From the viewpoint of those of us not itching for a war, there are really only two good outcomes of the current situation: Saddam Hussein backs down on his weapons program, or his generals take him out and shoot him because they don’t want their troops getting shredded again, and then they back down. The more effectively the case against going to war gets made, the less likely those outcomes get to be, because they will happen only in the face of a credible threat to clobber Iraq militarily if a backdown doesn’t happen. So offering good, solid arguments against a reckless course of action in a free, democratic debate may not be a helpful thing to do.
No, actually, I don’t like that answer any better than you do. But here’s the analysis that supports it. Tell me where I’m wrong.