[Sinner]

I have to say that John Kerry not being ellected (and his 'plans' for Iraq) has nothing to do with this war being correct or not. To just pull our troops out and leave Iraq in this mess we created, as John Kerry had planned, would be wrong...IMO that is why John Kerry did not win.

John Kerry never planned to pull the troops out of Iraq, in fact I don’t recall any Democrat saying they wanted too, So that is absolutely not why Kerry lost the election.

This war began with incorrect information....the body count of dead soldiers has risen to over 1500 and over 11,000 wounded. These brave men and women are fighting in a country (fighting a war) that had nothing to do with the terrorism attatcks on US soil. Sending troops into Afghanistan to search for those responsible for 9/11 is/was correct, but that isnt important anymore is it?...what is important is Iraq and Saddam. Ever wonder how or why the focus shifted from OBL to Saddam? (and so very quickly) Or why our military can find Saddam in a 'spider hole' but have no clue where the 'mastermind' of the attatcks that catapulted our nation into 'The Age of Terror'?

Incorrect information from who? CIA, NSA, Defense Dept? The President? The President’s Staff? You are right - Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, George Bush also agrees with you, The media liked to talk about an Iraq and 9/11 connection but the Government said there was no connection between bin Laden and Saddam. Maybe you don’t think finding terrorist is important but the US Government does, just because all you see in the Media is Iraq this and Iraq that - does not mean the US Troops have left Afghanistan and threw in the towel. Many troops are still in Afghanistan and terrorist are being caught, but to the Media and the left the bigger story is how many people have died in Iraq, There is a lot of good going on in Iraq, the elections were a 100% success, more people came out and voted then expected and each of those voters put their life on the line to cast a vote. The focus did not shift, CNN would like you to think so, the focus is on both, it is also on North Korea, China, Russia, etc etc etc. I could explain to you why Saddam was less difficult to catch then OBL is, but think about it for a second and you should be able to figure it out.

Just because Clinton did not wage a full scale war against another country does not mean that he did nothing. http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/...error-otl.html Bill Clinton did quite a bit to step up this countries defences against terrorism. Starting a war should not be the first step, but the last, Clinton seemed to understand that...i cannot say the same for our current President.

You are right Clinton did more then nothing, he let OBL go free to live in Afghanistan, he did launch cruise missiles into Iraq, blew up a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, so on and so on.

It is apparent by the amount of people that have protested (and are still protesting this war) in the United States alone (not to mention around the world) that the people believe it is not correct. Since the one year 'anniversery' of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq the amount of protests has increased over 100%, a good reflection of the deepening doubts about the war after a disastrous year of continued body counts and billions of dollars wasted on an illegal and immoral occupation.

Don’t know where you get your numbers, but Who won the last election? It was the same President who took America to Iraq wasn’t it? Seems more people agree with this war by your logic.