Funny bit from N.Z. Bear, but I think he kind of misses the point when he says:

I am frustrated, because it is beginning to feel like (some) opponents of taking action against Iraq will not be satisfied by any argument, or any evidence, that action is indeed necessary.

The problem isn't that they won't be satisfied by any concievable evidence, but that such evidence might simply not exist because action isn't necessary. That's kind of the achilles heel of that "debate is needed" point... a real debate has more than one conclusion, and most pro-invasion types aren't willing to seriously entertain the notion that those that they disagree with might be right. They'll listen, of course, and they'll nod their heads sagely, but there's no force on earth that could actually convince them. And N.Z. Bear also misses the important distinction that someone might "support action, just not this action" for entirely legitimate reasons... no "illusion" involved.