Where do you draw the line and when? And who can make exceptions? There seems to be a definite disconnect between all of these factors.
We don't want to be "international law breakers", because that implies moral authority for any other country (or entity) to act accordingly, right?
I can't imagine Clinton as a cowboy, no matter how hard I try. (He keeps riding away in a limosine...) George W. Bush must be both to stop the madness.
The only thing that keeps sovereign nations from acting in ways contrary to our interests is the threat that we will use our immense power to punish them.
It is not imaginary "international law" that keeps our enemies in check, but raw, naked power. When we allow ourselves to be restricted from using that power by foreign internationalists bent precisely on weakening our level of influence in the world, we are not ensuring that there will be international order, but rather we ensure that other nations will defy and challenge us.