No, their position is that the unintended consequences make foreign intervention beget foreign intervention, and do not serve the interests of the average American. For example, was it worth it to you for the U.S. to spend billions and billions of dollars and lose thousands of American lives just to put the Kuwaiti King back on his throne? Is that what the U.S. military is for? I was under the impression they existed to defend us? Not to puts kings on thrones have a world away and stir up attacks against us.
Isolationism didn't work for the last idiot that held the presidential office and it won't work in the future.
Clinton was an isolationist? He didn't send U.S. troops to invade Haiti? He didn't send U.S. troops to invade Kosovo? He didn't bomb Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan? Good grief, memories can be short.
If Saddam was allowed to annex Kuwait, he could have eventually commanded a huge portion of the world's oil reserves. That would have been very bad for everybody, including us. Containing him was worthwhile from geopolitical view. Defeating him utterly would have been better.
You must understand, some FReepers have a simplistic/dualistic worldview. If they like apples, they'll insist Clinton burned apples orchards while Bush is a friend to apple farmers worldwide. IOW, they project their hatreds onto Clinton, and their loves onto Bush, never mind the facts. The DUers are the same.
Good thing I'm a libertarian, :-)