As a long-time fan of Congressman Paul, I am very disappointed that he recently said he would not have approved the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. Here’s an excerpt from The Hill.
Likely GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said this week he would not have authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, raising concerns about international law. …The likely candidate indicated that to capture bin Laden, he would have worked with Pakistan on a mission like the one that nabbed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was captured by Pakistani intelligence forces and transferred into U.S. custody. …Paul said that international law was an overriding concern.
I’m particularly mystified that he cited “international law” as a reason for his position. I’m not trying to take a cheap shot. Heck, I voted for Ron Paul way back in 1988 when he was the Libertarian candidate for President and I voted for him again in the GOP presidential primary in 2008. But Surely he doesn’t want to cede American sovereignty to the klepto-crats at the United Nations or some other international bureaucracy filled with statists and appeasers?
Herman Cain, on the other hand, has enjoyed a bit of a boost since the debate in South Carolina. I’ve known Cain since the 1990s when he was a member of the Kemp Tax Reform Commission and I was a staffer. On tax matters, Cain has embraced the national sales tax, which may come back to haunt him if he manages to become a first-tier candidate. But he also has proposed a five-part package of incremental reforms, and I was recently interviewed about that set of proposals. With one exception, I was very favorable. Here’s the opening part of the article in the International Business Times.
Herman Cain’s 5-step plan would boost the US economy and create jobs, according to Daniel Mitchell, an economist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Mitchell said in the 21st century, globalization has made it easy for businesses to shift their money (investments) and operations (jobs) internationally. Therefore, it’s of the utmost importance for the US to have the right policies and economics in order to win those operations and monies. Mitchell said the Obama administration’s policies do the opposite. Cain’s proposed policies, however, would work to achieve those goals.
Ron Paul must have been elected president
[…] even the politicians I’m willing to praise, including Ron Paul, sometimes do the wrong thing. And as much as I praise Reagan, he had some huge mistakes, such as […]
[…] (whatever that even is) provides no guarantee we won’t get attacked. That being said, I think Ron Paul has screwed up big time in some of his criticisms of U.S. actions. Being against nation building does not mean you have to […]
[…] (whatever that even is) provides no guarantee we won’t get attacked. That being said, I think Ron Paul has screwed up big time in some of his criticisms of U.S. actions. Being against nation building does not mean you have to […]
[…] (whatever that even is) provides no guarantee we won’t get attacked. That being said, I think Ron Paul has screwed up big time in some of his criticisms of U.S. actions. Being against nation building does not mean you have to […]
[…] threats such as al Qaeda. I’ve had several people, for instance, complain about Ron Paul opposing the killing of Osama bin Laden, and they assume that means libertarians are somehow the modern-day equivalent of Soviet appeasers. […]
[…] even the politicians I’m willing to praise, including Ron Paul, sometimes do the wrong thing. And as much as I praise Reagan, he had some huge mistakes, such as […]
[…] meth. Yes, I’m probably a bit more conservative than the average libertarian on issues like terrorism and immigration, but I’m a far, far stronger advocate of limited government than the average […]
[…] in fairness. And since I’ve written about the shortcomings of Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney, I need to say something about Rick […]
[…] Ron Paul’s gotten a lot of flak for having some unsavory supporters, and that will probably hurt him, but he benefits from being an anti-politician. And he appeals to all the Republicans who want less government. Simply stated, what you see is what you get – even when it’s something crazy such as being against the killing of Osama bin Laden. […]
[…] article by Steve Horwitz, my grad school classmate. Since I’ve written both supportive and critical posts about Paul, I think I have some credibility in saying that it is a fair summary of the […]
[…] Which is to be expected since he is the candidate closest to my views according to the Reason political quiz (though I do criticize him when appropriate). […]
This is a misinterpretation of what Paul has said.
