His foreign policy viza viz the Mid-East in particular (but also elsewhere) is dangerously short-sighted. The fact is, fundamental Islam has been at war with us for many, many years. They have attacked and killed our citizens and soldiers...long before 911. They did so in a spectacular fashion on 911 and we had a President in office who responded appropriately...getting authorization and approval from Congress (which IMHO passes constitutional muster) and took the fight to them.
Bush did it in a brilliant manner, taking on two enemies directly while completely isolating the third, larger enemy in Iran, having surrounded them on three sides (Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Arabian Sea). If Bush he had stayed in power...which he couldn't...or if we had elected someone with the same vision, then when the liberty bug and massive demonstrations occurred in Iran last year, he would have taken advantage of it and Iran would have fallen...with our help.
We should in fact avoid foreign entanglements as Paul states. but I define entannglements as things such as the UN and other involvements that are clouded and not in our best interest. OTOH, we should embrace treaties and economic agreements with friends and allies that enhance our interests.
If we were true to that, and to the true Free Market...and the principles that undergird it (like the same principles that undergird our constitution), we would be fine.
Anyhow, Paul adopting this posture that we are to blame for the Islamic attacks (we aren't) and that if we treat them better and allow them to have nukes they will then make nice with us...is, as I say, dangeroulsy misguided, even if his monetary and budgetary leanings are spot on.
Finally, I am not satisfied with how he answered the question about his newsletters. They went out under his name. By extension they are his views. He either knew what was going in there and tacitly approved of it...or he was complacant to the point of being foolish as others used his newsletter as a platform to make those very wong-headed remarks. He cannot have it both ways.
He should disavow them...but he should also admit that he was negligent in his oversite of the newsletter. Without that, we are really left to wonder whether he really did mostly go along with them, or question his ability to manage what his own news-releases and press might say.
The guy is a complete nut case. All the preceding lists of compliments on Earth won't reverse the fact that he is dangerous to our National Security.