[Cacophonous]

The answer to this dilemma is to accept that whatever we do, we shall be blamed for either too little or too much attention. Such are the inevitable wages of envy and resentment that the successful always earn from the weak and failed. That being said, there are also a number of other reasons why at the present juncture we must press ahead, contain our anger, and try to finish the nearly impossible — and absolutely thankless — task of defeating terrorists, and in Afghanistan and Iraq restoring humane government to tyrannized people.

Of course, a more obvious answer - and one more in keeping with the principles and Constitution of the US - is keep out of places we have no business being.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Clinton ignored the threat from really bad guys intent on destroying our nation and/or our allies. So did Neville Chamberlain. They chose unwisely.

[ModelBreaker]

Of course, a more obvious answer - and one more in keeping with the principles and Constitution of the US - is keep out of places we have no business being.

I don't remember the "don't go to war with Iraq" clause of the constitution. Is that in Article II or II?

I have no trouble having a serious discussion with you about whether the Iraq war was reasonably necessary for the self-defense of the US. I believe it was. You believe (I suspect) it was not.

The standard Buchananite argument here is that everyone would leave us alone if we just left them alone. So the best self-defense, they argue, is to bring all our troops home. That is a serious public policy argument--I think it is wrong but not silly. But it is a public policy argument about how best to defend our country. It is NOT a constitutional argument.

To argue that the constitution forbids our congress and president and the vast bulk of the american people from acting in what they believe is self-defense is just silly.