Great minds think alike. :)
The "for us or against us" mantra when used by either side seems wrong and adds to the diviseness. Getting past the stereotypes (when that is possible) is possible, is daunting.
Some years ago, during a different war, a moderate friend asked me why my jingoism (anti-war, anti-draft etc) was superior to theirs. (America, Love it or Leave, My Country right or wrong).
Being then young and clearly having the Answer to everything, I didn't bother to answer. But it bounced around in my head for years and I kept coming up with the same answer: Because I'm RIGHT, damn it. It took longer (in hindsight) than it should have to realize that IF I was right, all the jingoes, slogans and sound-bites did nothing to prove it. And conversely, all their jingoism and so on didn't necessarily prove them wrong but its use by either extreme raised credible suspicion that perhaps we were both wrong At least in part. Certainly the catch phrases and assumptions and PC version of the world wasn't consistent with my core values. Which was the genesis of my comment and of my concern when those I think of as the good-guys start in on the jingoism of the left . Sorry. I have a compulsion to explain.
Define "cooperation". And at what level and in what direction. Certainly Congress has been bipartisan in supporting Bush. To a point. Ashcroft's wish-list of anti-terrorism legislation, for instance, has run into bipartisan opposition and the neo-conservatives (in and out of Congress) are very un-happy with Bush's refusal to expand the war and take out Iraq. As the horror of the Attack recedes a little, things seem to be edging back to ward partisanship.
I think the media has portrayed the bipartisanship as more monolithic than it really is, perhaps not even consciously and that people who might normally be more critical are a little reluctant to do so as the run the risk of being out of the mainstream, or somewhat worse, being accused of being more concerned with ideology than with the individuals killed by the Attack.