Your very first sentence is inaccurate, but one commonly-repeated part of the current overall delusion that somehow, we would have Peace on Earth now if someone else had won the U.S. elections.

It's ludicrous to think that if we had ignored Iraq and only attacked Afghanistan, decimating the Taliban and al Qaeda, that somehow the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan would be less angry at us.

Remember the other part of the liberal mantra? That al Qaeda was the deadly enemy of Saddam? So now al Qaeda only gets angry if we occupy Iraq, not Afghanistan? This stuff does have to have some internal consistency.

Of course, you could stipulate that Your Guy in the White House would have invaded Pakistan to wipe out the bad guys across the western tribal areas. Or stipulate that Your Guy in the White House would have stayed out of Afghanistan and that area of the world entirely to avoid pissing the terrorists off. Either would at least start an accurate discussion.