Well folks, David Horowitz has it. This left-wing nutball turned right-wing nutball declares on his unholy website that this war has "refuted the opposition". That's right. You can't oppose this war anymore, because the war has refuted your position. He claims all the arguments against the war are no longer valid, and everything Bush and co. said has been verified. Well, let's take a look at the fine print, shall we?

Horowitz says, "The capture and destruction of al-Qaeda's training camp in Northern Iraq irrefutably shows that Iraq is part of the Axis of Evil that includes al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden." Well, not really, for you see, that camp is in KURDISH TERRITORY. How many times do we have to repeat this? It's in Kurdish territory, the same Kurds who are supposedly on our side, and the same ones we're supposedly "liberating". The same territory that Saddam hasn't controlled for years. Horowitz goes on to ask a few rhetorical question. Well, he thinks they're rhetorical. I'm going to answer them.

Why would Osama bin Laden call for a holy war on behalf of an infidel like Saddam Hussein if Saddam wasn't his terrorist ally?

Because bin Laden didn't call for a holy war on behalf of Saddam. He called it on behalf of Iraq. Remember, bin Laden defends any muslim against foreign aggression, regardless of the reason. Bin Laden hates Saddam.

Why would Saddam Hussein impersonate an Islamic paladin if he hadn't joined the Islamic jihad?

Same reason the Saudi royal family does - popular appeal.

Why would he risk housing an al-Qaeda camp?

He wouldn't, and he didn't. There are zero Al Qaeda camps in any region controlled by Saddam.

These are rhetorical questions. No rational person could doubt at this point that the coalition cause is necessary and just.

No rational person would resort to this sort of demagoguery. Read this piece and be afraid, because this is what it means to be "conservative" these days, even though there's nothing conservative about these people.

This article in the Times of London makes the case for war based on Saddam's alleged cruelty. The sub-headline is, "See men shredded, then say you don't support war". This is the equivalent of those pro-life zealots who display pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) for shock value. Of course Saddam is cruel - so are half the governments on the planet. God knows what goes on in China. But that's not the point. The point is, Saddam's cruelty has nothing to do with it. If I did see men shredded by Saddam, it would taint my views, not strengthen them. You're talking about devastating a country with bombs, killing hundreds of innocents, all to take out one bad man? Does this make any sense?

Don't be fooled by these "moral" arguments of the pro-war crowd. They'll say anything to try and paint somebody who is antiwar as an "appeaser" - a man who intentionally lets atrocities occur. But I refuse to jump in my Batmobile and save the world from evil dictators. It's not my job, and it's certainly not Bush's job. Besides, you could make this argument about many countries. "You're letting people suffer in Chinese labor camps? We must go to war with China!", or "How could you sit there and tell me we shouldn't attack Rwanda when they're slaughtering innocents almost every day?" Or, turning the tables even further: "How could you support a country that incinerated thousands of civilians with two atomic bombs?"

If you want to see how far irrational jingoism can go, take a look at this website. Read the comments, too.