Neocons. What's your take on this?

Question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

...

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

...

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

So basically, Bush didn't go to war because of WMD's.

What excuse do you think he would've used if Saddam had forked over all his WMD's (assuming he had any)

So why are we in iraq?

It's the WMD's!
Removing Saddam!
Turrrrrrrrrrrrists!
Establish Democracy!
What is it? All you did was list off more excuses.

BTW if they lifted the rules of engagement, I would cheer. It's the other way to end the war.

And I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative. A real one.

Answer 1

Well I say, Right on Mr. Bush, and Mr. Blair. Y'all got rid of an evil murdering tyrant, and saved the innocent people of Iraq! Iraq has a free democracy in the making, now. The women there have rights they never hoped to gain. All of their children, not just the males can go to school, and learn. They can be a great asset to world society, and they're happy that they can. Again, yes! Freedom is still alive and growing!

Answer 2

Read the facts, and don't listen to Dem hypists and the drive-by media.

Intelligence collected during Clinton's watch showed WMD's. Clinton said so, as did most of the Dems. But Clinton did nothing. He was too busy with Monica (who admitted she was there to seduce Clinton). So, we were attacked at the WTC, not by al-Queda, but by Arab terrorists.

We are mutually hated by ALL Arabs, because we side with Israel, and we are rich. A poor American is richer than most Arabs, and they hate us for it.

Bush gave a list of agressions, but the Dems and media focused on WMD's because the other reasons proved true. The WMD's were taken out to Saudi and Iran during the years the UN dragged their feet. That is how Iran got much of the nuclear material they used to build nukes, but the media isn't addressing that because they are busy bashing Bush.

Forget Bush. In a little over a year he will be gone. It's the law. The Dems will not be running against Bush- HE IS HISTORY.

Answer 3

Most of the foreign policy staff are Neo-cons.

They believe we should go to war with the Middle East, reshape the Middle East and turn it into a democratized grab bag for corporate America. Their policy is also more interested in a certain other country's well-being than that of America.

Bush is beholden to these Neo-cons.

At first, I was for the War, I actually was hoping we'd invade other Middle Eastern countries. Except for Afghanistan, this has been an awful ideal. You have American troops babysitting a civil war and getting killed in the process.

America needs to leave other countries alone. We need to cut off all immigration period. Especially from the Middle East. (By the way, tens of thousands of Muslims are attaining citizenship into the US right now! Does that make sense?)

We probably should prosecute some of these neo-cons as they have killed many good sons and daughters of good American families.

Answer 4

I'm glad you distinguish between true conservatives and neocons. I get a chuckle when a state decides to permit gay marriage, and the neocon view suddenly shifts from states rights to homophobia, or when tax cuts take priority over sound economic principle.

One thing is for certain. A true conservative would never risk the life of one member of the armed services without truthfully explaining why it was necessary for the good of the nation.

Answer 5

My take? The Washington Post has a major contributor from Saudi Arabia and they have been known to print propaganda from the Arabs. I wouldn't believe much at all from them. They are a liberal media which is another strike against them.

Answer 6

Neolibs,
How about the fact sadumb was paying money to the families of suicide bombers. how about the fact he was blatantly ignoring any and all of the UN sanctions.
Neolibs want everyone to believe that in no way did sadumb have ANY thing to do with terrorist activities, yet as soon as we take action against him every frickin terrorist for a thousand miles is over their " insurging"
your arguments a just more of the lie and spin campaign.
and furthermore it is about time we showed the bearded wonders that when you F with us you will get your towels removed ..
so lift the rules of engagment and kick them to the curb, but then you woud cry about that too,.

Answer 7

We wouldn't have gone in if Saddam had played nicely with the inspectors, didn't break every single UN resolution, or shoot at planes in the no fly zone. But that is not what he did, so we went in. Don't forget Clinton wanted to go in too, but with his numerous scandals and the new movie "way the dog" he knew he couldn't get the support he needed. His words...not mine.

Answer 8

On September 12th, the Bush Cabinet met, and several of them said, "We've got to hit Iraq." Had they attacked us? Clearly, there was a desire to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Answer 9

I think he and Cheney have the blood of 3,100+ soldiers on their hands.

Answer 10

NEOKKKONS R BAD MENS! SPEEK TROOTH 2 POWER!