The Democrats are just as bad on these wars if not worse. International interferism is a core belief of "strategic class" Democrats.

This is because Democrats are used to interfering in the lives of Americans. It's really easy at that point to justify interfering in the lives of foreigners, even to the point of death.

If Dems really think they can go after Bush on these issues, then they are fooling themselves. The paper trail is much longer for the Dems, and the institutional love of nannying people to death is much deeper for the Democratic party. Dems are much more ready to use government as a blunt instrument to solve human problems, and what else is a war but a big government project.

When I hear a Dem senator going on about the conduct of the war, I know that's a senator who just wants his hand on the pursestrings.

I detest Bush but I will not join in picking away at REpublicans, because it lets the Dems off the hook when by rights they ought to confront this dangerous part of their nature.

Your post is typical of today's brand of zero accountability conservatism.  You're trying to assign blame on the Democratic party for this war by falling back on tired stereotypes.   It seems like a lot more of this "International interferism" (a.k.a. "nation building") has been taking place on your watch.  For someone who campaigned against nation building and committing US forces to ambiguous missions, GWB sure has done a lot of both, hasn't he?

I also take offense to your claim that "Democrats are used to interfering with the lives of Americans."  It seems like the "good christians" running the show these days are far more concerned with Americans personal lives than the Democrats have ever been.  The FCC is attempting to regulate taste and the Bush Justice Department would rather send Tommy Chong to jail than track down terrorists.  Strong state control of personal behavior is a trait associated with right-wing, fascist-style governments, like the one we have now, not with progressive governments.

While I would probably chosen to phrase it differently, I do agree that Democrats honestly believe that, when used correctly, government can effecitively remedy many of society's problems. Today's Republicans look at government as their own personal piggy bank.  They really are masters of their own destinies, though.  I mean, they incessantly argue that government is the cause of all of America's woes while simultaneously operating the government in a manner consistent with that claim.

If too many people sit on one side of a canoe, it capsizes.  This canoe that is America is currently capsizing to the right.  Once free of the jetsom that is today's conservative movement, we will be able right ourselves and correct our course.

Pre-9/11, Republicans were not guilty making any insufficiently developed plans to go after al-Qaeda because they did not make any.  And given how partisan was Bush/Cheney crew, the fact that the "responsibility" for dealing with terrorists remained in the hands of "Clinton holdovers" marks how low priority was assugned to that issue.

 I recall that the chief pre-occupation of Rumsfeld was restructuring of American forces to take care of challenges like space-born weapons.  Terrestial issues were far below on the priority list.

Well those are very polite replies to my nasty vicious post! I've been reading the five, ten or twelve point plans for getting out of Iraq, and none of them give a chance for the Iraqis to really express what they want.

We all know why this is so: the Iraqis are going to oppose the USA.

Strategic-class Democrats are just as authoritarian as Republicans when it comes to foreigners. Let's not forget that Clinton used Chalabi and his buddies throughout the 90s, Clinton used the Kurds for his own purposes throughout the 90s.  

for heaven's sake, wellbasically, i must not be as nice as some of the other commenters. i think this is foolish and nonsensical, nothing but rote propaganda stuff.

I mean, whatever are you talking about? Clinton "used" the kurds in what way, exactly? Democrats are used to "interfering" in what specific ways that differ with how republicans are use to "interfering?"

40 years ago, the dems were as guilty of hubris, stupidity, and denial in vietnam as bush and the republican party have been in iraq. as it happens, dems woke up and challenged their own disastrous leadership and have never committed anything as colossally stupid again.

whereas the current set of clowns and idiots known as the bush administration have such an authoritarian hold on their own party that only the fringest ring - chuck hagel - dares consider challenging dear leader and his program.

What, in short, are you talking about?

Look the core belief of the Democrats is right: that everybody in the world ought to be brought along and up to the standards of the USA. Freedom, economically etc. That I agree is good.

I don't see a big difference between that and the neocons, which is why the neocons took over the Republican party. But when you morally believe that you are saving the world, you can justify all sorts of killing.

The Democrats have not confronted pre-emptive or preventive war, which is the real question. Does the USA act simply on its own or does it listen to the world as the leader of the world.

Dems tell me they would do it better by bringing in France and Germany and Russia. All this means is they think they can tell France and Germany and Russia what to do. (This is what Clinton tried to do in 1998 and failed at.) Don't you see how this is the same thing as Bush? That it's hardly different at all? That it's really more disgusting, because at least Bush doesn't care if he is hated by the French or the liberals -- the Dems want us to LOVE them for telling us what to do.