I understand a debate framework and it's mission. You've seen little of it on this thread I know.
However the gist seems to be going in the direction of Bush is wrong present-day and he has not adequately defined Freedom six whole times.
Now that the "debate" has abated what would you do differently than GWB? What would G.Washington do today?(remember, there are wrong answers)
Thanks for the responses.
You ask what I would do differently? That involves several different areas of concern. My way of dealing with the Terrorist threat would have been to isolate it--and systematically eliminate the actual participants. (See
War 2001!.) Beyond that, I would be returning to the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, and making a clear point that I was doing so--to reassure the leaders of every land that they had nothing to fear from the United States--so long as they did not threaten us. If they chose to insult us--that is try to injure us, we would go back to the policy recommended by Jefferson, "to punish the first insult."
President Washington's words quoted in the debate, in my opinion, outline a foreign policy guideline that still works. Frankly, had we had George Washington's approach to the world in effect from 1992 on, I doubt if bin Laden could have recruited anyone to attack us. The rationalization would not have been possible. But, I will admit that that is pure speculation. But Clinton had the same Democracy mantra as Bush, for eight years.
William Flax