Since the Democrats backed the Iraqi war but not the war on terror?

Yup - that's what they want to do. Clinton cut back on the military during his term in office. He loathed the military and thus, the reason for the cut backs. Every Veteran's Day, he put on a good show, pretending to be so respectful to those that gave their lives for their country, but all along, he hates the military. Spreading anti-Bush rhetoric is the liberals' way of distracting the American people away from themselves because the libs know they have no plan or agenda for fighting terrorism. To hide that fact, they continue their ongoing Bush-bashing campaign against Bush. 'Slick Willie' taught them some some really 'slick tricks'.

It doesn't matter whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or not - terrorism is terrorism, no matter where the terrorists come from. Saddam was a terrorist; he slaughtered thousands and thousands of his own people, but because he wasn't involved with 9/11, that exhonorates him from being classified as a terrorist?? Gimme a break! Terrorists are those who kill in the name of dictatorship and tyranny. They are merciless killers who seek to dominate with the power of the iron fist like Saddam and the Taliban. Terrorism doesn't just come from one country, but many - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. They come from other countries - not just one! The war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism because there are terrorists there too.

As a soldier who's been over there, the Iraqi situation is not about Iraqis killing Americans as much as Iraqis killing each other. The mission on war against terrorism is pretty much over.

We find ourselves trying to curve the sectarian violence more than any real war against terrorism. Democrats and majority of Americans feel that the war on Iraq is not going the right path and President Bush has already conceded that.

To be honest, no one knows if sending more troops will help the situation. All the top generals agree with that assessment. The point Democrats are trying to make is that why should we endanger more troops when results cannot be guaranteed?

It may work or it may not work but the fact of the matter is, no matter how much the administration or the military wants to deny it, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. And when we entered the war, it was to fight insurgents and terrorists not to police the sectarian violence that has escalated to this chaotic situation.

ADDENDUM

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say but no WMD, no chemical weapons, no significant link to Al Qaeda found, and these were the reasons we went to war?

You seem to be wanting to say that we went to war under false pretenses. I agree with you. So exactly what are we doing in Iraq if we're not killing terrorists? I'd like to hear you answer that.

You seem to think this is a Demo or Rep problem but regardless of who messed things up. It is now OUR problem. U.S. broke Iraq and we have to fix it somehow. But HOW is the QUESTION. We don't get nowhere by saying Dems did this and Reps did this.

We need a plan and need to find a solution out of Iraq. Clearly we do not BELONG in Iraq to fight this civil chaos. It is their conflict not ours.

Actualllly, we support the War on Terror, NOT the Iraqi "skirmish". A war is designated by Congress, which it wasn't.

Additionally, if my memory serves me right, Osama Bin Laden's diehards blew up the twin towers. Not Iraq. What happened there? Did Bush get a little frusturated from all the empty caves?

It's not about the soldiers, it never was. If Bush and you are so concerned about cutting costs, how about you do it in other areas, so there IS more money to give to the soldiers. And, don't be a baby, the "Bush rhetoric" is the same criticism every President faces. Except, this time, the whole world hates him.

Hillary would rather have soldiers in Iran

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night criticized the Bush administration for its response to Iran's nuclear program, saying it had chosen to "downplay" the crisis over the past several years.

In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

War is inevitable these days.

Wake up. The only reason we backed the war in Iraq was because we thought it had something to do with the war on terror, which it did not. We want to stop the terrorists but fighting a winless war that had nothing to do with 9/11 is not the way. Why can't people understand the difference!!!

I guess what they say about blond Repub/conserv chicks is true - they are only good at one thing - and it has nothing to do with using your brains I will try and explain it again, blondie. . . the ONLY reason any demo supported the war originally is because your sugar daddy lied about WMD. That is all, that is the only reason. When will you nuts ever understand that we TRIED to support your boy and when we discovered he lied to us about everything, we did what anyone would do and walked out on the relationship. Are you one of those chicks that stands by your man even when he lies to you?

Very true....with all the Democratic candidates racing each other to enter the race, it's only a matter of time before Ayman Al-Zawahiri, tossed his hat (turban) into the ring....wouldnt you love to see the debate between Obama, Hillary and Zawahiri......with Chris Mathews as the moderator.....??

oh, please... get your facts straight and make your point clearly and consisely.... Bush lied about the war. All parties are for the war on terror. But that is a big difference between the Iraqi war that has gone on without any closure and with so many innocent lives lost. No-one is cutting soldier funds.

This is a typical anti-dem rant.

This is NOT 2003. Hello.Please be real.Now most Republicans have their doubts. The "war on terror" is a scare tatic used by the Bush administration,and its getting clearer everyday.

Like the atrocities he has caused.

Who knows? Sometimes I am convinced no one in the Democratic party thinks of anything but bashing the Republicans. Look at the possible presidential candidates. A very liberal woman and very very liberal black man with no experience or qualifications.