How Would Kerry Have Handled the Iraq War?

[Bo]

And what would the situation there have looked like right now if he won in 2004?

[Derek]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

[Bo]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

That's why I'm asking you.

[Derek]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

That's why I'm asking you.

Well combining all of Kerry's statements, he would have gone to the UN, then not gone to war. Then he would send our troops in anyhow and ask for support. The UN would say no and so he'd bring us back home. After seeing that Saddam still wasn't cooperating with sanctions, he'd send our troops back in and after Baghdad fell, he'd pull us out until after his reelection. His next move would be to send our troops back to Iraq. Sounds like alot of his other positions.

[Mechaman]

I think it would be similar to Obama's approach: a steady withdrawal from Iraq and alot more focus on Afghanistan.

[Bo]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

That's why I'm asking you.

Well combining all of Kerry's statements, he would have gone to the UN, then not gone to war. Then he would send our troops in anyhow and ask for support. The UN would say no and so he'd bring us back home. After seeing that Saddam still wasn't cooperating with sanctions, he'd send our troops back in and after Baghdad fell, he'd pull us out until after his reelection. His next move would be to send our troops back to Iraq. Sounds like alot of his other positions.

I meant after 2004, since Kerry would have only been inaugurated in January 2005. That was after the invasion.

[Derek]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

That's why I'm asking you.

Well combining all of Kerry's statements, he would have gone to the UN, then not gone to war. Then he would send our troops in anyhow and ask for support. The UN would say no and so he'd bring us back home. After seeing that Saddam still wasn't cooperating with sanctions, he'd send our troops back in and after Baghdad fell, he'd pull us out until after his reelection. His next move would be to send our troops back to Iraq. Sounds like alot of his other positions.

I meant after 2004, since Kerry would have only been inaugurated in January 2005. That was after the invasion.

I know that's what I was referring to. He would've gone back and forth and kept changing his mind. One month we'd be there and another month we'd be back.

[Bo]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

That's why I'm asking you.

Well combining all of Kerry's statements, he would have gone to the UN, then not gone to war. Then he would send our troops in anyhow and ask for support. The UN would say no and so he'd bring us back home. After seeing that Saddam still wasn't cooperating with sanctions, he'd send our troops back in and after Baghdad fell, he'd pull us out until after his reelection. His next move would be to send our troops back to Iraq. Sounds like alot of his other positions.

I meant after 2004, since Kerry would have only been inaugurated in January 2005. That was after the invasion.

I know that's what I was referring to. He would've gone back and forth and kept changing his mind. One month we'd be there and another month we'd be back.

This is why I don't take you as a serious poster.

[Derek]

Well let's see. In 2002 he said it would be foolish to ignore the threat. In 2004 he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Then in the weeks leading up to the election, he said that he wouldn't have invaded. I'm not sure Kerry even knows how he would've handled Iraq.

That's why I'm asking you.

Well combining all of Kerry's statements, he would have gone to the UN, then not gone to war. Then he would send our troops in anyhow and ask for support. The UN would say no and so he'd bring us back home. After seeing that Saddam still wasn't cooperating with sanctions, he'd send our troops back in and after Baghdad fell, he'd pull us out until after his reelection. His next move would be to send our troops back to Iraq. Sounds like alot of his other positions.

I meant after 2004, since Kerry would have only been inaugurated in January 2005. That was after the invasion.

I know that's what I was referring to. He would've gone back and forth and kept changing his mind. One month we'd be there and another month we'd be back.

This is why I don't take you as a serious poster.

What's not serious about it? I'm going right off of Kerry's exact statements about Iraq and how inconsistent they were.

[phk]

He likely wouldn't be able to get foreign troops from European countries. Or as many as originally thought.

He'd have a steady withdrawal from Iraq until 2006 when Muslim fratricide and the risk of a civil war hit high levels.

If steady withdrawal delays death of Zarqawi than the conflict would be having a huge negative downward pressure on his approvals, especially if Zarqawi gets promoted within Al Qaeda's ranks.

[Bo]

He likely wouldn't be able to get foreign troops from European countries. Or as many as originally thought.

He'd have a steady withdrawal from Iraq until 2006 when Muslim fratricide and the risk of a civil war hit high levels.

If steady withdrawal delays death of Zarqawi than the conflict would be having a huge negative downward pressure on his approvals, especially if Zarqawi gets promoted within Al Qaeda's ranks.

Would the Republican Congress have allowed Kerry to start withdrawing troops, though?

[hcallega]

He likely wouldn't be able to get foreign troops from European countries. Or as many as originally thought.

He'd have a steady withdrawal from Iraq until 2006 when Muslim fratricide and the risk of a civil war hit high levels.

If steady withdrawal delays death of Zarqawi than the conflict would be having a huge negative downward pressure on his approvals, especially if Zarqawi gets promoted within Al Qaeda's ranks.

Would the Republican Congress have allowed Kerry to start withdrawing troops, though?

Congress has no authority on that matter.

[Derek]

Kerry was either lying by saying he could get foreign troops to help because no one likes the US enough to lend a hand. He was either lying or full of himself. He would've changed his position as president too going back and forth. He'd blame Bush if there was a problem and take credit if things went well.

[Bo]

Kerry was either lying by saying he could get foreign troops to help because no one likes the US enough to lend a hand. He was either lying or full of himself. He would've changed his position as president too going back and forth. He'd blame Bush if there was a problem and take credit if things went well.

All politicians take credit if things go well or blame others if things go badly.

[Derek]

Kerry was either lying by saying he could get foreign troops to help because no one likes the US enough to lend a hand. He was either lying or full of himself. He would've changed his position as president too going back and forth. He'd blame Bush if there was a problem and take credit if things went well.

All politicians take credit if things go well or blame others if things go badly.

He would have pulled us out, sent us back, pulled us out, and sent us back again because he is a notorious flip flopper.

[feeblepizza]

He likely wouldn't be able to get foreign troops from European countries. Or as many as originally thought.

He'd have a steady withdrawal from Iraq until 2006 when Muslim fratricide and the risk of a civil war hit high levels.

If steady withdrawal delays death of Zarqawi than the conflict would be having a huge negative downward pressure on his approvals, especially if Zarqawi gets promoted within Al Qaeda's ranks.

Therefore he would start the surge of 07-08 and lose reelection to McCain, most likely, who would keep us in for the remainder of his term.