Reply #56: The sad thing is that Kerry is the anti-terrorism expert, not the Bush admin

[LittleClarkie]

Which is to say that Kerry would be doing something about international crime, which is what he sees terrorism as, but what he WOULDN'T be doing is waging a conventional war against it.

He would likely be working diplomatically, as well as things like shutting down their flow of cash. There would be some violence involved I'm sure. But it wouldn't have been a war like we have now.

Kerry cares about ending terrorism whereas Bush wants to use terrorism to justify his actions.

That's the difference I think.

If Kerry had been president during 9/11 we'd probably still be in Afghanistan and never have gone into Iraq. And he would have recognized that given enough time, the young people of Iran would conduct a regime change on their own. He would not be saber rattling to the point that the people of Iran would vote for an asshole because it makes them feel safer.

His book, "A New War", is quite enlightening in this regard.