I don't wonder a bit which side they're on.

Me either, CGHill. Me either.

Wait a minute. This letter was dated July of this year. Our presence in Iraq - which at the time of our invasion had no real ties to al Qaeda - has now provided al Qaeda with both a training ground for terrorists, as well as a recruiting poster against America.

We've now helped the Iraqis develop a constitution that is an Islamic Theocracy. I thought that's what we were fighting against.

Maybe if we had gone after the terrorists that attacked us - as we did in Afghanistan - instead of an imagined enemy in Iraq (nothing more than a toothless old tiger who hadn't posed a threat to anyone for 12+ years), we may not be comparing Iraq with Vietnam. This was nothing more than Nation Building of the worst sort. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and smells like a duck....

And all of the "anti-war left" is not on the left.

The Other Mike,
You display a fundamental ignorance of the goals in our war on terror. We aren't just after AQ, we are after terrorists.

Who was in Iraq prior to our attack? Was it "Meals on Wheels" that were training at Salman Pak?

Do you think Abu Nidal was living in Baghdad on the PLO pension plan?retirement?
(Though ultimately he was retired there.)

Abu Musab Zarqawi fled to Baghdad AFTER we took down the Taliban, but well before we invaded. Didn't W say something about those that harbor terrorists?

Do you remember Leon Klinghoffer? The Achile Lauro incident? Special Operations command did, and guess who they found in Baghdad? Abu Abbas.

How about if I link to the story where Saddam upped the blood money for PLO bombers from $10k to $25k? Is that supporting terrorism, or since they were killing Jews in Israel it doesn't count?

What do you think the long term ramifications are of a functioning democracy in that region? What do you think the long term ramifications for US security are if the ME continues on its present course?

Do you think that the end of the Libyan WMD progam is a good thing? Do you think that would have happened had we not demonstrated resolve?

I note the Syrians have left Lebanon...and the head of their security forces committed "suicide" a few days ago.

Your characterization of the Iraqi Constitution as being the groundwork for an Islamic state is interesting. Please cite a translation so we can judge for ourselves. (I also note that a large Sunni group is not supporting the constitution.)

All might find this blog interesting reading:

http://www.michaelyon.blogspot.com/?BMIDS=17053401-d15cbcd7-84281

Also, a correction to the above. The Sunnis ARE getting on board with the constitution.

John,

[sigh] Abu Nidal?! As per
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm

Abu Nidal "has not staged a major attack against Western targets since the late 1980s". Who's next on your list? Nazi's in Germany?

Regardless, you're making reference to specific individuals, nothing like the organizations in Afghanistan, Syria, Indonesia and Saudia Arabia.

If you're going after individuals, you light them up with Tomahawks, you don't invade a country.

And what's with the attempted slight over Israel? They do a very good job of caring for themselves. Clearly, they didn't see Iraq as a threat or, as they've done in the past, they would have blown the threatening parts of Iraq all to hell. So if Israel didn't see Iraq as a threat to Israel, why should we?

In regards to the "democracy", I'll invite you to read my piece about this impending failure on my site.

Finally, a citation from the Iraqi constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

You tell me: In a conflict between Islam and democracy, who is going to prevail?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Constitution_Text.html

The peace-nik pansies are on the side of the enemy that are the enemy they dont realy want peace they just want to se us end up in another vietnam type war SCREW THEM ALL we were cuaght up in the VIETNAM mess becuase of a DEMACRATIC president

Please cite a translation so we can judge for ourselves. -Posted by: John Murphy

I did a bit on the new Iraqi constitution in a blog entry, analysis and links.

http://standardmischief.com/2005/10/09/smurfy-pamphleteers/

One thing I didn't mention was the (lack of) a RKBA. The old draft I link to specifically excludes that right. The current draft seems to exclude militia groups. Not good.

The overall tone limits freedom, rather than limited the authority of government. I'm not happy.

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation

Big difference between "a fundamental source" and "the fundamental source."

Iraqi is largely an Islamic society. It'd be weird if Islam were not "a" source of Iraqi law.

Besides, we aren't trying to create a carbon copy of Western democracy in Iraq. We're trying to help establish what I call a democratic capitalism with Islamic characteristics (see my column here; if that link doesn't work, try this).

Other Mike,

I note you cherry picked from my examples. Do you REALLY think Abu Nidal wasn't acting in some form of advisory capacity? That he was just hanging around, enjoying retirement? What about Abbas? What about Leon Klinghoffer? What about what was going on at Salman Pak?

Are you aware of the transformation that is taking place in Syria right now? Do you think it was a good thing that Libya coughed up their WMD? Do you think that would have happened had we not demonstrated resolve and commitment? Why do you think the Iranians are intervening so much in Iraq? Are they afraid of an American invasion, or are they concerned that a functioning democracy will upset their apple cart?

Oh, and your idea of going after individuals with Tomahawks is in large measure what got us to where we are now. Cruise missile diplomacy, along with "terorrism is a legal problem" showed weakness, and emboldened AQ.

Big difference between "a fundamental source" and "the fundamental source." -Guns and Butter/The Asianist"

Don't forget that it's a translation, and the translater might have an agenda

"A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established."

That doesn't say that Islamic laws will be established. It does give three conditions that every law has to meet - if it's interpreted honestly. If Islamic law is as anti-freedom and anti-democracy as you seem to think, it could be a very good constitution, because there won't be too many laws allowed!

I won't say that I like the Iraqi constitution, but what are you comparing it to? Check out what's going on in the UK now (Blair wants to allow police to assess fines with no trial), and that horrendous mess of a EU constitution the bEUarocrats are trying to impose. I have not heard of anything as bad as that in the Iraqi constitution. Of course, what will really matter is who is on their Supreme Court, and whether the Iraqis can manage to maintain a government that follows the laws...

John, I didn't cherry pick anything. I clearly stated, and you refuted, that I would use Tomahawks against the individuals you mentioned.

Libya turing over their WMD is the only benefit I have seen come from this fiasco. Although Blair had been in negotiations with them 9 months before hostilities began, clearly this expedited the process. Way to go, George. Woo hoo!

Oh, and see my earlier comment on the appropriate use of Tomahawks. This would have been one.

LOL, you think Iran JUST started getting pissy in the region? Wake up and smell the falafel!

Finally, I don't recall ever uttering the words, "Terrorism is a legal problem", do you? I think those words came from some jackass named Clinton. Don't assume that because I think GW is an idiot, that I supported Clinton's policies.

Bush is an easily lead, bungling oaf. Clinton should have been impeached for his dereliction of duty in regards to terrorism. He is the single most responsible person for 911 occuring.

Bush is nearly as culpable, in that he's treating a "movement" - al Qaeda - as a standing army. Why in the hell would you invade a country that was not part of that movement? It's a different war from his father's, but he just doesn't get it.