So, to recap:
When we invaded Iraq, Zarqawi and bin Laden were not talking, were separate people with their own groups. Now that we’ve invaded, they’re working together. Yeah, that sounds like a job well done...

If one is a head-in-the-sand Kerry-voter type, that makes sense. "Gee, if only we hadn't stirred things up, maybe our problems would have just gone away."

I consider that entire world-view to be suicidal folly. And to be exactly the kind of policy that got us into this war. (And if Kerry wins, will let this war fizzle-out inconclusively, so we can have a much bloodier war in the future. For your kids to fight.)

We are in a war against an elusive enemy that would prefer to stab us in the back--so if we are fighting, that's good. If we stir up a hornet's nest, that's a job well done. Hopefully after the election Bush will whack some more hornet nests.

And it doesn't matter if they call themselves Al Qaeda or the Basra Lady's Aid Society. It doesn't matter if they work together or seperately. They are our enemies, and any little group or splinter of them may be they nucleus of the next terror group to arise.

I should add, we owe you Dems a bit of gratitude. It's likely that much of the recent violence in Iraq is an attempt to help elect Kerry. And since we are not only taking casualties, but also dishing them out, that's good. Thanks for bringing them out in the open.

Why do you assume that there are X number of terrorists and that if we just kill X number we will have won this war? The assumption I make is that every time we kill someone in Iraq, his 2 younger brothers turn against us...

Of course, a Sane Commander in Chief would have taken out Zarqawi _before_ walking into Iraq, instead of waiting a year and a half to gather power...

"It's likely that much of the recent violence in Iraq is an attempt to help elect Kerry"

-Funny, I haven't seen the polls suggesting Iraqi insurgents are pro-Kerry.

Andrew, why do YOU assume that terrorists arise because of what we do? And presumably would be nice peaceful chaps if only the horrid Americans hadn't arrived? You are definitely a Democrat.

And things that should be done BEFORE invading terror-supporting countries. Sure...I bet Kerry would have a lonnnng list of those. About 20 years worth. Heaven forbid we should have a war where we keep fighting for years, instead of weeks. And have to fight battles, and have soldiers killed--unbearable.

You Democrats are absolutely right to sit on the sidelines and sneer. You've evolved beyond the crude stage of fighting for "countries." And if you did, you'd have a "plan" that would avoid all mistakes and casualties. Democrats NEVER get America into long bloody wars...

And of course your candidate and you party didn't VOTE for the Iraq Campaign. Nooooo. So he is in a position to honorably undercut our troops while they are in combat. And let everyone know, with little hints and winks, that he will cut and run from Iraq. And that if Iraq turns into a bloody "quagmire," that would be very helpful for the "progressives" of the world...

America has been in some REAL quagmires. Usually put there by Democrats. And Republicans never held their noses and said "yucck, not OUR problem." When our Marines were rotting in the mud of Guadalcanal, and living off captured Japanese rice because the navy couldn't support them, Republicans didn't hold themselves aloof and called it "FDR's war."

You guys think you are so clever and nuanced, saying you "support the troops" and are merely merely merely attacking the President because he's made mistakes in the War. But what history will remember is that when the going got tough for America, you lifted up your skirts and minced away so as not to get muddy..