Both in the published debate, and in his writings that were to the same effect, Washington never once suggested that we should not form alliances. He did not oppose the idea of common interests, whatsoever; nor joint action. That is wholly beside the point. The point is made very clearly in the portion of Washington's words, included in the debate. It goes to avoiding permanent involvements, commitments that limit our freedom to pursue our own legitimate interests and those of our people.
No one is criticizing the present President for forming alliances to go after the Terrorists who attacked us and may be planning additional attacks. Certainly not I. See War 2001!--The Surest Path To Victory.
William Flax
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the fact that Flax appears to make room for the war on terrorism. I do however come away from this exchange with the feeling that Bush would be unable to thread the needle that would garner the full support of Flax, or this thread would have been unnecessary.
For this reason the premise of an imagionary debate between Washington and Bush doesn't hold much appeal with me.
Hussein was a time-bomb waiting to tick it's last tick before exploding. As a head of state, he had evidently opted to become the silent (or not so silent in some instances) financial backer of terrorists. How then could a war on terrorism be executed, without addressing this loose cannon?
Even as a man who might limit himself to domestic violence perpetrated against his own people, I withdraw from the idea that the U.S. should not have become involved.
Take care.