The idea that this is about "weapons of mass destruction" has been disproved by the fact that America is not going to wait for evidence in the case of Iraq before attacking while it is using diplomacy with North Korea.
The notion that there is a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida is often asserted, but never proven. However, a compliant press in both America and Britain have (in the main) repeated these assertions like they were facts.
Then there is the worse pretence of all, that this is a war to liberate the Iraqi people from a terrible regime. Never mind the awkward fact that this regime was both helped into power and then supported and armed by the USA. Never mind the fact when Saddam "gassed his own people" Donald Runsfeld went to Iraq, shook his bloody hands and sold him more weapons. Never mind that the US preferred Saddam to a popular revolt, letting Saddam crush the uprisings after the last Gulf War. Never mind the fact that the Americans have clearly and explicitly stated they will reign down bombs and missiles on Baghdad as part of a massive assault from the air. Never mind the fact that America aims to create a "temporary" regime to maintain "stability" once they have won.
No, the pretence that this is a war of liberation is best refuted by the statement by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, when he insisted that Britain was prepared to launch a nuclear strike on Iraq "in the right conditions." He stressed that "We have always made it clear that we would reserve the right to use nuclear weapons."
Unless he means a war to liberate the Iraqi people of their lives, it is clear that this pretence is just as phoney as the rest. If the US and UK ruling elites were really concerned for the well-being of the Iraqi people they would not have supported Saddam's regime in the first place. They would supported the uprisings in 1991.
But, then again, freedom and real democracy are not options in the West, so why should we expect them to be a consideration in Iraq?