Ultimately, Would John Kerry have taken this nation to war with Iraq?

[fujiyama]

I don't care, if he were able to get a fake "coalition" or UN support, because I don't trust the leadership of other nations either, and believe they can be bought (as Ted Kennedy said, they can be bribed). That's why I thought the whole hoopla over UN support was bullshit.

So, regardless of UN/international support, would Kerry have taken the nation to war with Iraq? Would he have started a war that has costed billions of dollars, thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of US lives, not to mention inflame Arab sentiments and draw resources away from the real war on terror?

I don't care about "how" it was done. I think this war was bullshit. Saddam was contained. He was not a major threat. I trust that if Saddam were ever implicated in any terrorist attack, Gore or Kerry or any other democrat would have kicked his ass thoroughly, and Saddam knew this very well.

BTW, my own guess is no. Clinton didn't do it for years, and I doubt any democrat other than Lieberman would have actively pursued an all out war on Iraq. I just hope Kerry can articulate these things more clearly. I support him, but there are many out there that are just plain confused by his defense of voting for the resolution, but giving mixed signals later.

[sandnsea]

1. What I think he would have done

He's said it since Bush first opened his mouth about Iraq. He believed, based on tons of testimony including testimony from Scott Ritter in 1998, that Saddam may still have WMD and may still seek WMD. Ritter himself said, in 1998, that he believed Saddam would have WMD within 6 months if inspectors left. That's why he voted for the IWR.

So he may well have followed the IWR path to finally bring about a resolution to Iraq. People were dying under the sanctions.

But he wouldn't have been a bully about it. He wouldn't have ignored the rest of the world. He would have let inspections continue. He would have listened to other resolutions to the situation as other countries offered them.

And he certainly wouldn't have removed needed special ops forces from Afghanistan to go into Iraq.

So I believe we would have done something about Iraq, but I don't believe it would have been this war.

[Quetzal]

2. I hope that question is brought up during the debates

Do I think he would be in Iraq? Only John Kerry knows that one. My gut tells me no.

Here is a Truthout Article that provides some insight.

The Trial of John Kerry

Wednesday 10 December 2003

One of these days, this will be a textbook case for political science professors to use as a teaching tool.
Here is a Democratic candidate for the Oval Office in a year when the liberal base of the party is almost completely unified in its disgust for the sitting Republican President. The candidate, a Senator, has a 20-year liberal voting record to admire: He is peerless on the environment, a staunch defender of a woman?s right to choose, completely reliable across the whole spectrum of gay rights issues, totally solid on education, an advocate for campaign finance reform and health care reform, and will fight to the death to keep Social Security fully funded and reliable. It is the liberal base of the party that turns out to vote in the primaries, so the candidate?s record gives him an immediate advantage.

snip

For over a year now, Kerry has struggled to respond to that question. His answers have seemed vague, overly nuanced and evasive. On Thursday, seated before the sharpest knives in the journalistic drawer and facing the unconcealed outrage of Alterman, the Senator from Massachusetts explained why he did what he did. The comments below reflect Kerry?s answers over the course of a long conversation and debate on the matter.

This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,? Kerry said. ?I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That?s what I voted for.?

snip

"Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn't vote for me."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

It is up for you to decide. We had many debates about his vote, but not whether he would be in Iraq or not. Do you trust John Kerry? Does he have a serious record of blatant dishonesty?

I'm sure this thread will get a lot of posts.

[Gore1FL]

3. I would suspect he would have stopped

when he achioeved the major foriegn policy Bush achieved originally -- getting Iraq to open up to new inspections, etc.

Bush had a hard on for invasion, and I don't thjnk realized the political victory he would have otherwise had from the initial UN resolution.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Absolutely not.

He'd have kept the pressure on SH to allow the UN inspectors to search for WMD, but he'd never send troops in on a hunch. And he'd have resolved the terrorist situation by now too. Remember, he's been deep into the SA financial networks and I suspect that he would have focused his strikes on their money. I doubt that he'd have had the organization that stifled information from getting to his office on AQ terrorists here. He'd have worked with the Clinton administration. There'd have been no 9/11 or Iraq invasion. We'd have a hell of a lot more solid economy and the world would have been a whole hell of a lot better off with him in office. But, then again, Gore would be campaigning on 12 years of solid Democratic stewardship without 9/11 and Iraq, too.

[kera]

5. the more appropriate

question in your hypothetical would be

"Has Kerry any connection to the Pnac, how much control can the league of defamation exert on him

[Josh]

6. No. Bush created the timetable and the crisis for Iraq; Kerry wouldn't

have even started the whole thing to begin with. You recall that Bush was saying before Labor Day in 2002 that "there are no plans on my desk that have anything to do with Iraq." Then, six weeks before the elections, suddenly Iraq was a threat of "unique urgency."

Kerry wouldn't have started the whole thing in the first place, let alone taken the US to war.

[bahrbearian]

7. There is only 1 War Monkey ....

[GalleryGod]

8. Over WHAT? Afghan Response Yes! Iraq? Nope!

Cheaper to squeeze Sadam some more.

[izzie]

9. No as their was no reason.

He would have found better things to spend money on.

[bushwakker]

10. NO. Voting for the IWR as a Sen. is a very different animal then...

being Prez and deciding to mobilize for war. Many here will never forgive JK's IWR vote, but to say that it means that if JK were president we would be where we are today is a lie.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. Iraq wasn't even on the radar until Bush decided he wanted the oil.

It was Bush that created the whole crisis with Iraq. Saddam was in a box and was too busy trying to hold onto power to mess with us. Bush should be extradited to Iraq as soon as there is a legal government and they file charges against him.