I know there are many threads about Iraq, but they are mostly about president Bush. What I am trying to determine is where exactly does the democratic leadership stand on Iraq. Recently the democratic party, its presidential candidates and congressional leaders, determined that president Bush may be vulnerable on the Iraq issue. So they have been jockeing to produce the best sound bytes against him, and arguing about who was the first and loudest to denounce his policy. I understand that this is political fluff, and that is how the game is played. But what exactly do the democrats propose that we do about Iraq? All the major contenders except Dean supported the war. (Well, we are not sure about General Clark, because he changed his mind so many times). More recently, some of them supported the package to send financial aid to the soldiers and to reconstruct Iraq, while others rejected it. But has any of them said what they would do differently? If so, then it got lost in the fluff, because I haven't heard it. Perhaps some of you who follow the democrats more closely can tell me. How is our policy likely to change if a democrat wins the White House? Would we pull out of Iraq? Would we continue the course? Would we expand the effort? So far all I heard is that they will try to get more help from other countries. But the Bush administration is also trying to do that. And do they really think that the answer is French and German troops, even in the unlikely event that they could get them? In congress the democrats haven't done much more. The only minor difference with the republicans was their proposal to turn some of the aid requested by Bush into loans (which some republicans also signed on). But to me that is like charging Iraq for the damage we caused while liberating them. I agree with the president that it is not a good idea. But even if it is, it is not a major change in policy really. So after all the soundbytes and political attacks are over, what is it exactly that the democrats would do differently?