Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense.

Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”

Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”

“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

The comments once again put Paul at odds with his Republican rivals over foreign policy and the war on terror in the latest indication of how his foreign policy views stray far from Republican orthodoxy even in a GOP that’s taken on an increasingly isolationist bent. Candidates like Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney — who included the president in a list of people he commended in a statement released Friday — have generally been supportive of the killing. No one else in the field has spoken out against it.

But Paul’s stuck with the civil libertarians who’ve criticized the targeted killing of an American citizen without public due process.

With all due respect to Congressman Paul… I for one am not going to shed any tears over the killing of a two-bit terrorist thug like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Mr. Al-Awlaki made a  choice, he chose to travel to a foreign country, and he chose to take up arms against the United States of America. As far as I’m concerned he was a traitor who renounced his citizenship and waived his right to due process the moment he made that choice… and he paid the price for it. Congressman Paul is, of course, entitled to his opinion, I doubt he’ll find much support for it outside the fever swamps inhabited by his most ardent supporters though.

H/T: Weasel Zippers.

Ron Paul, makes a lot of sense when talks about monetary policy, or the need for great transparency at the Federal Reserve, but Allen West right, his foreign policy ideas are dangerously isolationist, and frankly, naive. And for that reason I can’t support him for President.

H/T: The Blaze… Video courtesy of the Shark Tank.

Related

• Why We Can’t Afford to Have Ron Paul as President – Confederate Yankee
• Ron Paul: The GOP’s Henry Wallace - Spyridon Mitsotakis, Big Peace

More here and here.

Related

• Gaza-bound vessel really a ship of fools – Ruth Dudley Edwards, Irish Independent

From the London Times:

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue…

~ ~ ~

Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

This administrations actions are sad and shameful thing particularly when you contrast them with in unconditional support President Ronald Reagan offered to Margaret Thatcher in 1982 or that Prime Minister Tony Blair provided George W. Bush in the War on Terror. As Toby Young notes in the Daily Telegraph:

For this alliance to survive, both countries must recognise their obligations and, from time to time, that involves one of us setting aside more localised concerns for the sake of the cause. Tony Blair would have preferred it if President Bush had been prepared to wait for a second UN resolution before launching the invasion of Iraq, but he decided that Britain should follow America into battle nevertheless. He recognised that the preservation of the Atlantic alliance had to be prioritised above all else, both for our sake and the sake of the world.

In return, we naturally expect America to side with us when it comes to our own territorial disputes — and this element of quid pro quo was recognised by Ronald Reagan when he backed Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War. It wasn’t in America’s regional interests to side with us, but Reagan knew the terms of the deal: It was your country, right or wrong. You don’t abandon your closest ally in her hour of need.

So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has made in defence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.

Shame on you , Mr. President, shame. This Administration, in the name of neutrality, has chosen to side with the  aggressive, corrupt Argentine government of Christina Fernandez de Kirchner… A government that is being supported and encouraged by Hugo Chavez and that is threatening to blockade British territory.

We can not let this outrage stand. Call the White House, call your Senators, call your Representatives and tell them that We The People will not allow this administration to throw away the United State’s longstanding special relationship with our closest ally.

Related

• Trouble Brewing in South Atlantic Over Control of Falklands – Ray Walser, The Heritage Foundation
• Obama votes present on whether the Falklands belong to Britain – AllahPundit, Hot Air

• CBO: Budget deficit hit record $1.4T in 2009 – Associated Press
• Proposals to create jobs add up to second stimulus – Associated Press
• A Nobel for Obama – New York Sun
• Barack Obama’s peace prize starts a fight – Times Online
• McCain Vs. Palin For The GOP’s Soul – Investors Business Daily
• What I Heard in Honduras – Rep. Jim DeMint, Wall Street Journal
• California Budget Is Already in the Red 10 Weeks After Passage – Bloomberg
• Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit – Washington Times
• CBO’s Analysis of the Effects of Proposals to Limit Costs Related to Medical Malpractice (“Tort Reform”) – CBO Director’s Blog
• Save the Greenback, Mr. President – Larry Kudlow, CNBC
• Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts – Wendy Williams, Wall Street Journal
• CBO Stands for Cooked Books Office – Rep. John Shadegg, Red State
• What happened to global warming? – BBC News
• As Republicans Predict a 2010 Surge, Democrats Dig In – New York Times
• Taliban growth weighs on Obama strategy review – Reuters

Feel free to add your links in comments.

Saying he was “surprised and deeply humbled” by the decision of the Nobel Committee to award him the 2009 Peace Prize, President Barack Obama said he will accept the award as a “call to action.”

In remarks late Friday morning in the White House Rose Garden, Obama said he did not expect to win, and he does not view the award as a recognition of his own accomplishments.

“To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize – men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

“But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build – a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.”

Obama noted that the peace prize has been used “as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action – a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21^st Century.”

And lastly there’s this wildly snort worthy statement from DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.

“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.

Oh come on give us a break… Even in a political environment like this were the DNC and RNC issue ridiculously snarky, tit for tat statements on a near daily basis this one takes for over the top idiocy. Barack Obama is an elected official, not an emperor, or deity not to be mocked or questioned.

I haven’t seen Michael Steele’s comments not that they matter anyway… For the record Mr. Woodhouse, I am not criticizing Pres. Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m criticizing the Nobel Prize Committee for giving the award to a man of so little accomplishment.

Oh and as an aside if… I’m with Mickey Kaus, if Pres. Obama where really as “surprised and deeply humbled” and as he claims to be he would politely decline the award saying it should go to someone more deserving.

Related

• Meet the People Who Were Passed Over for Obama – The Weekly Standard

President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world “hope for a better future” and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.

The decision to bestow one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months into his first term, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” But critics — especially in parts of the Arab and Muslim world — called its decision premature.

