Anti-speech advocates have made several arguments aimed at critics of the Iraq War. Many of these anti-speech arguments are enthymemes. If the purpose of these rhetors is to deceive others into accepting a weak claim, then enthymemes are ideal forms because they hide the weakest parts of the argument. By exposing their hidden premises, the parts that are implicit but left unstated, I demonstrate that the anti-speech arguments used against critics of the war are not sound. This essay examines the logos, ethos, and pathos in these anti-speech arguments.