Sean-Paul (of The Agonist) posted a rant yesterday about the tactics some warbloggers use to dismiss the criticisms of those who oppose the war. He follows it up today with his reaction to some of the feedback he is getting. I agree pretty much with everything he has said. It really pisses me off when "the other side", rather than argue with you on the facts, would rather disparage your motives and cast you into the pot with the worst of the worst. It is a form of intellectual cowardice. "Oh, I can't spend the time necessary to dispute your points. So I'm going to just dismiss you as a deluded fool." His comments neatly tie into my previous post. The range of opinion on Iraq is not as black and white as some would like to make it. And the warbloggers aren't the only ones guilty of making this mistake. Not everyone who supports the removal of Hussein is a warmongering imperialist bent on asserting U.S. power worldwide and seizing control of Iraqi oil so that they can drive their SUVs on cheap gas. Not everyone who opposes removal of Hussein is a weak-kneed appeaser who hates America and sympathizes more with the plight of poor Muslims than the victims of 9/11. Can't we at least acknowledge that some of us have intellectually honest reasons for our opinions even if we don't happen to have the same opinion?