[sheltonmac]

Most libertarians were against the war on purely technical terms...

On the other hand, look at all the "conservatives" (especially here at FR) who supported the war on purely emotional terms. Many of them were pumped up because they saw it as a way to somehow get back at those Muslim maniacs who attacked us on 9/11. As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.

[Skywalk]

Strange, I thought it was common knowledge that they had something to do with WTC 93, an assassination attempt on a former President and MIGHT have had some involvement in 9/11.

[JohnGalt]

The Great Patriotic War is the litmus test for many post-conservatives who are about three months behind the political machinations of the country.

Boortz is just some talk show fool who has to extricate himself from supporting a $200 billion debt financed war to build a welfare state in Iraq in the 'Global Democratic Revolution."

Ultimately, they have been seduced by the promises of heaven on Earth by the Reds, parasites, and anti-patriots who hold the reigns of power in the DC tax regime.

[optimistically_conservative]

Many of them were pumped up because they saw it as a way to somehow get back at those Muslim maniacs who attacked us on 9/11.

I think that's a fair statement of many Americans including some conservatives. It's too bad Bush waited more than a year after the bombing to use that emotion to attack Iraq. Think how much easier it would have been to just run in there in October 2001?

As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.

IMHO that remains a subjective conclusion. You may want to periodically reevaluate that position as more evidence comes out about ties and support from Saddam's family and the Iraqi intelligence service for Al Qaeda. In the end, I think it is a measure of how much that support aided AQ's ability to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

[looscnnn]

"As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks"

Really, what about Salman Pak? I don't think we have heard all the details yet about connections with 9/11. There are most likely details that have not be found yet and some that have not been released yet. That is like the anti-war crowd saying there were never really any WMDs, because we have not found any proof. We just haven't found it yet. I supported the war, but not on emotional terms and not because of oil.

[DeuceTraveler]

Really? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035320/posts

[LowCountryJoe]

...As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks...

Maybe, maybe not! I think there were many factors that led to the decision of war. Let's just stick to the fact that Iraq's leadership stuck their middle finger at us and the United Nations for too damn long! At some point one has to follow through with the consequences that are laid out if an undesirable behavior still is exhibited.

[freekitty]

I don't buy that many Freepers support of the war is purely emotional. I believe their are many clear thinking people here.

[cinFLA]

As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.

BS!

[trajanus_red]

It is not established or true that Iraq had no relationship with the attacks on American soil. In fact, there is evidence of the contrary: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34841