I would absolutely. As a matter of national honor and responsibility, whether or not he agreed with the original premise, or regardless of whether or not he started it himself.
Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the original premise, nor is it a misquote. Washington was not an isolationist. He felt we shouldn’t be involved in foreign wars unless it directly impacted our security or we were brought in by direct provocation.
Iraq is debateable on those premises. It becomes less debateable depending on the degree to which you believe in the WMD issue....which I do believe Saddam was a viable threat. But those WMD are now likely buried in the Syrian desert somewhere, with or without the Syrian’s knowledge (most likely with).
And I’m not about to start screaming for us to invade another sovereign nation without extreme provocation or direct attack by them upon our soil or our interests.
I also think that we should maintain some sort of presence in the region, but not to the degree that some of you think we should.
...or, if you want to be technical about the Constitutionality of it, it could also be something that Congress has defined as an 'offense against the laws of nations' that is in our interest to punish (Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10)
See post 59, it is not only a widely used misquote, it's impossible for me to believe it's an accidental misquote.