Replies

I do stand for something. A government as envisioned by the Framers. Too bad we haven't had one of those on this continent for 150 years.

It's May 10th, 2001. President Bush receives solid intelligence that Al-Qaeda is planning to strike American buildings with four jetliners in the near future, and that the Taliban government will support these activites for as long as they rule Afghanistan.

What do you think he should do? And if George Washington was in charge, would he do something different?

And if George Washington was in charge, would he do something different?

I seem to recall President Washington mentioning something about steering "clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world". Presumably, Washington wouldn't have our troops mucking around in the Middle East in the first place thereby removing much of the impetus for an Al-Qaeda attack.

Well first let's hope it's not the same 'solid' intelligence that told us about the plethora of invisible WMDs in Iraq. Secondly, until this nation of states is attacked, one can not undertake a pre-emptive police action to stave off possible attacks. Defensive measures should have and could have been undertaken to prevent said attacks. Four years later the government has done enough to bother little old ladies in wheelchairs, not to mention countless others who have had their privacy invaded by inept government contractors needlessly searching for plastic knives and nail clippers.

A conservative would ask if the government has wasted enough tax dollars bothering citizens of the respective states going about their business, surely they could have done it more efficiently before knowing specifically what they were looking for. Well that is unless you believe these inept government contractors sitting at the airports have actually done something to prevent another strike.

If you're asking do I believe in pre-emptive strikes, no I do not. It removes the arguments and defenses of a just war