[billbears]

I'm not saying Bush lied. But I am saying that some of his advisors did not have the best interests of this nation of states at the top of their lists. And I think Hussein may have had some sort of program back in 1991. But that was 12 years ago.

As for the reasons you listed as being given, one could easily argue that almost every Arabic nation there, some even considered 'allies' (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have not only been in support of terrorism in the past but are still supporting it. Are 'we' planning to go after them next? If not, why not? Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason

As many needed until we have a definitive answer. I want to know the what, when and where answered - period. If everyone was wrong for so long on this issue, I really want to know that without equivocation.

Now that's not the 'conservative' answer. How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs. On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?

[optimistically_conservative]

Now that's not the 'conservative' answer.

Not sure how to respond to that except that it's my answer. I've found that not everyone agrees with my answers, regardless of their ideological predilection.

How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs.

I think the counter-argument to calls for proof of WMD stocks and programs before the war (and before going to war) was that we weren't being allowed the access, as you point out. Other than that, I interpret your complaint as now having that access, we have not in a matter of months found all, or more, of those answers. That's a fair, if not ambitious, complaint. I think I've heard the same complaint from within the ranks of the GOP, be they 'conservative' or not.

On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?

I don't get FoxNews, so I'm not in a position to answer what they are or are not discussing now, or anymore. Perhaps you could ask FoxNews?

[optimistically_conservative]

As for the reasons you listed as being given, one could easily argue that almost every Arabic nation there, some even considered 'allies' (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have not only been in support of terrorism in the past but are still supporting it. Are 'we' planning to go after them next? If not, why not?

From what I can tell, no nation in that region is unaffected by our current operations.

Do I think we should have simultaneously gone to war on all the nations in the Middle East and North Africa that support(ed) terrorism? No, I think the "why not" of such a decision is self-evident.

Do I think a decision not to go to war with all those nations simultaneously excludes going to war with the two we have to effect a strategic change regionally? No, picking our battlefields, both in location and timing, makes sense to me.

Are 'we' planning to go after them next? I am not privy to the future 'plans'. I would imagine 'next' and the when of 'next' has to do with who puts themselves in the line of fire at this point and how much the American people will accept. I think we're pretty max'd out right now barring another attack within our borders.

Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason.

You may certainly discount that reason, and it has historically been one emphasized after the fact. However, if it makes the masses feel happy, if not better or more committed, to a war - it often is a reason not easily discarded.