I have this somewhere at home...it was written well before 9/11, so perhaps a revision is in order, unless there is a revised version out there I don't know about.
I believe we shouldn't participate in conflicts in all these pissant countries, but yes, it is necessary for our safety and security to protect the U.S. by thrashing the terrorists as much as possible.
And maybe include something about protecting our borders too?
All in all, though, the Bill of No Rights is still a good piece of work.
I have saved this and emailed to a couple of people.
It is a conflict. Do we wait for those who hate us to come here and kill our women, children and the innocent in our streets, or do we take the appropriate violence to our enemies home? If it's for political reasons, as in LBJ and Vietnam, no. If it's for strategic reasons, as in GWB and Af/Raq, yes.
A further test. The reason that Clinton did not react properly to Al Qeada was a political decision, not strategic. The reason Reagan got up from the negotiation table with Gorbachov was strategic. Democrats can pronounce strategic, but they don't know what it is. Strategy is beyond their ken, cheating is not.
Bush can't say strategic but he and/or those around him, really know what it means.