1) Saddam's Character:  Saddam is evil, dishonest, has WMDs, kills his own people, tried to kill GHW Bush, invaded Kuwait.  America is the great, moral super-power, and it is our obligation to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny.  Supporting information on this is available from the White House web site's Iraq Page.  [1, 2, 3]  click for rebuttal

2) Saddam and Terrorism:  Saddam may have connections to terrorism and Al Qaida.  This CBS news article outlines the evidence. click for rebuttal

3) Saddam's Empire:  Saddam has imperial intentions to conquer his neighbors and create a pan-Arabic state.  Saddam is a destabilizing force in the Middle East.  Look at what he did to Kuwait and his extensive war with Iran.  He is also a great threat to the safety of Israel.   click for rebuttal

4) Inspections don't work:  Weapons inspections and negotiations do not work.  Look, Saddam has a weapons stockpile.  The weapons inspectors were never intended to find weapons.  They were put there to assure that he had disarmed.  The inspectors have determined that he has not disarmed, so it is time to drop the bombs.  Richard Perle's comments are the strongest I have seen,   click for rebuttal

5) Public Enemy #1:  Saddam is the biggest single threat to the United States and the world at this time.  We must fight multiple wars at the same time (War on Terror and War on Iraq) because the two are connected.  Stopping Saddam is an important step toward ending the threat of terrorism.  click for rebuttal

6) Leftists & Bush Haters:   The anti-war movement is made up of and led by leftists, communists, atheists, pacifists, Democrats and Bush haters.  They are using the war as a reason to attack the Bush agenda and Bush administration, not to mention the American way.  (Extensive articles on this theme available here)  AM Talk radio is saturated with variations on this argument.  In support of this argument is the multinational support we are receiving, and strong public opinion poll results.  These two indicators show that the opposition is limited to partisans and extremists.  Germany and France represent "old Europe."  Our allies, England and Spain, are the "new Europe."  Click for rebuttal

7) Sedition:  Criticism of the president and administration is unacceptable during a time of war.  This is a time of war, so the Sedition Act should be implemented to silence and/or arrest those who criticize the Administration.  This David Horowitz article gives an interesting defense of civil rights violations in the name of security.  Click for rebuttal

8) Traitors:  Those who oppose the war are supporting and helping Saddam.  They are supporters of Saddam.  To oppose the war is to demean our soldiers.  If you don't support the war, you don't support our soldiers, and you are an unpatriotic traitor.  Click for rebuttal

9) Actors in Politics:  Actors and entertainers have no business in politics.  They don’t know anything about global politics.  Click for rebuttal

10) It's not just about the oil:  This is not a war for oil.  Why would we spend hundreds of billions to make tens of billions of dollars?  Besides, we are dependent upon oil.  Create alternative energy and transportation yourself, or shut up.  Having oil industry executives in control of the government is a good idea at this time, since energy policy is so important.  Americans should “chill out” and leave this to the experts.  Never mind that the General Accounting Office has been harassing Cheney for their secret discussions to plan energy and environmental policy.  How dare you question their ethics?  A president must have his privacy respected.  This is privileged information, and this kind of privacy must be returned to restore the dignity of the office of president.  You must hate America, you self-loathing, lib'ral hippy-spawn, commie freak.  Where would you be if we didn't kick some ass now and then?  You'd be living in a communist country, driving a horse to work, and you wouldn't have that home theater system!  You're lucky we conservatives are here to protect your chicken shit asses.  We don't need no job-killing tree huggers holding back economic growth  What do environmentalists know about economics anyway?  Only market-based initiatives can solve our environmental problems.  etc. (repeat as desired, and add plenty of references to Bill Clinton's corruption as heard from Ann Coulter and at KKK rallies.)  Click for rebuttal

11) Platform for Democratic Reform in Middle East:  We want to liberate the Iraqi people and create a platform for democratic reform and stability in the Middle East.  Anyone who opposes us opposes Democracy itself.  That is unamerican (see sedition and treason above) because America is a beacon of truth, free markets and democracy.  The United Nations and NATO do not represent global democracy in the true sense of the word.  They are held hostage by communists, terrorists and those who profit from terrorism.  We do not need their consent to defend ourselves against terrorists, especially when we can create such a dramatic improvement in the lot of life for the poor Iraqi people who have suffered so under Saddam.  Nation building (sic) is necessary in some cases, even though Bush made a campaign promise not to get involved in nation building.  9/11 changed everything.  Regime change in Iraq will bring a domino effect of democracy in the Middle East.  Click for rebuttal

