Kermit_The_Frog said:
if we rolled back time and Kerry was at the helm at the time, he would have gotten the same information that both Bush and Blair got. He most likley would have done the same thing
not a chance...this president was told their was NO threat in iraq, NO weapons of mass destruction
we were engaged in a front defending this nation against a country that atacked us...there is no chance kerry would have started a second front...simple war 101...YOU DO NOT VOLUNTARILY ENGAGE YOUR FORCES ON TWO FRONTS....this president thought voluntarily engaging war on two fronts is grand military strategy
saddam has been an obsession with this president since before he came to office...saddam was impotent, this president knew from his own aids that the saddam "threat" was the least threat it had ever been
this president admits that he actually tried to attack iraq INSTEAD of afghanistan, though he was implored to take immediate action against the tali ban
not a chance on this planet kerry would have taken our boys and our girls out and away from the defense of this nation, and not a chance he would have started a front that was unasociated to the attack against this land
when at the time everyone knew something had to be done.
what needed to be done was that our country needed to deal with terrorists and terrorism...what we needed to NOT do was engage a war of personal obsdession, divert resources from the defense of this nation.
I dont think there is a real difference overall be it Kerry or Bush ,.
it's huge
I get the feeling Kerry is just doing what they all do is play on the weakness after the fact , but I really think if he was in the drivers seat he would not be able to control the wheel , he swerves to much , he will end up in a ditch.
of the two men we are talking about, the person that has waffled and flipflopped the more is the man that's in office
however, the marketing of the republican party has this country beleiving otherwise