Last night's GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul some problems in the "honesty" department.
Mr. Paul's truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News' Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden:
There's just one small problem with Paul's denial, he did say it, several times.
Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.
Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;
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.
Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.
For those interested in the entire question and answer on the topic of the bin Laden killing, we offer this clip, posted by fans of Ron Paul. The portion under scrutiny begins at the 7:40 mark.
(H/T: Simon Conway of WHO)