Should We Go (Have Gone) to War?:  
Columnists Against War
Return to FAQs

Also see "Editorials" FAQ section, for post-war updates

1. What Chicago Tribune columnists were against the war?  
2. What were the views of New York Times columnists against the war?
3. Who among Washington Post columnists were against the war?
4. Who were the other U.S. columnists against the war?
5. What British columnists were against the war?

1.  What Chicago Tribune columnist were against the war?

.

The Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman has consistently argued against an invasion. (See New Trier site since Tribune sites are de-linked after one week)

Back in June 2002, Chapman argued in "Flimsy Case for Attacking Iraq", "You'd think the conspicuous lack of evidence tying Saddam Hussein to anti-American terrorism would argue against an invasion of Iraq...So Hussein may be a chronic irritant, but he poses no danger that we can't contain" (6/20/02). 

In late September he argued that the key is using the UN because it "makes the difference."  In late August he had argued: "The Bush team began making plans to get rid of Hussein, and realized it might need to explain why...For months we've been wondering why the administration has been so reluctant to make the case for invading Iraq.  Now we have the answer:  Because there isn't one."  

Earlier, in his October 31 "Why the world is against us on Iraq", Chapman argued that the world was perturbed with "the idea that we're entitled to overthrow unfriendly governments...It's clear from our recent history [Afghanistan]...that after we've finished one military mission we start looking for a new one.  Getting rid of Hussein won't make the Bush administration feel that we've finally secure.  It will merely transfer U.s. anxiety from Iraq to Iran or North Korea...."  Chapman concludes, "It's a dangerous delusion to think, as many conservative do, that our Iraqi policy is unpopular abroad only because everyone else in the world is cowardly, knavish, or blank.  The Bush administration ought to realize that if even your friends disapprove of what you're doing, maybe you're doing something wrong." 

In mid-November he discusses "What could go wrong in the war": Wouldn't it be nice to be rid of Saddam Hussein?  That's how the Bush administration has managed to frame the debate over war with Iraq...there really won't be much of a fight...Americans should realize...that more than any war we've fought in the past half century, this one carries the real risk of catastrophe."   Chapman is also concerned that U.S. military spending, at over $1 billion/day, is now over 6 times the spending of the next 15 countries combined. 

"We're going to war regardless.  But the administration figures if it offers enough reasons to go after Saddam Hussein, people won't notice that none of them is convincing.  A hundred times zero is zero in math, but in politics, nothing piled on nothing can eventually add up to something."  Chapman worries that as Hussein loses power his military officers "will have the chance to get rich selling weapons to the highest bidder--who might just be name Osama bin Laden" (12/19/02). 

On January 2, 2003, Chapman wondered why the U.S. would attack a non-nuclear Iraq but use only diplomacy against a nuclear North Korea.  In mid-December he wrote a thoughtful and convincing commentary on Bush's secrets and lies:  "A war with Iraq...could be the best thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda. 

On January 9, Chapman thought war looked somewhat in doubt. In "Facing new war obstacles" he describes that Iraq is cooperating with inspectors and inspectors aren't finding anything.  "If you want a pretext for war, as President Bush does, no news is bad news."  Resolution 1441 says that "the council will authorize war only if two separate conditions are met--If Iraq withholds information... and if it impedes inspections."  At the UN. Bush would then "have to justify going to war to punish Hussein for transgressions that no one has been able to prove.  To the rest of the world, Bush would be in the position of holding a trial and then hanging the defendant after his acquittal." 

Steve Chapman's January 26 "Bush sheds burdensome friends":  "For the last year the Bush administration has been striving to mobilize the world on Iraq, and it has finally succeeded.  Everyone is coming together--against us...Bush has manage3d to turn sympathy [from 9/11] into resentment."  He concludes, "Instead of advancing the fight against terror, going into Iraq may only plunge us into a wider conflict, while making us more vulnerable." 

Also appearing dovish in the Chicago Tribune is Salim Muwakkil.  On the day before Bush's State of the Union he writes that "one of the primary reason for this disparity [of views toward war] is the difference between the freewheeling, European media and the corporate-owned media companies of the U.S.."

He wonders in  "Can the juggernaut of an Iraqi invasion be stopped?": "It was sad to see such a respected figure [Colin Powell] spend so much of his hard earned credibility trying to push a faulty case...The nation of forbidding unilateral use of force" begun by the UN charter "later justified the Gulf War...after Iraq...invaded Kuwait"  (2/10/03).

Ray Mosely's "Bush prefers bullying opt diplomacy" (3/2) is a harsh critic of the lead up to war.  Mosely recalls Rice's Foreign Affairs article before Bush's inauguration, on the self-interest of foreign policy.  He feels Bush is influenced by Reagan who uses "an implied suggestion that what is good for America, or more precisely, what Americans assume is good for America, is good for the world.  In short America's role is to remake the work in its own image, according to its own principles, even if that means acting without regard to international opinion."  When Bush proclaims "we will hunt 'em down, smoke 'em out" this is exactly the "cowboy mentality" and "gunslinger rhetoric" that erks the world.  Mosely concludes, "Still it was up to the promoters of this coming war to build support for it through careful diplomacy that considered differing national interests.  They have proved to be a thorough and unrepentant failure at that, so how can anyone trust them to carry out the war and its aftermath effectively?" 

