The problem with (b) is that it's unconstitutional.
In 1945 I would agree with you in as much as I would pitch the whole Constitutional argument.
However (b) now goes a long way to insure something even more basic that what is contained in the Constitution, something that was the basis for every thing the founding fathers worked for including said documents.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These bastards want us dead and are seeking ways to do it more effectively everyday. As cute as it is to say we are at war with an ideology, the plain fact is there are nut cases with desires and intent that are real living breathing people, with the arms and legs, feet and hands to take action on their threats. They have done so.
Missiles and madmen have much less respect for sovereignty than we do. To be proactive or reactive, that is our choice. I fear limiting it to reactive will result in a radioactive situation one day. I choose life...
So your choice is to allow our government to exercise an unauthorized power across the globe because you're scared???
Sorry bud, but that's just no rational argument.
The rational argument would be keeping them out of here....FIRST!
It's something we have every right to do, self defense is a natural right. Yet it is not being done. Instead billions of dollars and thousands of lives are going overseas...for what?
So we can impose our own brand of (gulp) democracy.
----
I respect the right of my fellow Americans to make their own personal choices, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.