13. Christians Vs Muslims: This is a war of cultures--Christians and Jews must fight against an evil religion that condones and creates terrorists.  Click for rebuttal

REBUTTALS

1) Saddam's Character:  Extreme right Talk Radio personalities like to beat on a straw man who denies the extremely negative portrayal of Saddam Hussein.  The most direct and important rebuttal of this argument for the war is quite simple: Nobody disagrees with them on this point.  Saddam is evil, evil, evil.  This admission might be a strong indication for war, but there are certain other factors that stand in the way of a clean, cut-and-dry just war.  

If we engage in a pre-emptive war, we will set a very low standard that may be used against us in the future.  Being evil has never been sufficient reason to bomb a country and kill its leader.  If we accept this argument in this case, then what is to stop a coalition of China, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey and the entire Middle East from bombing us after the war because they determine that our president is evil and a menace to the world?  Anyone outside of America could quite easily argue that bombing Iraq under the current circumstances is far more of a justification for bombing America than anything Bush has now on Iraq.  Military superiority will not protect us against an all-out economic boycott against us.  It would be much cheaper, easier and karmically just for them to destroy us that way.  

I have noticed that the just war arguments and the him-hawing around the future of pre-emptive war issues prevent an honest debate of the merits of the opposition.    

While it is not really an argument against war, or in defense of Saddam, we need not look too deeply to question the ethics of our own president and government.  As will be discussed at more length in the following arguments, there is ample evidence that Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice have intentionally deceived and manipulated us with false and misleading information about Iraq.  In my observation, anyone who even suggests that the Bush-Cheney regime is suspicious enough to merit a 70 million dollar investigation like Clinton got is labeled a "commie", "unpatriotic", "traitor", "lib'ral" (whatever that means), etc.  I won't enter into an extensive critique.  There is plenty out there to look at.  Let's be more specific, and focus on Bush's record since January 2001.  

Bush has behaved in a most uncivilized, disrespectful and disturbing manner toward allies, and even to citizens who wish to engage him in debate.  He threatens the world with American military power and weapons of mass destruction.  He also has the media beaten into submission.  Bush has certainly killed his share of American citizens through his zealous application of the death penalty in Texas.  It doesn't compare to Saddam's bloodlust, unless we add to that the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan.  Add to that the number that will be killed in Iraq, and the moral line between Saddam and Bush quickly becomes fuzzy.  Terry Jones makes this ironic argument most succinctly in his "Mr. Bush Goes For the Kill"  For more interrogation of Bush's ethics, see this page.  Also, look at these cases of blackmail and buying of votes from UN Security Council members, and spying on them.  Basically, we have every reason to suspect that we are being pushed into war by a bunch of insane, amoral fanatics with no regard for truth.  

An even more ironic piece of the picture is the fact that the investigation of the anthrax attack of October 2001 revealed that the United States military has secret, illegal projects involved in making biological weapons in violation of our own treaty.  Just like Saddam, America was lying about its weapons of mass destruction.  Furthermore, the anthrax attack was, according to FBI investigations, carried out for political (anti-Democrat) and/or venal (promoting Bayer's Cipro) motives by an American scientist.  This does not in the least implicate Bush himself, but it does suggest that the American government contains rogue elements that are really no different at all from Saddam Hussein.  

Other counter-arguments revolve around these points: 

