Much worse? I'll agree with every point you said if you can find me one instance in the Constitution that states we should be defending the whole world. Don't give me Frumisms of what's happened over the past 50 years. From the document that established this nation, point to an instance or example that 10% of what the government in the past 140 years has done even leans toward being Constitutional. So Constitutional in fact that in order to add a new power for war making Presidents had to start adding them.
All of the pieces I've read by his writers so far (even the type on a long leash from overseas, frayed from this end) were written to help the enemy
Written to help the enemy? What? Diagrams of secret military equipment? Clues on how to defend against a cruise missile? How is questioning foreign policy helping the enemy. The Cold War's over. Come in out of the cold and quit seeing half the d#mn world as some sort of playground where we have some inalienable right no one's ever heard of to topple governments and spread 'democracy'
They will eventually, even the exceptionally indirect pieces that only bash the USA and our President, get some of our kids killed overseas or encourage the enemy to kill people in the USA.
Again, I ask, how is expressing one's point of view on the war going 'to get some of our kids killed overseas'? How is that? Will the Iraqis stand up, read letters from patriots, and all of the sudden the brave men and women of the Armed Forces of these United States suddenly fall down? You better not let the Iraqis see Washington's Farewell Address. Foreign entanglements and all that. You know, over dramatization does not become you.
So enjoy your French wine while you can, writers for Rockwell (ref. to another column there). It is the blood of our sons and daughters.
Metaphors, how quaint. You know the Russians sold them weapons too, as well as wait a minute, the government of these United States. You think perhaps there may be a reason our government knows so much about what the Iraqis do and don't have?!? FWIW, I don't like wine, and the cheese you neocons are coming up with is getting quite stale.
I have said while the troops of this nation's army are over there, may God guide them, protect them, and give them a quick and sound victory. Hussein needs to be gotten rid of. But don't come crying 30 years from now when another puppet this nation's government puts into place bites the hand that fed it for so long. It's called historical fact, it's happened time and time again. You might want to check into it
The United States Constitution does not need to state "we should be defending the whole world." Our President waged war. But here's the answer to what you're alluding to.
Public Law 107-40 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
Excerpted Quote:
"...all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Public Law 107-243 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
Excerpt:
"Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
And here are the laws your president should have acted on.
Public Law 105-238 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:
Excerpt:
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
Excerpt:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
And many of us have watched as the Iraqi Information Minister rallied his [previously demoralized] troops against our kids with his news about our anti-American traitors, Canadian and other instigators saying that our country and its allies are wrong to attack them, that they are victims, etc. Anyone with a few brain cells knows by now that the public relations part of the effort is the most important part. We must be as united as possible or loudly denounce all traitors. ...and foreign instigators of hatred against the USA and the Jews.
About 80% of the USA public favors the defeat of those who show hatred for us and try to build weapons capable of destroying us. I don't think a few strange groups of clandestine propagandists (Nazis, radical Islamists, Communists and all of the same ilk who call themselves by other names to the dark side of the press) will make any effective difference in our choice to defend the USA and Israel or any other true ally.
But what interests me now is lewrockwell.com essentially calling on Catholics to resist our defense efforts by complaining about the efforts, and some Catholics actually engaging in such activity as an identity effort. That's pretty sick.
And by the way, it appears that liberaltarians resort to using "four letter words," too.
IMO, we should stop exporting cheese to the surrender monkey cousins of the north, too. To much of it or "Kraft Dinner" might just be toxic to their thought processes. And we should have them purge some of it from their systems before allowing them to cross the border.
;-)