Clarence Page began writing frequently about Iraq for The Tribune only in March, 2003.  Responding to Rumsfeld's harsh critique of the French and recalling the recent death of Mr. Fred Rogers (Public Television), Page's "Searching for peace in Mr. Rumsfeld's neighborhood" (3/2), he feels that "...The French have just been doing what the Democrats who are running for President these days are only beginning to do, which is to stand up to the Bush administration when they think they're getting rolled."

On "White House spin",(3/5), Page opens with a football analogy, "Oops!  A funny thing happened on our way to Iraq.  Somebody moved the goal posts...It is unsettling to hear the reasons keep changing...He's come up with a new reason for us to force a regime change in Iraq:  We're going to bring democracy the the Middle East...It's called 'mission creep.'"

Page's March 12 commentary looks at Powell's credibility and at the Project of the New American Century and its push for an invasion before 9/11.

Derrick Z. Jackson is another anti-war syndicated columnist from Boston appearing in the Tribune. In the week before war (3/17), Jackson's column was "World is saying no to war".  Looking at February allies, protests, and opinion polls, Jackson points out that those on our side are "a handful of suppliant leaders who hope their genuflections will result in arms, trade, and untold favoritism."  A war supported by the UN received less that 30% approval in Portugal and Bulgaria and about 40% approval from our allies UK and Australia.  The Gallup poll Jackson refers to showed 50% approved a UN-supported war only in the U.S., Netherlands, and New Zealand.  Without the UN, Australia and New Zealand are 71% opposed to war. 

Most Hawish Tribune Commentaries, George Will,  Charles Krauthammer, and others, are discussed here 

Georgie Anne Geyer, Universal Press Syndicate columnist appearing in the Chicago Tribune and writing in mid-October, emphasized polls showing that 53% of Americans said "they believed that the President is more interested in removing Hussein than in controlling WMD...Americans are held back in their judgments because so few are educated in foreign affairs, much less geography" ("American voices ignored", 10/11/02).  Four weeks later Geyer worried the "war conspiracies continue to fester,", quoting military expert Anthony Cordesman:  "'Thinking we can change the Middle East is like trying to sculpt an iceberg--the iceberg tends to win..'.With the DC war party...you would think [nearly every Iraqi] would love to have a colonial-style American military occupation."

In late-December her concerns were with the questions the administration needed to answer about cost, how many deaths, length of occupation, and winning over the Arab world. ("Losing focus on original goal", 12/27/02). 

Less than a week before the war began Geyer's "New chapters open in the war mystery" examined the roles of INC's Chalabi and Pentagon adviser Perle as well as the cost/troop estimates. (3/14). 

Also syndicated in the Chicago Tribune (and Boston Globe) was Molly Ivins, the author of the book Bushwacked, out in fall of 2003. The Texan writer covered Bush of Governor.  She opens her late-February piece thusly:  "Before we all work ourselves into such righteous snits we can't even talk to one another anymore, let's see what we can agree on.  Wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein does not make anyone a bloodthirsty monster or a tool [of] the oil companies.  Being worried to death about he consequences of invading Iraq does not make anyone unpatriotic or in favor of Saddam Hussein." 

Also appearing in The Tribune was R.C. Longworth who saw the war as inevitable by mid-December:  "The Bush administration, having already declared that Saddam Hussein is lying, has apparently decided to attack Iraq...no matter what the UN inspectors there find, or don't find.  The inevitable still hasn't sunk in for most of the nation...This is the triple doctrine of dominance, unilateralism and pre-emption--all new to American strategic thinking." Longworth feels that the inspector have been a "useful distraction" to give the U.S. time for troops to buildup.  (The ball is rolling toward Iraq war", 12/22/02). 

The Tribune's Don Wycliff looks at allies and unilateralism in "Delay with upstarts" (2/13) where some NATO countries played their own game of unilateralism (over aid for Turkey).  "The lesson...is that even a superpower needs friends.  And friends don't like being taken for granted.  Attention must be paid."

Two weeks later, Wycliffe,  the Tribune public editor writes in "Unconvincing call for war" that he favored U.S. military moves in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda, but is "unmoved" now for "going to war to make Iraq safe for democracy" for three reasons:
1.  Concern for the aftermath.  "George the younger apparently ahs been persuaded that this [not going after Hussein in Gulf War I] is an instance in which father didn't know best";
2.  Concern for the rightness;
3.  Mistrust of the administration's motives.  "Why is Iraq the great threat to America?" (2/27). 

Stanley Kutler, often appearing in the Tribune, wrote of dissentions and the moral and practical reasons to avoid war. Also see "History" for details on Kutler's views.

Others in the Chicago media against the war  include the Chicago Sun-Times op-ed from Andrew Greeley agreed with the polls of late December that more proof was needed, in "Bush on the Warpath Without Proof." 

In other Chicago media, WGN radio host John Williams is not sure about war but trusts the experts.  "At times like this, I defer to people who know more...I'm [focusing on] my sons baseball games, a party I've been invited to, getting the plumber to fix the radiator" (Chicago Tribune, Jan 10).

