Here’s what they’re saying at RedState about the rationale for the war (hey, at least somebody’s saying it:

The black-and-white, "get the bad guys" approach can be heard from the Democrats and their allies in the MSM and the American left. They are the ones with the GET OBL! mentaility, as if removing the main bad guys will solve the problem of terror….

He’s right.  Getting rid of bin Laden or the "main bad guys" isn’t going to solve the problem of terror completely, but it is far better than getting rid of lots of "little bad guys", many of whom weren’t terrorists to being with.  And that is all we are doing in Iraq.

And besides, doesn’t our failure to get bin Laden increase his mystique in the Muslim world?  Which, in turn, creates more terrorists?

So now we observe the idiocy of the right.  It’s like saying that capturing Hitler wasn’t going to end Nazi ideals.  Well, we killed Hitler, and although there are still Nazis today, it did kind of put a rather huge dent in the fascist movement, wouldn’t you say?

But what’s the alternative he offers?

The President has articulated a vision wherein democracy, free societies with free institutions, defeats terror.

Well, clearly that is Bush’s vision, but he fails to explain how free societies and democracies defeat terror.  I envision a world where free chocolate ends all racism and sexism, but my thinking that doesn’t make it so.

Those interests mentioned above want . . .

Here we go.  When a conservative starts to write about what liberals "want", you know the next thing out of his mouth is simply and flatly a desparate lie.

Those interests mentioned above want to turn Iraq into a mindless pursuit of WMD…

See what I mean?

…while the President speaks of the broader goal of squeezing the area in which the terrorists are welcome.

Hey, to be totally honest, I’m not worried about terrorists living in Iraq.  Better there than here, or London.  When you squeeze the toothpaste tube hard, the toothpaste doesn’t disappear — it just gets all over the places.