This is conflating two separate things. One can be against various types of over-reaching of the federal government in the US and still in favor of an aggressive policy against the enemy in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact, I submit that failure to deal with the terrorism problem in the Middle East inevitably leads to more restrictions on freedom at home. If we get out of Iraq in disgrace and encourage the fanatics, who are in poor shape right now if Osama's video is any sign, then the result is virtually certain to be more attacks here. That leads to more clampdowns, more demands by the feds to have the right to violate our freedom.
I'm sympathetic to many of Ron Paul's positions. I want a minimalist federal government too. But giving up on the one function of the federal government that I support whole-heartedly, namely national defense, is not part of that bargain, and I think Paul is a fool to think his policies would lead to anything but a disaster for freedom.
Well said Joe.
Its a relief to find a rational viewpoint on these threads, -- one that conservative constitutionalist's of all factions can endorse.
Thanks.