This is typical. Assume that if the other side is not agreeing with you, the other side must be stupid. (Common assumption in Europe about us, I can tell you from experience.)
The truth is that the headlines and general themes of the left's case are not convincing those on the right. "No blood for oil!" Great, there's a successful stripping-down of the left's argument. No complex explanations there. Problem: a) it's stupid if they mean we intend to invade to control Iraqi oil, since that's obviously not what we'll do; or b) it's exactly wrong if they mean that part of what we're doing is defending our and the world's free access to middle eastern oil. As your site has noted, if Saddam nuked Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields, the resulting world depression would kill more people and cause far more suffering than the invasion will.
So, how about this prescription for the left:
1. Ditch the arrogance and self-righteousness.
2. Assume the other side is thinking.
3. Listen to what the right's arguments.
4. Try to construct a respectful response that will cause the right to listen and possibly to reconsider.
Ah, but what are the odds. Everyone involved is being confused by news-as-entertainment and the disingenous posturing of Bush and his dance partners. We assume that since Bush makes no sense there is no rationale for war. But forget the talking heads -- they're engaging in outrage journalism and "marketing". Dig up the thoughtful arguments on the other side, and then try to get out your reasons for disagreeing. (Or maybe listening to the others side will change your mind -- imagine that!)
Finally, accept that people have different principles and may reasonably disagree given the uncertainties and the difficult tradeoffs.
-Matt