2.  What were the views of New York Times columnists against the war?

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wonders if war is "the best way to spend thousands of lives and at least $100 billion?"  Kristof's earlier views are expressed in "Wimps on Iraq" .  In mid-September he felt that President Bush needed to show two things before launching a war:  "First, that the threat is so urgent that letting Iraq fester is even riskier than invading it and occupying it for many years to come; second, that deterrence will no longer by successful in containing Saddam" (9/13/02).

In early October 2002, after visiting Iraq, Kristof worried that the dancing "in the streets to welcome American troops...looks like a potentially catastrophic misreading if Iraq" and a White House error "that could haunt us for years...Iraqis hate the U.S. government even more than they hate Saddam, and they are even more distrustful of America's intentions that Saddam's"  ("The Stones of Baghdad", 10/4/02). Also see "The War" FAQs for occupation predictions.

"The first question," Kristof stresses on January 28, is "Will we be safer if we invade?  The real answer is that we don't know." 

His post-State of the Union "Flogging the French" opens with, "Why does everybody hate us?"  Kipling's advice was "trust yourself when all men doubt you/but make allowance of their doubts too".  He reminds readers that "the most sensible suggestion for confronting anti-Americanism comes from one prominent official: 'It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy.  If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us.  IF we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.' That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate.  He was dead right--back then." (1/31/03).  

He weighs in with "War and Wisdom" (2/7/03): "President Bush and Colin Powell have adroitly shown that Iraq is hiding weapons, that Saddam Hussein is a lying scoundrel and that Iraqi officials should be less chatty on the telephone.  But they did not demonstrate that the solution is to invade Iraq...We still have a better option:  containment.  That's why in the Pentagon, civilian leaders are gung-ho but many in uniform [Schwarzkopf, Zinni, Clark] are leery...Saddam may be as nasty as Hitler, but he is unable to invade his neighbors....Inspections have real shortcomings, but they can keep Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons."  

Kristof begins "Hitler on the Nile" by jesting.  "There's so much chest-thumping...about Iraqi menace, that I sometimes feel that the only patriotic thing to do is to invade Iraq and plow salt into its sold [as Rome did in the Punic Wars]".  He then looks at Hitler, Eisenhower, and Nasser as historical parallels and concludes that a war hero like Eisenhower would probably "not stand up to the lily-livered pussy-footing peaceniks and squish Saddam Hussein like a bug." (2/25). Also see History FAQ section.

"Losses, Before Bullets Fly" summarized the situation on March 7.  "So let's take stock of how our invasion of Iraq is going.  The Western alliance is ferociously strained, NATO is paralyzed, America is resented by millions, the UN is in crisis, U.S. pals like Tony Blair are being skewered at home, North Korea has exploited our distraction to crank up plutonium production, oil prices have surged, and the world financial markets have sagged.  And the war hasn't even begun yet."  

Reporting from Turkey one week before the war, Kristof describes the Kurds and the U.S. alliance with NATO country Turkey in "Hatreds Steeped in Blood" (3/11).  "The U.S., desperate to get basing rights for its troops in Turkey, agreed that Turkey should enter northern Iraq--which is like hiring the Bloods to patrol a Crips neighborhood.  Then Turkey's parliament turned down the proposal for up to 62,000 U.S. troops anyway, despite our bribe of $6 billion in direct aid. At this point, the White House would probably like to see more democracy in Iraq and less in Turkey.  

His "Torture, Beyond Saddam"  looks at Turkey government of harsh treatment of the Kurds and the Kurdish sense of betrayal throughout the past 20 years,.  Concern that in a desperate bid of Turkey's ally we would sacrifice Kurds to Turkish invasion of Kurdistan, Kristof writes, "Turkey had been less tolerant of Kurdish language and culture than Saddam...But if our claims to be acting on behalf of the people of Iraq are to have credibility and moral legitimacy , we must try to stop Kurds from being slaughtered not only by our enemies in Baghdad but also by our friends in Ankara" (3/14). 

Kristof's Times colleague Paul Krugman, took a break from mostly writing about economic issues to pen a number of columns in February, 2003.  Krugman's book The Great Unraveling came out in the second half of 2003.

"The Wimps of War" (2/11) Though sometimes described as Churchillian (World War II British leader), Bush has not yet asked America for "blood, toil, tears, and seat.  Has there ever before been a leader who combined so much martial rhetoric with so few call for sacrifice or to put it a bit differently: Is Mr. Bush, for all his tough talk, unwilling to admit that going to war involves some tough choices?"  The French think he wants war not because Hussein is a menace, but "because he'd rather have an easy victory in a conventional war than stick to the hard task of tracking down stateless terrorists."

The next week Krugman analyzed the division between the U.S. and Europe by noting U.S. dependency on TV (pro-administration Fox and CNN, for example) while European TV coverage is different.  "Some U.S. media outlets--operating in an environment in which anyone who question the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic--have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question" ("Behind The Great Divide", 2/18). Krugman's "The Martial Plan" (2/21) speaks of attempts to gain allies and commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan:  "The Marshall Plan (after World War II) was America's finest hour...But one suspects that our current leaders would have jeered at this exercise in 'nation-building.'  And they are certainly following a very different strategy today...Small countries that currently have seats on the UNSC have suddenly receive favorable treatment for aid request, in a obvious attempt to influence their votes. Cynics say that the 'coalition of the willing' President Bush spoke of turns out to be a 'coalition of the bought off' instead....So how much money for Afghan reconstruction did the administration put in its 2004 budget?  None.  The Bush team forgot about it.  Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse. You can see why the Turks, in addition to demanding even more money, want guarantees in writing.  Administration officials are insulted when the Turks say that a persona assurance from Mr. Bush isn't enough...This administration does martial plans, not Marshall Plans; billions for offense, not one cent for reconstruction."  

"President Bush [has] a credibility problem," Krugman proclaims in "Threats, Promises, and Lies" (2/25).  The Hawks argue that since soldier are already in position, "We must attack or the world won't take us seriously."  

Krugman expresses concern about "blatant bullying" for UN votes in "Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear" (2/7).  He describes President Bush "[alluding] to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way."  The President had said that a no vote would lead to "a certain sense of discipline".  Krugman saw House Speaker Dennis Hastert's comments as the Financial Times headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." 

"The odds are that by the time you read my next column, the war will already have started," predicted Krugman on March 14.  His concern in "George W. Queeg" were diplomacy, evidence, and inevitability.  The administration, with its "awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance" seems amazed that "the tactics that work so well on journalist and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world...The original reason given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed.  No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link withal Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program...At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale."  Hoping for a quick, easy victory, with few civilian casualties, Krugman believes that "even if it all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons--and there will be a heavy price to pay." 

Krugman's "Things To Come" came on the eve of war in which he admits being "frightened" by the aftermath.  "The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have gathered in the rest of the world"  The Bush administration has demonstrated "over and over" that it "doesn't play by the rules" on issues like global warning, IBM Treaty, immigration with Mexico, or others.  On the home front Krugman is most scared because "we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense.  Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media.  So most Americans have no ideas why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives.  And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening." The former Princeton professor concludes, "So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying  a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition."  

Also in The New York Times, is Maureen Dowd.  In the fall of 2002, Dowd often satirized or teased Bush, as in "Why?  Because We Can" (9/29/02). In "The Empire Strikes First" (1/29/03), rather than a smoking gun Dowd saw "merely a smoky allusion" to al Qaeda connections and playing on fear of 9/11.

 In February she wrote, "The administration isn't targeting Iraq because of 9/11.  It's exploiting 9/11 to target Iraq." (Feb. 2) writes:  "We're going to war because...we want to strike back at some enemy, and it is too hard to find Osama."  She poses the succinct, critical question in "The Venus Trap" (2/16).  "Everyone knows Saddam is lying; the question is whether it's worth a war."

In early March Dowd responded to the president's most recent speech, arguing that "he finally coughed up the real reason for war;  trickle down democracy ("will be an example of freedom...begin a new state for Middle East peace") She continued, "After obscuring the real reasons for war, the Bushies are now obscuring the pentagon's assessments of the costs of war ($60 billion to $200 billion?) the size of the occupation force (100,000 to 400,000?) and the length of time the American troops will stay in Iraq (2 to 10 years?).  

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd's March 9 column ("The Xanax Cowboy") examined the 9/11 link:  "...Citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot."  she quotes another writer that "'As a bogus rallying cry, "Remember 9/11' ranks with "Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964.'"

On the eve of war Dowd's "Mashing Our Monster" examines the inevitability of war.  "The Bush hawks...intended to give pre-emption a chance...They never wanted to merely disarm the slimy Saddam.  They wanted to dislodge and dispose of him...The hawks despite the UN, and if they'd gotten its support, they never would have been able to establish the principle that the U.s. can act wherever and whenever it wants to."

The New York Times' Bob Herbert was surprised that Americans didn't see many negatives of war. Hussein is horrible but so is the violence of war.  ("Bombs and Blood", 3/13).  Herbert's "With Ears and eyes Closed" (3/17) worries of inevitability and tragedy.  The Azores, summit reinforces his belief that President Bush has "closed his mind to those who have argued that pre-emptive warfare will ultimately make a world more--not less--unstable."  Democracy is unlikely to come to Iraq, which the State Department has even predicted.  Herbert concludes, "The president's mind was made up long ago and all the chatter pro and con was just so much smoke in the wind.  Mr. Bush will have his war." 

For New York Times' William Safire, see "In Favor of War"

3.  Who among Washington Post columnists were against the war?

The Washington Post's Mary McGrory writes that despite the January 9 Blix report of no "smoking gun", the administration "insists that Saddam Hussein possesses forbidden weapons, although it won't tell us how it knows.  We could bomb Baghdad just in case.  On the other hand, if the wretch fesses up to toxic stashes in the sand, we will bomb Baghdad just to punish him" (1/12/03).  But McGrory became more persuaded ("I'm persuaded", 2/26) for war even though she finds Bush "a flighty thinker" and "nobody" she knew was for the war.  The cumulative effect of Powell's presentation "was stunning."  She concludes, "I'm not ready for war yet.  But...if we do go, there is reason." 

