PLEASE not Kerry!
In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.
This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.
George W. Bush, 2002? Nope. John Kerry, 1997.
Kucinich has all the right positions, and would be a great president. Dean at least opposed the war, and Clark or Edwards would blow Bush away in a debate. Kerry is a Gore-dull "free-trade" hawk. The powers that be, including the media, have decided that he's the guy. They're not worried that he might beat Bush; they win either way. I was very disappointed to hear Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm endorse Kerry. Coming at this late date in the process, it is clearly a case of cynical bandwagon-jumping. The right-wing media (aka the media) knew that Kerry was too dull to survive front-runner status through all of 2003, so they built up Dean, giving him full hours on Sunday talk shows and magazine covers galore. Then they started to portray him as angry and volatile, finishing him off in a quick week surrounding the Iowa caucuses. They suggested that his "volatility" made him unelectable, meaning that Democrats should resort to "electable" Mr. Dull just like in 2000.
So please, please don't vote for Kerry if you've still got a vote to give in a caucus or primary. He's better than Bush, just not by enough.
In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.
This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.
George W. Bush, 2002? Nope. John Kerry, 1997.
Kucinich has all the right positions, and would be a great president. Dean at least opposed the war, and Clark or Edwards would blow Bush away in a debate. Kerry is a Gore-dull "free-trade" hawk. The powers that be, including the media, have decided that he's the guy. They're not worried that he might beat Bush; they win either way. I was very disappointed to hear Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm endorse Kerry. