[Tuco Ramirez]

I'm not a Republican (or Democrat); the war in Afghanistan is over in the same way it is in Iraq (read: not at all).

There are terrorists all over the world, and the US ignores most of them. Iraq didn't have the kind we were looking for (suicidal bastards looking to kill innocents in NYC).

Don't disgrace our president/country by portraying it as anything else. Even without weapons of mass destruction or a connection to 9/11, the pictures of gassed Kurds are reason enough for me (and I suspect many others) to take out Saddam Hussein.

[Terpfen]

I'm not portraying the events in Iraq as anything other than they were--an invasion carried out for a multitude of reasons. WMDs were the most talked-about reason in the media, but media spin does not a priority list make.

In terms of waging war, Iraq is not over, but Afghanistan is. We have 8,000 troops in Afghanistan versus 125,000 in Iraq. Afghanistan is now an operation to support a new government. It's been that way for nearly two years. Iraq is an operation conducted to drain the terrorist swamp--terrorists that you first denied were there, and now say were the wrong type.

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a distinction between a terrorist who sets off car bombs and terrorists who fly planes. Would you say that the terrorists who detonated the car bomb in the basement of the WTC in 1993 are a different type of terrorist than those who hijacked those planes on 9/11, despite the fact that both groups were in al Qaeda, both groups met with Iraqi officials (one of the 1993 bombers who successfully escaped went to... you guessed it, Iraq), and both groups killed Americans? Or would you continue to whittle away rhetorically a primary supporting beam in your political position?