Paul: Killing bin Laden 'absolutely was not necessary.'

The Iowa Republican carries a transcript this morning from an intriguing WHO radio interview with likely GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The U.S. Rep. from Texas told host Simon Conway that, if he were president, he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Conway: If we take all you said, then are you asking us to believe that a President Ron Paul could have ordered the kill of Bin Laden by entering another sovereign nation?Paul: No, I think things could have been done somewhat differently. I would suggest that the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed, who was the real ringleader … of 9-11, and we went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. In matter of fact, the same thing happened on the release of the people who had to do with the bombing in 1993, I believe, when they first attempt …. They were all captured, brought, and tried in a civilian court and have all been punished, so no, what's wrong with that? Why can't we work with the government?Conway: I just want to be clear: a President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of Bin Laden, which only could have taken place by entering a another sovereign nation?Paul: I don't think it was necessary. No. It absolutely was not necessary, and I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he had been in a hotel in London? I mean, should, you know, we wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out? No. You don't want to do that.Conway: I think you have been very clear, sir. You have been very clear. I definitely don't want to put words in your mouth. Though you are telling me that a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the Bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan?Paul: Not the way it took place, no. I mean, he was unarmed and all these other arguments.

Paul: No, I think things could have been done somewhat differently. I would suggest that the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed, who was the real ringleader … of 9-11, and we went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. In matter of fact, the same thing happened on the release of the people who had to do with the bombing in 1993, I believe, when they first attempt …. They were all captured, brought, and tried in a civilian court and have all been punished, so no, what's wrong with that? Why can't we work with the government?

Conway: I just want to be clear: a President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of Bin Laden, which only could have taken place by entering a another sovereign nation?

Paul: I don't think it was necessary. No. It absolutely was not necessary, and I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he had been in a hotel in London? I mean, should, you know, we wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out? No. You don't want to do that.

Conway: I think you have been very clear, sir. You have been very clear. I definitely don't want to put words in your mouth. Though you are telling me that a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the Bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan?

Paul: Not the way it took place, no. I mean, he was unarmed and all these other arguments.

OK, well...I suppose you can give him credit for being true to his his libertarian views on foreign policy.

You can also think he's flat wrong, as I do.  Unarmed. Give me a break. And as cooperative allies go, the Brits and Pakistan are not exactly similar.

But this is the flip-side of Paul's approach to governing. Lots of folks love the idea of slashing government down to tiny bite-size if it means low taxes, less intervention in our personal bidness etc.. But then there would be those moments when we'd wish our government wasn't so small, limited and weak. We'd want it to be muscular and capable and interventionist like the cavalry.

Can we have a government that can both, say, legalize pot and drop from the night sky in stealth helicopters to put a cap in fanatic mass murderers? I'd like to think so.

What do you think?