I'm not sure if I support unilateral war with Iraq or not... BUT, I am sure that the very real threat of war, including the deployment, preparations, and rhetoric coming from the US, is an essential part of the diplomacy that's ongoing. Without the threat of violent conflict, there is no chance to affect Saddam's behavior. It's a shame some of our Allies cannot understand that. Can you say Paris and Berlin?
Most appalling about German and French behavior and rhetoric is that they appear to have more trust and faith in a Saddam led Iraq than they have in a George Bush led USA. Though, probably it is more likely is that France and Germany are simply acting like petulant, spoiled teenagers, more intent on asserting their independence than in acting in their own best interest. In the end they will come to dinner, but when they do they should be seated at the kids' table.
Anti-war activists do make some valid points in regard to focus on Iraq. Specifically, North Korea and Pakistan are at least as likely to be sources of WMD to terrorists as is Iraq. AlQueda and Hezbollah are more immediate threats to the US than is Iraq. Why then is the President apparently fixated on Saddam Hussein? I wish the administration was doing a better job in explaining it. If they are all related, as I believe they are, then make the case. Too much effort, lately, has been put on explaining things via the language of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Yes, the President delivered a masterful speech to the UN to help pass the resolution. But he and his administration are NOT following it up by making a good case for action to the public. Too many people are assuming that it is necessary to find the proverbial Smoking Gunto justify any action. There is a bigger and better case to be made, but no one is presenting it. Is it just too difficult to explain? Does the Administration think we won't be able to understand it? Do all arguments necessarily need to be reduced to sound bites? Does any of it matter?
I think it matters, and I'd like to see a more convincing argument. But until then, they Have to make the THREAT of violence very real if there is any hope for a non-violent resolution.