Security

We'd all be fully underground by now.

"Mission Accomplished" would not be the phrase used, but something similar would have been declared, and it would have been equally untrue.

I'm sure not all Democrats are the same but all I see from most of them is a rabid, unreasoning, unsubstantiated hatred for President Bush. I firmly believe that most of them, if given the chance, would reverse ALL of his policies regardless of the consequences to America simply because they are HIS policies.

If I didn't believe that God is in control I would be very afraid of what this country will be like in five years.

Ralph

I'm only going to comment on the "War on Terror" for now and, OK, we are starting from the fact that I don't agree with you about the "War on Terror". I believe that even to describe it as a "War" legitimises and glamorises it in a way that it doesn't warrant. As it's been promoted by GWB, it's the best recruitment possible for the terrorists.

What about the Democrats? I would have reckoned that a Democratic administration or even a slightly less gung-ho and more circumspect Republican administration would not have gone into Iraq.

That then questions how much of the tension with Iran is due to your invasion of their next-door-neighbour? Were I an Iranian, I'd be frightened of the US administration's actions and words over the previous five years. I might want to explore the option of nuclear weapons given that the possession of same seems to have benefited North Korea.

As for Iraq now; if you have a Democratic President next time around, I reckon that he (or she) will probably formulate a knee-jerk exit strategy for Iraq based on US political motives rather than Iraqi needs and that will end badly, too.

I don't think you can win this one with either flavour in power and even a draw is pretty unlikely but you might get a better exit strategy for Iraq with a Republican in power if only because guilt keeps the troops there.

If Al Gore - who has now been over here - is an example of your democrats then we're all doomed. What a smug GIT!

I'll have to Google Joe Biden next time it rains.

The body of democrats have already made clearly known that their intention is to surrender and leave Iraq and elsewhere and bring the troops home before a stable Iraq can be completed thereby emboldening any and all anti-America factions to do whatever and wherever they want. Bad idea for those who still love a sovereign and constitutional America.

I think you meant to say January 2009, not 2008. The election isn't until November 2008.

I get a little annoyed today when I hear that so many people are now not backing the president or the war. We had a chance as a nation to say we felt the war was wrong in 2004. Bush took his victory as evidence the nation was OK with what he was doing. While I didn't vote for him, that's how I took it as well. We know nothing now we didn't know in 2004. He said it would take a long time and we would have to sacrifice. Well he was right.

It sounds like you already believe that the current surge will not make a difference and in 2009 we will be in same boat we are in now. I'm in hopes that we will finally get Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other allies in the region to help use broker deals and help Iraq govern. But the opposite could happen and we could be in a full out world war by then. Predicting the future is tough stuff.

Back to the question, I don't think all Democrats would do the same thing just as I don't think all Republicans would do the same thing. For example, I don't think John McCain, had he been elected in 2000, would have gone to Iraq. Now that we are there I think he will have different reactions, if he is elected, than say Giuliani or Romney might.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for at this point. There are some that I trust and some that I don't and I've changed my mind about a few. While I want to vote democrat depending on who each party offers, I may vote republican. November 2008 is a long way away. Hopefully we will be in much better shape by then.

He will pull us from Iraq in 3 months no matter what the consequences. He also won't do squat if there is another attack on the homeland. Edwards will do the same thing. Neither of them have a clue. As far as that goes, those two twits will pull us from Afghanistan. They have no balls, none whats so ever.

Clinton will most likely pull us from Iraq, but in a phased fashion. She will not change any of the War On Terror strategy. Including the NSA policies.

Dan

It used to be that Democrats pushed social programs to address problems in this country and Republicans pushed war to hide those issues. That changed with President Clinton who had his Bosnian war and who fired one Tomahawk missile for each day he was in office and disarmed the county by not replacing those missiles and other weapons used.

Regarding President Clinton, Bill held the title but Bill and Hillary were the team. If Hillary were reelected (very possible due to the female vote) we would see something similar to the Clinton legacy.

With the Republicans, I see no change in the status quo. Lip service only.

The Clinton legacy started the country down the road where the disaffected and disenfranchised began losing the few rights they had. The Bush legacy found a plausible (at the time) reason to further this course of action. In support of this, I only point out the Patriot Act; there are other actions if you look.

The question I pose to you is: Does the vote matter, especially in light of electronic voting with no standard of accountability? Do parties mean anything? And, should we not look at Thomas Jefferson and his radical views regarding how often a country needs to overthrow its government?