perfidy

Mike, as stated, I agree with you in large part about the war. Very queasy. Just a couple minor points so I don't come off like some Windy City quisling.

First: I think it's a little unfair to classify tear gas as a chemical weapon in the context of the war debate, although it manifestly is one on technical grounds. The term "Chemical Weapons" is undergoing some definition creep, as is "Weapon of Mass Destruction," but it can be understood to mean harsher agents such as mustard and nerve gases rather than the milder stuff used for crowd control. However, your point about the likelihood of police tear-gassing protesters is well taken. The discourse about the war, both on the pro- and anti- side has sunk very, very low, and a postmodernist might view tear gas as a type of "speech," perhaps as an argument-ender for the pro-war government. But I digress. That's about as much postmodernism as I can stomach in one day.

Second: The links between al Qaeda and Palestine, as you rightly point out, are clear and many. However, leaving the "issue for Israel" to deal with might not be the best strategy. After all, it is US policy to support our allies in their own struggles against terrorism, and leaving aside the thorny, convoluted mess that is Israeli/Palestinian fighting, if Israel begins working to get at al Qaeda operatives in Palestine, doesn't the US have a duty to help? Actually, that I'm just asking because I'm not so sure myself, again, given the history of that region.

I had NO IDEA that Ireland might be harboring al Qaeda fugitives. What's your source-- I want to know more!