Basically, I agree with you. The vast majority of protesters cannot logically explain why they are
so against this war. It doesn't add up. You can't even explain it by saying that "they're leftists", because
true leftists would be holding signs saying "Liberate Iraq!" Something
else is going on and I'm afraid it's very basic: they hate Bush, Bush wants war, therefore war bad.
The only other possible factor I can think of is that being "anti-war", in and of itself, is a pleasant moral posture which allows these people to stroke their own egos with no personal sacrifice, or even thought. By this view, some of the protesters went and stood on the streets holding signs because it made them feel good about themselves, and allowed them to feel superior to other people.
I'm not sure which impulse was more prevalent. Also, both impulses (anti-Bush, and Ego Trip) are probably present in a significant number of "anti-war" folks.
The only other possible factor I can think of is that being "anti-war", in and of itself, is a pleasant moral posture which allows these people to stroke their own egos with no personal sacrifice, or even thought. Damn right. Remember Martin Sheen sleeping on the sidewalk for one night a few years ago to supposedly demonstrate solidarity with homeless people? What did it accomplish other than Martin and all the other wacko Hollyweird liberaloids feeling good about themselves? Jack sh*t, that's what.
I think the anti-war crowd consists of 4 basic groups: (1) the far left, who are generally the organizers; (2) the Bush-haters and America-haters, who are leftist but not necessarily as extreme or as committed as those in group #1; (3) the religious groups and pacifists; and (4) the soccer moms and other miscellaneous dupes of groups 1 through 3, who find talk of war "scary" and just want to close their eyes, click their heels, and hope the bad guys go away.