McGrory's "The 'Shock and Awe' News Conference" (3/9), examines how the presidential news conference was scripted in that the president had a list and order of who he would call on.  "The president has a profound aversion to being called on to explain himself." 

Another Post contributor, Michael Kinsley, worried of mission creep in October: "Sending mixed signals and leaving the enemy uncertain...are valid tactics.  But the cloud of confusion that surrounds Bush's Iraq policy is not tactical.  It's the real thing." ("War For Dummies", 10/11/02). 

Earlier in the debate,  William Raspberry expresses his moral and pragmatic doubts in his June 3, 2002 editorial, "...We've Too Much at Stake To Risk It."  and in September with "Our Insane Focus on Iraq".   In September, William Raspberry, also of the Post,  hoped the strong talk was just to force a military coup.  He wanted to convince himself that there is no reason that our leaders "would move forward on such a...brutish and lawless course in such a thin rationale" (9/3/02).

Raspberry's March 3's "Consequences of War" looks at those who argue for or against war as "increasingly preaching to our own choirs" and we want Iraq contained.  

On the following Monday, in "Misreading Power" (3/12) Raspberry worries of U.S. unilateralism.  "We are the most powerful nation in the world.  We want to do good things.  Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thin.  Therefore, we have both the power and the moral duty to rid the world of Hussein--no matter what the rest of the world thinks."  So goes the syllogism logic of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, according to Duke University's Bruce Jentelson (Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy).  Jentleson also feels that "axis of evil" is just "a catchy phrase" and "calling Europe names--that's just silly...but tenacity without judgment doesn't give [the president] the credibility he needs in the world." 

Raspberry, in  "A Case for Powell, but Not War", (2/10/03) was convinced by Powell's "spectacular performance" and was "converted to the idea" that Hussein is in material breach.  but does that mean war is now best?  He was not convinced that Hussein would attack the U.S. but "the unspoken element" is that he might attack Israel. 

4.  Who were the other U.S. columnists against the war?

Robert Scheer, writing in The Nation, was concerned that the case for war was built around lies.  Donald Rumsfeld's "bullet-proof evidence" of WMD, linking Hussein to 9/11. 

Sheer criticized Rumsfeld for talking  of Hussein gassing his own people without also telling us that then-President Bush gave Hussein "$1.2 billion in financial credits" after these attacks on the Kurds. "And Bush lied to the world by telling us Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat. UN inspectors instead have pointed out that they have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program and that some of the documents they were fed from Western intelligence agencies had been faked.  In the end, it is despicable how the White House has denigrated and short-circuited the clearly effective work of UN inspectors because they failed to manufacture evidence supporting Bush's rationale for preemptive war." 

The International Herald Tribune has frequent contributions from William Pfaff who worried in late January of the better memory European shave of the deadlines and reluctance of war.  For example, the bloody civil war death of nearly 500,000 was about 1.5% of total U.S. population.  "The single battle of the Somme in World War I produced twice as many European casualties as the U.S. suffered, wounded included, during that entire war."  American lost about 400,000 in World War II, Russia lost about 20 million. 

William Pfaff worried about lack of allies in "Don't blame the French."  http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4628942-103677,00.html
Writing the day the war began, Pfaff was concerned. "And so we go to war, the United States, Britain, and Australia--alone.  George W. Bush and Tony Blair see this as a Churchillian moment:  alone?  So be it.  If their troops are received in Basra by surrendering Iraqi soldiers, and by Iraqi civilians cheering their liberators, they say all the rest will be forgotten.  We shall soon know...The failure of the US to win international support for it position on Iraq is due in part to the weakness of its case.  Few saw Iraq in its present condition as a threat to anyone, much less the to eh US.  Washington had no serious evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaida.  The failure was also due to this administration's arrogance in its employment of American power." 

The Progressive Editor Matthew Rothschild is against a war, in "Bush's Favorite Tool." His "A Bully's Coalition" comments on a coalition of the willing and unwilling.  "'Unwilling' connotes lacking in will power, wimpishness, fecklessnes."  (1/21/03).  Rothschild also doubts that Cheney and Rumsfeld "lie awake at night haunted by the plight of innocent Iraqis.  If they did, they would have lifted economic sanctions a long time ago."

In "The Emperor Has Spoken" (1/28/03) he makes light of Bush's line, "If war is forced upon us." "This may be the most obscene use of the passive voice in recorded history. No one is forcing Bush to go to war.  He's been forcing the war option from day one!"  Rothschild criticizes the Bush inconsistency on enforcing UN resolution. Israel and Turkey have both violated over 20 resolution since 1968, "but you don't hear Bush clamoring for regime change in Israel or Turkey."  In mid-February Rothschild's hypothesized that "Saddam has cooperated with the UN far more than the Bush administration must have expected" But "regime change has always been the issue." (2/14). 

Rothschild's late-February "Bush's Speech Falls Flat" makes light of the "if war is forced upon us" phrase.  Replies Rothschild, "No one is forcing you, George!"  The recent Bush argument for democracy in Iraq "doesn't stand up" because real democracy could have the Shiite majority rule and they are likely to ally with Iran. 

