Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Killing

I’ll say this for Ron Paul: At least his approach is more consistent than Obama, who has taken the head-scratching position that pouring water over the face of a terror suspect is sub-human, barbaric and against everything we stand for as a people, but kicking a door open and blowing off that same person’s head means the president made a “gutsy call.”

From ABC News:

Rep. Ron Paul took an interesting position for a likely presidential candidate Tuesday – he explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.

Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.

Why?

“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law – what if he’d been in a hotel in London?” Paul asked. “We wanted to keep it secret. 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 U.S. government should have worked with the Pakistani government, respecting borders, to get at Osama bin Laden.

If Bin Laden had been in a hotel in London the US probably wouldn’t have had to send in special forces, because the last I checked the Brits are, you know, our close allies and probably would have been happy to get Osama themselves. If we’d have found out Bin Laden had been living in London for years and the Brits didn’t do anything about it, then I’d say the “friend of the US” status would be in question — as should be the case now with Pakistan.

Semi-related: This parody ad cracks me up:

Update: There’s a new Ron Paul ad out — “The One.” Hmm, why does that sound so familiar.