But like any other so-called "principle" both can be carried to ridiculous extremes.

The Elder Bush was perfectly justified in invading Iraq in the 1990s. Saddam Hussein had annexed a helpless ally, and he was threatening not only his neighbors, but the entire global economy by gaining control of the Straits of Hormuz. The man had to be stopped. GHWB not only succeeded in doing that, but he got the whole world to sign on (even Syria!) on a limited mission to do that. It was a magnificent piece of military and diplomatic brilliance that Bush, in my opinion, was never given the credit he deserved for it. Especially not by his own party.

On the other hand, the Bush Baby's attack on the same country a decade later was pure naked agression on our part, carried out for no other reasons than Psychological (to make us feel better after the humiliation of 9/11), geopolitical (to establish a US puppet state in the region to intimidate the Muslim world) and economic imperialism (a source of cheap oil to make us independent of instability in the region). He got little support, and only managed to get Americans to back him up with what we now know was a series of deliberate and cynical fabrications about non-existent WMDs. Most of the rest of the world saw right through it, and the mission failed on all counts. To make things worse, we actually managed to emasculate the only viable alternative and challenge to Iranian power in the region, an easily foreseen consequence that is now coming home to roost big time. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neocons have a lot to answer for. They should have gotten prison time for it

It was the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history, and one which will no doubt be remembered by posterity as the single incident which intiated America's decline as a world power, almost immediately after its greatest victory, the Cold War.

A great power must be ready to defend its legitimate interests, and it is morally justified in doing so. Otherwise, its enemies will seek to feed on its riches, harass and intimidate it. But at the same time, when a nation of the strength, wealth, and strategic invulnerability of the US finds itself almost continuously at war somewhere in the world since its founding, it is certain to raise eyebrows. How many times can we play the victim?

For a half-century, the threat of the Communist bloc and Soviet and Chinese expansionism could be used to justify the almost-continuous low intensity conflict and proxy wars since WWII. But now that the Cold War is over, we are still in an almost continuous war footing and engaged in endless conflicts throughout the world.

Although I don't agree with Bowser that this is obvious evidence of American imperialism, neither am I ready to accept that we are just defending ourselves from a endless line of bullies. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.