Jonathan, do not confuse "politicizing" the war with opposing it. Iraq is the most significant element of our country's foreign policy. It has cost more than $290 billion in federal appropriations and claimed the lives of more than 2,500 soldiers.

It is most certainly political.

Nor are the views of those who oppose the war, a majority of Americans, merely the product of misinformation from the "mainstream media."

The Iraq Survey Group, officially tasked by the U.S. government with finding WMDs, concluded, "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter." The same goes for the nuclear program.

On the question of Iraq's ties to terrorism, Congress had this to say in the official 9/11 commission report:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Even the documents that Jonathan references have failed to impress.

Peter Bergen, author of "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of Al Qaeda's Leader," said in The New York Times, "the results of this [1995] meeting were … nothing." He added, "Since the fall of the Taliban, not one of the thousands of documents found in Afghanistan substantiate such an alliance."

But speaking of politics, I'd like to return to one of the four guidelines I laid out earlier -- shared sacrifice. Despite the enormous cost of the war, Republicans have refused to ask today's Americans to join in sacrificing for the war effort.

Instead, they have cut taxes at an unprecedented rate, leading to the largest federal deficits in our nation's history. Two classes of people will pay for these cuts.

The first class -- our children who will have to repay our debt. The second class -- the recipients of programs right now that have been cut or under-funded. These include programs aimed at the neediest in our society, but most appallingly also include benefits to veterans themselves.

The inability of the Pentagon to properly armor Humvees early in the war led towns to collect old bulletproof vests to send to their soldiers. More recently, the veterans spending bill passed in May fell $1.5 billion short of what was needed.

As our friends and loved ones lay down their lives, we must ensure that they have our complete support. This means fully funding veterans programs and not running up our debt. It also means a larger shift in our priorities.

Our addiction to foreign oil has entwined us in the politics of the Middle East. Investing in alternative energy and decreasing our dependence on oil from the region would be expensive.

But when faced with the choice, I know Americans would choose to spend a little more to keep their soldiers out of harm's way. We just need leaders who will give us the opportunity to make such a contribution.

-- Andrew