Another reason why Ron Paul should never be considered for the presidency

I should think it would be obvious after this:

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.”

Congressman Paul later argues that we would never have done something like this in London, that we would instead have cooperated with the British. May I suggest to the congressman that comparing our closest, most trusted ally to the weak, corrupt, factionalized, largely Islamist and often backstabbing government of Pakistan is not only insulting to the British, but downright stupid?

It’s no secret that I consider Congressman Paul to be a borderline lunatic. Occasionally he makes a good point about domestic policy, such as his criticism of cronyism between government and big business, but you know what they say about broken clocks, too.

When it comes to foreign affairs, Paul is an extreme non-interventionist whose view of the world resembles a libertarian-isolationist paradise more than it does reality. His refusal to admit that overwhelming American power and the willingness to use it when necessary(1) is the only real guarantor of peace in the world is delusional. In a dangerous world and in a time of war, a “President Ron Paul” would be as damaging to American interests from the Right as President Obama is from the Left.

Given the national joy that greeted bin Laden’s assassination, let’s hope his moment of honesty marks the beginning of the end of anyone taking Representative Ron Paul seriously.

RELATED: Other times I’ve written about Texas’ answer to Screwy Squirrel.

PS: What the heck, see for your self. I swear there’s a family resemblance.

(1) Not willy-nilly, off the cuff, as President Obama seems to have done in deciding to attack Libya for no pressing reason.

UPDATE: Economist Dan Mitchell, a strong libertarian, expresses his disappointment with Paul.

Advertisements

One Response to Another reason why Ron Paul should never be considered for the presidency

  1. […] Public Secrets has reason #1,598 why Ron Paul should not run for president […]

%d bloggers like this: