John,

You really, really need to learn to keep your emotions out of your decisions. Read the facts, things verified by bi-partisan committees/groups (i.e. Groups with nothing at stake should a war break out).

Saddam had nothing, nada, nil, zilch, naught, came up a goose ege, to do with 9-11. Near as I can tell, bushs' decision to invade Iraq was based on either:

a) neocons desire to establish a stronghold in the Middle East
b) A desire by bush to get revenge on Saddam for events that occurred between Saddam and daddy bush.

That's it. Nothing els. I'm not sure if you wear an aluminum foil hat to work, or to the level of you fantasies.

But in the real world, launching a war against Iraq was a mistake at one level. The mistake grew to monstorous proportions by the many failures that occurred after Saddam was toppled. I don't think it would be possible for them administration to have done any less planning for post Saddam Iraq. Even when a potential civil war was slapping them in the face, rummy refused to acknowledge that there was an insurgency in Iraq.

You still haven't answered the question about why so many vets are democrats. Is it because they are "liberals", whatever that means to you? I don't think so. I think it's because they don't like what they see as far as the way the war is being run. This includes putting troops in harms way.

This war has made the world far less safe. This isn't a single country I'm aware of that wasn't happy that the dems won on Tues. As someone said "it was the end of a six year nightmare".

Open your eyes and see the world for what it is.