I don't disagree that a Democratic president would be more likely to be successful in getting approval from the voters for military action against other countries than a Republican at this time, although I think he or she would approach it in the same way Clinton and previous Democrats have done... they would prosecute a war, but they just wouldn't call it a war.

I've been thinking this is a big part of the reason for all of the negative attention Bush has been getting in the media lately (as opposed to, for instance, before he attacked Iraq, when the popular media in the US did everything they possibly could to help Bush gain popular support for the war against Iraq). The people who want the US to continue to fight their wars for them, want Bush out of office so the US (the new president) will be in a better position to go after the next items in the "pax americana" agenda... most likely military action against Iran and Syria. And frankly, I'm far from convinced that Kerry wouldn't do something like this. I see him as just another cog in the machine like Clinton, and like LBJ and JFK (remember Vietnam?).

It's all about the people who pull the strings behind the scenes. It doesn't matter to them which party is in office. All they care about is getting the job done.