Goodness. Read the comments over there. Seems like any time Paul's name is mentioned, there are a company of his supporters deployed to spin his actual comments back to the offical narrative of "truth" that no one else quite understands.

“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours..."

He's right, except of course we won't do that.

Isolationism is a perfectly reasonable foreign policy position to take as long as you are willing to obliterate attackers. That is, a small shadowy group, based in Afghanistan, attacks us? Nuke Afghanistan. Glass the place. Doesn't matter than most of the dead aren't part of that group, don't support the group, maybe have never even heard of the group. Is it funded from Saudi Arabia? Riyadh gets one too. Tehran for good measure. Will the French bitch about it? Hey, we've got more bombs... (Actually I think the French would be uncharacteristically quiet in this event.)

However nobody, but nobody, is willing to do this, which is why we fight small bloody wars, getting lots of our people -- and some civilians too -- killed, rather than engaging in the wholesale slaughter which would be necessary to defend ourselves in Ron Paul's fantasy kingdom.

Now, whether Paul would be willing to do this, or whether he just thinks it wouldn't be necessary because no one would ever attack us (!!), I don't know. But I have seen no signs that the libertarians and paleocons that support an isolationist policy have been able to grasp this simple fact.

Also, you got to get this bugfixed becuase its a painnnto have to open a new widnow after every preveiw. The alnertative is to post without preveiwing.

(Deliberate mis-spellings are hard!)