If John Kerry had defeated Bush Jr., where would we be?

Iraq was invaded in 2003. By the time the 2004 election was held, the victor had to complete the occupation.

That being said, Kerry was very similar to Bush on a lot of issues.

The 2004 election was a lot like this past election -- since Romney was very similar to Obama.

At this point, not much is going to change for the better until we break out of the two party trap.

 

So he didn't lie, he just recklessly repeated false hearsay in attemptnto make himself popular at the expense of his country. Distinction noted. Everything else I posted stands though so.....

- - - Updated - - -

Do you go around tge coubtry repeating without verifying?

 

I think he would have put a stop to all this sketchy derivative trading and would have avoided the Great Recession that hit this country really hard.

 

My god, I think he's got it!! Now try "It rains in Spain mainly on the plains".

Do you go around the country repeating without verifying?

 

Why dodge the rest of that post? Did he not recklessly spread false information that he got from liars? The follow investigation said so. At least he tries to distance himself from those remarks when he can. And his Iraq war vote. And his afghan war vote. When he changes his mind again about his newest favorite war will you still trust him? Can you name a war he wasnt for at the outset?

 

Kerry Care?

 

Although others have pointed out that the Iraq War had already started before the 2004 election, I'm quite sure there wouldn't have been "billions saved."

As for Iraqi and soldier's lives, it depends on what he did with Iraq as President. If there is one thing that the past two weeks have taught me, is that Democrats are sheep, and most seem to have no problem turning on their beliefs for dear leader:

[video=youtube;z-sdO6pwVHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ[/video]

So if Kerry decided to double down on Iraq and do the surge, it probably would have been even more successful since the Congress would be more united in doing it rather than being bitterly divided. Democratic opposition to the war would drop if Kerry decided to go all in. Then Kerry could congratulate himself on a job well done for inventing and executing the surge.

If he went the other way and pulled us out of Iraq while we were under pressure by Al Qaeda and the insurgents, it would have been another helicopter off the embassy disaster for the US. Of course, a disaster for the US is usually considered a victory by the left, so it wouldn't hurt his status in the Democratic Party, making him likely to win the nomination in 2008, easily against Hillary. We would have probably then pulled out of Afghanistan then because, why bother? It's hard work and Bush. Case closed.

When the financial crisis hits in 2008 I'm not sure how that would effect his re-election chances. It depends on if the media found the Republican candidate a reasonable alternative or not. Probably not so Kerry again!

 

Some Kerry quotes from free republic.

Here is a good primer on Kerry's ability to reinvent the past:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2ef9fe6-1a00-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_blog.html

 

It was Kerry vs Bush Jr. in '04.

 

Didn't dodge anything. Why should I respond to this: "Did he not recklessly spread false information that he got from liars? The follow investigation said so."? It is a continuation of your lie.

Did I ever respond to this? I always stayed on your lie and prove that it was a lie. Now YOU should see if I ever made a comment on the above.

 

I guess that was your answer to my challenge?

Well just prove it.

here was your claim:
"He admitted he lied to congress about the atrocities he "witnessed" in the Vietnam war. "

So now you seem to be saying that your claim was either a mistake- or a lie- which was it?

If it was a mistake- it would seem to be a rather reckless mistake- perhaps falsely repeating hearsay- you know like you accuse Kerry of.

And you still haven't answered this

Tell me- what about his testimony do you think is false?

What do you think he lied about- specifically?


And by the way- your equivocations make this statement of yours really look more and more foolish

johnmayo
He lied about this in order to fool the public, which is an accepted means of debate among democrats.

You seem to be long on making accusations about Kerry and his Congressional testimony- but short on proving anything.

Perhaps lying about such things is the accepted means of debate among Republicans?

 

Ok. He maybe didn't lie, but he certainly spread false rumors recklessly. Fair enough? I can admit when I am wrong, I have yet to see it once from the left.

He was for the Iraq war though? (Before he was against it?)

He was for Vietnam? (Before he was against it?)

He was for the afghan invasion?

He was against desert storm? (Before he was for it?)


What war was he right about at the outset? Would the John Kerry of 4 years later agree?

 

ROFL is that really the best you got?

 

Sure they will, soon after the young Liberals who think government owes them a living, health care, college education, a roof over their head, food on their table, cloths on their back, a cell phone, and a living wage and there is no one left to pay for it, the Cons will be back in

 

You forget how to use the quote function- or just was hoping I wouldn't notice/

So again

here was your claim:
"He admitted he lied to congress about the atrocities he "witnessed" in the Vietnam war. "

So now you seem to be saying that your claim was either a mistake- or a lie- which was it?

