice would have been passed on to bin Laden. 

There's also another good reason why the United States did not cooperate with Pakistan. There's evidence that Bin Laden's terrorists may have penetrated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military for years.

Even if we accept Pakistan's claim that it didn't know about it but that rouge elements were unofficially protecting bin laden, they couldn't be trusted since their military and intellegience agencies were corrupted by spies for bin Laden. 

Its clear that the information would have gotten out one way or another and Osama bin Laden would have been tipped off about the incoming raid on his house.

Ron Paul is incorrect that we didn't respect our own laws or international laws. Anne Bayefsky debunks that claim:

The United Nations still has no definition of terrorism. Standing in the way of a universally-agreed definition are the 22 members of the Arab League and the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Each of these groups has signed on to an “anti-terrorism” treaty that represents the culmination of their agreed ideology on the subject. The Arab Terrorism Convention, for example, exempts from its idea of terrorism everything from suicide-bombing to slitting the throats of 3-month old babies under the umbrella of “all cases of struggle by whatever means…against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination.” 

As a result, on May 2, 2011 the Security Council issued a unanimous presidential statement on Bin Laden’s death which was very careful to “reaffirm…other applicable international counter-terrorism instruments.” After all, Council members currently include a representative of a terrorist organization, since Lebanon’s government is controlled by Hezbollah. 

As a result, Ron Paul is absolutely incorrect that we didn't follow our own laws or laws of the United Nations. There are no clear international laws on the issue of terrorism since Security Council doesn't have any firm definition of terrorism. What laws were we to follow Mr. Ron Paul?  

Anne Bayefsky also points out that one of the Council members includes a representative of a terrorist nation. However, she forgets to mention that while some nations are controlled by terrorist organizations, there are other Arab nations who sit on the Security Council who use terrorism to accomplish its foreign policy goals.

In the end, Anne Bayefsky explains that the mission to take down Osbama bin Laden was permissable under U.S. and international law: 

Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.

As a result, its hard to take Ron Paul seriously when it comes to the issue of foreign policy. Ron Paul's foreign policy position of isolationism/non-interventionism is not a conservative position. Its a far left position. Its a position that Ron Paul and Barak Obama have in common. Yet, Ron Paul isn't the only Republican who has far left beliefs on foreign policy.  Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson also share these same beliefs. 

It is the same position that far left liberals like Barak Obama have. 

Its also hard believe that Ron Paul can seriously protect our country if he were President United States. He voted against the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.

In the end, Ron Paul and those who share his views on national security and foreign policy are unrealistic and naive in their perspective of how the world works. It is also dangerous. And very foolish.

Ron Paul Announces That He Will Be Running For President For A Third Time

Ron Paul's announcement that he will be running for President for a third time by forming an exploratory committee is no surprise. However, even though Ron Paul has ran for President a few times, many people are not aware of who Ron Paul really is and what his positions are.  

Not only will Ron Paul be competing in a very crowded field of Republican candidates, but he will be also competing against Gary Johnson. Both men are libertarians and share many of the same domestic and foreign policy views. 

They also think highly of each other and have had a short history together: 

"Johnson and Paul first met in 2004 and Paul invited the former governor, who made waves during his second term calling for the decriminalization of drugs, to Washington to speak to his Liberty Caucus about drug policy."

As a result of meeting up in 2004, they have great respect for each other. Gary Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential primaries and Ron Paul has said that he would endorse Gary Johnson if he decided he would run in 2012. Gary Johnson was certainly flattered by Ron Paul's potential endorsement. 

But now that both men are running, it might put their friendship to the test as they compete against each other. One major area that they will disagree with each other will be on foreign policy.  Like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is an isolationist/non-interventionist. He opposes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"Gary Johnson opposed the war in Iraq as Governor of New Mexico and believes that the United States should withdraw our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as effectively possible, believing that neither country poses a current threat to the US.

The United States should not be borrowing money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in foreign countries, especially when such help is currently needed at home. Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we can not currently afford."

However, unlike Ron Paul, he does support Israel and would protect that country militarily if needed:

"Governor Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed."

While Ron Paul is against military interventions for any reason, Gary Johnson seems to be open to the idea that military intervention is acceptable if it is done for humanitarian purposes: 

A dove in the mold of 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Johnson says, “I don't think that we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan.” But the extent of his non-interventionism isn’t quite clear. On one hand, he isn’t even sure if U.S. troops should have been stationed in Europe to confront the Soviets following World War II. “I don't think I have the expertise to be able to say that it was good or bad, it just seems to me that today, it doesn’t really seem warranted,” he says. Johnson also says Iran’s nuclear program isn’t a threat to the United States because the principle of “mutually assured destruction” would keep the Iranians from attacking.

On the other hand, Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.”

Many libertarians are excited that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson will be competing against each other in 2012. They see this as an opportunity to promote the libertarian philosophy to the general public. The downside to having two libertarians running in 2012 is that there will be a lot of infighting between libertarians as they debate each other who is the more "true "libertarian. 

Moreover, instead of having libertarians rally around Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, it will split the libertarian vote between these two men even though either of these men don't have chance of winning the Republican nomination or defeating Obama in 2012. 

