"You know that Robert and pretty much all the libs around here are on record as being in favor of going after Al Qeda in Afganistan. In fact, many of us have expressed disappointment that we did not put more boots on the ground and done a better job of it."

Which is generally what Robert said. The lefty idea being: that the operation in Iraq has reduced the operation capabilities in Afghanistan.

And there is no basis for this assumption- it's a myth. That's what I said*.

I do agree that various law makers were concerned about this, and they reminded everyone not to let this happen. But other than the general media attention [which the US govt does not control] this as far as I know did not happen.

"Why would you assume that Robert did not mean Iraq when he said Iraq? "

I didn't assume this.
Perhaps, you should re-read what Robert said.

* Assume we had 10 million soldiers instead of 1.4 million, it would unwise to put 1 or 2 million US soldiers in Afghanistan in order to win the war on Terrorism. Also Europe's and Canadian's troops in Afghanistan is helpful in terms sheer numbers, but it isn't the most important factor. More important is these countries involvement- and this involvement has numerous advantages [for Aghanistan, Europe, Canada, US, and other countries involved].