[Reaganwuzthebest]

The CATO Institute has little credibility anymore for people on the right. Their wacky positions on open borders and economic theories makes them about as conservative as Donald Duck.

[Support Free Republic]

Lighten Up, Francis!

Fundraising posts only happen quarterly, and are gone as soon as we meet the goal. Help make it happen.

[jla]

Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking.

Wrong, Bandow.
Conservatives, at least the real one's, don't "lack interest", we just believe our President. And our President is not capable of lying.

Belief & faith: Surprised these didn't rub off on Doug when he had the opportunity to work around RR.

[JohnGalt]

Excellent article from one of the few Beltway institutions that can at least claim some hold to paleo-libertarian thought. With Steve Forbes and Rupert Murdoch on the board, I doubted they would be able to waiver much from neoconservative convictions-- which is funny when you consider the poster who dismisses the Cato Institute based on their open borders position.

The open borders comes from the 'neoconservative' influence, not the paleo-libertarian influence of Cato's co-founder, Murray Rothbard who saw 'open borders' as recruitment for the welfare state.

[joybelle]

It isn't just republicans that go to war without congressional approval. We are still in the Balkans and no exit date in sight. We had no stragesic interest there, and where were the supposed mass graves? Wasn't it Tom Clancy who wrote of executing all those who knew where he hid the weapons?
We know they were there in 1998. The question we should be asking is WHERE ARE THEY if not in Iraq??? Clinton said they were there. This is the horrifying question the WHOLE WORLD should be asking. He could not have easily destroyed all of them.

[VOA]

He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives.

And my amateur suggestion is that Dubya should include the scenarios presented
by (believe it or not) Clinton Administration official Kenneth Pollack.

My simple summary of Pollack's take is that Saddam kept a "capability-based" WMD program...
new pharmceutical plants that could be rapidly re-configured to produce chem/bio
weapons and quickly loaded in artillery shells and moved to the front.

And that having a bomb dropped on his head in the opening of the campaign disrupted
any chance for Saddam to issue the order to get on with the making/distribution of these weapons.

And the US/Coalition moved so fast that the Iraqis wouldn't have time to carry out the plan.

I'm not saying this was actually what happened. But I think Pollack does make a
reasonable case for portraying the way in which Saddam had a WMD program....
but it couldn't be found -- until it would have been used.

[jpl]

Real conservatives are smart enough to know that looking for stuff that can fit inside a suitcase-sized container in a country the size of California is going to take more than a couple of months. That's assuming that the stuff is even still in Iraq and wasn't all transported to Syria during the year-long runup to the war.

[Consort]

Most Americans believe that action against Saddam's Iraq was necessary, justified, and successful; that it was in the best interest to eliminate a safe haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorists; that Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction based on all the mass graves containing the bodies and bones of masses of people who were mass-destructed; that we had to protect a strategic resource (oil); that we should topple another despotic government in addition to the Teliban in response to 9/11; that our long-term interests were better served, etc. It's hard to argue with success.

I think these types of articles are being written cover the butts of individuals and organizations "just in case" it gets out of hand, and to play mind games with Republicans, and especially with Conservatives.

[ex-snook]

Clinton bombed Aspirin factory on false intelligence

Bush did not swallow the 'intelligence' hook, line, and sinker. He was a willing participant just like Clinton.

another permutation. Currently, according to White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, the U.S. is "sure" that the Iraqis were the sinister force behind Al Shifa, producing what the Post characterized as "powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active nerve gas." This, says Professor Tullius, strains credulity: "Bleach is often used to detoxify nerve agents," he says. "Using bleach to activate an agent makes no sense." While the Iraqi and Sudanese militaries are known to have collaborated on limited munitions projects, says investigative reporter Frank Smyth, there is nothing linking these endeavors to Al Shifa or Bin Laden. "It looks like the administration acted based on inferences drawn from pieces of intelligence they presumed were connected," he says.

[MEGoody]

"They now advocate autocratic executive rule, largely unconstrained by constitutional procedures or popular opinions."

Sounds like he has conservatives and liberals mixed up.

[RWG]

Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

This is really an interesting question. Why would he have given up his reign for nothing? If wmd are not in Iraq, how long have they not been there and why would saddam give up his reign when he could still be there with all those un flunkies running all over the place and not finding anything?

Not in iraq is more worrisome than not at all.