Supposedly he contradicted himself. But read quote one, and quote two.
1: So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?
And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:
I don’t think it was necessary. No.
Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman”
So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?
Ron Paul’s response was consistent with his two previous answers.
Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments.
2: “You believe international Law should’ve constrained us from tracking down and killing the man responsible for the most brazen attack on the US since Pearl Harbor?”
Paul responded: “Obviously no, I did not say that.”
Read both carefully, and listen to the setup, plainly intended to suggest anyone who did NOT order the killing was effectively an apologist and almost accomplice in mass murder.
He did not say he would not have gone after Bin Laden because of international law, but because it was UNNECESSARY. For any stupid people reading this, let me point out that from 9/11/01 until his de facto execution ten years later, Bin Laden does not seem to have planned ONE attack.
Are we safer now that he is dead? Are we? If he was doing something close to nothing, it is hard to see how safety has improved. This was a mission of revenge, not national self defense. I was saying back in 2009 that he was irrelevant.
Am I glad he is dead? Yes, to the extent it is proper to celebrate the death of anyone, but I remain skeptical that he was the actual mastermind.