Pre-emptive or Reactionary? What should our Foreign Policy be

In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, before they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. Mitt Romney is exceedingly strong on each of these principles; while his opponent, John McCain, ( who conducted himself like a petulant child in the recent Republican debate ) has proven that illegal immigration is an issue on which he can NOT be trusted. Don't be misled by McCain's "Clintonian-Lies" concerning Romney's record.

Posted by Greg Neubeck at http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0628190220080206?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true