Paul has said he signed and AUTHORIZED in 2001 the law allowing the president to get Osama. He said there were much better ways of getting Osama than the thousands of lives lost, and 10 years of running after him. Especially after they could have got Osama in 2001. Paul never said he didn’t support the ends of getting Osama. Paul simply had a disagreement with the means of doing so.
Respectfully,
James
Ron Paul interview explains the above. Move to 8:35 of the interview and listen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94VFW_KHqYU
Another Paul Interview explains the above. Start at 10:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XHN8lzro4c
and continue at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRjbkZXQQLs
[…] seems to be on the right track, but has a very worrisome blemish on his record. I’ve already said nice things about Herman Cain, but someone needs to ask him whether he still thinks TARP was a good idea, as he wrote back in […]
whatever international legislation is being imposed on the US is wrong. but there is not a void of morals or codes of conduct out there you know. the US can pay for someone to bring criminals to the US borders, but the US Army cannot go abroad killing people as they wish. regardless of international legislation saying this or that, that is the Law. a libertarian should acknowledge that, and stand by moral principles. but of course, Dan has this left-utilitarian streak (which shows for example in his defense to make the State more efficient, and so on).
Another great post from Mr. Dan Mitchell. Eventough I am totally against death penalty, the U.S. law allows it and the U.S. has the freedom to have its own laws, which in general are better than those of other countries even if the U.S. has a monstruosity like the death penalty. Some freedom still exists in the world because people could flee opressive countries for less opressive countries that could establish its own laws.
It is crystal clear that United Nations (U.N.) seeks universal opressive power -just look at that Global Warming pseudoscience promoting world government by U.N.- and tens $trillions in taxes, I cannot think of a more dangerous organization than U. N. and international “law”
The more power over the people and organization has, the more it will attract sadists with a depraved insatiable lust for opressive power, control and taking $trillions in taxes from the people, dictators Stalin and Hitler being among the best examples of such kind of sadists, together they murdered more than 100 million people if you take into account the dead in combat . The USA is one of the democracies where the people has the most power, U.N. is a very dangerous bureaucracy
I’m willing to forgive Cain for mistakes of the past when you consider the whole package. The pro’s definitely outweigh the cons. He’s smart, passionate, successful, and patriotic. If Republicans want a candidate who can beat Obama, they should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary
The reason why this association with the Fed is a negative against Cain argument is silly is because most general election voters don’t even understand what the Fed is or its relationship to government. It’s a nonissue to the majority of them and certainly isn’t a concern to the average Obama voter. Cain, due to his experience with the Kansas City Fed, would be able to explain to the American public what the Fed is, how it works and how its become so important to the government. If you don’t stimulate the economy with real job growth, you can’t attack debt. If you can’t attack debt, you can’t divorce the government from the Fed by stopping it’s borrowing from the Fed. It’s a cause and effect that starts with job creation, where are Ron Paul’s credentials regarding job creation? Yes, he has a principled stand against the Fed but is the Fed the biggest issue or job creation? This is a weak knock against Cain, a man who has spent the overwhelming majority of his life in business, not banking and not as a career politician who has made numerous failed attempts at the presidency like Paul.
[…] Economist Dan Mitchell, a strong libertarian, expresses his disappointment with […]
Yeah, a libertarian appealing to international law is a bit oxymoronic. However, like the first commenter said, years ago Paul was in favor of Letters of Marquee and Reprisal. Of course Cain is better than Obama. Almost anyone is better than Obama, so that is a luke warm at best compliment.
I do own bank stocks, but besides that Cain won the first debate because he knows to create jobs, cut deficits and not to do idiotic things like Obamacare.
And Cain was a TARP cheerleader and past Chief of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Branch who well knew TARP bailed out banks and wall street at the expense of mainstreet.
If you don’t own a bank, why would you like Cain?
Ron Paul said he wouldn’t have done it unconstitutionally as Obama did it. Ten YEARS ago Ron Paul introduced letters of marque to do it properly, see link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076
Obama is not a king.