Leaving aside all of the standard Democrat critiques of Bush and the War in Iraq, such as "he lied", "War for Oil", " No WMDs", and the ever popular, "Why are we there?", I've found that the left's arguments seem to be all leading up to the same conclusion: Get the troops out of Iraq, now.
So in discussing the issue with liberals, I've taken to bringing it up early in the conversation, just to cut to the chase, so to speak. It usually goes something like this:
Liberal: Bush just won't come out and tell us what we are fighting and dying for over in Iraq.
Me: Are you in favor of pulling all of our troops home immediately?
Liberal: I just don't think it's right for me to send my child over to Iraq, so Bush and his buddies at Halliburton can make themselves even more filthy rich.
Me: So you are in favor of pulling all of our troops home immediately?
Liberal: You know Bush can't even meet with Cindy Sheehan to tell her the reason her son died.
Me: So you are in favor of bring al of our troops home immediately?
Eventually, they agree that they ARE in favor of complete and immediate troop withdrawal, but, knowing how stupid this idea is, they make me push them into it. Then they try to justify it but, of course, that is impossible. Notice that they are constantly comparing Iraq to Vietnam except in relation to the consequences that would occur following a "cut and run" conclusion to the conflict. After we pulled out of Vietnam in 1975, one of the most brutal and despicable slaughters of recent history ensued in the area. Millions of people were killed and displaced in Cambodia and Vietnam. Family fortunes were ruined, homes destroyed, children killed and enslaved and all by the enlightened, communist victors.
I use this strategy in such arguments because it reduces all the nonsense about how we were lied to in preparation for a planned war for neo-con aims down to a minor issue. In short, it doesn't matter at all why we entered Iraq, simply because we are there now and can't leave until the job is done. Whether Iraq was a terror-supporting state or not is now a moot point because it is now the front line in the War on Terror, regardless of Sadaam's place in the terror world prior to the war. Now, don't get me wrong, I fully believe there was ample evidence that Sadaam was supporting the terror networks and that he had WMDs and that it was and is a good thing to topple him. It was a huge gamble that may yet pay off in spades. I just think the arguments for the invasion are no longer important because WE ARE THERE.
The ludicrous nature of the left's argument for immediate troop removal is, of course, not lost on the Democrat politicians. They will not say what the more radical members of their party (and a few other parties that are also never referred to by their Democrat allies) are loudly proclaiming at peace rallies around the country. These politicos know that the majority of the people who think Iraq is going badly or was a mistake do not agree with the "cut and run" strategery. These politicos do not join Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink/A.N.S.W.E.R. colleagues at Camp Casey. It seems that the actual success of Sheehan's actions may put a very difficult decision to the mainstream Democrats very soon: join the socialists in the anti-war cause and admit the fraternity between the Democrats and socialists or lose this powerful tool against the Republicans in the next cycle of elections.
Good luck Dems!