[billbears]

And the very fact that you fail to see what a conservative should object to in this statement is what is frightening. The 'conservative' party doesn't care about the end result as long as it is in power. They cite the name of Reagan, as if it is supposed to wash over all possible Constitutional issues that could possibly arise over 'world leadership'. I guess it has to be remembered we're doing it for the children....

[hchutch]

The fact that some who call themselves "conservatives" object to this statement frightens me more.

We were hit with an unprovoked sneak attack. We are at war. I want victory. If that is so objectionable, then back Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich or whoever else you think will do the best job of appeasement and surrender, but have the honesty to call it that.

This is not "for the children" - this is about preserving our country's security. We cannot co-exist with state sponsors of terrorism any longer. Either they fall, or we will fall. PNAC is intent on making the enemy fall into the dustbin of history.

If you have a better alternative, present the case. No "neocon" tinfoil theories, no phony Constitutional issues, present a better way to do it.