• Most of Saddam's worst behavior was carried out with the full knowledge and support of Reagan and Bush Sr.  Rumsfeld personally visited and praised Hussein after the killing of Kurds and Shi'ites.  Given this simple fact, there is no reason to take seriously any claims of trying to help the Iraqi people.  This is not an argument against war, but rather an argument against the argument.  It is a criticism of past choices that has special importance in light of the fact that we are repeating these mistakes in a potentially more dangerous form in our current relationships with Pakistan and perhaps Turkey. 
• It seems highly probable that keeping Iraq's ethnic groups together after Saddam will require another nasty dictator.  No doubt that's why the irony-challenged war supporters put the American flag on their "Liberate Iraq" lawn signs instead of the Iraqi flag.  Saddam is definitely bad, but who will replace him?  Iraq is not an easy country to manage, and the international politics are extremely complex.  Even more important along these lines, take a look at the various intellectual, cultural, ethical, legal, political and diplomatic issues that dog the White House (barely sufficient karmic justice for making us listen to stories about sticky cigars and lying secretaries).   Saddam is bad, we all agree.  But, do we have reason to believe that Cheney's Halliburton (who will make enormous amounts of money from war), is doing all they can to halt terrorism when this happens in an isolated, poor, Islamic country? nuclear materials ideal for a dirty bomb stolen from Halliburton in Nigeria. [more: 1 ] At best, this means they are incompetent for an important contract in a dangerous place like Iraq, yet they were selected behind closed doors to be a major beneficiary of the war on Iraq.  Also, our track record in Afghanistan is not reassuring, though it might be explained by the unspeakable lack of interest they have in that country, thanks to its lack of oil and abundance of opium.  
• No recent or persuasive evidence of WMD activities has been revealed.  The much-touted presentation by Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council was made up of old intelligence information (none more recent than two years ago) and plagiarized academic papers.  [1, 2, ]  And the CIA is complaining that the Bush administration has been pressuring them to produce disinformation that supports their war.   Saddam filed a misleading and incomplete report of his activities.  Bush responded by making Colin Powell submit a forged document with false accusations.  I'd say this makes them even, or at least drives home the point that they are playing this dangerous game on the same level.  More on this point later.  
• An argument for expensive war based on Saddam's bad character is slightly weak as an ad hominem and VERY weak when we compare him to other dictators and nasty situations like North Korea, Pakistan, or even the monarchy of Saudi Arabia.  If Saddam is bad enough for bombs, why aren't these others?  The obvious answer is oil and the power that control of oil gives.  More on this point later too.  
• The United States is a major producer of nuclear weapons, and used depleted uranium weapons in the first Gulf War, which are basically "dirty bombs" with radiological and heavy metal toxicity.  Pakistan produces and sells nuclear weapons to North Korea, threatens our ally India with them, and currently is sheltering Al Qaida.   Saddam does not, according to Bush, possess nuclear weapons.  Somebody connected to the Bush administration did in fact knowingly create forged documentation of nuclear development in Iraq.  America lied about this and was caught red handed.  There is no denying that this basically erases any and all legitimacy we have in this war, and probably future wars.  This was a huge and grave ethical infraction.  It certainly doesn't put Bush down to Saddam's level, but it is increasingly difficult to draw the distinctions between them in an unambiguous way.  
• If Saddam is so unpopular among his people, and he fears rebellion from the people, why is he not only allowing, but encouraging citizens to buy guns to defend themselves and Iraq from American aggression?  Hitler confiscated and restricted gun ownership by Jews because he feared them.  Saddam must be pretty confident.  

Again, I must repeat, in light of the vehement, pigheadedness of the right wing warmongers, I am not opposed in principle to killing an evil creature like Saddam.  I am not opposed to regime change there.  The main issue at hand is what is the best way to make the world safer.  Bombing Iraq will not kill Saddam, it will not make the world safer, and we will lose even more respect from the rest of the world.  In other words, the very practical and long term issues surrounding the strategy of this war indicate that it will neither make life better for the Iraqis, nor will it be effective in making us safer in the long term.  In the jargon of just war theory, the possible benefits clearly do not outweigh the probable negative consequences.  

It is a false dilemma presented by Bush that our choices are either massive bombing of Baghdad, or doing nothing.  This kind of argument is dishonest and sinister in the extreme.  

