You're dealing with a bunch of unstable bullies who are prone to erupt when things go awry. They are petty authoritarians, dreaming up new definitions of "treason" as the war plunges into areas they did not foresee (or chose not to see). Thing is, whether the "victory" is swift and relatively bloodless, or protracted and bloody as all hell, they'll continue to strut and bark orders, and take the names of those who don't snap to attention.

Well, that's heartening. Now, if we could only have an open, honest, and good debate within the Left. Maybe within my lifetime. I can only hope.

Andrew, with all due respect, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Many of us on the Left--myself included, if you please--have indeed been attempting an "open, honest, and good debate."

In my opinion, the fact that recent statements from the Administration to the effect that disarmament would not be sufficient to prevent an invasion--IOW, that the Administration's goal has always been regime change, or in the current parlance, "the liberation of the Iraqi people"--indicates that this Administration has never taken the debate seriously.

While the liberation of the Iraqi people is a laudable goal, I find the amount of dissembling this Administraiton has engaged in to support its abitions to invade Iraq distressing in the extreme. Add to that this Administration's continued assertion of highly questionable claims--including conflating Saddam with al Qaeda, and Bush's repeated but unsupported statements that he "respectfully disagrees" with those who doubt Iraq is a threat--and the conclusion that it's this Administration who is not avoiding "open, honest, and good debate" about this war.

To me, the whole policy of what's being done goes far beyond conservatism.

When I think "conservative" I think of policies designed to reflect prudence, caution, judiciousness, risk avoidance, respect for existing structures/laws/conventions..., and so on. Not only that but the general notion of government staying within limits, making an effort to be open and accountable and not abusing its powers.

That's not at all what we're seeing now.

This war is the handiwork of a small group within the administration who decided upon it long ago behind closed doors and pushed a vague resolution through Congress with only minimal debate (partly Congress' there, to be sure) rather than the full-scale declaration of war that would probably have sparked a very vigorous public discussion and scrutiny to get what they've wanted, which is to see American policy take a sharp turn in favor of militarism and away from internationalism, all the while flouting international laws, norms, etc, trashing longtime relationships, brashly changing doctrines and expanding government power.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Andrew, I'm right with ya. If you read Monday's Washington Post, I'm the Alan Thomas who was the "pro-war leftist" profiled, eight paragraphs worth in the article "The Silent Majority Speaks Out". The writer, Linton Weeks, found me out here in MO via my blog, apparently. (There's a link to it on the Monday entry of my blog if you're interested in seeing it.)

For the record, the other war advocates they talked to were total cheeseballs. I disavow any association with them; they make it embarrassing to take the stance I do. But then, I doubt many peace marchers like to think of Bob Novak or Pat Buchanan as their kind of people, either.

Gregory, you're absolutely right about how dishonest the Bush admin has been about their motives. Their diplomacy has been abysmal. I support removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I am putting my trust in Tony Blair to play watchdog against any attempt by Bush to settle for a more pliant dictator in Saddam's place. That's it. I in no way support Bush, his administration, or his party.

IRAQ SUX ASS

IRAQ SUX ASS