“The rumor of Sadaam with any type of weapon’s was too great to overlook. “
The ‘rumor’? It was well documented that Saddam did, indeed have weapons. What were those Russian trucks doing crossing the border into Syria just before we attacked?
What was the purpose of all those U.N. resolutions if Saddam’s weapons were only a ‘rumor’?
Why were the weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq in 1998?
And the U.N.’s buddy ‘Hans’ as an inspector was a joke.
“My question is and remains: do we need “conservatives” looking out for our best interests (security), or “liberals” looking out for our best interests (civil rights)?”
Why do you separate ‘security’ from ‘civil’ when it comes to conservatives?
It’s not an ‘either’,’or’ situtation. It’s both, including ‘fiscal’. You cannot say that true ‘conservatism’ is one or the other.
It’s ‘all of the above’.
I think my tag line says it all about people who want to believe the ‘rumor mills’ instead of using intelligence,research and common sense.
Respecting to your first comments: at worst Sadaam was "rumored" to have WMD's. Given what was known by almost every intelligence agency in the world, failing to act in an overt military sense was a non-issue.
Don't accuse me of separating anthing between anything. I'm stating a blatent fact about what is.
You said:
It’s not an ‘either’,’or’ situtation. It’s both, including ‘fiscal’. You cannot say that true ‘conservatism’ is one or the other.I understand the difference between practical and pragmatic.
Don't pigeon-hole me as being an advocate for any sort of ideology. Regardless of whatever political rhetoric is being spewed, I believe that there is a subliminal and tacit approval by Congress and the Senate concerning Executive policy.
There is at least an implicit consent respecting the operations in Iraq pertaining to WOT. We'll soon find out just how explicite the consent is concerning all that based on the fact that the military will need money real soon.
The last bill had two major aspects to it: lots and lots of pork, and a artificial deadline. Bush said that he'd reject any sort of deadline, does that mean he'd accept any number with respect to pork? Would it be acceptable to double the cost of the war if 1/2 of the cost was pork for those Democrat/Republican legislators that wouldn't vote otherwise $'s came into their district?
Frankly, I believe that all the nonsense about the pork will come down to whether or not any of it can be paid for on the U.S.A. credit card.