Hey, give us a break on the political diatribes. Everyone who knows the US constitution and politics ought to also know that presidents have defense responsibilities and that they must often compromise in order to get the funds they believe are necessary to meet their responsibilities. If Obama is elected and if a 9-11-type incident occurs, he is just as likely to cause a spike in defense spending and to support legislation that is against his principles as Bush was. If not, he will either be shirking his responsibilities or he is not a politician.

Regarding Reagan and Thatcher, the same idea applies. The difference is that they did not respond to an attack. They used what was for the most part a passive means of bringing the Soviets to their knees. If you do not believe that the people of the world are better off for it, visit East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and numerous other former Soviet-bloc countries.

Doug, next time you read Mises, let me suggest that you look carefully at Chapter 36: The Economics of War. A US president who does not battle the "spirit of conquest" risks failing in his duty to maintain the capitalist system and the enduring democracy it makes possible. 

Pat Gunning