"I'm open to a similar liberal intellectual honesty test and I have in fact stated many times that while I really dislike Bush, I support overthrowning Saddam because in no way would I consider the two to be anywhere near the same. (I would however like to see an extension to the current proposed resolution by about a month to win over UN support.)"
So you are in favor of a war in month time.
In one month time are you going to change your mind and decide that we need more time? What about our miltary- if there is a significant threat of soldiers dying because of this waiting do think that is worth this extra time.
Why do you pick a month of time? Is it only because a longer period of time is what most countries which are opposing this are pushing for? What happens if these countries change their minds again? What happens if Saddem makes some concessions, but is still not fully cooperating. What happans if the inspectors in one month time say that things are looking very good- that he isn't encountering any significant opposition from the Iraq govt? But at same time the inspector does not say that Iraq is "fully cooperating".

"My point here was to have all the conservatives who routinely bash anti war democrats take an honest look at themselves and see if they would still hold to their pro war opinions were that opinion championed by someone they despise."

Who are all these convervatives? Larry J, Tom, Ed? I recall them being supportive of your troops during the times Clinton had them go to war.
I do recall some discussion about whether it was in our interest and whether Europe should solve it's own problems. But I don't think they would critical of the president decision to go to war, if there were hundreds of thousands of troops in the war theater. Nor would they think that other countries had a veto power over what our country did with our miltary. Rather I think think if Clinton was exactly in the same position as Bush, they would be unhappy because Clinton was proving them wrong. They would probably be glum and expecting the president could do very well in the next elections. Also I think they might even be madder at France and the rest of the coalition to protect Saddam.

"Do they really believe war is an immediate necessity or are they just rooting on the guy they like? My grading of the answers are completely subjective and quite frankly tangential and irrelevent. The answers speak for themselves."

I do believe that this war is an "immediate necessity"- if it wasn't then Saddam wouldn't be playing with the inspectors at all, nor would other countries want to do anything at all. When the trigger is actually pulled will depend on the President and the miltary. The more countries they can get on board the better, but at same time we must be willing and able to do this alone.
We will go to war or Saddam [or any of his replacements] will finally honor the Desert Storm agreements. At this point in time those are the only reasonable outcomes that I'm aware of.