UrbanPancake said:
I think we can place blame on Bush. He should've had more soldiers over in Iraq. Bush has been told again and again, by his own Administration, that we needed more troops in Iraq. Way to go Bush you really hit the nail on the head this time.
Yeah, that's what *KERRY* would do. Get more guys over there. But he'd have to *draft* them. Oh. Wait. No, he'd have a "plan" to get us OUT in six months. No, actually, four years (convenient). No, actually until the job is done. He'd add more divisions, but - he wouldn't raise taxes. Yeah - that's it. No, wait. He's not for the war at all. He'd get our allies - the ones who DIDN'T show up, you see - to go and waste THEIR lives in this "grand diversion" - and insult the allies who DID show up.
He would have taken Baghdad RIGHT AWAY. Uhh, actually no. Uhhh. Now that I think about it, he wouldn't have sent a troop of p*ssed-off Boy Scouts. Well, actually he WOULD have, because he said words to the effect whoever was in favor of leaving him in power shouldn't be President.
Let's face it - Kerry wouldn't have done squat. He does a lot of Monday morning quarter-backing, and he does it BADLY. With Kerry as President, we'd still be sending inspectors to Saddam, we'd never have gone into the "quagmire" that Afghanistan was supposed to be. I have ZERO confidence in his ability to wage a war on terror. If anything, he's just stupid enough to think he can second guess his own military leadership; something Bush actually did right.