John Bernard on Ron Paul's apologia for terrorists and traitors

John Bernard has written on Big Peace about the horrific Ron Paul's criticizing the Obama administration for the wrong reasons in the mission to wipe out the terrorist barbarian al-Awlaki. Bernard says:

Ron Paul saw fit to condemn the killing as “denying” an “American” his constitutional rights. Of course, once again, a dissenter is doing so from a comfortable environment while wearing the costume of a businessman rather than the uniform of a combatant who is sworn to the defense of that Constitution. Mr. Paul might want to consider the fact that the former reprobate known as Al Awlaki was calling for the killing of American citizens and was, at least by proxy, responsible for the killing of Americans – from foreign soil, thereby effectively denying them their Constitutional rights.

He might also want to consider using his rhetorical skills to speak for those who have willingly suspended their rights so he can exercise his to defend the indefensible. For all of his supposed libertarian posturing, I have yet to hear much from the good Congressman about the plight of American Warriors unduly exposed by the insanity of COIN in an environment as naturally hostile to Americans as the Serengeti to a rabbit. While he may find these wars – or all wars personally offensive, he should never-the-less be showing at least a little more concern for the American Serviceman already in harm’s way than he does humanity in general and this because he dares suggest to be the right man for the Office of President of the United States.

He can argue for the Constitutional rights of the indefensible, the right to life for the ideological murderers of the world and the legality of wars big and small from now until the Second Coming, BUT; his first loyalty in this narrow discussion should be to the American Serviceman in harm’s way. Instead, he speaks to NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, various domestic and foreign news agencies and anyone else who will listen as he castigates the decision makers involved in the killing of a man who intentionally separated himself from American society and then planned, plotted and carried out the killing of American citizens through his ideological laity!

Of course, he's speaking to those phonies in the MSM because if he told this to the US military, he'd be booed off the stage, with good reason. Never mind that Paul's alleged understanding of economy is questionable at best, even if he did, his standing on other serious issues like the war on terror alone are reason enough to avoid associating with him. Some of his supporters/apologists who turn up commenting on sites like Breitbart and such sound so full of contempt of the rest of the conservative movement, one would have to conclude that if they maintain any membership in the GOP, it's only to vote for him and nothing else.

If Al-Awlaki maintained any American citizenship, he completely disqualified himself by joining jihadist movements abroad, which counts as an act of treason. Therefore, he was deserving of whatever he got, and that Paul would defend such a monster is shocking and contemptuous of the many Americans whom al-Awlaki targeted over the years.

Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Rand Paul about his father's foreign policy standings, and it turns out the son may have more in common with the father than previously thought. In that case, I hope that when the next election comes around for Congress, the electorate will show Rand Paul the door too.