Obama’s press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt “humbled” by the award, a senior administration official said.

It appears that Pres. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for what he might possibly accomplish at some point in the future not anything he’s actually done… That seems to be the story of his life though, from a community organizer to an Illinois state senator (who voted present 129 times) to a U.S. Senator for 143 days before moving to the White House Barack Obama’s life has about the  hope for great things rather than concrete accomplishments.

This hopefully will be the finally nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s coffin… This is the third time in last seven years the Committee has turned the Peace prize into a frak George W. Bush award by giving it to a liberal Democrat of dubious accomplishment. The fact that a Chinese dissident and an Afghan women’s rights activist lost out to “Hope and Change” speaks volumes about the Committee’s priorities.

Anyway, again Congratulations Mr. President.

Edit: I should add that according the Nobel Prize Committee’s own web site Barack Obama had to have been nominated for the prize barely two weeks after taking office… Even by the fairly broad requirements for the Peace Prize left by Alfred Nobel in his will this is a highly dubious decision by the Committee.

“and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Given his lack of accomplishment one has to wonder how Pres. Obama even qualified as a candidate.

Related

• Nobel Committee’s Decision Courts Controversy – Wall Street Journal
• Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize – Times Online
• Analysis: He won, but for what? – Associated Press
• Surprise! President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize – ABC News

Rio De Janeiro will host 2016 Olympics, the International Olympic Committe announced, bringing the Olympic Games to South America for the first time and besting a Chicago bid that was strongly backed by President Obama.

Rio won in the third round, after Chicago was eliminated in the first round and Tokyo, earlier considered the weakest candidate, was eliminated in the second round.

Two hours after Mr. Obama brought his star power to Copenhagen Friday morning, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil pleaded with the IOC to embark on new territory and bring South America into the Olympic fold after more than a century of holding the Games in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia. The Olympics have never taken place in Africa. There have been 30 Olympic Games in Europe, 12 in North America, five in Asia and two in Australia.

The IOC put on a good show as usual but the simple truth is the 2016 summer Olympics where always headed for Rio De Janeiro… it was purely political decision… South America never has hosted the Olympic games and no amount of star power was going change the IOCs desire to change that. Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid where simply pawns in  the game of geopolitics.

Edit: I should add that regardless of the geopolitics at play here this is still a humiliating and politically damaging loss for President Obama. He invested time and the prestige of his office in trying to woo the international community on low priority item and came away empty handed… there’s no way else to spin it, it’s a loss. And worse still it’s a loss he could ill afford… particularly while our economy still struggling and the situation in Afghanistan is worsening.

Leadership Mr. President means focusing on the big issues not jetting off to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympic games.

Related

• Obama’s Olympian gamble collapses – Reuters
• Losing the Olympics Bid Is Good for Obama – Newsweek
• The agony of Obama’s defeat – Politico

The Greatest Afghanistan War has deteriorated so noticeably that one can now feel the enemy’s growing pulse. Each month it beats steadier, stronger, and in 2010 it will finally be born.

On Sept. 11 in Kandahar, a South African civilian working without security was visibly upset – not at the Taliban but at the police. The 16-year police veteran recounted seeing Afghan police speeding through crowded streets and hitting a bicycle. The rider gymnastically avoided impact while the bicycle was tossed down the road.

The South African, with whom I spent a week in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, said the police never slowed down. “That’s part of the reason the Taliban are gaining ground,” he said. “The police are out there recruiting Taliban.”

I have searched for answers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Along with the more strategic questions (for example, should war be pursued?) are those closer to the shop floor: Are we gaining or losing popular support? Is the enemy gaining or losing strength? Is the coalition gaining or losing strength?

The first answer is a common denominator for the rest.

We are losing popular support. Confidence in the Afghan and coalition governments is plummeting. Loss of human terrain is evident. Conditions are building for an avalanche. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the military commander in Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are aware of the rumbling, and so today we are bound by rules of engagement that appear insensible.

If you haven’t already done so, read the whole thing.

Related

• Gates Doubts U.S.’s Afghan Strategy – Wall Street Journal
• David Miliband pushes US Administration to back Afghanistan plan – Times Online
• Catch-22 and the long war in Afghanistan – Reuters
• 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements – CNSNews.com

From the Telegraph:

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, came close to mocking his American counterpart for the good intentions, which Mr Obama had heralded as an “historic” step towards nuclear abolition, even though it set no specific targets or fresh mandates.

“We live in a real world not a virtual world,” the Frenchman told the 15-member council. “And the real world expects us to take decisions.

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naïve”.

Even Pres. Obama’s supporters, like Kathleen Parker, are starting to realize that his hope and change rhetoric are dangerously disconnected from the real word:

In keeping with his campaign promise to talk to America’s enemies without precondition, Barack Obama plans to turn his charms on Burma’s military junta. Slowly, we’re beginning to understand what hope and change were all about. Translation: Sure hope this change works.

It may be too soon to pass judgment on Obama’s new foreign policy strategy, but early returns on his gamble that talking is the best cure are less than reassuring. Each time Obama extends a hand to one of the world’s anti-American despots, he is rewarded with an insult (Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) or, perhaps, a missile display (North Korea and Iran).

One may view these episodes as diminishing America’s status or as a tolerable annoyance — sort of the way Dobermans view toy poodles. At some point, the big dog reminds the little yapper of his place. Unfortunately, the American commander in chief is a cat in a dog-eat-dog world.

Liberals like Pres. Obama have a way of seeing the world as they think it is not the way it really is. Pres. Obama undoubtedly views his willingness to talk with our enemies without precondition as reasoned, intelligent diplomacy they however view it as weakness.

Anyway it’s a sad day when a French President is calling out an American President to lead the free world… God help us.