Concerned with media manipulation, Rothschild's first March piece sees Bush trying to make the 9/11-Iraq link, referring to Iraq as "a mounting threat, growing danger, direct and growing threat."  He wonders how the Iraq threat be growing with U.S. and British planes intensifying booming Iraq, with weapons inspectors on the ground, and with spy satellites.  

His "Bush's Press Conference, More Fearmongering and Warmongering" (3/7) looked at the March 6 news conference  when Bush "said flat out 'Saddam Hussein is not disarming.  This is a fact.  It cannot be denied.'  But Hans Blix himself denies it."  The destruction of 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles constitutes "'a substantial measure of disarmament...We're not watching the braking of toothpicks here,'" said Blix.

Examining the legality of war, Rothschild quotes from Article 2 of the UN charter.  "All members shall refrain in the international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."  The only time a county can act alone is "if an armed attack occurs against it."   But, Rothschild quotes President Bush, we will go to war "for the sake of peace." (3/7).

The Progressive editor criticizes George Will's view of sanctions.  (See Will below) On the March 16 "This Week" program on ABC, Will said, "'The UN itself estimates that the current UN policy of trying to contain Saddam with economic sanctions kills 5000 Iraqi children under five years old every month'...I don't recall Will being moved by this static before.  I don't recall him advocating the lifting of economic sanction to save these innocent lives...It was war propaganda of the most disreputable sort."  Will had probably taken to heart the March 12 Washington Post op-ed by Walter Russell Mead, "Deadlier Than War."  (Also see "Sanctions" for more details) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13019-2003Mar11?language=printer

On truth and falsity, Rothschild describes his "sickening feeling" at watching "helplessly as our government get ready, any hour now, to launch an illegal and unjust war that will wreck havoc on so many innocent lives...In his characteristically callow yet arrogant way, Bush said on Sunday in the Azores that 'tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world.'  But it is actually a moment of great falsity:  the falsehood that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat to the world; the falsehood that Bush is about to wage was for the sake of peace; the falsehood that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 grants the U.S. the right to got to war even when the SC obviously would not approve it.  So now we, as citizens of this empire, are forced to watch this renegade President wage war in our name."

Just days before war, Matthew Rothschild's "If War Breaks Out" criticizes President Bush again, for continuing to say, "'If war is forced upon us...'  George Bush will launch this war; war will not break out."

"The Boy King and His War", (http://www.progressive.org/april03/comm0403.html) appearing on the eve of war, expresses that weapons inspectors were "a ruse.  What Bush has wanted all along is to overthrow Saddam Hussein.  He was honest about that originally, though he used the hideous neologism 'regime change.'  But when that wouldn't fly diplomatically, he reverted to disarmament.  Then, when it became obvious that Saddam was cooperating, at least to some extent, with the inspectors, Bush pulled the 'regime change' card out of his sleeve again...By threatening to invade and occupy another Muslim county, Bush is playing the role that Osama bin Laden has assigned to him:  that of Islam's enemy.  In February, bin Laden denounced 'the crusaders' for trying ot 'occupy the capital of Islam in the poast and to usurp the wealth of Muslims and to put up a puppet government to control you."

Rothschild concluded his 8-page eve of war piece "Bush Trashes the UN" with a historical comparison:  "There will came a day when the U.S. is no longer king of the hill, when other powers arise to challenge Washington for dominance.  The Roman Empire lasted 500 years.  The British Empire lasted almost 400 years.  The Soviet Empire vanished within seventy-five years.  The 1000 Year Reich lasted barely more than a single decade.  The American Empire will fade, as well.  At such a time, it would be in the interest of the United States to have still standing an institution that can act as a buffer against war." 

David Cortright writes for The Progressive to "Stop the War Before it Starts".  

Howard Zinn, often contributing to The Progressive, tends to emphasize civilian deaths.  In "A Chorus Against War", Zinn feels "approve" [of war] polls show "shallow and shaky" support.  "The assumption is that once the soldiers are in combat, the American people will unite behind the war.  The television screens will show 'smart bombs' exploding, and the Secretary of Defense will assure the American people that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum."  Later, he responds to anti-war demonstrations:  "The absurdity of this war is so starkly clear that people who have never been involved in a n anti-war demonstrations have been showing up in huge numbers at recent rallies.  If you've been to one of them, you can testify to the number of young people and older people doing this for the first time" (34/30.  Howard Zinn is the author of A People's History of the United States.

Among other U.S. writers against the war, back in the U.S., Vietnam veteran and DePaul University law professor James Colliton gives an emotional, chilling, and personal appeal in "Past experience has shown war is no game." Chicago Tribune, 2/16/03). 

Former Gore NSA Adviser Lean Fuerth argued in "Intoxicated With Power": "Much of the time the administration's overall approach to policy breathes impatience with the opinion of others, eagerness for military action despite protestations to the contrary."  

Charles Lipson, in the Feb. 9, 2003 Chicago Tribune, presents a series of 11 current FAQs.
The Knoxville New Sentinel's Don Williams argues that "Bush Hasn't Made the Case for War.." on Jan. 24.

After the UN resolution passed, David Corn wrote in The Nation on "Bush and His Pro-War Bias."

The Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant (12/24/02) reminds us that though war may be necessary, "The case for war must be based on evidence not suspicions.  This evidence should be made public."

Canadian newspaper columnists tended to be dovish.  In the Toronto Star, Linda McQuaig responds to Bush's "newest reason to invade." 'An attack...would cripple our economy.'"  She worries of civilian deaths and U.S. selfishness, wondering why the West "has the right to kill tens of thousands of people...And we wonder why they hate us?" (1/5). 

In The Globe and Mail, "What This War Is Not About", gives specific reasons what the war is not about:  terror, WMD, democracy, or helping the U.S. economy.  "So what is it about?  Hard to choose:  oil, domination, revenge, punishing an insubordinate client/  Whew.  At least we know what is isn't" (Rick Salutin, 1/3/03).

5.  What British columnists were against the war?

Britain's John Pilger's November interview in The Progressive is critical of hawks and sympathetic with innocent, thus consistent with Pilger's writing over the years.  The Australian-born and London-based journalist and filmmaker has twice won the highest award in British journalism.  Pilger says, "The attack on Iraq has been long planned...the war on terrorism has given them that opportunity."  On journalistic objectivity he calls them unknowing speakers for the establishment who make assumption that "the world should be seen in terms if its usefulness to the West, not humanity.  This leads journalists to make a distinction between people who matter and people who don't matter.  The people who died in the Twin Towers in that terrible crime mattered.  The people who were bombed to death in dusty villages in Afghanistan didn't matter, even though it now seems that their numbers were greater.  The people who will die in Iraq don't matter.  Iraq has been successfully demonized as if everybody who lives there is Saddam Hussein.  In the build-up to this attack on Iraq, journalists have almost universally excluded the prospect of civilian deaths, the number so of people who would die, because those people don't matter." 

Pilger's late January contribution called Tony Blair "a coward" spoke of DU, earlier American sales helpful in Iraq making WMD, and the shock and awe strategy. 

Robert Fisk, on the liberal Independent/UK, a harsh critic of Bush and Blair on Iraq, writes that "Bush thinks he is the Churchill of America, refusing the appeasement of Saddam.. One of the principal nations which "did nothing about Hitler" was the U.S....in 1939, 1940, and most of 1941 until Pearl Harbor.

Fisk worried that after the war, "What do we do when Iraqis...demand our withdrawal?  For be sure this will happen...For we will be in occupation of a foreign land.  We will be in occupation of Iraq as surely as Israel is in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."  When Bush urged in September of 2002 the return of weapons inspects to complete their work, Fisk surmises that "Bush, of course, was hoping that Iraq would refuse to have the inspectors return."  He goes on to criticize the New York Times dependence of official sources for its stories. ("The Wartime Deceptions:  Saddam is Hitler and It's Not About Oil"). 

In February Fisk saw concern with "script approval" of embedded reporters in the coming war. CNN had reported that "all reporters preparing package scripts must submit scripts for approval."  On the eve of war Fisk further examined what he termed the coming misinformation and gave his readers a list of "Weasel words to watch.", which included suicidal, remnants, and allegedly. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-04.htm

Simon Tisdall of The Guardian (London) wrote often about Iraq and was critical of the administration.  In mid-September 2002 he wondered after Iraq finally agreed to U.S. demands, "What does the U.S. do?  Ask for more [the 5 demands at the UN]."  Others call this "moving the goalposts. 

See The Guardian's thorough and helpful web site on the war.

As regards the evidence, Tisdall wrote on September 26, in "The Weakest Link": "It is possible that Ms. Rice [in her claims of al-Qaeda links) has suddenly uncovered the closest thing yet to a smoking gun...On the other hand, it is possible that Ms. rice and hardliners in the administration are rowing desperate in their attempts to justify their current policy on Iraq...Iraq is a secular state, has no history of promoting or assisting al-Qaeda-type Islamists and fundamentalist groups...Is it a coincidence that these administrative claims emerge as both Congress and the UN are about to vote?..."  Tisdall concludes, "Where is the hard evidence?  Or is the Bush administration moving beyond facts and into the realm of propaganda.  Ms. Rice has more work to do before this dog will hunt." 

In December after "slippery Saddam disappointed" the Hawks by cooperating, he wrote, "It's been tough being a Hawk since then.  Every time Bush suggests the UN inspections regime was up the spot already, that annoying Kofi Annan popped up to say it was all going fine...A pattern of non-compliance is developing, the US will insist...but says that in his coming battle, he has a host of friends and allies.  But most have been bought, bullied, or destabilised into bogus solidarity."

In January 2003 Tisdall examines the UN and inspectors:  "The current fixation [by Blair and much of Europe] with a second UN resolution is delusional...and won't make the war more just ("Don't' Count on the UN to save us from going to war", 1/20). 

Tisdall's Feb. 17 contribution was "Blair's 'moral' case for war in Iraq is shot full of holes."  "With so many possible or likely negative consequences, and with US motives and follow-through in doubt, it cannot be reasonably and objectively conclude that war against Iraq is morally preferable to the alternative.  Nobody advises doing 'nothing' about Iraq." 

