Could you support the war as a war of liberation from essentially a mass murderer?

Could I in principle? Yes. Do I support this war at this time? No.

Let me offer another snippet from the previously cited Sunrise Rotarian interviews:

Mr. HANK RADIKKI (Rotarian): Once you get a quarter of a million troops lined up on the border and we've taken the stand, we've shown why we're doing this, it's way too late. The implications of backing down are huge. It's way too late. I think we just have to do this.

[tangent]
I should offer an apology to any Rotarians on the BBS. It is an organization I know next to nothing about and I shouldn't lump them all together without warrant. I will say, though, that I found the responses of this particular group to be downright horrifying.
[/tangent]

One big problem I have is that Mr. Radikki's main rationale for this war is not unique. In some ways, it looks like it will be adopted on a post-hoc basis by 80 percent of the Democratic Party -- "In for a Penny, in for a Pound" -- I mean, once you have all the soldiers in position, how can you back down? -- "But we already baked the cake!!!" This seems like a really shitty rationale for a war where lots of poor bastards are going to get turned into chutney -- US soldiers, Iraqui conscripts and Iraqui civilians alike.

"The implications of backing down are just huge". Well, I sure *do* think we got ourselves into a fix....but wish we had avoided it.

I guess my biggest problem with the war as proposed is that the administration's case for it shifted from day to day and is based on some considerable deceits. Can't find evidence? Make it up. I guess I find myself in a position that is almost a mirror image to Mr. Radikki: now that I have opposed the war on grounds of shoddy justification for so long, how can I *not* continue to oppose it?

Back to your point, though, one question is how Saddam's murderous tendencies have come to the fore just recently in the "stack" of rationales. I mean, wasn't he a murderous bastard back when he was *our* murderous bastard bulwark against Iran? Wasn't he a murderous bastard in 1991 when W's dad let him retreat to Baghdad?

If the new rule of law is that we should invade any country ruled by a murderous bastard, then it would sure help if we (meaning the U.S.) could get a few other countries to go along with us.

Don't get me wrong. There are times when I wonder how the world sits by -- US, Europe, UN, all -- while butchery runs unchecked (read Gourevitch's book on Rwanda and wonder where the world was...and wonder if W was president, would we have responded?)

So, I both wonder on one hand why we are so selective in our "liberation" ....and, on the other, where these liberations might end.

I'm not sure that is a very consistent answer to your question (full of moral relativism equivocation!!), but that's what I can offer.

Aside from the "murderous bastard" aspects, I would also weigh the loss of life under a continued Hussien regime against the loss of life during this war (lest it not work out as tidily as CNN projects)....and during the aftermath as competitors scrabble to be the new democratic government of a makeshift country with divided interests (and after the Sunrise Rotarians call for our MPs to come home).

Lastly, I take issue on two pragmatic aspects: I think the Crusade aspect will make our situation vis-a-vis the Muslim world much worse.

And I'll admit it: I am a UN kind of guy. I think the way forward is through institutions like the UN and things like treaties -- both of which we seem to be relegating to the trash heap under Shrub.

What pains me is that, as the world's remaining superpower, we *could* have played our cards differently. We *could* be enjoying a much higher degree of affection and support -- but I think we failed to see how much nicer it is to be invited to a party than to barge in.