Mainly, I just wanted to clear up the point you were evidently trying to make, which was the most blatantly incorrect post I've ever seen you make. That said...
I think the questions and points you make are essentially correct. But I don't think the way you lump it all together is fair, nor do I think to simply say is Al Qaida worse off now is a basic measure without looking at the cost and effect of how they were made less of a factor.
The main point to me is that Al Qaida and Iraq had a miniscule relationship to begin with, and did not represent a unified problem (still don't in most ways) until we attacked and occupied Iraq. Simple point, in my mind extremely important, and in your arguments and most other conservatives are blurred for political point making. In my opinion, the two issues are separate, and one does not have much bearing on the other - and should not.
I personally feel had we not pulled the majority of our troops out of the hunt for Bin Laden and more prevalent areas Al Qaida were known to be, we would have been more successful in whatever the nebulous war on terror is supposed to be. And again, when we attacked Iraq, we were not fighting terrorists on their soil - instead of in America - as is often thrown out here and elsewhere. We were attacking Saddam Hussein and his Royal Guard supporters. So, the entire Iraq situation has little to do with the war on terror, in my mind, so it's a different thing.
I don't want to take up too much space here with addressing all your points individually, because that would take a lot of time and research. I don't give you those points, necessarily, each are worthy of discussion. Two quick points, when you say Pakistani's in general are fighting Al Qaida and that Muslims in general are fighting Al Qaida, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Certainly there are factions of both that are not acting in the best interests of the U.S. And you continually post about the Saudi's (mainly the people who actually attacked us, by the way) major moves against terrorism, when the vast majority of their efforts are done only to protect their own oil interests in their own country - which is completely in their own best interest, has nothing much to do with U.S. support. This has been repeatedly posted on here, and yet you continue to take political credit for it...same story, different day.
Simply, I don't think the war in Iraq has had many positive effects on the war on terror, because it's not the same thing - at least at face value. And it has given Al Qaida greater access and ability to strike Americans than before, since many have come there to strike when they could not have had we not gone there.
I think it remains a huge negative that we have not gotten Bin Laden. I think Iraq has detracted dramatically from the efforts to get them. Had we gotten him at any point since we essentially pulled away from that fight (with a majority of our firepower) it would have done far more than anything else we have done - to slow or put a stop to that movement. My opinion.