However, the fact that there are two libertarians running in 2012 should make the election interesting and exciting for everyone as these men compete and debate one another in this election.

Gary Johnson To Run In 2012

For Republican candidates running in 2012, the crowd keeps getting bigger and bigger. Another Republican, Gary Johnson, has made the leap to run for President: 

"Politico.com reports that a Johnson advisor said the former governor will skip the step of creating an exploratory committee, opting for an immediate start to his bid for the GOP nomination."

Who is Gary Johnson? 

To be honest, I've never heard of Gary Johnson until the news started reporting that he was running in 2012. In all the research I've done on him, he appears to be very much like Ron Paul and share the same libertarian views on domestic and foreign policy issues. 

Gary Johnson's Domestic Policy Views

Gary Johnson will be running as a Republican but he will be promoting fierce libertarian approach to domestic issues in America. One article outlines some of his positions: 

"For one, Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, and he likes to talk about it. He first raised the issue as governor, and he makes the fiscal case for drug law reforms with talk about the cost to taxpayers of law enforcement and prisons. He would have signed a bill banning late-term abortions, he told me, but he supports abortion rights until viability of a fetus. He enjoys ripping into hard-line immigration policies, as he has called for more visas for American-educated students and future businesspeople."

Another article gives provides additional issues that Gary Johnson will most likely talk about on the campaign trail: 

On other issues, Johnson doesn't bother to hide his disdain for his party's hard-liners. Take the incendiary new immigration law passed in Arizona, for instance: 

"I just don't think it's going to work," he says. "I think it' s going to lead to racial profiling. I don't how you determine one individual from another -- is it color of skin? -- as to whether one is an American citizen or the other is an illegal immigrant." 

Johnson favors an expansive guest worker program and is uncomfortable with the idea of mass deportations. What about the idea of increasing security by means of a border wall? 

"I have never been supportive of the wall," he replied. "A 10-foot wall [just] requires an 11-foot ladder."

Gary Johnson's Foreign Policy Views

Like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is an isolationist/non-interventionist. He opposes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan: 

"Gary Johnson opposed the war in Iraq as Governor of New Mexico and believes that the United States should withdraw our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as effectively possible, believing that neither country poses a current threat to the US.

The United States should not be borrowing money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in foreign countries, especially when such help is currently needed at home. Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we can not currently afford."

 However, unlike Ron Paul, he does support Israel and would protect that country militarily if needed:

"Governor Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed."

That is one big difference between him and Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't support Israel and doesn't believe we should be providing fiinancial or military support to that country. At least Gary Johnson does. However, his support for Israel contradict his isolationist/non-interventionist positions with respect to other conflicts around the world.

Aren't Ron Paul And Gary Johnson The Same?

Even though he's placed in the same political category as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson insists that there's a big difference between Ron Paul and himself:

Though frequently compared with Paul, the libertarian movement’s closest thing to a standard-bearer, Johnson has been distancing himself from the comparison. While they’re both libertarians, Johnson said, his reputation as “Gov. No” is different from Paul’s moniker “Dr. No.” He has emphasized his record as a governor who was prolific in using his veto pen.

“There was a big difference between Ron Paul and me when it came to the ‘no,’” Johnson recently told POLITICO. “His ‘no’ was philosophical. It was reasoned. It was right. My ‘no’ actually put a stop to legislation. It cut spending. Mine carried further than just ‘no.’ I had to follow through with the debate, discussion and dialogue on why my ‘no’ wouldn’t result in people starving, schools being shut down and the delivery of services to the poor wasn’t going to be curtailed.”

The difference, according to Gary Johnson, is that he's more philosophical in saying "no" whereas Ron Paul isn't. This not a big difference. Its a minor one. Its splitting hairs.They both still say no.

The truth is, there is no difference between these two men. Ron Paul admires Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential Primaries:

"When Paul ran for president in 2008, Johnson was the highest ranking public official to endorse him. He later spoke at the “Rally for the Republic,” a parallel Minneapolis convention held when Paul was not invited to speak at the Republican National Convention.

“I love Ron Paul,” Johnson declared to loud applause. “We need to abolish the Federal Reserve.”

They remain friendly. In November, Johnson swung through Texas for several Our America events and paid Paul a visit."

And Ron Paul has said that he would endorse Gary Johnson if he runs in this upcoming election: 

"And Paul has said repeatedly he could support Johnson if the former governor ran for president in 2012.

“He’s the most libertarian person — other than myself — that has been talking about it,” Paul told POLITICO in late December."

As much as Gary Johnson likes to protest that he's not the same as Ron Paul, there is really little difference between these two men:

"With the exception of immigration and abortion, the two men speak in harmony on just about every issue. Paul ran for president under the Libertarian Party banner in 1988, and the Libertarian Party unsuccessfully tried to recruit Johnson as a presidential candidate in 2000."

Gary Johnson is pretty much like Ron Paul except that they disagree with each other on immigration, abortion and supporting Israel. However, there is one additional major difference between these two men. Unlike Ron Paul, at least Gary Johnson, as far as I know, doesn't hang out with racists and collect campaign checks from them.