Ron Paul got it wrong on this one

Despite what some of my friends think, it's been a very long time since I've been a liberal Democrat. In recent years, I've been much more of a centrist.

I've always liked Ron Paul. And I find myself agreeing with many of his libertarian points of view. Often times, especially with the debates he's been involved in, he's the only one making any sense (although it's not hard to look that way standing next to Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann).

Every time I've ever listened to Ron Paul, whether it's been in this election or the last one, he seems to come from two places other politicians fear to tread.

The truth. And common sense.

But with this week's killing of Anwar Awlaki, I'm afraid Ron Paul got it wrong. Here's what he said about it:

I can't decide whether to take his statement line by line or overall, so I'll do a bit of both.

He starts by saying he doesn't think it's a good way to deal with our problems. I agree with that. For things like urban blight, water shortages, disaster relief, unemployment, the recession, poverty and most of the other problems the country faces, a Predator missile probably isn't the go-to solution.

But the killing of Awlaki wasn't symbolic of how we handle everything. The action was only designed to handle one problem. Which it did exactly as intended.

Paul goes on to naively say Awlaki was never tried or charged, and no one knows if he killed anybody. This is disappointing because it seems so self-serving. He could've said the same about Bin Laden. The truth is there actually are people who know that Awlaki killed and orchestrated the killing of innocent Americans. And since Paul sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he knows it.

The part about how sad he thinks it is if Americans blindly and casually accept a practice of the president assassinating people he thinks are bad guys is pure manipulation. I don't think Americans blindly or casually accept the killing of anyone.

But Awlaki wasn't just anyone. He was and has been an immediate threat to the country for years. These weren't the first missiles we fired at him.

Ron Paul is a brilliant man. He knows Obama takes the fight against terrorism extremely seriously (just look at the scorecard). If by "bad guys" he means international terrorists intent and dedicated to destroying American interests and killing as many innocent Americans as possible anywhere in the world, then I have some bad news for Congressman Paul.

I have no problem accepting that. According to the polls, neither do most Americans.

There also seems to be a lot of outcry about the fact Awlaki was American-born, and we shouldn't be assassinating American citizens. Truthfully, I haven't noticed a sudden rash of American citizen assassinations being ordered by Obama. One of his good qualities is that he's pretty selective about who to pull the trigger on.

As far as I can tell, so far it's been pirates and terrorists.

But, you know, every job comes with occupational hazards no matter where you're from. When you list international terrorist at the top of your resume, the risk of Predator missiles just comes with the territory.

Especially if the territory is Yemen or Pakistan.

So, I'm glad we got Awlaki. I'm disappointed in Ron Paul, although I still believe much of what he says is dead on.

By the way, while I do think there are easier ways to get it, it's worth noting that Obama received support from both sides of the aisle on this decision.

Ron Paul is certainly entitled to his opinions. But the idea of the presidency is to represent the majority of Americans.

And on this particular action, I don't think Ron Paul does.