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.
The law may not have changed, but the world has, and drastically so. I appreciate your efforts to pretend that we are back in the days when strict constructionism was a practicable viewpoint in the arena of foreign policy, but it will take a lot more than Mr. Paul's historical revisionism to prove that.
And, since he brought it up, Vietnam was not only a "good" war but a plainly winnable one, well up until 1975. That it was poorly run from the strategic standpoint is indisputable; but I can guarantee you the same silence that surrounds the Korean War from the usually chattery peaceniks and socialists would exist had we won or achieved a stalemate. It's a whipping boy oft brought out just like McCarthyism; in the same spirit, its blanket condemnation reflects an ignorance of history that would be appalling if it were not so common.