This just sounds like mindless partisanship. After 9/11, I don't care who was the President, America was going to avenge things in Afghanistan. It could've been your grandmother or my grandmother or anybody's grandmother; Afghanistan was going to get attacked.

Why is everything so black and white in the thinking that Dems wouldn't retaliate after a terrorist attack? Maybe they would retaliate against the right people and not some random country. Maybe they would fight the 21st century war the 21st century way instead of the old-fashioned way that Bush did.

The blanket statement that Dems wouldn't know what to do in this kind of situation is baffling. Clinton got involved militarily in Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else? I can't remember. Haiti? Or was that NATO? And what about the Republican controlled congress in the 90's denying Clinton the power to go to Afghanistan? Instead he sent over a few black-ops people, and even then, America got closer to getting Bin Laden than Bush could have ever hoped.

The blanket statement that Obama would try to reason and negotiate with attackers against America doesn't make any sense. It's not grounded in any kind of proof or facts, however, in Iraq, Bush decided to help the surge along by paying off 100,000 former Baathists and other militias to keep control of the areas they've taken. He could've worked out something bold along the lines of a reconciliation commission or something, but instead he's just bribing them. It's the most cynical of all choices and it admits defeat.

If a military person is going to lead America, it at least ought to be someone that the country could trust to really hear all sides and sift through all evidence carefully. With McCain I get the same feeling in that I do with Bush; they both hear want they want to hear and exclude the rest.