Today's papers react to Saturday's peace march.

FT

"For Tony Blair, recent events have been about as bad as they can get. On Friday, Hans Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, delivered an update to the UN Security Council that was far less critical of Iraq's co-operation than the US and Britain had hoped. On Saturday, millions took to the streets in protest across the world with one of the largest demonstrations occurring in London. Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice, president George W. Bush's national security adviser, indicated US patience with diplomacy was running out. In the past three days, Mr Blair's nightmare became more than a remote possibility. He might yet have to choose between joining a war without UN approval and saying No to the US president."

Daily Telegraph

"Saddam stronger, Blair weaker; dictators jubilant, democrats despondent; more weapons, fewer inspections - is this really what hundreds of thousands were marching for? One of the ethical arguments used against the war, especially by churchmen, is that ends do not justify means, and that removing a tyrant does not warrant killing innocent people. Yet this argument has a flip-side, namely that it is not enough to be well-intentioned if you have not worked out the results of your actions. Opponents of the war have a duty to think through the consequences of a Western retreat in the face of terror. There is little sign that they have done so."

The Guardian

"The protesters' message was simple: stop the war. How Tony Blair responds and engages, and engage he must, with this direct challenge will determine the form of politics to come. This should be natural to a politician who trades on his reputation for resolving irreconcilable differences ... The temper of these times is to distrust more than to trust. If Mr Blair wants to carry the country with him, marchers and all, then Britain's role needs to be recast - not just as a brake on American intentions but capable of reversing them."

The Times

"Launching wars against dictators because of their murderous activities at home is a policy that might have no end. Yet Mr Blair and those who support the stand he takes have to bear the moral burden of being prepared to countenance war and the deaths it will bring. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the marchers to contemplate the moral price of the policy they propose."

The Independent

"[The prime minister] showed some courage in response. His speech to the Labour Party in Glasgow was serious, direct and powerfully argued. He made the moral case for war about as well as it could be made. He even acknowledged that the humane cause of liberating the Iraqi people was not the reason for going to war - that was to deal with a 'rogue state with weapons of mass destruction' - but that it enabled him to do so with a clear conscience ... [But] Mr Blair has not answered the fundamental objection to this war, however long or short it is. How can the world be a safer place when the US is perceived to be - and indeed is - a power untrammelled by international law, world opinion or global institutions? So long as Mr Blair is Mr Bush's unconditional ally, the price of leadership and the cost of conviction of which he spoke at the weekend could be high."

Daily Mail

"Make no mistake, more than anything else Saturday's huge anti-war demonstration was a howl of impotent rage from Middle Britain. A howl of protest against a prime minister who has become increasingly imperious and a government that simply refuses to listen to the voice of the people ... After six years of lies and spin, the people do not trust this government an inch - which explains the cynicism about last week's dramatic security alert at Heathrow. Such cynicism and the hostility to the policy on Iraq spells trouble for Mr Blair. Far more worrying is what it could spell for the health of our democratic system."

Daily Express

"Tony Blair has turned the possible need for war with Iraq into a 'back me or sack me' issue for his government. Yesterday he was rewarded with the support of senior Cabinet colleagues but the million people who took to the streets of London and Glasgow in the name of peace at the weekend show much of the country still needs to be convinced. The prime minister must not flinch in his determination to disarm Saddam Hussein but recalling Parliament to debate the issue this week should be his next step to win over the nation."

Daily Mirror

"What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The prime minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically. The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W. Bush admirers living in America ... The Mirror will go on shouting loudly, clearly and if necessary hysterically, until Mr Blair listens."

The Sun

"A million Britons had a jolly day out on the anti-war march. It was like a carnival without the costumes. But let's not get carried away. Fifty-eight million other Brits DIDN'T march on London. They weren't suckered by has-beens like Tony Benn or never-will-be Charles Kennedy. The reality is, the big march changes nothing. Tony Blair on Saturday set out indisputable moral and political arguments. We've said many times that no sane person wants war. But what do the wobblers suggest the world does about Saddam Hussein? Leave him in peace in the hope he'll see the error of his ways? The UN has known for 12 years that he has deadly weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands. How long can you leave a cancer untreated before it kills you?"