2) Saddam and Terrorism: The CIA disagrees.  Coleen Rowley, an agent of the FBI has released a new bombshell on the FBI's Robert Mueller.  No evidence has yet been found that connects Saddam to 9/11 or Al Qaida, though a great deal of public evidence exists that connects Saddam to Reagan, Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld [1, 2, 3], and a host of American companies.  It is a known fact that right up until the actual invasion of Kuwait that Saddam firmly believed that he had American support or at least neutrality on his invasion of Kuwait.  Saddam's Ba'ath party is not Islamist.  Rather, he has an ambitious vision of a secular Arab state like the Assyrian or Babylonian Empire.  Saddam's former popularity with American administrations probably had a great deal to do with his willingness to oppress and kill Islamists (conservative Wahabi and Shi'ite Muslims who wish to implement a unified, caliphate or Islamic nation) Osama Bin Laden and most Arabs and Muslims hate Hussein for this very reason.  There is no information provided on the White House website that suggests a connection, though Bush has publicly made numerous statements that make the insinuation--basically, if we don't kill Saddam, we'll have another 9/11.  However, the CIA did indeed warn that although they do not believe that Saddam represents a threat to America at this time, they do believe that an attack on him would be answered with the use of WMDs.  In other words, Iraq would do the same thing Bush would do if we were attacked by WMDs.  Also, the various presentations by Bush and Powell to the United Nations have not persuaded anyone of Saddam's relevance to the war on terror.  Here is a great cartoon about the Saddam-Osama connection.  The administration's increasing and disingenuous insistence on the connection between Saddam and 9/11 is an appalling example of Orwellian doublethink at work.  42% of Americans now believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  The Bush administration has never explicitly stated this.  They have merely created an artful, psychological bait-and-switch, with the help of the allegedly liberal media.  This mass hallucination is the most clear counter-evidence possible for the absurd myth of the liberal media. 

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.

3) Saddam's Empire:  This is the most powerful argument, if we could find evidence that Saddam wants to invade his neighbors.  There are almost no trees or clouds in Iraq, especially near the borders.  Satellite observation of military activity along Iraq's border is easy.  Since the Kuwait invasion, Saddam has not demonstrated any international aggression.  He seems more interested in dealing with internal problems from the Kurds and Shi'ites.  With the current state of his military and the intense scrutiny, he has very little ability to engage such projects.  In regards to his violent war with Iran, that was completely under United States' support and approval.  In fact, during the infamous "Iran-Contra Scandal" for which Oliver North and John Poindexter were convicted of felonious and treasonous behavior, America was actually arming both sides of the war, and using the secret money to fund their dirty war in Nicaragua.  As for Kuwait, Saddam firmly believed that he had American support or at least neutrality on his invasion of Kuwait.  Right up until that moment, Saddam was a special friend of America in the Middle East.  Something mysterious happened after he invaded Kuwait, and there is good reason to believe that George Bush Sr. did not react the way he did because of the invasion itself.  I can't really imagine what was the real cause, but it sure appears that Saddam was led into the invasion by the American State Department and the counsel of Henry Kissinger, then they used it as an excuse to "take him out."  But, that is mere speculation on my part. It could be a variation on the skinhead approach to recruitment--we conquered Kuwait (where the port and oil are) with Saddam's army, and made it look like we rescued them.  Now Kuwait is eager to have us as a friend and protector.  Absolute speculation, indeed, but is it so implausible?  Has the "oilygarchy" given us reason to be suspicious of their motives? 

No wonder so many people around the world now list George W. Bush as a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein, even if it weren't true.  One in three British fear Bush more than Saddam, and they are our closest ally in the Bush War.  Jessica Tuchman Mathews  astutely noted that Germany, Pakistan, Brazil and France have all recently shown big political wins for politicians running on anti-American platforms, and this only two years after the whole world joined us in grief and solidarity over 9/11.  These were also very close allies of ours too.  This is a sure sign that something is very wrong.  Bush has utterly squandered that goodwill.  Undoubtedly, Bush and Rove are trying to spin this as moral failure on the part of everyone else. 

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.

4) Inspections don't work:  This one is perhaps the most blatantly false, and the one they work hardest to support.  Take a closer look at the evidence.  When weapons inspectors and human rights observers are active and supported by high tech surveillance, Iraq can't attack us and Saddam can't abuse his people.  There is a very simple solution to most of the problems in the world: cameras.  I wouldn't be so naive to claim that cameras without goodwill and food can work, but food and goodwill fit more comfortably with cameras than with bombs and guns.  Guns and bombs without cameras create more and more abuses. 

Human rights violations occur in countries with no international media presence.  Cameras and human rights observers can change the world.  It takes military force behind the scenes to back the cameras up, of course.  Coercive inspections are a rational and just approach.  Jessica Tuchman Mathews president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) provides a brilliant discussion with Bill Moyers on this very issue.  Click here for her documentation, and click here to read the transcript of this brilliant interview.  When inspectors with cameras arrived in Iraq, what did Saddam do?  He released people from his prisons.  Even dictators hate to do things that look bad on TV.

