The only thing in this article I agree with.
I don’t think the article properly characterized Paul’s comments, at least with the quoted language.
Seems to me (again, looking at just the quoted language) that Paul was offering an explanation as to why we were attacked as opposed to, say, Canada, which is basically like the United States except not globe-trotting and playing world police.
If Paul ever said that we shouldn’t go after Al-Qaeda, I think he’s wrong; but on the other hand, if he’s saying we need to seriously reevaluate our foreign policy and take less of an active role in world affairs, I think he’s right.