So any active war must be supported? I thought that idea was discredited several times over during the 20th century (during the Nuremberg trials, during the Vietnam War, etc.) When a government lies to its people and the world about the terms and reasons for an attack, it is not only patriotic to voice opposition, but it seems to me of questionable morality to do otherwise.

I have friends who are stationed in the Gulf. I admire their patriotism and willingness to place themselves in danger for what they believe is a just cause. I hope they come home safely. But that does not change the fact that the government that sent them there was doing something unjustified. I feel much the same way toward Vietnam veterans I know.

The Bush administration has been dishonest about this war from the start. It has justified it with emotional allusions to the tragedies of 9-11, while admitting when pressed that there is no reason to connect Iraq with terrorist activities. Judging from Ari Fleischer's press conferences and Colin Powell's public presentations, not only has the administration failed to produce a scrap of evidence linking Hussein to Al Quaeda or similar groups, they can't even come up with a vague rumor to link them. But they used the Big Lie approach: say something often enough and people will stop questioning it.

The administration spent months seeking U.N. support for a military assault, and yet repeatedly described that activity as an "attempt to avert war." That's outright Orwellian: using words to mean their opposite.

The administration stated that Hussein could avoid a U.S. invasion of Iraq by going into exile. However, when the administration was finally asked what events would follow if Hussein did that, the response began (and I paraphrase but closely), "Well, first we'd send in our troops...."

We may have another Vietnam on our hands.

You blame the leader who insisted on continuing to use diplomatic means for the fact that the U.S. did not continue to use diplomatic means? All right, now we've moved from Orwell to Lewis Carroll.

I find it hard to believe that people are branding France as a bad ally. The word "ally" doesn't mean someone who will do whatever you tell them to. A true ally -- a true friend -- is someone who will tell you when they think you're about to do something incredibly stupid, dangerous or wrong, whether you want to hear it or not. Yes, Chirac has political motives, but Bush's are more dangerous.

If there are reprisals on U.S. soil, there will be a western political leader to blame, and it won't be Chirac.

The problem with this whole line of reasoning is it contains too many "mays" and "mights." The American way, in theory, is to hold off making accusations (or attacks) until there's evidence. One of the things the U.S. has been proud of in the past is that we didn't approve of first strikes. But then, we also used to feel superior to the Soviet Union because our government didn't spy on its own people and open their mail.