Here’s a long answer since you said ‘kindly’ :)
I’m not aware of the entire Bradley Manning story or what sort of information he passed to wiki leaks or what Paul said about him, a brief search yielded not much info. In general, I’m a proponent of more open government, not a fan of our state department and think US foreign policy is, in generally, a screw ball mess. Anything that exposes these dealings for what they are or embarrasses our socialist state department officials is fine by me, I think we deserve to see exposed what we know is going on.
Regarding McKinney and Nader, he did not endorse them. I don’t even think he actually ‘officially’ endorsed Bob Barr, whom I guess everyone assumed he actually supported and I voted for. People were not happy with McCain, I recall many here on FR could not hold their nose and vote for him, and for very good reason. So, in my view, not voting for or endorsing McCain sort of elevates Paul, rather than diminishes him. Paul did have kind words for McKinney and Nader’s plan to offer a balanced budget, something none of the two parties has done, pretty much ever...
I think you will find there is hardly anyone in politics or elsewhere who is ‘all bad’. Paul is someone who has not hesitated to embrace good ideas wherever they come from. The reverse is also true, I’ve seen video of him tearing Nader down over his views on taxes, the environment, and healthcare. So his sort of selective endorsements of various peoples platform, even Kucinich, he agreed with on various narrow aspects of freedom related issues, don’t really reflect negatively on Paul, IMHO.
Regarding Iran, the idea of them being some kind of a serious threat to the United States, I am in agreement with Paul on this one too. We are so much more powerful, as are the Israelis (even without our help), than Iran, that any kind’ eve war with them could only have one outcome. Obviously a nuclear Iran is not good, but what are we going to do? Invade them to stop it? Invest hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of our dead and surely at least tens of thousands of Iranians, hundreds of billions, and ‘nation build’ another third world festering pit filled with crazies?
Overall these issues you are raising are somewhat minor in the big scheme, IMHO and considering Pauls 20-30 years in Congress, these are your major objections...
The last point, regarding Paul being ‘anti-military’ or whatever, despite being a veteran and receiving more $$ from the troops than any other candidate... We would be wise to consider history: great empires and civilizations never stemmed from ‘mightily militaries’, or heavy military funding. Mighty militaries and empires always are a product of prosperous economies, never the reverse. So, if you truly desire a strong military and a strong United States leading the world, you might look more closely at Paul’s economic ideas, which you seem to admit are quite good. :)
So treason is ok as long as it serves your purpose?
And folks say you Paulitards are kooks...
I just don't see why... LOL...