Good question, indeed. Last time I checked, American neoconservatives are against targeting civilians. When countries such as UK or Australia join the US anti-terrorist efforts, is it because of the alliance? (if so, how come France didn’t give a damn about the alliance?) Or it is because we think that terrorism is an atrosity worse than war?

Also, a minor point: neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice are neocons. So if you want to stay in touch with reality, it is a good idea to stay away from the whole neocon conspiracy paranoya.

Otherwise, this is an interesting site. I found it through Raed’s blog.

American people should know that one of Zapatero electoral promises was to withdraw troops from Irak. It is not an answer to the attaks, it is to fullfil the Spanish people desire of not intervene in Bush’s administration error of invading a country based in lies. Before the war everybody here knew that all that was being told was not true. We are not that manipulable. Please consider that the winner of this story should be peace. And that is what spanish people strongly wishes. The question goes beyond political analisis…

Ivan Lenin—

 In point of fact, during the invasion Bush--or his military planners--targeted Iraqi civilians with cluster bombs.  So apparently they weren't against doing it.  



 Neo-cons don't exist?  Check the PNAC site.  Then decide if they have anything or not to do with Bush-Cheney policy.