Underlying "Fact"?

Andrew Sullivan has pretty much fallen off the Kerry Cliff.

He starts by parroting a Kerry Premise: "The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq."

Wrong.

It is the War on Terror and Security of and in America (of which the war in Iraq is but one piece).

Kerry's laughably inevitable backpedaling today on coalition building is more evidence that he will say anything regardless of facts [Hey, at least he admitted what he can't do, does W do the same? -- Ed. -- Who let Dan Rather in here!?].

Upcoming elections in Afghanistan are an earthly miracle (or just a "minor detail"?) Andrew has neglected.

Why?

This campaign is all about defeating terrorists -- preferrably in Iraq, not Peoria.

To be fair, Andrew supports the liberation of Iraq, but has been a stiff critic of W's prosecution of it (but doesn't balance that with the success in Afghanistan -- Glass Half Empty).

I think W would prefer a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq, but Hugh Hewitt suggests we live in an age when doing the right thing is not supported across party lines.

Did W not take it to the terrorists infesting Iraq more forcefully due to sweet nothings Karl Rove was whispering in his ear about an election coming up and more body bags wouldn't make for good evening newscasts (yes, there are many in The Left out there who want us to be transported back to the halcyon days when there was a Draft to protest, a President to Kick Around, and Uncle Walter showing body bags passing through Dover)?

I don't know, but I think the gloves will come off after November 2.

Win or Lose?

(Note to Iranian Mullahs: Make those Swiss Bank Account deposits today!)