At this point, Pres. Bush may not know what he wants. I remember when he claimed to be doing "God's work," in forging this war (he's sinced eased up on that and obviously, the media has stopped checking him on that, as well-not surpising). Every dictator is evil.............. that's why they are a dictator. They all rape, rob, pillage, etc. This country has put many dictators in power and sustained their power through "foreign aid." The question is, what makes one dictator more evil than the other one, and when will the "media" ask this question, just like this? Let's remember, Saddam had no friends/powerful big buddies, i.e., Castro, Kim Jung Il II, etc.

He pulled the wool over the eyes of a lot of Christian evangelicals. Now, if he could just get them to enlist!!!! AND, when are these oil wells going to begin paying for this???? Congress is using this as an excuse to continue its fiscal irresponsibility.

Thew US official policy has been to destroy violent revolutionary "terrorism" for well more than twenty years now. Perhaps you recall the Achille Lauro?
Hmm, thats right, some of THOSE guys were celebrated and abetted in Baghdad, weren't they?
It's a fact that Reagan's brilliant ( if expensive and with grave miscalculations ) destabilization of the Soviet Empire was expected to have bad effect on their most dependent puppets.. Cuba, Angola, Iraq, Syria, Libya, AND N Korea. The GHBush Presidency is forever a lame history because of the lack of nerve. America felt the guilt of war, but ignored the CAUSE of the conflict!
President Clinton is on record as pleading to be rejected for active duty.. He "loathed" the military. This was a personal element that was NOT ever remedied. His loyalty to this nation NEVER overcame his personal distaste of
the realpoliticks of a powerful state..
WITH SERIOUS ENEMIES.
The 90's were a bubble of illusory isolationism..
And Americans are wont to ignore threats until almost too late.
Even today.. NOW.. Many Americans deny that The essence of America is NOT a "cult of personality" centering on a leader with infinite authority AND responsibility ( thereby absolving us of them).. We do have a responsibility
to the heritage of THIS nation .. Getting involved IS the way to get responsive representation..
But not demonstrating.. And not falling for unintelligent adolescent "indignance".
.

Well there were 17 specific reasons that the Bush administration layed out for this invasion.

But here is one the left always seems to forget: Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire.

The WMD are in Syria by the way.

Why Fight Iraq there are many other countries there are just as bad they just dont have oil. We already killed our threat we dont need to be there. We are losing lives cause were there they dont want us there. There not being forced to fight, we are a threat to them we are going into their towns with guns and tanks we are terrorist.

Why don't you say something about what he wrote, not his grammar i mean don't you have anything to say about the facts. I think that you should check this out. I mean it could be a typo you LUNATIC!!!

I agree with you so much. Everyday we go into Iraq with guns we become even bigger terrorists. Bush has done so many things that make me hate him even more. He has spent 270 billion dollars on the war. with this money we could have built 2,434,784 homes. There wouldn't be a portion of homeless people.

That very well may be true (except the WMD in Syia, imo) but I don't remember those reasons being expressed in any one particular article from the beginning. It seemed to me as a "reason of month" has been the m.o. of this administration.

My own personal opinions as to why is somewhat a combination of alot of the things found in the PNAC writings as well as US economic protectionism. I don't think you can discount PNAC's views on Israeli security as one possibility. Also, US imperialism and "superpower" dominance in that region and the possibility to exert some form of control over OPEC can't be ignored either.

There is one thing that can't be ignored and that is the amount of influence the old neoconservative Reaganites have had on the Bush Presidency. Many want to compare Bush Jr. to his father and that, imo, is a mistake. This President Bush fashions himself after Ronald Reagan, not his father. Like Regan, his position is that the US is stronger when it has an enemy (a Soviet like evil empire) that can be a rallying point. There was none during the Clinton Administration and now we have one.

Neoconservative Reaganites? Such as whom? If anything Reagan would be called a paleoconservative now, and you need to understand that these neocons that you are so worried about are all former Marxists/Trotskyites. HAHA.

Reagan needed and enemey? So what...he created the Soviet Union? What a dupe. Your comparison is nonsensical.

Moral equivalency garbage.