GunnyL said:
I defend this President's policies because he is DOING something, unlike his predecessor. Clinton tried to pretend Islamic fanatics didn't exist and the culmination of his inattentiveness was 9/11.
If all Bush does is keeps them off balance and unable to plan 9/11-type attacks, then he has done more than Clinton who was too busy chasing skirts to be bothered with it.
Sometimes (well okay, almost every time), the best thing for the government to do is...nothing. The government "did something" about poverty in the 60's--and it got much worse. The feds keep on "doing something" about schools in our country, and yet they get worse. It's the same story for affordable medicine, banking, transportation, jobs--the list goes on and on. And now, we've installed an Iraqi government that is quite cozy with Iran. It's like the feds have a reverse Midas touch--everything they touch turns to shit instead of gold.
And I wouldn't say that President Slick did nothing; during his presidency our government attacked countries that hadn't attacked us, and blockaded Iraq. He bombed that aspirin factory to distract from Monicagate (which itself was a well-timed distraction from the transfer of missle tech to China for campaign funds, IMO). And we continued giving money to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other scumbag regimes.
And about the constitution, there is nothing that says we cannot interfere with other nations. However, it does say that there must be a congressional declaration of war before that can happen. Furthermore, the founding fathers were just about unanimously opposed to foreign wars, standing armies, "entangling alliances", and "searching abroad for monsters to destroy".
