"We needed a stronger coalition" and "Bush lied" (Those two don't go together)

These are two very big arguments of those who are against Bush,.

Kerry says if he had invaded Iraq, he would have created stronger alliances. Good stuff. Many of his supporters say this. However, many of them (not Kerry himself AFAIK) have outright said Bush lied about Iraq. Again, no suprises here. However, put them together into one point, and it makes less and less sense.

What you basically say is that Bush lied and we should not have invaded Iraq. However, if Kerry were in charge, he would have gotten a stronger coalition together. But, in order to do that (assuming that all the info linking Saddam and WMDs was just plain false), Kerry would have had to have lied to the UN. If Bush's lies didn't do it, Kerry woulda had to have made some big fishs tories. So you end up saying, purposely or not, that Kerry can capitalize on lies better than Bush.

What I'm trying to say is, well...don't support Kerry because you think he would have done a better job in Iraq, because the means to get there have to be the same. Support him because you think he will do a better job.

Kerry stated (and has always stated) that there were certain conditions that needed to be met before going to war--letting the inpectors finish their jobs, exhausting diplomatic means, forming a coalition with our allies, planning for the peace, and then going to war as a last resort. Kerry wrote an Op/Ed piece in the Times in September of 2002 stating these points exactly, so its not as if he made this up last night.

The first was that the inspectors needed time to do their jobs. When it became clear that they didn't find nuclear weapons, I think that the course of action would have been much different--forming a coalition of nations wouldn't have even entered into the picture. When Kerry talks about Bush misleading, it is because he had no intention of following a diplomatic course and he did not make good on his promise to go to war as a last resort--his intention was clearly to go to war immediately.

esoterica,
How and in what way could anyone do a worse job in Iraq?
By paying terrorists to come and establish themselves in Iraq?

John F. Kerry, because he has not been a rogue cowboy, will at least be able to approach foreign leaders, all of whom have some interest in Iraq being a stable oil producing state and NOT the hotbed of terrorism that Bush allowed it to become.

Bush has no clue about any kind of combat. John F. Kerry has military experience and will LISTEN to his military advisors.

JOHN F. KERRY KNOWS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION ON YOUR SIDE THE BATTLE IS ALMOST HOPELESS OVER THE LONG TERM.

Bush simply lacks humanity. He cares not a wit for the Average American, the American Service person, Iraqi civilians or anyone else in the world. HE only cares about the CEOs of Expatriot American Corporations.

IT IS CALLED NATION BUILDING. It is NOT something i advise doing on a regular basis, BUT WE ARE THERE NOW. PERIOD. It is a lot of darn work, But Bush has gotten us into this MESS and John F. Kerry is the only available person who can get us out of it.
.

How, exactly, is Kerry the only one that can get us out of the 'mess' in Iraq? What plans does he have? Bi-lateral talks w/ Korea? Building more coalition forces? Or is he planning on using his superior military training from Vietnam to lead our forces to a speedy victory?

I can think of several ways the war could have gone worse. We could have had our butts kicked and lost thousands in the first few months. We could have been sorely defeated, run out of the country, had our equipment stolen, and been nuked by our own missles. Just a crazy scenario. You asked for it.

This is WAR we are talking about. Yes, it is HORRIBLE that people have lost their lives, but they have done it preserving freedom, and there is no shame in our Leader defending it.

If Kerry put forth a REAL plan for improvement, and it was better than GWB's, I would vote for him in a bloody second. The fact is: HE HASN'T.

.
BUSH WAS NOT ELECTED TO FREE IRAQ.

He was elected to protect defend and enable this nation to be more prosperous and a good global citizen.

HE WAS ELECTED TO GET TERRORIST LEADERS LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN, NOT GET SIDETRACKED IN IRAQ.

BUSH HAS FAILED!

NOT to invade a stable virtually weaponless country and turn it into a hotbed of terrorism. Through inattention and trying to run a 'war on the cheap', He missed several good opportunities to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. He didn't. He does NOT give an F*ck about Americans, American service persons or Iraqis.

HE WAS TOO BUSY GETTING NO-BID BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS FOR HALIBURTON AND BECHTEL to actually pay attention to what was going on on the ground in Iraq.

John F. Kerry is not hauling around the baggage of Haliburton, Enron and Bechtel. He will actually be focusing on the American military, their actions, and winning the enthusiasm of the Iraqi people.

NATION BUILDING IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE USA. BUT WE ARE THERE NOW AND NEED TO FINISH THE JOB. The mess created by Bush will be cleaned up by John F. Kerry.
.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Kerry stated (and has always stated) that there were certain conditions that needed to be met before going to war--letting the inpectors finish their jobs, exhausting diplomatic means, forming a coalition with our allies, planning for the peace, and then going to war as a last resort. Kerry wrote an Op/Ed piece in the Times in September of 2002 stating these points exactly, so its not as if he made this up last night.

The first was that the inspectors needed time to do their jobs. When it became clear that they didn't find nuclear weapons, I think that the course of action would have been much different--forming a coalition of nations wouldn't have even entered into the picture. When Kerry talks about Bush misleading, it is because he had no intention of following a diplomatic course and he did not make good on his promise to go to war as a last resort--his intention was clearly to go to war immediately.

I think you found my point, so you should completely understand that these two 'facets' of Kerry cannot be in the mind of one person at the same time

Originally posted by slank
.
BUSH WAS NOT ELECTED TO FREE IRAQ.

He was elected to protect defend and enable this nation to be more prosperous and a good global citizen.

HE WAS ELECTED TO GET TERRORIST LEADERS LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN, NOT GET SIDETRACKED IN IRAQ.

BUSH HAS FAILED!

NOT to invade a stable virtually weaponless country and turn it into a hotbed of terrorism.
.

Once again...lets see what democrats and others in our government were saying about Saddam/Iraq and the threat he posed, even before this administration...

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," Clinton said. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

February 1, 1998
Web posted at: 9:44 a.m. EDT (0944 GMT)

(CNN) -- The United States is prepared to use "substantial" force against Iraq if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the crisis over U.N. weapons inspections, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Sunday.

................
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case Wednesday for U.S. military action against Iraq.
.............

"The lesson of the 20th century is, and we've learned through harsh experience, the only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness," Berger said.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983," Berger said.

Excerpted from.
www.usatoday.com...

The above are just some of what democrats have been saying since the Clinton administratoin about Saddam/Iraq and wmd...

JOHN F. KERRY KNOWS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION ON YOUR SIDE THE BATTLE IS ALMOST HOPELESS OVER THE LONG TERM.

From what I hear, Kerry isn't that popular with the Iraqis, especially Allawi and his UN security council approved (15-0 vote) administration.

ALSO, PLEASE STOP USING ALL CAPS.