[Lizard_King]

1. The fundamentally simplistic analyses Paul offers of the Korean and Vietnamese wars do nothing to support his case.

2. There is a big difference between having UN resolutions as a reason for American policy, and having them as a pretext to achieve our own policy goals, consistent with the long-term security and economic interests of the United States. I have seen nothing to convince me that President Bush is not engaged in the latter course.

3. A hands off approach to foreign policy would have been wonderful...in 1916. The damage is done. We either accept the responsabilities we have since incurred, or reap far greater costs than 9/11 in the future.

Ron Paul ought to have been Woodrow Wilson's gadfly, not George Bush's.

[exodus]

A hands off approach to foreign policy would have been wonderful...in 1916. The damage is done. We either accept the responsabilities we have since incurred, or reap far greater costs than 9/11 in the future.

Ron Paul ought to have been Woodrow Wilson's gadfly, not George Bush's.

**********************

There hasn't been a revision of our law between Wilson's time and our own.

President Bush is still sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Pointing out that Bush isn't the first to violate our law doesn't excuse the violation.