Kerry was in favor of sending in more troops, though I don't know where they would have come from. Perhaps, given he hadn't burned the bridges with our allies or the UN the way Bush did, we might have put a genuine coalition in Iraq that might have given them a better chance. I blame Bush of course, but much of the blame for the failure should go to Rumsfeld and the other clowns who have mismanaged this thing from the beginning. I can see it now, we withdraw, Iraq goes into full scale Civil War, and Bush gives Rumsfeld a medal for job well done.....
I figure Kerry would have been one of those pencil-necked nerds who has studied history, politics, diplomacy, economics, science, philosophy, etc., but in spite of all that, would have surrounded himself with excellent people. In short, he would have been the complete opposite of the current occupant.
Son, Kerry is a opportunistic fag who has not worked a honest day in his entire life. If he had stood up to the shit-boat moron illiterates I would have more respect for him. But as it stands, he has shown himself to be spineless. This is not a trait you want in a leader. We are screwed because we want too much ethics and morality in our leaders instead of brains. That is why we get dumb village idiots elected. If you have heart bypass surgery coming up. Do you want the town idiot who is moral, or the elite surgeon who likes to screw his neighbors wife? Quote from Avid_Consumer: it seemed obvious to a lot of people that kerry was more qualified to fight a war in a culturally empathetic manner which is really what was needed in this particular situation. it's too bad kerry wasn't more of a standard guy's guy because i honestly believe he had the fiber to win, or at least sell a victory to the people, and leave both countries better than he found them i guess you can't expect the masses to recognize successful qualities that they themselves don't possess