Obviously the tasks left undone at the end of the active war in Iraq were multi-fold and difficult.

But which side of this debate do you agree with more and why?

a) President Bush had a reasonable plan in force for the aftermath of the war, has set the right goals for the postwar turnover of power to the people of Iraq, and has adapted to the chaotic realities of the postwar effectively enough to merit staying on the present course of foreign policy.

b ) the plan for the peace was botched from the beginning for a variety of reasons (that should be supplied in the subsequent posts) and it has been so incompetent that President Bush should be removed from office for the good of our troops and our country.

Not on here, but on other forums I used to goto, the situation in iraq was always referred to as "a nother vietnam",

my honest opinion, we get someone in there like Kerry, it would become a nother vietnam...

First off, I have yet to see "Kerry's master plan" that'll somehow solve everybody's troubles, and secondly, he's voted agaisnt almost everything we've used as weapons against our enemies...

Only real reason people are voting for kerry is either A: They just downright hate Bush and are using him as a life-boat, or B: They are sucked up into thinking that it is hte president himself who is making jobs for ppl...