Ah, but I didn't say 1980 did I? If you would have bothered to click on the link (which you didn't) it covered several times during the 80s. And the man who was President then, was a greater President than George W Bush will ever be. You see he actually cut domestic spending in the first two years of his presidency. I know that 'cut' is a dirty word in today's 'conservative' party, except when it comes to giving the citizens of the respective states back just a small portion of what they're owed.
And what difference does it make how any administration reacted to it. The facts remain the same. Saddam Hussein USED WMD.
I never said he didn't use them. I know full well he used them from the reports. Back in the 1980s. You don't think I feel for the poor Kurds that were gassed to death? You don't think I wanted Hussein gone? I don't hate this nation of states. However I do believe in Constitutional limits and I don't like being lied to by those in power (PNAC lackeys) to get behind a war. I also think it's a little hypocritical to use the argument that he used them for going to war when the more conservative administration of the time was able to turn its eye.
But Bush and company needed a war. Rather the PNAC wanted a war. Bush I didn't finish the job the first time around as he should have so we'll use the 'he used WMDs against his own people' routine. Mind you, the first Bush administration didn't have a problem with it until 1990. The Reagan administration didn't have a serious issue with it for 8 years. Why should Bush II have a problem with it? Unless they needed it for a reason to go to war? A reason that had sat through three administrations and the most conservative one of those had done nothing about it.
Perhaps you need to go back and look at some of the PNAC's 'published' papers. Try those by Wolfowitz and Perle. The Founding Fathers did not have in mind the establishment of the American Empire when they founded this nation. And never should it be the desire of a conservative for the establishment of one. But that's what the PNAC wants. It's quite evident from their website. And many of the men from that 'think-tank' are the ones guiding this administration on its foreign policy.
Or did I miss something in your searing logic and exercise in irrelevance?
Well considering that more conservative administrations had no problem with it and considering that Bush doing something about it is supposed to whitewash his blatant liberalism, I'd say it's not me who's irrelevant. It's hanger on partisans. When the conservative party does reform, without Gillespie, without Kristol, without Bush and friends, this nation may began a return to a Constitutional form of government. But some don't really want that do they? They just want someone to idolize in the Presidency, to have 'their' party in power, and to hades with the consequences.
Meanwhile Wahabism is the newest best thing since sliced bread to the 'religion of peace' (don't think I missed the President calling it that last night either), North Korea gets the administration to bend to talks, our borders are wide open, and terrorism grows exponentially. I'd have to say Hussein couldn't have wished for better unintended consequences. The UN reigns in the US, Iraq gets restocked with a new infrastructure, Israel is being forced to give away land to a bunch of squatters, and hatred for this nation of states in the Mideast is at an all time high. But Bush is 'in control'. Okey dokey
The problem I see is that the Republican party and conservatism are quickly becoming mutually exclusive. Is it acceptable to go around kicking tail while at home continuing to espouse blatant socialism? Mind you Democrats wouldn't do any better, they'd sell out defense to anyone and everyone and push their socialist agenda at home. But what exactly is being 'defended' in this war if the socialist agenda marches on full steam? The Constitution? Hardly. Only a few conservatives pay it mind anymore.
Sorry went off on a separate rant there
I'm sure it all makes sense to you, viewing, as you do, all of life through their own private political prism. You're a picture perfect ideologue, bill.......long on jumping to irrational, and sometimes bizarre conclusions, and short on common sense.
Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to try to figure out what you're trying to say right now, so I'll bid you a fond farewell for now............until you try to defend Jimmy Carter's character again. :o)
It would be a lot cheaper...would it not?