In Afghanistan there were no inspectors or human rights observers.  In that utter isolation they were able to hatch a plot to destroy the World Trade Center.  Take a look at North Korea--no weapons inspectors and no human rights observers.  On the other side, look at El Salvador.  Human rights observers and election monitors alone changed the face of that country.  Further, the countries that were most devastated by war (Afghanistan and Iraq) are the very hotbeds of anti-American sentiment and militants.  The fact is, WAR DOES NOT WORK.  ONLY INSPECTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVERS WORK.  The conservatives are loathe to admit this, and will go to infinite lengths to hide this FACT.  That Saddam may have WMDs is not proof that weapons inspections do not work.  We pulled our weapons inspectors out under Clinton, so all of Iraq's current capabilities are the product of a lack of weapons inspections.

It is obvious in light of the conflict between America, Germany and France that the underlying motive is a FEAR of weapons inspections on the part of America. Could it be that they fear the inspectors would find lots of "made in America" labels?  If Germany and France are protesting the war because of selfish motives along these lines, why are they pushing for inspections, while America is obviously eager to blow up every trace of Halliburton equipment and American weapons?

An even more important element that undermines their argument is the obvious bad faith in which the weapons inspections and war threats are being carried out.  Since the beginning of March, Saddam has been cooperating with inspectors much more so than before, and destroying the weapons that the inspectors had not been able to find.  The disarming is frenzied.  It will take time.  But, in spite of the rapid disarmament, which was the stated goal of the entire operation, this is not being acknowledged as a sufficient reason to stop the war.  The continued pressure for war verifies an assertion that Saddam made before this whole charade began: he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  Bush turns everything Saddam does into a reason to bomb.  All this suggests that the war is not about WMDs in the first place, and, a fortiori, not  about creating an effective method of disarming Iraq.  (Check out this article)  There is a mountain of evidence that the the Bush administration has been intentionally deceiving us and the entire WMD argument may be false.  [1, 2, 3 ]  Senator Jay Rockefeller is calling for an FBI probe of who forged documents used by Bush to support the war--in simple terms, the documents are certainly forgeries.  Even Powell isn't denying it.  The Bush administration submitted them to the UN as truth.  They are claiming to be victims of deception on this.  The only question is, who created them?  Could it be Carl Rove?   Even more bizarre and offensive, Bush's goons are conducting surveillance on UN Security Council members.  These are the tactics of gangsters, not the leaders of the "exceptionalist" moral police force of the planet. The mere idea that we should have even the smallest degree of respect or trust for people like this is comical and ironic in the extreme.  

Even if everything that Richard Perle asserts in this PNAC document is true, many people around the world have come to regard the Bush administration with deepest suspicion and disrespect.  One good point Perle makes is that if the United Nations does not back up their resolutions with some teeth, the UN will destroy its own relevance.  On the other hand, if irresponsible, arrogant, aggressive leaders did not present false and misleading evidence or coerce the voting participants like gangsters, then the United Nations wouldn't be put into such uncomfortable situations.  What Perle seems to miss is the very likely possibility that everyone hates and fears Bush's administration so much that they are resorting to sacrificing the UN to slow down and interfere with his reckless decisions.  The strategy has been rather effective, but as of March 17th, the game came to an end.

It is significant, I believe, that the main thrust of Perle's attack is directed against the concept of inspections.  Just to drive home the thrust of my argument for inspections, notice how during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bosnian and Kosovar wars images and hard evidence were used to elicit public consent.  How many images of Iraq are you seeing now?  How many Iraqi citizens are you hearing call out for an American invasion?  How about Afghanistan?  Are you seeing lots of images of how wonderful things are there now?  Do you see anything at all of Afghanistan--especially in the Western and Southern parts of the country?  My point is that these people want more than anything else to prevent us from seeing what is really going on there.  It isn't so much that they fear Saddam.  They fear inspections and uncensored media.  They fear human rights observers.  

