If I remember correctly, the right has had some strange bedfellows as well, especially in relation to activism on abortion and sexuality. There are times when a common cause brings dissimilar groups and persons together in the desire to effect change. Do we support the other's belief system? Of course we don't. But we can agree on a common goal that both share.
While it is true that the anti-American (-Semitic, -female, -homosexual, -democratic, -human) elements of the anti-war movement share a common cause with the rational Left -- the end of American involvement in Iraq -- it is politically unwise to affiliate with people calling for terrorist attacks against the U.S. if one wishes to advance that cause. Perhaps Jay is placing too high a priority on numbers for enacting political change.
Also in the comments, Gord, a minister (!) in Canada argues that the terrorists in Iraq can legitimately be seen as 'freedom fighters':
In the second csae we agree--advocating atacks against a country is surely anti-USan. In the first it may be a question of definition. Certainly the "insurgents" in Iraq are using acts of terror. But they are using them against an occupying force (the US Military and friends) and what could logically be considered a puppet government. If you use these definitions then they are indeed freedom fighters. I always try to remember that the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist is who wins (Menachem Begin of Israel for example)
I would struggle find a precise definition of what a 'freedom fighter' is, but I can confidently say what a freedom fighter is not. A freedom fighter is not a person who:
- murders schoolteachers
- is opposed by the people being 'liberated'
- uses children as human shields
- targets and blows up children gathering together to receive toys
- says that he is not a freedom fighter
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20