Always remember what the old folk say. Believe nothing you read or hear and only half of what you see. When Bush put the office of disinformation into effect he promised it was just for use out side the county. Well all the news coming from Iraq is outside the country!
A lot of us 60's radicals were in our late teens during the Vietnam war. We fought against that war basically from the gut, without the years of life experience that we have now. We fought against that war simply because we knew it was wrong, without some of the more subtle moral nuances that we now bring to a similar conflict.
In the years since, we've come to distrust the government and politicians after having seen Watergate, Iran Contra, the CIA selling drugs and having leaders assasinated, et. al. This has proven to be one of the most distressing trends of the latter 20th century. A country that has been known for its moral rectitude and transparent, up-front government has degenerated into supporting immoral actions by simply claiming them to be moral.
And that's what distresses me the most about this war. It gives EVERYONE carte-blanche to lie. Bush states in a radio address that "We enter this war reluctantly." I'd hate to see him when he was ANXIOUS to get into a war. Nobody says it's wrong.
40% of Americans, supported by a corporate-owned media that also owns bomb factories, believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, and since that belief is convenient to the administration, nobody points out the real truth. Nobody says it's wrong.
A moral, stand-up man like Colin Powell finds himself in front of the UN arguing for war and supported by forged documents, unsupported allegations, and plagiarized schoolwork. Nobody says it's wrong.
A community that was justifiably sickened by the horrors of WWII's Holocaust has been propagandized into believing that disagreeing with and distrusting the goals and actions of a foreign Israeli state is the same as anti-Semitism. And nobody says that's wrong.
A President who came to power due to electorial "irregularities" in the state governed by his little brother is promising to bring that same sort of democracy to Iraq. That same president and his administration has managed to twist activists' acts of dissent and free discussion into the moral equivalent to treason. Again we hear, "If you don't agree, leave the country". Nobody says that's wrong.
The PATRIOT Act and it's still-gestating little brother, PATRIOT II, reduce the Bill of Rights to just another piece of paper, destroying freedom in the name of freedom. And nobody says it's wrong.
Actually, while all of the items you mentioned are potentially valid concerns, my biggest concern is somewhat tangential to all of that...
By eliminating the previously adhered to standards of no pre-emptive aggression, we have eliminated one of the most fundamentally important provisions of our time for international relations.
Before this war, it was very easy to say who the good guys/bad guys were. Unless you were directly attacked, you were the bad guy. The rules of right/wrong were clearly spelt out, with no real 'interpretation' necessary.
Now, we have attacked another country on the allegations that they MIGHT have WMD, that they MIGHT use them against us, and they MIGHT do so very soon.
Much like the potential pandora's box that the Bush-led war on terrorism has opened (now every country has declared activities that would have previously been decried as 'fighting terrorists'), this effort has the potential to put every regional conflict into a chaotic position, as in every instance, countries will stand behind the 'they MIGHT' stanza...
Can you imagine North Korea invading and eliminating South Korea, and then telling the world 'they MIGHT use them against us'.
And, who could turn back an Arab Coalition against Israel and it's WMD at this point? They could position our own Presidential News Conferences as 'legal precedence' for their war. 'Hey, Israel MIGHT have WMD, they MIGHT use them against their Arab neighbors, and they MIGHT use them soon... let's get them first!!' could be the rallying cry...
And, after what we are doing now, who could legally, morally, or ethically tell them they wouldn't be within their (US given) rights?