NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I have been less than pleased with the Bush Presidency, but i'm posting this message to ask, what would Kerry have done?

Senator Kerry voted in favor of the patriot act, just like everyone else. He doesn't believe in gay marriage either (though he says it differently than bush). He, like Bush, had no idea that Sadam Hussein was not the threat that he feinted to be, no way of knowing that the British intelligence didn't have their facts straight. (if roles were reversed, Kerry would have done the same thing)
He could not have stopped the world trade center attack, just as the presidencies since the 1970s haven't done anything about Al Queda. And he has talked about escalating the war in Iraq, an issue that seems like it isn't coming up at all. One that i sincerly care about, being of draft age myself.

Perhaps he will use different rhetoric than bush to describe all of this.
The only real difference is in scale, not action. He won't be different, he'll only be more moderate about one thing or another.

So, come next election, i don't have anyone to vote for...

Oh, and Certain News channels like him more than Bush, and others like him less. I'm a film student, and i know what unbias documentary looks like, and i haven't seen unbias news here in america for a very long time. very, very long time.

Vote libertarian and get these two "parties" off our backs. They have had OUR government in a stranglehold for long enough!!

Vote libertarian, just not Libertarian (there is a difference)

Senator Kerry voted in favor of the patriot act, just like everyone else.

He might have acted differently if he were the one signing it into law, but would he have the courage to veto it? probobly not, but then again it mgith have not been introduced, its impossible to make this comparison.

He doesn't believe in gay marriage either (though he says it differently than bush).

At least he does not want to change the constitution to restrict freedom, again he probobly supports gay marriage and just says otherwise to save political face.

He, like Bush, had no idea that Sadam Hussein was not the threat that he feinted to be, no way of knowing that the British intelligence didn't have their facts straight. (if roles were reversed, Kerry would have done the same thing)

First, feinted is the worng word, feinting would be if he lobbed missiles with no warheads at us. Saddam was SUSPECTED of having WMDs. I think Kerry would have finished in Afganistan first before starting another foeign war. Documents released from Dick Cheney's secret energy policy meetings in 2001 contained maps of Iraqi oil fields, the carlysle group held a meeting about profiting from rebuilding Iraq, George Bush's first security briefing when he entered office (well before 9/11) was about invading Iraq, and Post-saddam Iraq, Ihighly doubt that Kerry would ahve started the war in Iraq. He voted for it because after all the media hype he had to or risk being lynched by FOX news.


He could not have stopped the world trade center attack, just as the presidencies since the 1970s haven't done anything about Al Queda.
After teh bombing of the USS Cole, the Clinton administration drew up a plan to attack Al-quada(sp?) in Afganistan, but it was not enacted because the Clinto administration did not want to start a war three months before a new president took office. (Yes, its possible that Clinton should have taken action sooner, but how is this an excuse for 8 months of inaction by Bush?) The Clinton staff briefed the Bush staff at the higest levels about the imminant threat from al-quada, saying that the threat of terrorism should be the number one priority. Bush's first security briefings had nothing to do with al-quada, they were about Iraq. Bush let a partisan grudge undermine the security of this country, I don't think Kerry would let that happen. After 9/11 the action taken in Afganistan was essentially exactly what was recommended by Clinton's administration.

And he has talked about escalating the war in Iraq, an issue that seems like it isn't coming up at all. One that i sincerly care about, being of draft age myself.

You are right I haven't heard anything about this either, but really, what option do we have at this point?

Perhaps he will use different rhetoric than bush to describe all of this.The only real difference is in scale, not action. He won't be different, he'll only be more moderate about one thing or another.

Well, its a step in the right direction... :rolleyes:


Certain News channels like him more than Bush, and others like him less. I'm a film student, and i know what unbias documentary looks like, and i haven't seen unbias news here in america for a very long time. very, very long time.

This is true, thats why I like Google news, it searches news websites for all over the world, whihc really helps to pars out the facts.


Vote BUSH He is the evil of two lessers!
Why change horsemen mid-apocalypse? Vote Bush/Cheney 2004

One thing you can be sure John F'n Kerry would do is go right for your wallet. Democrap politicians == tax hikes.

One thing you can be sure John F'n Kerry would do is go right for your wallet. Democrap politicians == tax hikes.

In a poor economy, increases in tax help immensely.

