the questions remain
Body and Soul ably sums up a number of objections to the war on Iraq.
...and on the subject, one should take notice of this David Broder column (via Matthew Yglesias) that states what should be obvious by now: Bush made up his mind (remember, it wasn't that long ago he was making public
lies statements that he hadn't) to get rid of Saddam by force a long time ago, and he and his adminsitration have tried on any number of justifications to support that decision, with varying degrees of credibility.
I haven't yet responded to an interesting point Dodd raised the other day:
So, it is inconceivable to such as Gore that Bush would be pressing for military action in Iraq because he believes that it must be done.
I am willing to grant that Bush believes it must be done, but--and fortunately, I believe--our Constitutional system simply does not grant the President power to make war simply because he wants to. His task is to convince Congress and the American people that it's necessary, and I think it's arguable that--while he has reminded folks that Iraq is a rogue regime--people remain skeptical about unilateral action. Frankly, leaving aside of the majority of the objections cited by Jeanne D'Arc, myself, and others, there's the fact that the rationale for the war on Iraq continues to be based on headline-grabbing assertions that fail to pan out. Dodd trusts in what Bush believes, and that's fine, but I don't, and I don't see that Bush and his administration are taking an honest approach to overcoming any doubt.
Update: As Congress nears passing a war powers resolution on Iraq, Bush says that force "may be unavoidable." Of course it will be, if Bush categorically refuses to consider any other course. This is exactly what I'm talking about--I get the definite sense that Bush will have his war regardless of what Iraq, the UN, Congress or the American people do or think. And I see that as un-small-d-democratic; I see it as the mindset of a tyrant.