Because they have Charlie Rangel as one of their spokesmen (sorry, no good URL):

The U.S. acted illegally when its soldiers attacked and killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, a leading Democratic congressman complained on Tuesday, before mocking the military maneuver that succeeded in eliminating the brutal duo.

"We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody," Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it," the Rangel contended. "And when you personalize the war and you say you're killing someone's kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody."

When an incredulous Sean Hannity expressed dismay at Rangel's comments, the Harlem Democrat shot back, "How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States."

Then Rangel mocked the U.S. military's success in killing the two Hussein heirs, saying, "I personally don't get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums."

How many troops did it take to knock off that bum Hitler?

I agree it probably will be all too easy for "sophisticated" conservative analysts such as Limbaugh and Coulter to gleefully mock Rangel's comments. But the bottom line remains: will the war in Iraq really make the United States any safer? The Sept.11 attacks were carried out by an international organization financed by Arab individuals, although Al Qaeda undoubtedly benefitted from its dealings with some hostile governments such as the Taliban. So far, there is little compelling evidence that Saddam was involved in this. True -- he has been a sponsor of terrorism but hardly the biggest one (Iran would seem to be a much bigger problem in this regard). Some Al Qaeda camps have been destroyed in Northern Iraq, but they were located in areas controlled by the Kurds.

The other important rationale for was the great danger posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Virtually all the presumed top-level architects of that program are now in U.S. custody, but it seems ( see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8908-2003Jul17.html ) their confessions so far do not match the Administration's dire predictions before the war. Absolutely no WMDs have been found to date. My "gut feeling" is some relatively minor amounts of biochemical weapons _eventually_ will be found, but the vast arsenal alluded to by the Bushies just doesn't exist. The emerging picture seems to be Saddam was just hanging on since the end of Gulf War I and he was incapable of attacking the neighboring states -- let alone the United States.

This leaves humanitarian concerns as the best rationale for attacking Iraq. Saddam is a horrible monster who tortures people for pleasure, uses biochemical weapons against the Kurds etc. etc.. That's all true, of course -- but people were being slaughtered and tortured in Rwanda too. How come Americans and Europeans do not send troops there as well? This "liberation" will cost taxpayers (mainly American and British ones) money & soldiers' lives for years to come, and it is not at all obvious that it really will discourage future generations of Mohammed Attas from continuing the fight. I fear Gulf War II will cause additional Sept.11 2001's further down the road -- much as Tim McVeight reportedly drew inspiration from the Waco massacre. The importance of STATE-SPONSORED terrorism is overrated, IMHO. Most of these self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" (IRA, ETA etc.) in fact obtain money from individuals who sympathize with their goals as well as from criminal activities.

Oh well...I guess we should be grateful for the new Israeli-Palestinian peace process at least. The President's commitment to this has been a pleasant surprise indeed. Lasting peace between Palestine and Israel will remove at least one major item from the Arab grievance list.
I am much more sceptical about the prospects of ordinary Iraqis suddenly becoming freedom-lovin' democratic secular capitalists simply because the Americans have removed Saddam -- a secular despot -- by military means, though. But we'll see who is right. The past six months have clearly shown war proponents *and* opponents should not start gloating too early as there have been several major surprises so far.

MARCU$

Hey Marcus, crack a history book, the Iraqis have been traders for millenia. Ever heard of Ur? Ur -> Uruk -> Iraq

They're ALREADY capitalists, and it sounds like trade is picking up nicely there.

Marcu$,
open a history book, then open your mind. We have history and precedent for doing what we are doing. So get over it!

FIRST! Since we went into Iraq and the world govermnments found out that WE WILL come looking for extremists, even the Saudi's have begun to crack down! Because they don't want us to come there and crack down for them. The U.S. has a history of defending both itself and less fortunate countries. As to Rwanda, one set of jerks at a time please. We'll get there, have you seen the pictures coming from Liberia, stand by, I'm sure they are watching CNN in Rwanda to see whats coming for them via Liberia.

