[DoughtyOne]

I believe the Flaxman has the right to propose this thought process. I have the right to be, not interested.

We were attacked. We responded with about the only response we could have, short of dredging up Jimmy Cater's fireside sweaterfest.

Unlike those who attacked us, we do bit attack innocents around the world, for no other benefit than instilling terror.

We have tried to weed out terrorist, and those who pronounced publicly that they would support them. We have taken action in Iraq that the United Nations was unwilling to sign onto for over a decade. Despite millions of deaths at the hand of Saddam Hussein, and the continued butchering of his own people, we were the only ones who would stand up for the right.

If one wanted to get picky, President Washington would have viewed France's involvement in our own revolution, unfavorably. Not many rules are universal. Admonitions are fine, but there are times when circumstances make adhering to them to be suicidal.

[Ohioan]

If one wanted to get picky, President Washington would have viewed France's involvement in our own revolution, unfavorably. Not many rules are universal. Admonitions are fine, but there are times when circumstances make adhering to them to be suicidal.

Both in the published debate, and in his writings that were to the same effect, Washington never once suggested that we should not form alliances. He did not oppose the idea of common interests, whatsoever; nor joint action. That is wholly beside the point. The point is made very clearly in the portion of Washington's words, included in the debate. It goes to avoiding permanent involvements, commitments that limit our freedom to pursue our own legitimate interests and those of our people.

No one is criticizing the present President for forming alliances to go after the Terrorists who attacked us and may be planning additional attacks. Certainly not I. See War 2001!--The Surest Path To Victory.

William Flax