Iraq war/Afghanistan War/War on Terror

First of all, I said that certain members of the Bush Administration had plans to go into Iraq BEFORE 9/11. This is documented by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, a lifelong Republican who worked in the Ford administration as well as for Bush 43. It was also exemplified by the urging of the Project for a New American Century's letter to President Clinton urging regime change -- and that letter was signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, among others. Secondly, there is little/no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda opposed Saddam's secular government, even. Even the White House has dropped any attempts to link 9/11 to Saddam. The stated purpose for going into war was that Saddam posed an iminent threat. Subsequent intelligence virtually proves that to be false. Thirdly, the schools we've built with U.S. taxpayer money represent a redistribution of wealth that goes agianst conservative principles. Why should I be taxed to pay for an Iraqi school? If I want to pay for an Iraqi school, I should do so voluntarily, through charity. And of course, much of what we're building is actually RE-building -- because we destroyed it in the first place. This is a major corporate-welfare handout to the contractors from the U.S. taxpayer. We can't even afford this war without the Federal Reserve printing money and devaluing the dollar. Taxes aren't even enough. We have to borrow more and more money from China and Saudia Arabia (where the hijackers were actually from, by the way -- and who rule their country with an iron fist that makes Saddam look like Thomas Jefferson). Fourth -- I said "by Middle Eastern standards." The odds of being pulled off the street and tortured by Saddam were very low compared to the odds of being "collateral damage" by a U.S. bomb now, or, more likely, killed by an Iraqi death squad. This is especially true if you are a Christian. Saddam was a brutal tyrant, but at least he exercised a monopoly on violence and tyranny in his Iraq. People were safe as long as they "stayed in line." People should be free, but it is not our job to liberate the world. It goes against everything our country was founded on. Fifth -- You say "a lot has happened" since the Constitution has been ratified. Really? That means the Constitution can be ignored? Then why must the president swear an oath to it? Why not abandon it altogether? This is the liberal view. I did not know a self-described "conservative" would be sharing it. Interventionism does not work, either in the economy or abroad. The Constitution is the law of the land, and it must be obeyed or else we are living under dictatorship. We are to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. If something truly is outdated in the Constitution, then it should be amended. The Constitution exists as al imit on our government because our Founders knew that our government could not be trusted. Sixth -- It is not our job to give the Iraqis an education in political science. Why not Saudi Arabia, which is more despotic than Saddam's Iraq and from whence the hijackers came? And why couldn't we declare war, no matter what the reason, before launching an invasion?