This leads back to a common argument posed by the hawks--the weapons inspectors were never intended to find weapons.  This skewed approach may be the hope and understanding of George W. Bush and Paul Wolfowitz when they put the proposal together.   However, we can't ignore the fact that Bush himself claimed that the purpose of this war is to make the world safer.  The American public and the world at large can support such wars only in terms of the general war on terrorism.  Bush obviously has different plans, but his venal motives cannot determine global policy.  If Bush's original plan was to go in and prove Saddam was hiding things so as to justify bombing him, then this is not the same thing at all.  We were horn-swoggled by a Texan.  Permanent weapons inspectors can easily assure that he doesn't cause us trouble.  Bombing him is extremely likely to spawn more terrorism.  This suggests very strongly to many of us who oppose the war that there is no interest on their part in making the world safer.  Instead, they seem to be trying to create a new eternal war to replace the Cold War, for which these old fart imperialists and fascists in the Bush cabinet can justify The Patriot Act [1], neofascism, enormous military spending, a ridiculous missile defense program and a massive transfer of wealth from middle class tax payers to wealthy corporations that profit from war, construction and petroleum--the biggest exercise in American Socialism for the Rich.  

It would appear that another motive underlies this cavalier campaign: undermining the United Nations and NATO so that the US is free to act unilaterally to accomplish the goals of the PNAC.  Many people on the extreme right believe that breaking away from the UN and NATO is a good thing.  Most Americans, including me, think this is a terrifying plan.  

The "Shock and Awe" strategy seems, to my untrained eyes, a test of new weaponry and strategy like Hitler and Franco carried out in Guernica.  If he honestly intends to warn Iraqis of the incoming missiles so they can get out of the way, then how in the hell is this attack supposed to have any effect on Saddam?  In other words, for all intents and purposes, the opponents of this war can see no other explanation than the idea that Bush intends to punish the Iraqis for not overthrowing Saddam.  This isn't strategy, rather, it's gibbering idiocy.  

Perhaps the most important aspect of all this pro-inspections information is that the rest of the world knows about it--in spite of Rupert "Goebels" Murdoch's efforts to keep it all out of the American media.  That means that this information is seriously undermining the image of Bush and America in the world at large.  Anti-Americanism is at the highest levels in the history of our country.  Bush has inspired the largest protests in the history of the planet, and the most fevered organization of grass roots resistance.  If the right wing were really concerned about the growing anti-Americanism they see among liberals in America, then why respond by being more aggressive and insulting--thus verifying the accusations of arrogance, violence, hatred, racism, and McCarthyism?

Finally, the anti-war movement (myself included) needs to consider the possibility that the Bush War may go well for him, and a puppet democracy may be established that will distract Americans enough to go back to watching sitcoms and "reality" TV.  There are terrible ironies lurking behind the scenes here.  If the anti-war movement "wins" and Saddam isn't overthrown, then the oppression of Iraqis by him and by our sanctions will continue.  If Bush loses in an ugly war that creates more terrorism, less stability and further destroys our economy, then the whole world will suffer.  If we lose, and Bush gets his superficially happy Iraq, we need to think hard about what to do next.  A Bush War victory could be an effective trump against the liberal anti-war movement in general.  Mark LeVine has an excellent discussion of the future of the anti-war movement on Alternet.  

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

5) Public Enemy #1:  The "biggest threat" argument is related to the first three.  The rebuttals are there also.  Basically, why is he such a threat when Pakistan clearly poses a more profound threat and sticky problem?  There is North Korea too.  If you don't think North Korea is more dangerous, and that their leader isn't a much worse lunatic than Saddam Hussein, let the Democratic People's Republic of Korean official web site change your mind.  (Even Saddam would never dream of something this deranged, eh?)   Osama Bin Laden is still alive, and there is a growing mountain of evidence that his family isn't so distant from him as we have been told.  [click for more info on the Bin Laden family.  See also Michael Moore's Farenheit 9-11 and the 9-11 Commission Report.]  

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.    

6) Leftists & Bush Haters:  Although there is enough truth in this accusation to give this argument some traction, there are some glaring contradictions and exceptions that make this the biggest and most vicious lie of the pro-war movement.  This argument is being used to fuel Neo-McCarthyism.  They use the War on Terror as an excuse to attack and discredit liberals.  This is especially true of the Murdoch Propaganda and Hatred Network.  It shouldn't surprise us to discover that one of the biggest cheerleaders for China's repressive dictatorship is Murdoch.  The Chinese government just adores him for the support he gives them in his many media outlets.   

In 2002, Mr Rupert Murdoch's News Corp signed an agreement with Hunan Broadcasting Group, another local conglomerate formed under state mandate, to co-produce and broadcast television programmes. 

