I wasn't addressing the issue of what more troops would or would not accomplish in Afghanistan.

But yes, the evidence indicates that public support (as opposed to noise from anti-war activists) for U.S. operations in Afghanistan is significantly higher than for Iraq, and that support would still be as high (or even higher) if the Iraq War had never happened.

If this is merely about opposition to Bush by deranged liberals, then why is Afghanistan support still so much higher than support for Iraq?

Why also was support for Iraq much higher in the past, with the major drops ocurring after the failure to find WMDs, the Abu Gharib scandal, and the failure of the January elections to improve things very much? While some level of opposition is due to politics, there is also a large segment of the public -- the segment that mattered for the recent election -- that shifted positions gradually and in response to actual events, not due to Bush hatred.

Bottom line: the public would tolerate a lot more while going directly after the guys behind the 9/11 attacks then against what turned out to be a nasty dictactor who did not pose a direct and imminent threat to the U.S. While Code Pink and Barabara Streisand might oppose both, and while we appreciate your tireless efforts to warn us of the threat posed by Powerful Leftists, the evidence is that you'd have a lot more Americans still on board if those same 2,800 deaths had been suffered fighting Taliban/al-Queda in Afghanistan.