Why Ron Paul Will Not Be Listed In Any Future Candidate Polls at the HQ

Sure, it may have something to do with the way all the Stormfronters rush over here to ensure Paul comes out on top of the AoSHQ GOP candidate polling I do periodically. But it definitely has more to do with the fact that he's a barely functional retard who couldn't express a coherent foreign (or economic) policy even if all our lives were at stake . . . which they are, y'know.

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

“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?”

I'm just going to throw this out there and maybe the Ronulans can explain: isn't a hotel room in London just slightly different than a safe house in Abbottabad? It's scratching the tip of my brain, but I'm almost certain there's something quite distinguishable between the two examples...

posted by Gabriel Malor at 09:13 AM

| Access Comments