If it was a mistake- it would seem to be a rather reckless mistake- perhaps falsely repeating hearsay- you know like you accuse Kerry of.

And you still haven't answered this

Tell me- what about his testimony do you think is false?

See the thing is that it appears that you made a false claim about Kerry, and now are trying to divert attention from that to everything else you object to about Kerry.

But I am defending Kerry the veteran against attacks on his service to his country - and about his testimony to Congress about Vietnam.

If you want to retract all of your claims about that, as an acknowledgement that your claims were as reckless of the truth as you accuse Kerry of- well then I guess we are done.

 

Ok. He maybe didn't lie, but he certainly spread false rumors recklessly. Fair enough? I can admit when I am wrong, I have yet to see it once from the left.

He was for the Iraq war though? (Before he was against it?)

He was for Vietnam? (Before he was against it?)

He was for the afghan invasion?

He was against desert storm? (Before he was for it?)


What war was he right about at the outset? Would the John Kerry of 4 years later agree?

 

here was your claim:
"He admitted he lied to congress about the atrocities he "witnessed" in the Vietnam war. "

So now you seem to be saying that your claim was either a mistake- or a lie- which was it?

If it was a mistake- it would seem to be a rather reckless mistake- perhaps falsely repeating hearsay- you know like you accuse Kerry of.

And you still haven't answered this

Tell me- what about his testimony do you think is false?

See the thing is that it appears that you made a false claim about Kerry, and now are trying to divert attention from that to everything else you object to about Kerry.

But I am defending Kerry the veteran against attacks on his service to his country - and about his testimony to Congress about Vietnam.

If you want to retract all of your claims about that, as an acknowledgement that your claims were as reckless of the truth as you accuse Kerry of- well then I guess we are done.

 

Yeah retracted that claim already. Now lets get to the heart of the matter and not the distractions. Please don't dodge:

What war was he right about? Ever? Was he wrong about that same war when it started?

 

Okay- so you were just as reckless with the truth- as you claim Kerry was- and that you claimed was a "Democratic" style- thanks for the admission.

And you still can't point out anything false that Kerry said during his Vietnam testimony- so your whole outrage was just pretty much reckless claims- that you castigated Kerry for.

Why should I bother wasting my time on your other claims when you can't even back up the first ones you made?

As I said- I am defending Kerry the veteran against attacks on his service to his country - and about his testimony to Congress about Vietnam.

You want to make reckless claims about Kerry conduct after the Vietnam war, go for it- I won't even bother to look them up and find out whether any of these claims are true.

 

No, you didn't because you still accuse him of spreading lies about his testimony. You were absolutely wrong and only retracted part of your lie.

I do not believed that anyone has responded to this comment but you keep repeating it for some reason. Does it matter, one way or the other?

 

Not a dime saved. Kerry is an idiot... he has been proving it the last month. He would have done exactly like Bush... exactly like Obama.. they are fingers on the same hand.

 

He was for the Iraq war though? (Before he was against it?)

He was for Vietnam? (Before he was against it?)

He was for the afghan invasion?

He was against desert storm? (Before he was for it?)


What war was he right about at the outset? Would the John Kerry of 4 years later agree?

- - - Updated - - -

He was for the Iraq war though? (Before he was against it?)

He was for Vietnam? (Before he was against it?)

He was for the afghan invasion?

He was against desert storm? (Before he was for it?)

 

And he still would have made a better President than the recovering cowboy alcoholic.

 

Okay- so you were just as reckless with the truth- as you claim Kerry was- and that you claimed was a "Democratic" style- thanks for the admission.

And you still can't point out anything false that Kerry said during his Vietnam testimony- so your whole outrage was just pretty much reckless claims- that you castigated Kerry for.

Why should I bother wasting my time on your other claims when you can't even back up the first ones you made?

As I said- I am defending Kerry the veteran against attacks on his service to his country - and about his testimony to Congress about Vietnam.

You want to make reckless claims about Kerry conduct after the Vietnam war, go for it- I won't even bother to look them up and find out whether any of these claims are true.

 

Well if the man who got all his wealth from marriage defeated the guy who got all his wealth from his parents, we'd be in a bit of a different place. Though, you need to get your timeframe straight. The Iraq invasion happened before that election - John Kerry wouldn't have stopped the Iraq invasion and, if I remember right, he was for it before he was against it. Just a little bit of political opportunism, which is a lot harder when you're the president.

So, if he won, opposition to the surge probably wouldn't have happened, the housing market would have crashed anyways, the war in iraq would have gone on, 2008 would've probably been more friendly in the gop camp to someone who wasn't a neo-conservative, and the gop might have gotten an electable candidate nominated and won in 2008.

But all in all, not much would have changed.