I would argue that someone could feel terrible about the WTC attacks and not believe that Iraq was behind them, since there is no credible evidence pointing to them being involved. If there was, our administration would have milked it for all it's worth, but they came up w/ snake eyes. Just as Bush conveniently switches justification for this attack on Iraq as previous arguments evaporate, (from 'disarming' to 'freeing the Iraqi people'), conservatives must learn to be fluid and adaptable in their rationalizations.
A much better argument would be that wrong-headed foreign policy in the middle east for generations has wrought the problems that we are encountering at present. Some have been saying, "screw what we did in the past, this is now", and my favorite, "what difference does it make how intelligent our president is? I think that he is doing a great job". The answer to both is that all great leaders have a deep understanding of history and world affairs, and I would argue that nowhere is this truer than in the middle east. Old saying: "all readers aren't leaders, but all leaders are readers". Except ours. And we will pay much more than the price of his parents' wasted money at Yale for this fact.
And lastly, the notion that all immigrants/foreign nationals who move here or visit are obliged to immediately join the Republican party is really laughable.
