* The netroots criticized the Iraqi effort a) for not gaining the support of the U.N.; b) for not armoring the troops sufficiently; c) for not proving the existence of WMDs; d) for not proving connections to Al Queda; e) for not using enough troops. Can we presume that if George H.W. Bush had been there to get the support of the U.N. and prove Saddam had WMDs, an invasion would have been justified?
I'm sure all of these criticisms were made by many on blogs including mine, but they were just extra criticisms thrown in there in various ways in an attempt to engage the dominant discourse of the times, not the only criticisms which were either made or endorsed. It's useful to a) highlight the failure to engage international institutions/norms, b) highlight anti-military actions by the "we love the military" party, c) lies, d) lies, e) incompetence, to try to convince people who care about all of those things even if they aren't the only or primary reasons for opposing a war. Of course people are going to engage in a debate, to some degree, on the terms in which its being carried out in the dominant discourse.
But nonetheless most people rejected the concept of "pre-emptive war" and rejected the notion that even if WMD claims were all correct Saddam was an actual threat in any way to this country. That was the point that I remember most of us desperately trying to communicate, even if other arguments were used to try to further the general cause of stopping the goddamn war.
Obviously there were some in the liberal blogosphere who were more sympathetic to the Pollackian view of the universe, but for those of who thought this was crazy from the beginning - many of us - its lunacy wasn't about failure to follow UN procedure or to find a buried barrel of mustard gas.