I paid a visit to dnc.org to see what exactly the Democrats have planned, specifically in terms of the Worldwide War on Terror. Their site is vague - basically pointing to diplomacy and "working with our allies."

I'd like to hear from Democrats and Liberals alike.....what exactly do the Democrats plan to bring success to the Worldwide War on Terror?

they plan on not letting the united states terrorize the world anymore, hopefully.

HA, dems repubs libs etc.. have no say who does what anymore.

they're not republicans. that's what they have to offer. frankly, that should be enough.

So let me get this right, vague generalies are worse then starting a war with no idea on when and how to finish said war?

The most saddening thing about dnc.org is not that the issues arent addressed thoroughly, but that the last thing on the "History of Our Party" page occured in 2001.

Those two things are typically good things. How specific are you looking for?

We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make -- it would hope -- put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005

So your opinion is that Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas and the like are not the problem, we are. Taking that logic a step further, the events on 9/11/01 were not terrorist acts but acts of "self-defense" from the "American terrorists."

I couldn't disagree more, but your opinion is valid.

The "we're not the other guy" position. Not much of a position in my mind, but OK.

i wasn't completely serious. but i do think the united states' role abroad has ignited their hatred for us. for instance, bin laden's hatred for the u.s. is fueled by the gulf war.

it's pretty much always the position of the opposition. it was in 94 for the republicans and it is now for the democrats.

Fair point, but, as President Bush has said, shouldn't we let conditions on the ground dictate when we pull troops out?

I agree that the "occupation" part of the war was not planned well....if at all. I think those who did the planning made too many assumptions and, in my opinion, fought the war without the appropriate number of troops. As is becoming a common criticism, the war was fought "on the cheap." I say if they're going to do it then do it. The general who was dismissed for suggesting that 500,000 troops be used should be reinstated pronto.

Well, the Republicans had that "Contract With America" thing, no?

Anyway, you are correct....but I do not think the democrats will gain very much headway with that strategy in the long run. It's easy to say "Bush messed up A-Z" but when asked, "Well, what would you do differently" you see Democrats looking like deer caught in the headlights....followed by, "Well, what I WOULDN'T do is....."

If the Democrats keep that up, they will shoot themselves in the foot because the GOP will paint them as "the party with no plan." That strategy has worked before and if the DNC isn't careful they will not regain anything this November.

and just about every official in the administration should be fired.

OK, let's run with that. Fire the entire Bush administration and install President Dean, Vice President Kerry, Secretary of State Pelosi, etc.

My question stands - what would they do differently in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror? I know they've criticized the Bush Administration a lot for not being diplomatic enough (cowboy diplomacy, as it has been called). But where did all the diplomacy that Clinton engaged in get him? I'm not faulting him....he should be commended for working tirelessly to broker a deal between Israel and Palestine. But what did it create? More terrorist groups massing along Israel's border. And what about other terror groups? Do we "negotiate" with them?

I agree. You can say democrats don't have a plan, or the cynical can say that the democrats aren't much different from the republicans, but I don't see how any democrat could be any worse than the republicans at this point.

they kind of did, but virtually noone used it in the campaign. ideas don't win house elections. incumbents only lose when they fuck up.

i'm not arguing on behalf of anything. i'm just telling you how it is.

don't you think rice and rumsfeld should have been fired for their massive failure in iraq? and powell gets off easy because he rides off into the sunset. yet his UN presentation was a joke.