Sounding dovish and anti-imperialistic chords in late February is "War remains the option of first resort--not last", 2/27.  Tisdall looks at the many cold and hot wars, covert and overt wars, fought by the U.S. since World War II.  "Untroubled by any possible sense of paradox, Bush vows to wage war against all of America's enemies 'to secure the peace.'  That this war, again in Bush's own words, will be continuous, global, and indefinite in duration is but a logical extension of a U.S. pre-imminence that came of age around the ashes of Hiroshima".  The world remains "addicted to war." 

In a creatively humorous column just a week before war, The Guardian's Tisdall pokes fun at the UN and its characters, including Kofi, George, Tony, Osama, and Saddam.  "If the UN were a kindergarten, it would definitely be time to call a time out," opens this entertaining piece. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4624365-105806,00.html

Looking back at the countdown to war, Tisdall wrote on September 22, 2003, "Bush bomboozled the UN as well as his fellow citizens over Iraq, pretending for at least six months that a decision to attack Saddam had not been made, when in truth it had.  He made of Hans Blix's good faith weapons inspection a charade that was sure to end in failure, whatever Iraq did and whatever Blix found.'

Tisdall was able to add some much needed humor to the series UN negotiations with his clever "boys on the UN playground" column.  "If the UN were a kindergarten, it would definitely be time to call a time out."  For the informed reader, this clever take on Bush, Blair, Annan, bin Laden, Chirac, and Hussein is good for a laugh.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4624365-105806,00.html

Guardian colleague Julian Borger wrote of the "exaggerated Iraqi threat" as early as October.  His concerns included weak evidence of aluminum tubes and connection with al Qaeda. In late November, Borger co-authored "What will be the trigger for war?" (11/27/02) and considered six scenarios. One was that on December 8 Iraq denies that it was WMD and invites inspections.  Resolution 1441 says material breach if false statements or omissions and failure to cooperate with inspections. A second scenario could be that the Iraqis cooperate and the inspections find nothing.  Borger sees this as most likely as Iraqi evidence is now hidden. 

A third regular Guardian commentator was Martin Woolacott.  who wonders about the drive to war.  Setting the scene of late January 2003, Woolacott opens, "Weightier decision than those due to be taken in the next two to three weeks can hardly be imagine.  In rapid sequence, UN inspectors will make their report, Bush will give his state of the union address, the Security Council will meet to discuss Iraq, and the Israelis will go to the polls [Prime Minister Sharon was re-elected]"  He assumes it as a given that Iraq has WMD and the U.S. troops pressured him to accept inspect6os.  but in hopes of avoiding a unilateral (or bilateral war) and to allow time for Hussein to "convict himself" Woolacott seeks waiting through the summer (1/24/03). 

In late February he raises concerns about a messy occupation in "Pursuing war and peace in the Iraq goldfish bowl." 

Another Guardian commentator, Richard Norton-Taylor, wonders why the rush to war.  "What's the hurry, why now?  The simple answer is because the Bush administration's domestic political agenda dictates it [Get war over before the start of the re-election bid]. (1/23/03).  

Colleague Brian Whitaker in "An Engineered Crisis", thinks Hussein is less of a military threat than the 1990s, disputes nuclear claims, think that "time is running out" only "because Mr. Wolfowitz [Pentagon] says it is. Whitaker then examines the views of former assistant secretary of state, Edward Walker.  Walker says, "the antagonists perception is that we are driven by the six Cs, cowboys (shoot from the hip), colonialism (drive for oil), conspiracy, Coca-Cola (consumer society), cowardice (schoolyard bully) and clientitis (Israel) (1/27/03). 

A further harsh administration critic writing in The Guardian concludes his piece of Bush's evidence:  "When Bush says that Iraq poses a direct threat to the U.S. that it could have a nuclear bomb within six months, that it has a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the U.S.' he is directly contradicting his own security and intelligence experts.  But what does he care?  It achieves the desired effects of whipping up popular support for a military adventure against Iraq" (Alexander Chancellor, 11/2/02).

"The Pentagon's 'Voila Moment'" is described by Naomi Klein (3/3) as when Iraqi soldiers and civilians "with bombs raining down on Baghdad, suddenly scratch their heads and say to themselves: "These bombs aren't really meant to kill me and my family, they are meant to free us from an evil dictator!'  At this point, they thank Uncle Sam, lower their weapons, abandon their posts, and rise up against Saddam Hussein. Voila!" 

"A second resolution is not enough" argued the Guardian op-ed by Tariq Ali (2/21), as he harkens back to Mark Twain in the year before the U.S. entered World War I.  "'Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked...then he will by and by convince himself that the war is just and will thank God'.  Ali concludes, "It is necessary to insist the UN-back war would be as immoral and unjust as the one being plotted in the Pentagon--because it will be the same war." 

Harsh humor of the inevitability of war ("Weapons of Mass Distraction") contend that Great Britain needs no further evidence.  "The reporting of the inspections...leave no doubt as to Saddam's guilt.  They have found paper cups of a type that would be used to refresh workers making WMD. also uncovered was an atlas which included detailed maps of the U.S. and Britain, and a keyboard which could be used to type the letters "B.O.M.B."  whatever they find the verdict is already decided"  (11/30/02, John O'Farrell in The Guardian).