And only two days ago, News Corp told the Asian Wall Street Journal that it was discussing other possible ventures with Chinese companies in print and radio. [Asia Pacific Media]

The true offensive front in this war is clearly the right wing.  

Michael Thomasky's spot-on editorial about William Kristol's attack on the anti-war movement is a must read.  This quote strikes at the heart of the obvious partisanship and political ideology lurking behind this war.  He is speaking in general of the partisan behavior of the Republicans at this point.  

But mainly what happened is that their guy won -- hijacked -- the White House, so they didn't have anyone in power to hate anymore. Suppose that President Gore were in the White House, and suppose that his military had not captured Osama bin Laden after 18 months; or that anthrax had been mailed to Trent Lott and Jesse Helms' offices, and Gore's Justice Department, 17 months later, didn't even have a suspect! It's obvious to anyone with a mind that the Republicans, and Kristol, would be doing to Gore exactly what they did to Clinton in 1998.

This is a splendid example of understatement.   For those who don't know who William Kristol is, and wonder why he is anxious to use his media clout to further heat up the ideological chasm in America, check these bio links: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

Let's take a look at demographics.  Within America, the predilection to criticize the president in this matter is not bound to class, communism, age, or even political party.  The protests look very much like a combination of mainstream Democrats and Greens.  The more extreme anarchist groups and the ominous kids with ski masks seen at WTO protests are curiously absent from the marches I have seen since last August.  However, there is a surprising amount of cultural diversity in these protests, in comparison to previous protests.  Most important, the crowds are full of many older Americans, and parents with children.  The crowds are definitely not predominantly younger, as we saw in the Vietnam protests.

Islam and Race as a Factor 

The protesting crowds are overwhelmingly white, and I have yet to see a visible Muslim.  I have Muslim friends.  Fear of racist reprisal and fatalistic resignation are the reasons they give for staying out of the marches.  

There are a few Muslims who support the war--expatriate Iraqis have every reason to want Saddam out of power.  Kurds are enthusiastic, though they are also very nervous about what Turkish armies might do to them during the war.  The dictatorship of Qatar is quickly becoming more American than America.  Powerful US military presence ensures stable production of Qatar's offshore natural gas.  Together these have been an economic bonanza for the country.  They currently have free medical care and education, and they still don't pay any taxes.  It's all quite new for them.  When I hear loudmouth conservatives complain that lib'rals should just move to Cuba, I like to tell them about Qatar.  It sounds like tax-hating Republican voter heaven.  They should just move there.  

Turkey has a vested interest in the war, due to their desire to squash and suppress Kurds, and the Kurdish predilection to terrorism.  It is a bit ironic that the two most secular Muslim countries (Turkey and Iraq) are both so interested in harassing Kurds.  It's a situation not unlike the Palestinian one in Israel, except here we have Arabic Sunni/Ba'ath Muslims (non-Wahabi) persecuting Kurdish Wahabi Muslims.  The Middle East has plenty of internal problems and disagreements.

When we look beyond these parties with vested interests, the support for war among Muslim countries is very weak and fragile.  

• update: March 24th 2003--Arab League demands almost unanimously that Americans and British immediately and unconditionally withdraw their forces.  Kuwait was the only no vote, and that was weak.  Even Qatar had harsh words about Bush's diplomatic failure.  
• Which countries are on-board, and why? Bribes, blackmail, harassment...
• What do Iraqis think?  the Nasiriyah battle, Iraqi Skepticism

There is every reason to believe that any compliance we have seen was due more to pressure and fear of the United States rather than an honest moral and intellectual decision.  In spite of the vicious Iran-Iraq war, there are very few Iranians supporting the war.  They have the largest Northern border with Iraq, and there just isn't any talk about British or American troops stationed in Iran. Even Saudi Arabia is being more subdued than usual.  Syria and Jordan are helping Iraq smuggle oil and goods across the border.  African Muslims are vehemently opposed to the war.  Egypt has a puppet-gangster government of American yes-men, though now that war has started, they are turning against Bush.  Locally, my Muslim friends come from many countries, including America.  I have yet to meet one who supports the war, though I know they exist.  Yet, among these many Muslims, you will not find a single one who will deny that Saddam is evil.  They tend to see the Palestinian problem to be the main issue, and this is a distraction.  Israel's terrorism since 1967 compared to Saddam's since 1978...

