War of aggression...

If I discovered that someone in my neighborhood were abusing his wife and children and I believed that he had an intent on hurting my family in the future, would I be justified according to Christian principles in taking preemptive action, including the use of deadly force, to protect my family and my community?

What if it were determined that the neighbor had neither the means nor was any tangible evidence discovered that he had an intent to harm me, would I still have been justified to use preemptive force to defend myself from a threat that didn't actually exist?

In light of recent reports regarding WMD in Iraq, I believe the aforementioned scenario is a close analogy to what George Bush, the "far right, Christian extremist" according to Air America and the NY Times, did in Iraq.

I believe that the teachings of Christ limit a man to only using force against another in actual self-defense as opposed to preemption waged to prevent a real threat from materializing in the future.

It continues to amaze me how the die-hard Republicans and the Christian right continue to believe that George Bush is a trustworthy man who executes his responsibilities well and in accordance with Christian principle.

Since when did "conservatism" include a provision about "trusting" government? What happened to the days of the anti-federalists when the general public had an inherent skepticism of all government officials, especially those in the highest positions? What happened to Ronald Reagan's doctrine of "trust but verify"?

Hopefully GOP faithful begin to wake up before the oligarchs tell us that Hillary has been elected with 45% of the vote because 20% of traditional Republican voters finally chose to hold principle over politics and vote for a 3rd party candidate who actually represents their views.