I’m interested in all reasoned arguments pro and con a possible war with Iraq. I don’t find one in Francis’s article. He simply skips by the number one rationale that the advocates of such a war have made from the beginning: that Hussein is in the process of developing nuclear or biological weapons which, he has them, there is no reason to assume he will not pass them on to terrorist networks to use against us. Now maybe that argument is wrong. But Francis and other opponents of the war are obligated to demonstrate that, which they haven’t bothered to do.
While I am opposed to the neocons on most issues, I must say that the arguments they’ve made on this issue have been cogent and persuasive. The same cannot be said for the anti-war party.