The most recent legitimate poll I have seen shows more Democrats support the war than not. More than half of all Demcrats support the war. Look at the vote totals and the names of the Democrats in congress who voted for it.
On the other hand, without benefit of a poll, I have unscientifically polled most of the libertarians I know and they are overwhemingly in favor of removing Saddam's regime when they are convinced that he is a threat. They all support the government's legitimate function of defending our rights from thugs like Saddam. Not all of them are convinced that he is a threat which justifies this action at this point, but neither are many conservatives.
On this forum, many loudmouths call anyone who shows the slightest hesitation to sign on to everything the President says, traitors. It seems that those types value your right to dissent, as long as it is dissention to Democrats.
Precisely. I'd go so far as to say that if I could see evidence that Sadaam were involved in the attacks of 9/11, provided logistics or support in any way, I'd support a US military campaign, after war was declared, against him. Turn his cities into rubble and barbeque his goats. That would be fine.
The neocons will argue that the evidence is alrady there. I of course disagree, but the point here is that that is my standard. Not supporting the war does not automatically make one a pacifist.
If someone accepted that Saddam has extensive links to international terrorism in general (which is documented), and that the war on international terrorism (not just on al Queda) was proper, I wonder how they would expect to make progress to win it while Saddam remained empowered.