Do you think democrats have a good plan to continue the war on terror?

They more than likely do but it would not be in their best interest to lay it out right now. In any event, they have over 12 months before the election and it can be articulated closer to the primaries than now. This is considered the " Bush " war, let him figure it out

Well, you better hope they do because they will reside in the White House after the next Presidential election. I'm gonna' take my chances with them this time. Bush has created a quagmire. There was no one involved in 9/11 from Iraq. We should have stayed in Afghanistan until we got Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11. But nooooo! Halliburton needed some construction work.

While few disagreed with our military going to Afghanistan, the attack and occupation of Iraq cast many doubts as to exactly what the "war on terror" was all about. It was an excuse to attack Iraq, plain and simple. Its a farce.

The democrats have finally got the bill to the president to finalize the 911 commission recommendations for protecting the U.S. against further terrorist attacks. They are not forgetting to protect the U.S., they just do not believe that we can continue to invade countries that harbor terrorists or rule in a way that we disapprove of. Terrorists can be weeded out using intelligence in cooperation with other countries throughout the world. Their training camps can still be bombed. Diplomacy can be used with the LEADERS of countries that harbor terrorists to encourage them to stop promoting terrorism and stop teaching their children to hate those of other faiths. Otherwise this will continue for generations as it already has.

This stuff began on Bush' watch. He's getting the USA in deeper every minute.

The dems would be fools to 'open up' with an actual plan, good or not. The so-called enemy would be then duly informed. Probably they would 'upscale' their attacks, knowing that the dems would be doing the right thing when in power.

Without this 'war', the 'terrorists' have to look elsewhere. Also, with proper troop levels out of Iraq, they would be available(although probably not needed) for Iran.

This would stop the Iranian b.s. tactics, as then the USA could back up demands to Iran to co-exist properly in the middle-east.

No, I don't think anyone has a real plan. That is why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, without proper data concerning the occupation of those countries, including feasability of establishing a provisional government for those countries until they hold elections, no one can have a real plan.

The American public only gets a small picture of what is going on outside our country.

As far as I can tell from watching the spectrum of media coverage on Democratic presidential candidates, none of them have a good plan to continue the war on terror, and some of them even deny there is a need for it. Senator Edwards even refers to the phrase "War on Terror" as a 'bumper sticker'.

Sadly, I believe that the leading Democratic party presidential candidates are far more concerned with the politics of getting elected that they are with the real issues of doing what is strategically in the best interests of this country.

Having said that, the Republican candidates are only slightly better. The refusal to secure the borders of our country, and the desire to give away our national sovereignty in the name of making cross border business easier to conduct is frightening.

Both parties have done everything they can to make it difficult - if not impossible - for a third party candidate to ever get elected. Having said that, it appears to me that this country needs more options to force us to work together. In countries where no party holds a majority of the power because there are many parties, governments are built around coalitions built on working together to build up their nation, rather that spending all of their time trying to tear down the other party.

Thomas Jefferson and the other framers of the US Constitution probably never envisioned that freedom of speech would be threatened under a veil of "fairness", that freedom of religion would ever viewed as freedom from religion, or that the Judicial branch of government would make every effort to usurp the Legislative branch by making new laws by 'interpreting' existing ones to reflect the judge's opinions (and not simply to reflect the law).

The people who wrote our Constitution were far from perfect, but in all their flaws I am convinced they understood how the US government was intended to work far better than any of today's presidential candidates and many other elected and appointed officials. While their work was not complete (the 10th Amendment is a great example), it was a wonderful living start. We - the citizens of the United States of America - are responsible for the nation that we live in and we need to elect officials at all levels that hold the beliefs we hold, and not simply elect officials that waiver with the wind with every new poll.

We need to fight the war on terror with every option we have. We also need to fight to keep a United nation while we do it, and continuing to elect officials who check the polls before making their decisions - rather than earning their elected responsibility for their commitment to doing what is RIGHT - will lead us straight to destruction from within. Don't believe me, look at history and consider the Roman Empire.

May God bless the United States of America.

There is no war on terror. If there were we would not be in Iraq, we would have concentrated on Afghanistan. Iraq is a money making venture for Cheney's corporate co-horts.

To "Bushonly..." Iraq did not attack us. The majority of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi. Did we attack Saudi Arabia? No, that is where we get our oil. The only way to beat them is to cut our dependence on them by not using gas. The more gas we buy, the more money Cheney-ites make and the more money the terrorist have to fight us.

They finally got an anti terror bill passed that was sought after 3 years ago. I think they have already done more.

It is. But they're in a position to win big. Talking about their war plans can only work against them.

My thinking is they'll worry about winning the election and then when they do they'll worry about figuring out what they're going to do. That's pretty much what Nixon's plan was, and then Vietnam eventually became "Nixon's war". Expect a repeat of history.

That was funny! No, the Democrats have absolutely no care about national security. They don't even believe the war on terror even exists. That is why you don't hear them talking about it. The term "war on terror" is acutally banned from Democratic debates.