Republicans and Wars

Hypothesis: All successful Republican tenures are based on wars, and even many unsuccessful ones. Moreover, these wars either end up failing or having a huge cost in lives.
Examples: Lincoln (Civil War), Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (War on Drugs, indirectly), Bush Jr. (War on Terrorism/Iraq)
Exceptions: Woodrow Wilson (D) (WWI), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) (WWII), Bill Clinton (D) (Gulf War, IIRC; this may be Bush Sr., can't remem)

It seems the case that some posters are not aware of the nature of the human condition: we are always fighting for somthing.
It could be a parking space, or forign lands; either way, humans are constantly fighting.
As for Republicans using wars as the only means of advancing an agenda is silly. Both parties use what ever they can to advance their agendas. To say that one side does and the other does not is foolish. In order to declair war, now, there needs to be an act of Congress. That means members of both parties voted for military action, not just one or the other. What this question is realy about is the Iraq war.
Both sides are using this "war" as a political tool. The Dems want to appear to be strong on the war on terror and in support of the military but not siding with the President; essentialy wanting it both ways. The Republicans want to support the war but appear to be in conrtol of everything that goes on in Iraq and to make it all  good news for the US. This is just as immpossible as the goals of the Dems.