What do we do about terrorists now?

I got it from the Wichita Newsbrief... but it is spot on.
Some typos were fixed, and I changed the last sentence just a bit...

The constant drone that people who object the war in Iraq are Bush haters, unpatriotic or soft on terrorists, is getting a little trite. A policy, by definition, must have objectives. Otherwise, the actions taken are simply random acts with no specific outcome in mind. I believe the objection that most people have to the war is not that we are fighting a war on terror, but that the war we are fighting in Iraq is not advancing our objective of lessening or eliminating terrorists. The stated purpose of this war and its objective, has been changed multiple time by the Bush administration.

It is now a fight against terrorists, even though the President recently admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, which, initially, were the catalyst for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The question is no longer should we stay in Iraq and keep fighting since we have gotten ourselves into a situation where the only thing worse than staying is to withdraw too rapidly. The real question for us to ask ourselves is, are the people who led us into Iraq, on the mistaken belief that we would find huge cashes of WMDs, the right people to objectively evaluate our current situation and lead us out? It will be two and one half years before we have new Chief Executive. Perhaps we can work towards getting his attention this November.