Iraqi Semper Liberi

Don Surber blogged Iraq came closer to freedom and liberty when its constitution was approved by a direct vote of the people. May the civil war subside and the Shia, Sunni and Kurds learn to live together.

And may the beacon of Democracy shine bright in the Arab World.

Of course, thousands of loyalists were forced from their homes and marched to a foreign country. Tax collectors were tarred and feathered. An open rebellion began along the western frontier over the payment of whiskey taxes. Oh wait. That was our own post-revolution period.

Glad you clarified that. The Muslims don't approve of drinking alcohol.

The Iraq election did raise a few eyebrows. In Fallujah, 99 percent of the voters voted against the constitution. I never thought anyone could outdo Southern West Virginia when it comes to election fraud.

What about Chicago?

The Iraq Constitution has flaws? Well, our own constitution was nothing to brag about when it was ratified. It was dry as the parchment on which it was writ. It merely set up a central government for a loose federation of provinces. That document protected no one. No rights for women, no free speech, no right to bear arms. My God, it allowed slavery. But like Pandora's Box, after all the ills of the world were released, this document offered hope. It allowed amendments. It allowed changes. It allowed, over time, we, the people, to form a more perfect union.

Give the Iraqis a break. It took the United States 144 years to extend "all men are created equal" to women. So don't hand me the guilt trips over the rights of Iraqi women. But why should I, a supporter of the liberation be defensive? I was in the right. The opponents were wrong. No worth one American life? How many Frenchmen died in our revolution?

And wasn't that the last war they fought in?

Americans freed another country. It is what we do. It is how we secure our freedom. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Weapons of mass destruction? Eh. I never bought it. I wrote about a dozen columns before the war. I did not use that argument once. Iraq's state sponsorship of terrorism, flaunting of U.N. edicts and the tyrant's cruelty to his people were enough for me. After all, we removed Slobodan Milosevic for the third item alone. And he was a far less prolific butcher of his own people. Yes, the loss of life is terrible. But incredibly, war has slowed the slaughter in Iraq.

I cite Molly Ivins, a war opponent, and her apology earlier this year for stating that we had killed more people than Saddam Hussein had. "There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong," Ivins wrote. Which raises the question of why Ivins was, in her words, "waiting for the most conservative estimates (of war deaths) to creep over 20,000"? I shall keep my answer to myself.

The removal of Saddam Hussein ended state-sponsored terrorism in Iraq and Israel. That made the world safer. Sanctions did not stop him. No popular uprising could take root. His death would only lead to one of his psychopathic sons taking over, as has happened in North Korea. The trial of Saddam Hussein helps create the rule of law in the land of the Hammurabi Code.

In light of his crimes, why would anyone continue to insist that we were wrong to remove him and try to establish a democracy in the desert? If I had a say in it, I would have taken over Saudi Arabia, the homeland of that whack job Osama bin Laden. But Iraq was easier: It was armed by the Soviets while the House of Saud purchased American weaponry.

I am happy for the people of Iraq. They seem like decent people. They are climbing out of the rubble of a reign of terror that dates back nearly 50 years. How could anyone say they do not deserve liberty? Montani semper liberi -- Mountaineers are always free. Iraqis are a few steps closer to that reality.

AMEN!!!