Yes, we know; they support the war on terror but are merely against George Bush’s war in Iraq. How does that work? ~Daniel Henninger

Perhaps much the same way that one might have supported the war against Spain but found it highly objectionable to annex the Philippines and crush the native insurrection there, since that had nothing to do with the aims of the original war and was actually entirely unjustified.  But that is too generous to people who put out such tripe–it assumes that there is any legitimate relationship between the two things.  In fact, people oppose Iraq and support the war against al Qaeda in the way that someone might have opposed attacking France in the middle of the Mexican War.  Since the two have literally nothing to do with one another, as I would like to think a growing number of Americans are beginning to understand (even if half still think Iraq had WMDs!), questions like this one remain part of the same dishonest attempt to tie Iraq to the broader war that is still necessary and worth waging.  You might expect as much from someone who thinks that a free and fair election result is equivalent to the “knifing of Joe Lieberman.” 

These people can keep trotting out their one-trick pony of crying “war on terror! national security!” everytime they are in a tight spot and everytime they screw up, but that act is old and it convinces fewer and fewer people.  A reckoning is coming for them, and not a moment too soon.