[MikefromOhio]

George Washington is the greatest leader our country has known. However, he didn't know about international air travel and airplanes big enough to destroy entire buildings.

In his time, leaving other countries alone and not going after them was one thing. I mean, what are they going to do? Sail across the Atlantic at an enormous cost?

FLying internationally costs a bit over $1,500 these days. It's cheap and relatively easy to get to places. The moral is, we have to get the terrorists before they get us, again. President Bush has shown quite an insight (IMO) on this issue. Not only is he knocking the terrorists back a notch or seven, he has brought free (or freer at any rate) elections to two countries (Iraq and Afghan), has stirred the Lebanese people into kicking the Syrians out and now there seems to be some election reforms in Egypt for an as yet to be determined outcome to their elections.

It's going well. I think the American Republic has been served and defended faithfully by President Bush.

[Darkwolf377]

Great point. It's fun to play these little "What Washington would have done" games but that's all they are, games. Eliminate the airplane in today's world; George W. Bush's decisions about foreign policy would be RADICALLY different.

It's easy to hold a current politician to the standards of a simpler past, but it's not smart to expect a real person to live up to the expectations of daydreams.

[writer33]

Mike. I think we need to cut the moderator a little Flax here.

[Paladin2]

I believe that we did go after the "Barbary" pirates, but that was probably after Washington's Presidential Terms.

[LS]

Washington did NOT say we should NEVER get involved in other affairs. In fact, it is quite interesting that he set a 20 year limit on our "non-interference." Why? Because Wash. knew that in 1792 the U.S. lacked the economic or military resources to effect any outcomes anywhere. This, after all, was a man who paid BRIBES to terrorists to leave us alone. (And I have no problem with Wash. doing that at the time, because it was all we could do).

But he also knew that the U.S. was building a first-class Navy and that we would be able to project power in 20 years; and it was both his Sec. of State (Pres. Thomas Jefferson) and fellow VA advisor, James Madison, who pursued wars against the Barbary Pirates WITHOUT a declaration of war and specifically against ALL states who threatened us, whether they declared war against us or not (this is called "preemption") and without any European help.

Further, GW didn't CARE whether other nations were "democratized" or now---he, like Bush, looked at whether or not they were threats, and while GW would not have seen it as necessary to reduce the threat by democratizing them, GWB does. In the modern world, GWB is right.

[newsgatherer]

But, I have to wonder. What if we had stayed out of world politics and associations after our own civil war? What if the only international contact we had was through commerace? What if we hadn't started this foreign aid stuff? Would we have still been attacked?

I don't know, and we will never know, but since we have sterred a course of intervention, it would be foolhardy to suggest that President Bush back off after we were attacked.

Jake

[Ohioan]

In his time, leaving other countries alone and not going after them was one thing. I mean, what are they going to do? Sail across the Atlantic at an enormous cost?

I think that you have missed the issue of this debate. The issue was the proposal in his Inaugural address, by President Bush, that we seek to democratize the world. The point you make about air travel, etc., really does not have anything to do with the focus of the issue. Washington's policy certainly allowed for changed circumstances. Note, for example his paragraph "K" in his initial response to President Bush:

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defense posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Thus, for example, we work with Pakistan against Al Quaida. We work with China against Al Quaida and their ally North Korea. We also keep suitable military establishments, for a "respectable defense posture." There is no argument on that. The argument is over the present President's passing judgment on other nations--abandoning our neutrality towards all non-enemies--to meddle in their domestic affairs. That is getting into the emotional issues which Washington warned against.

William Flax

[Age of Reason]

However, he didn't know about international air travel and airplanes big enough to destroy entire buildings.

But Washington did know about foreign entanglements.