Christian Faith as a Factor

At every war protest I have attended, the number of Christian clerics and laypeople with religiously motivated picket signs has been large--perhaps as much as 1/4-1/3 of the entire crowd.  They make up the single largest demographic group represented in these marches.  The Vatican and the American Council of Bishops oppose the war.  According to one source, a personal message delivered to Bush from the Pope states that if he goes into Iraq, he goes without God.  Numerous churches have taken official stances against the war. [1, 2, 3, 4]   Undoubtedly, there are churches who are behind the president on this moronic escapade.  They are certainly among those apocalyptic, pro-Israel lovers of death, destruction and Jesus.  Fortunately for the sake of the human race, these vocal and wealthy brutes are in the minority.  

Military Training and Employment as a Factor

Norman Schwarzkopf, the general that led Gulf War 1, is making some very troubling remarks about this war and Donald Rumsfeld.  A very large group of veterans, consisting of many Gulf War vets, has sent a protest letter to Bush with the signatures of 887 military veterans ranging from Vice Admirals, a Brigadier General, many lieutenants, captains, majors...  Just wait--there is a big swell of anti-war sentiment within the military at all ranks.   Back in August of 2002, Bush's father and senior advisors (like James Baker III, Henry Kissinger and Schwarzkopf) informed him that they believe that going in without strong international support is extremely dangerous.  His own father is opposed to war without international support?  

Perhaps the most compelling and damning argument against the simple-minded patriotism of the Republicans is the fact that at every turn the Bush Administration has been working to screw our soldiers in every way they can think of---keeping them over there for ridiculous tours with no end in sight, cutting their pay and benefits all over the place, the list goes on and on.  The best single presentation of the outrages committed by the people who pretend to support our troops is this wonderful little video advert.  

Pacifism as a Factor

In this pre-emptive battle to stop a pre-emptive war, we have seen a variety of protests with a variety of motives.  There are many pacifists in the movement--most of whom are devout Christians who sing religious hymns.  Personally, I have a complex view of war.  Pacifism is my ideal, though I understand that sometimes war is necessary.  However, I believe that extreme situations, and very hard evidence are essential.  Above all, war can only be executed with massive international approval.  

But, I'd like to take a look at an important case.  Recently, an important diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, resigned after twenty years of diplomatic service.  He was the first to call for and lobby for a war in Bosnia, way back in 1994.  He believed that it was a just cause, and plenty of evidence existed.  Americans were shown images and given evidence, and soon we were at war against Serbia.  He worked through Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now Bush Jr.  It took Bush Jr. to drive him over the edge.  It was clearly not a case of pacifism.  This was a measured and careful decision based upon the flimsy evidence and absurd policy Bush is promoting.  

Consider this, if war is justified, why is the media not showing us images of what is happening in Iraq?  Why have they stooped to deception, coercion and plagiarism?  Why did the much-awaited smoking gun presented by Colin Powell create LESS support for war, instead of more?  As noted above, many veterans are opposed to the war too.  It is clear that a lack of evidence and a sense that the war will be neither just, nor effective are much more important factors.

Ideology as a Factor

One of the better editorials that shatters this absurd idea is by Michael Tomasky--hardly a party line Democrat, or even less a Naderite or McGovern peacenik.  But, from a more Republican-leaning direction, look at the following:

Some Republicans are backing down from their Bush War support: prominent Republican  Senators Dick Armey, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hegel.  The pro-corporate, libertarian/fiscal conservative Cato Institute (who were predominantly Bush voters in 2000) have not a single kind word to say about this war.  Lew Rockwell is another example of just such a fiscal conservative, pro-capitalist, Clinton-hating anti-war activist.   A conservative coalition  bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to protest the war.  Expect more Republicans to break ranks now after this nutty little stunt by Bush, in which he accuses Republicans of not being interested in homeland security.  In spite of Colin Powell's obvious talent for playing the Uncle Tom role, it's starting to look like he is going to become either a fall guy for the innumerable failures of the Bush administration's international policies, or he will become their Brutus.  Pat Buchanan has some interesting thoughts on the failure of the Bush War campaign.  Perhaps the most damning article I have read comes from the quite conservative Paul Craig Roberts, who suggests quite clearly that Bush is on a reckless path of self-destruction that may end in a war crimes trial or impeachment.  Mr. Roberts says in another article that the Republican party won't survive this war on Iraq.