I e-mailed Andrew Sullivan the missive below in response to When Iraqis Cheer...which sums up a lot of my sentiment about the war...besides the fact it sets the stage for World War III...

Mr. Sullivan,

While I agree that blanket opposition to war is not a legitimate reason for
protesting this war, I think that the terrorist connection is the shakiest
argument for invading Iraq. It does not help that we had no problem funding
and supporting Saddam Hussein back in the '80s when it suited our purposes
in attempting to overthrow Iran (lest anyone forget, at one time Osma Bin
Laden was backed by the CIA fighting the Afghan communists)...so for today's
(3/21 - 2:16:44 PM) e-mail corresponder to consider all anti-war dissidents
as apologists for evil, maybe history should be consider. I am not ashamed
to admit nor do I feel I need to apologize or hid my views that the U.S.'s
misguided Middle Eastern containment policy brought 9/11 upon us. Rather
than considering the consequences of dealing with "evil" regimes or
individuals, we considered only whether it would contain or further U.S.
interests. It was inevitable that an event such as 9/11 would happen after
backing Israel, supporting Iraq, supporting a coup in Iran, covert backing
of the Afghan civil war, and Iran-Contra, all of which has consistently show
the U.S.'s tolerance and/or support of terrorists. While I do believe that
Saddam has (or had) material breaches and the U.N. should have responded
with approiate military force, I do not think it should fall to U.S. to
correct the U.N.'s failing nor do I think that the case for terrorist
support has been made. As far as I can tell, the only connection Osma Bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein have is U.S. government backing in '80s.
Considering history and the seeming lack of connection, the whole
justification to invade just seems like a lot of spin...more so than any
anti-war protest...misguided as it may be.

Adam