NEXT!! So the estimates of WMD were wrong, well could that be because we had no one on the ground in Iraq because the Democrats didn't want to hire "bad people" to be spies for us! NO spies means no intel, bonehead!! Besides, when is killing people like this EVER a bad idea anyway? WMD or not, they had to go, they harbored and supported terrorism. Saddam was personally PAYING the families of homicide bombers in Israel. That should prove they were not the good guys. We are the good guys!!

FINALLY, Let me tell you something else, as a veteran, with both my sons in the military now, we all of us, that meaning every veteran since the draft ended in the seventies, stuck our hand in the air and took an oath to serve and if necessary die for our country!! All you jerky mealy mouthed nay sayers CANNOT stop that pride and dedication! Yes people are dying in Iraq and Afganistan, but they die for a reason and it ain't because of Saddam and his sons, its because they stand up for their country, their way of life and the president, WHOEVER THAT IS!! Better to die for Mr. Bush while fighting for justice, than for the Clintonistas while refueling in a supposed safe harbor, or while working at a desk in an American Embassy in Africa, or while standing guard in the snow in Bosnia.

P.S.
Marcu$, I notice you use that dollar sign as part of your name, I can only assume from that, that you are a capitalist, well we are sending young men to fight and die, so we can keep our mean old capitalist country running SAFELY. The more of the bad guys we kill the safer we are and the better the world will be. As too Uday, Hussay, Quasay, Loosey Goosey, Huey, Dewey and Loiue, and whoever else we killed yesterday, they did not surrender over the last three months even though they had the chance. They continued to fight for the right to rape, murder, torture and abuse their power. When we found out where the Brothers Hussein were, they did not surrender when surrounded, and they payed for that decision, with their lives. That was their final poor decision, bad for them, good for us, and the rest of the world.

Ever get the feeling that people like Marcus are actually paid agents recruited by Karl Rove to discredit the opposition???

Whatever happened to the pragmatic, serious left? When did it get totally overwhelmed by, as Neil Young once put it, the "hippie dream"?

MARCU$, what part of "We will root out the terrorists AND THE STATES THAT SPONSOR AND HARBOUR THEM" did you find confusing?

> MARCU$, what part of "We will root out the
> terrorists AND THE STATES THAT SPONSOR AND
> HARBOUR THEM" did you find confusing?

I already discussed this in my original message. Unlike Afghanistan two years ago, the Administration has done a very poor job linking Hussein to Al Qaeda. This explains why the Iraqi invasion has been so controversial whereas there was very little domestic or international opposition to removing the Taleban/Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan was a plain case of responding to an attack. And please don't give me this BS about "the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud" and preemptive defense. Enough evidence had emerged by the time the UN inspections were underway that Saddam had no nukes and wasn't going to get them anytime soon. Biochemical weapons are way overrated and even then, there was no evidence he was giving them to Al Qaeda either. No nation or individual can kill somebody simply because they "suspect" (without solid evidence) the potential foe "may someday decide to attack". That's not self-defense. It is paranoia.
---
Like I said, the main reasons for attacking Iraq (=WMDs, collaboration Al Qaeda) have not been supported by actual evidence emerging from Iraq since the war ended. The sophisticated British already understand they've essentially been duped about the extent of the supposedly grave and immediate "threat" to their safety. As a result, 4 Brits out of 10 now believe Blair lied or exaggerated while two-thirds say they will not trust him in the future. Only a slight majority thinks he should stay as PM. And the French and Germans are gloating:-)

MARCU$

Unlike Afghanistan two years ago, the Administration has done a very poor job linking Hussein to Al Qaeda.

Which is of course irrelevant, since we have much broader problems than Al Qaeda.

We aren't just at war with Al Qaeda--we're at war with all people who have been trying to figure out ways to kill us, and have been covertly at war with us (including the House of Saud). What happened on September 11 was that we finally figured this out. Apparently, Europe remains clueless.

"We aren't just at war with Al Qaeda--we're at war with all people who have been trying to figure out ways to kill us,..."

Roger that, Rand. Marcu$ is looking at Iraq through a pair of binoculars turned backwards. When some future Samuel Elliot Morrison writes the history of this time, it will be under a section labeled "War on Terror: Southwest Asian Theater, Mesopotamian Front." That's what the Left (and Europe) doesn't, or refuses, to see.

Make that Old Europe.