Saddam was about to base his oil off the Euro instead of the dollar. THat would have greatly harmed our economy, so yes Iraq should have been invaded. It should have been over and don with, though, not drawn out for 12 years.
I'm sorry, but that is not reason to invade. It just isn't. I would not kill one person over that.
That's not conservative doctrine, that's one moron being stupid, and you saw many conservatives come out against him.
Of which conservatives voted for and in some cases backed. It became the face of conservatives, back by them getting votes.
Most conservatives only take issue with marriage, which is only one of many, many rights; and even then most conservatives don't think it's a big deal if gays can marry. We may personaly disagree on principal, but in practice we extend all such legal rights to gays. We also support gay adoption and serving openly in the military. Don't forget that Don't Ask Don't Tell was Clinton's idea, not ours.
And in the 20th century that is a problem. And Clinton's idea was a compromise with conservatives. Don't try to pass off compromise as the wish of anyone.
And no, on the whole, conservatives don't support the things you say. Poll them and you'll find a majority don't. That's why your candidates have to say they don't.
That's extremely vague. I assume you refer to creationism? Or are you referring to, for example, Georgia offering a bible literature elective?
No. It is most easily seen with creationism and Global warming.
One more factor should be acknowledged. The conservative turn against science coincided with the end of the cold war—what some called the "end of history"—defined by the triumph of market democracy.
(snip)
It's hardly surprising, then, that natural scientists have fled the GOP. Scientific research, with its basis in observation and experience of the natural world, is rooted in the fundamental premise that when the results of our investigations tell us something, we pay heed. Economists have accepted that market failure is real, and if its consequences are serious, then remedies are needed. Even Hayek acknowledged this. Legitimate interventions in his view included preventing the "harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the noise and smoke of factories," prohibiting the use of poisonous substances, limiting working hours, enforcing sanitary conditions in workplaces, controlling weights and measures, and preventing violent labor strikes. Hayek believed, quite logically, that if the government were to take on such functions, and particularly if doing so limited the freedom of particular groups or individuals more so than the population at large, then the justification should be clear (as it was in all the examples he gave).
Over the past four decades, natural scientists have given us those justifications. But over the last two decades, the Republican Party has rejected that science. In turn, scientists have rejected the Republican Party.
The Conservative Turn Against Science - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Study: Conservatives' Trust of Science Hits All Time Low
A sociologist at UNC-Chapel Hill says more people are moving to a conservative "anti-intellectual" ideology, and more people than ever are lumping scientific and political agendas together.
Study: Conservatives' Trust of Science Hits All Time Low - US News and World Report
Listen to the conservative debates and how they all had to make very anti science statements. It was embarrassing.