14. If our leader meets with our enemies, it makes us appear weak.
15. We must use our military from time to time to protect our supply of oil, to avoid a national crisis.
30. It does not make sense to understand the motivations of terrorists because they are self-evidently evil.
33. It is wrong to question a leader in wartime.
36. Toppling enemy regimes to spread democracy will make the world a safer place.
44. It is not our place to condemn other cultures as backwards or barbaric.
45. When one group is slaughtering another group somewhere in the world, we have a responsibility to intervene.
Some of these are so laughably vague as to be almost impossible to answer. For example, private citizens should question their leaders all the times. However, the Speaker of the House shouldn't go to a country that sponsors terrorism and bash the President's foreign policy (Nancy in Syria).
The worst part is most of these questions appear to address specific news items with specific players involved. Even if not consciously, the reader will identify these questions with those events and shape their answers at along the circumstances or their loyalty or hatred for the people involved.
10, 15, 33 and 36 are obviously about Bush and Iraq. Now that Obama is prez, many libs would likely say “yes” for 33 (wrong to question a leader in wartime), where they would have voted “no” under Bush. There’s also the issue of questioning your leaders (IHMO a responsibility of every citizen) and trying to sabotage the war. I questioned Bush over Iraq and Afghanistan, but I did it in a rational, constructive manner.
14 is about Obama talking about meeting Ahmanutjob. Libs would say it wouldn’t make us look weak because they love Obama. But I think it would make us look weak since he’d probably bow submissively (there’s a lot of precedent for that). But Bush would go as a superior, so I would have answered “no” with him in office.
#14 is dumb. For example meeting with powerful adversaries, on our own terms does not make us look weak. Meeting with 3rd rate dictators, who spew anti-Americanism, and all other types of lunacy, without conditions makes us look pathetically weak, and elevates the status of the dictators.
#30 depends on the terrorists. If it is a group that has a specific, possibly attainable, and perhaps reasonable goal, it might be helpful to know. If their only goal is to conquer the world in the name of allah and kill all the infidels who resist, (like Al Quaeda an the "Palestinians") it is useless.
#36 depends upon the regime and what will replace it. Sadly, some tyrannical regimes provide more international stability than what would replace them.
#45 depends upon many practical factors. Will our intervention stop the slaughter? How many American lives will it cost? Are the “slaughtered” simply the losers who would have slaughtered the other guys if they had won?