Mr. Bush and his “neocon” advisors took the easy way out. Instead of confronting ISLAM head on, he went to pick on a dead horse. Yes, he may be able to drop bombs on Iraq, but what is new? We have been doing that for ten years.
For some reason the White House advisors have confused Moslem Terrorists with Saddam? First focus on Bin Laden! Get his head on a stick, then get the rest of the worthless militant Moslems including, Abu Sayyaf, Qaddafi, The Sudan Junta, Lots of Pakistanis, Indonesians, Chechnyians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Saudis.....The list goes on and on. Saddam is no way on top of the Militant Islamic Fanatics list.
And when you get done fighting, then go ahead and make sure that's put into the Constitution. Those rights are not guaranteed to you.
You may come in as a student, but only after writing an assay saying that you do not approve of militant Islam!
Of course, it's OK to deal with the religious exclusion of the Constitution though. Make up your mind. Which way do you want it? Kill a "freedom" that is not enumerated in the Constitution or one that is directly noted in the Constitution? And if you do go after religion, then where do you stop?
I'm no fan of militant Islam. And as opposed to dealing with it that way, how about defining for them what they haven't defined. Militant Islam in general and Al Qaeda in particular (along with Abu Sayyef, Hamas and the other groups) are nation-states. By defining them as such, we are free to make war upon them under relations between nations.
Some may say that I've read too much science fiction, but let's face it. We're living in "the future." Corporate and organizational entities are virtual nations and nation-states. Let's treat them as such. It will certainly allow us to declare and wage war appropriately - and without all the mitigating bull squeeze that you and your friends have continually come upw with.
Get his head on a stick, then get the rest of the worthless militant Moslems including, Abu Sayyaf, Qaddafi, The Sudan Junta, Lots of Pakistanis, Indonesians, Chechnyians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Saudis.....The list goes on and on.
You seem to forget that there must be a starting point. And that things must proceed in an orderly fashion. Dead horse? There'll be plenty of dead horses if Saddam can finish his nefarious plans to develop WMD and start giving them to the more elusive elements out there. How would you like a more successful Richard Reid who has a portable nuke or a vial of plague as opposed to Nike's new Air Plastique 2003 shoe on?
As for the others you mention, let's get real. If Qaddafi or the Paks or the Egyptians were in the on deck circle instead of Iraq, you'd be whining just as loudly about Saddam. You - along with the rest of the leftists - aren't satisfied unless you're beating up on the Administration.
I'm not going to say that they're perfect - far from it. Strip-searching 85 year-old grandparents (like mine, for example) who are trying to fly from Chicago to Baltimore for Thanksgiving dinner is not the way to win friends and influence people. And it certainly isn't the way to catch the bad guys - all of whom look more like Apu on the Simpsons than Clara Peller or Fred Sanford.
And finally, as for Bin Laden, it's pretty hard to put so much pink vapor on a stick for the world to see; not to mention just as hard to produce a body. You sound like someone who's read too many comic books: "Ra's Al Ghul can't be dead, because there's no body. He got away and is relaxing in his Lazarus Pit waiting for another chance to strike out against Batman."
This is simple. Get done with the first job before us: Saddam. Eliminate his avenue of trade with the terrorists. Then go after the others, whether it's Abu Sayyaf, the House of Saud, the Yemeni Cartel, the Colombians, Indonesians or anyone else for that matter. I'm certain there's a game plan. And like the fans of any of the football teams playing this weekend, you do not need to know what that game plan is. You, like the bad guys, will find out what it is in the fullness of time.