It's becoming more obvious by the day, in Europe, in Washington, in the United Nations, and on the streets around the world, that this entire controversy on Iraq isn't about Saddam. It isn't about being anti-war. It isn't about concern for the people of Iraq. It isn't about any principled positions at all.

It's about destroying George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Beyond that it is about destroying America, and the West in general. I have posted several items to this effect, which I am too lazy to construct links to. You guys do some work for a change.

Andrew Sullivan has also come slowly to this conclusion, stating in reference to the New York Times:

I've come reluctantly to believe that in the mindset of the Times editorialists, wounding this presidency has become a far greater objective than dealing honestly or consistently with issues of national security. In this, they incarnate the problem at the heart of many (but mercifully not all) of today's Democrats.

He gives them a lot more slack than I would. The New York Times has abandoned any attempts at objectivity, and has revealed itself as not just a Democratic Party buttmonkey, but probably a full-fledged buttgorilla. The Times has become for all intents and purposes the Democratic Pravda. Sullivan fisks a Times article here.

Even The New Republic is beginning to catch a clue.

...It is now clear that Bush's critics didn't mean what they said all along: The mask of nuanced criticism has been pulled off the moderate antiwar position, exposing it for the abject pacifism it truly is.

The vast majority of prominent opponents of a war on Iraq, including a number of Democrats in Washington, are partisan Leftists to their core, and have no other real motivations. I've been telling people so all along, and more and more people are now seeing it for themselves.