I don't think Kerry would of been some type of hotdog like we have seen Bush be, after all, the man has been to war and knows as well as any one what going to war means. I believe Kerry would of been more like Kennedy dealing with the Cuban missile crisis and would have been thoughtful, maybe he would of let the weapon inspectors finish their job. Perhaps he would of not even went after Iraq at all and would of fought the war in Afghanistan where the people were who actually attacked the United States. We may never really know why Bush decided on Iraq before Afghanistan was even settled.. that just wasn't smart, even as a normal citizen I can figure that out, look at what has resulted. Not much except being stuck in a rather bad situation.

Of course none of us really know what Kerry would of done because we are not him. We also can't say we know what he would of done because the Congress was mislead. Whether that was intended by the White House or not, it's the job of the president to make sure the information he's getting is true. He didn't care to take the time and effort nor care to make sure, he was in to much of a hurry to race to Baghdad.

The Senate did release a report stating that the President was warned about the Al-Qaeda attack, and that he was later told there were no connections between Hussein and Al-Qaeda... if you believe the Senate.

ok, i was in brazil during 2001 and 2002, and down there ther is a man who worked for Saddam Hussein. He had ties to terrorist groups because, at least in his mind, that was the only way he could survive and do business in Iraq.

it is foolish to even consider that hussein was not supporting terrorism. He did that rather openly.

As for Al Queda itself, they have found records of messages and money passed from Iraq to Al Queda. If you don't remember that being reported on the news, it was buried in my newspaper- i think page 15 or so, in a short article. Essentially, they found the ledger.

What they have not found is any sort of link between Saddam and 9/11. There rather likely isn't one.
That's because smart terrorists don't tell ANYONE what's going on. Even the people who are funding them. We have no evidence that any of Iraq's money was used in 9/11 but we do have evidence that saddam was funding Al Queda.

Now look at what Saddam was doing. He was Acting like he had something to hide- evading weapons inspections until he had months in which he could hide something. Not knowing better, the logic is, "Why would he do that, if he didn't have something to hide?" That's what Bush thought, and that's what Kerry thought.
On top of that, UK intelligence reported that Hussein had bought Uranium. It is important that Nuclear weapons not be in the hands of megolamaniacs (like what happened in North Korea...)

To defend Kerry by saying that he knew better, but was afraid of the media backlash against him is absolute BUNK. If he were against it, he has the obligation to say so, that's why we have congress. It is not congress' job to do whatever the president says without question.
It is stupid to say that he would have vetoed bills that he voted in favor of. If he is so afraid of the media when he is one senator among one hundred, why would he not fear media backlash when he's president, and all eyes are on him?

By that reasoning, he shouldn't have to sit up straight because he has no spine. If you give the man any credit at all, then say that he didn't know better- just like everyone else.
But in order to do that, you'd have to say that Bush didn't know better either.
And we're just where i started this off. Kerry isn't better than Bush.




"Under the Republican Party, Man exploits Man. Under the Democrats, its the opposite."

I don't think Kerry would of been some type of hotdog like we have seen Bush be, after all, the man has been to war and knows as well as any one what going to war means. I believe Kerry would of been more like Kennedy dealing with the Cuban missile crisis and would have been thoughtful, maybe he would of let the weapon inspectors finish their job. Perhaps he would of not even went after Iraq at all and would of fought the war in Afghanistan where the people were who actually attacked the United States. We may never really know why Bush decided on Iraq before Afghanistan was even settled.. that just wasn't smart, even as a normal citizen I can figure that out, look at what has resulted. Not much except being stuck in a rather bad situation.

Of course none of us really know what Kerry would of done because we are not him. We also can't say we know what he would of done because the Congress was mislead. Whether that was intended by the White House or not, it's the job of the president to make sure the information he's getting is true. He didn't care to take the time and effort nor care to make sure, he was in to much of a hurry to race to Baghdad.

Kerry knows about war, but would be so soft on terrorists. He would want to treat terrorists as criminals, not a very good idea. They need to be hunted and killed. Jail won't change a terrorists mind.

What Would Kerry Do? Whatever the Corporations (that gave him money) tell him to do.

One thing you can be sure John F'n Kerry would do is go right for your wallet. Democrap politicians == tax hikes.

Shame on John Kerry for expecting this generation to pay for its own bills rather than pass the debt onto our children like a certain Mr. Bush.

It's ironic how Democrats are characterized as "tax and spend" when the Republican's "borrow and spend" policies are even less morally justifiable.

On top of that, UK intelligence reported that Hussein had bought Uranium. It is important that Nuclear weapons not be in the hands of megolamaniacs (like what happened in North Korea...)

Then why is Bush allowed access to the device? :p