There was a time when conservatives fought passionately to preserve America as a limited constitutional republic. That was, in fact, the essence of conservatism.
----------------------------------
This curious attitude is evident in the conservative response to the gnawing question: Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? A surprising number of conservatives respond: So what? He must have had them; maybe he gave them away. And, anyway, Hussein was a bad guy. In their view, even to ask the question is to mount a partisan attack on President Bush, and that's downright unpatriotic. It always seemed likely that Baghdad possessed WMD. Not only did Iraq once maintain a WMD program, but how else to explain the regime's obstructionist behavior during the inspections process?
---------------------------
Moreover, it's hard to imagine the administration simply concocting its WMD claims. The president, though a practiced politician, isn't the type to lie so blatantly. Whatever the faults of his lieutenants, none seems likely to advance a falsehood that would be so hard to maintain.
--------------------------------
But the longer we go without any discoveries, the more questionable the prewar claims appear to have been. The allies have checked all of the sites originally targeted for inspection, arrested leading Baath Party members, and offered substantial rewards for information. Even in Hussein's centralized regime, more than a few people must have known where any WMD stocks were hidden or transferred and would be able to help now.
--------------------------------
Which means it is entirely fair to ask the administration, where are the WMD? The answer matters for the simplest practical reasons. Possible intelligence failures need to be corrected. Washington's loss of credibility should be addressed; saying "trust me" will be much harder for this president in the future or a future president.
-----------------------------------
It matters whether the president lied to the American people. Political fibs are common, not just about with whom presidents have had sex, but also to advance foreign-policy goals. Remember the Tonkin Gulf incident, inaccurate claims of Iraqi troop movements against Saudi Arabia before the first Gulf war, and repetition of false atrocity claims from ethnic Albanian guerrillas during the Kosovo war.
----------------------------
Perhaps the administration manipulated the evidence, choosing information that backed its view, turning assumptions into certainties, and hyping equivocal materials.
-------------------
Pointing to substitute justifications for the war just won't do. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notes that the alleged al-Qaeda connection divided the administration internally, and humanitarian concerns did not warrant risking American lives. Only fear over Iraqi possession of WMD unified the administration...
------------------------------
Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential war-making. Republicans -- think President Eisenhower, for instance -- once took seriously the requirement that Congress declare war. These days, however, Republican presidents and legislators, backed by conservative intellectuals, routinely argue that the chief executive can unilaterally take America into war.
-----------------------
Thus, in their view, once someone is elected president, he or she faces no legal or political constraint. The president doesn't need congressional authority; Washington doesn't need UN authority. Allied support is irrelevant. The president needn't offer the public a justification for going to war that holds up after the conflict ends. The president may not even be questioned about the legitimacy of his professed justification. Accept his word and let him do whatever he wants, irrespective of circumstances.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-25-03.html


So the conservative CATO institute asks you “neo-cons” where’s the beef? Whatever happened to classical conservativism that limited the role of gov’t, and the respect that the system of checks and balances used to have? They are correct, WMD is the only reason why the US invaded Iraq, and no substitute argument is warranted. The lack of criticism from the right is disturbing, very disturbing. Even classical conservatives are speaking out of the lack of outrage from the more fascist minded “neo-cons”. You are seeing more and more power put into the laps of the presidents and a corruption of power is happening with the Republican congress not doing anything about it. This is a very un-American attitude, that if you are against the President and his policies you are being un-patriotic.That is contradictory to what your nation states as her basic ethos; the right to dissent. If you are a classical conservative you shouldn’t be voting for Bush, he is well beyond what you would consider a conservative. This election garners a certain level of magnitude and importance. If you are a Republican seriously think about where your party has really gone.

More conservative angst at this president and his actions:

Particularly worrying to such a partisan president is the fact that some mainstream Republicans are beginning to go wobbly. Pete Domenici, a usually loyal senator, told Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defence, that he could see no clear vision in the administration’s strategy in Iraq. Richard Lugar, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also demanded a clearer strategy. “If we cannot provide this clarity, we risk the loss of support of the American people, loss of potential contributions from our allies and the disillusionment of Iraqis.” Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, went further: America must restrain its “growing Messianic instincts”, and stop engaging in “social engineering” designed to promote democracy around the world.
-------------------------------------
Mr Bush is sufficiently worried about loss of support within his own party—remember that it was Republican defections, as much as anything else, that cost his father his re-election in 1992—that he took the unusual step of travelling to Capitol Hill on May 20th to rally his allies.
---------------------------------
Two things explain the nervousness in the party leadership. The first is growing worries about Mr Bush’s competence as a leader. A small army of military brass has queued up to question the administration’s strategy in Iraq, The most prominent, and potentially damaging, attack was the broadside from Anthony Zinni, a former commander in the Middle East and special envoy to the region for Colin Powell. In a new book—“Battle Ready”, by Tom Clancy (Putnam)—General Zinni says that he has been moved to speak out by a catalogue of errors: “false rationales presented as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military.”
-----------------------
There are also growing doubts, even among Republicans, about the decision-making process that led to war…The neo-conservatives’ favourite Arab (Chalabi), whose Baghdad offices were recently raided by Iraqi police supported by American troops, is widely suspected of feeding the administration false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, possibly in Iran’s interests, and of seducing it into thinking that the Iraqis would welcome the Americans with flowers.
-------------------------------
Now many people worry that Mr Bush was the prisoner of an ideological clique that ruthlessly filtered out any information that did not reinforce the president’s prejudices. The big danger for Mr Bush, who is basing his re-election campaign on his reputation for decisive leadership, is that clarity will begin to look like monomania, and decisiveness like bull-headedness.
--------------------------
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2711104
Yes the there are rumblings of mass distention, Mr.Bush’s address to the republicans in the house was a disaster from most accounts. Real Republicans seem to be disenfranchised and the masses have done their damage to the real conversativism that America used to enjoy. Bush’s policies seem to be reminiscent of a liberal dictator, who likes to spend a lot and do things without asking anyone. I have to give much Kudos to this admin. though they have been able to make criticism of their politics and policies into a attack against America. Sadly too many of the intellectually meek have taken this to heart. This admin. is slowly moving to a “hybrid fascist” model faster then we anticipated. Contrary to popular belief the right is not solidified, and it is fractious.