A conservative Bush supporter writing on a very conservative site manages to at least question our impending invasion. Maybe this will encourage some of our right wing Bush enthusiasts to get out of their ideological bag and take another look.

I'm not holding my breath.

Should Conservatives Support a War Against Iraq?
by Rachel Alexander, Columnist and Legal Analyst
December 17, 2002

Rachel Alexander on Iraq

Some critics, as well as many conservatives including Colin Powell, Dick Armey, Pat Buchanan, General Schwarzkopf, Brent Scowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger, claim that Bush wants to invade Iraq because of a fear that Iraq will interfere with U.S. access to cheap oil in the Middle East.

As long as Saudi Arabia's government is perceived as being friendly to the U.S., it is expected that the U.S. will continue to treat it as an ally. This is troubling, because countries like Saudi Arabia really aren't loyal U.S. allies.

Perhaps the U.S. should instead use the money it plans to spend on a military battle for alternative sources of energy or obtain oil elsewhere, such as within our own territory. Until it does, its military activities in the Middle East are going to look suspiciously related to its oil policy.

Would a war with Iraq result in another Vietnam, or a Cuban Missile Crisis? Even if the U.S. were to successfully remove Saddam, it is beyond debate that U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for years down the road. Will Americans support keeping U.S. troops in a country for a reason they suspect is even less justified than supporting democracy - oil?

Although it is clear that Saddam and his regime comprise one of the most evil governments in the world today, it is important that conservatives understand thoroughly the reasons and ramifications for attacking Iraq, because ultimately, there are a lot of lives at stake

Just be sure, are you asking us to debate, "Should Conservatives Support a War Against Iraq?"

I would modify it to more like - do conservative Bush supporters have to be entirely loyal to Bush on the issue of the invasion? Do they feel comfortable questioning his policy in this instance?

And then of course I give an example of one who does question his policy without necessarily coming to a final conclusion.

I hoped the article would take things out of the strictly partisan mode we usually get locked into and allow for a little more objectivity.

How can you pose the question in a non partisan mode, when you say that war proponents are in an 'idealogical bag', and implying that war opponents are not?

Exactly.

I don't support this particular policy of President Bush's because I am inherently in his idealogical bag, but because I have thought about it, and then supported it.

There are other policies of his I don't support.

The question is phrased so as to assume that the responder is supporting the policy because it is the policy of this president, rather than supporting the policy no matter who is the president.

I would support this policy no matter who the president was.

Let's just say I'm a partisan who imagines myself to be a little more objective than most. Obviously partisanship exists on both sides but for me to pretend disinterest would be kind of dishonest and stale.

The point is to present a Bush supporter who happens to raise question about his Iraq war. I thought because of Ms Alexander's conservative generally supportive views of the president that perhaps some on this board who back our leader would be more likely to give her a respectful hearing than otherwise.

Nothing woudl make me happier. But the enviornmentalists won't let him drill for oil in Alaska. They probably wouldn't let him drill for oil anywhere for that matter

--cheers

Please cite references for this statement with quotes from these gentlemen saying this.

Darcaine