We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. And even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point. Then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy, justifying preemptive war.

Those who scheme are proud of their achievements in usurping control over foreign policy.

These are the neoconservatives of recent fame.

Granted, they are talented and achieved a

political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this

takeover? That question should concern us. Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence

and are well-placed throughout our government and the media.

An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibility over foreign affairs.

The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives. The numbers of those who still

hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months

during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support

any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat

of a terrorist attack.

Believers in limited government were harder to find.

None of this happened by accident or coincidence.

Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these

plans.

The neoconservatives, a name they gave themselves,

diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence.

They documented their goals, strategy, and moral justification for all they hope to accomplish.

Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited constitutional government.

...