Reasoned opposition to the war

I willingly seek out the opinions of people who initially opposed or have come to oppose the decision to go to war in Iraq on a cost/benefit basis (i.e., the cost in terms of money and lives was not worth the benefits of enforcing the terms of the armistice that ended the 1991 war, removing Saddam, eliminating a believed WMD threat, and spreading democracy). What infuriates me is when people suggest that there is some moral equivalance between the United States and the "insurgents." I recently cited the example of Helen Thomas:

Did Bush think that at least some Iraqis some would not stand and defend their country? Is patriotism simply an American phenomenon?

There certainly have been others, but here are some from the better known spokespeople for this point of view.

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” - Michael Moore.

"Now that we have decimated [Iraq], the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in . . ." - Cindy Sheehan.

"I think the decision the Iraqis have made to resist foreign occupation is a heroic decision." - George Galloway.

To all of these people, I now simply offer this quote from the "heroic," "patriotic," leader of the "Minutemen"/"freedom fighters," a man who is not even an Iraqi.

The threat of further massacres was sharpened last week when the architect of much of the killing, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, declared a "full-scale war on Shiites all over Iraq, wherever and whenever they are found."