[SJackson]

No, he does not limit the president's authority and duty to protect us unilaterally and without consulting Congress. The Constitution is quite clear on this point. RP stated the other day that his standard was a credible and imminent threat....He knows his history, especially the Cold War era which he lived through....Like any proper textualist, he is faithful to the Constitution but knows it is no suicide pact.

On the question of preemption, that's what you're addressing I believe, in his QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ he states

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

and

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

I include 30 and 31 to demonstrate the moonbattiness.

Ron Paul, the only public official to understand and follow the Constitution, contends that the Constitution limits war to self defence, and that we're bound by the "sentiments" of the "Treaty of Westphalia".

Which would be fine had we ratified it, but we haven't.

Clearly Ron Paul supports the Supreme Court looking to Europe for guidance when they can't find the correct answers here in America.

For simplicity, the Questions are all here to be addressed.

[George W. Bush]

On the question of preemption, that's what you're addressing I believe...

I was. Specifically, preemptive attack against any regime posing a credible and imminent threat of attack.

The purpose of that list of questions was to raise questions about invading Iraq. And Iraq did not pose a credible threat of attack, certainly not an imminent one.

I think the distinction is clear. Ron Paul voted against the invasion and regime change in Iraq because it did not pose such a threat. Subsequently, he was proven correct about the absence of al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion or Iraq's possession of WMD stockpiles and weapons to deliver them anywhere in the region.

[rmlew]

I diagree with Paul in so far as Iraq did attack us. Obviously he does not understand or refuses to understand the concept of state-sponsored terrorism.
However points 30 and 31 should be discussed.
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
The Constiuttion does not indicate the reason for declaring war or even the proper language of a declaration of war. PAul; is simply Constitutionally illiterate.

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
While I support the ideal of a nation-state allowed by the Treat of Westphalia, the simple fact is that we have overthrown hostile regimes and should when they pose a threat.
We are not talking about Protestant - Catholic wars in Germany anymore but global Jihad.