Guardian -- Why the Left is wrong on Saddam and why I may change my mind about invasion

What some in the White House cannot see (and what I think Tony Blair can) is why establishing some set of rules for intervention is so important. If intervention seems arbitrary and depends upon the strategic whims of particular administrations, then many are bound to interpret it merely as an expression of short-term American interests. It won't be a new world order, but simply a Pax Americana. This is a perception that would be bound to cause massive resentment and - in time - lead to real resistance. So UN resolutions matter. Like American military power, they're all we have.

If, in a few weeks time, the Security Council agrees to wage war against Saddam, I shall support it. If there is no resolution but the invasion goes ahead, I will not oppose it, though most of the people I like best will. I can't demonstrate against the liberation, however risky, of the Iraqi people.

Possible links between Saddam and the terrorist group in Kurdish Northern Iraq are eroding my anti-war stance.

Is Saddam evil enough to support military action for getting rid of him? Not when this administration has tolerated much more evil.

Although I keep finding myself more mad at the lies this administration is telling than the worse actions of a homicidal dictator, I have always supported a get tough policy on Iraq that also leads to more support for the Iraqi people.

I do not find the case against Saddam compelling, yet. When the CIA, the FBI and British Intelligence all conclude there is no al-Qaeda - Iraq link I do not like being lied to that there is.

But - I am starting to take more seriously that if Saddam provided support to terrorists that attacked the United States an invasion may be a good thing. They have not yet convinced me - but that is the direction Powell should take to convince me and the anti-war crowd who can be convinced.

In contrast to Powell, every time Bush speaks I cannot get past his lies.

In addition, while Powell and the administration have laid out a case that Iraq is hiding some biological and chemical weapons I cannot get excited about that. I expected that, any country which is being disarmed by an enemy against its will, will hide weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are also the cheap, problematic stuff, if someone gave me $5,000 or so - I could be stockpiling air-deliverable chemical and biological weapons. Like Kristof writes in the New York Times, the solution to this is not to invade Iraq but to have better inspections and other non-invasion punishment for continued evasion.

Any convincing argument, like in Afghanistan, would involve support for enemies who have attacked the United States, not weapons of mass destruction.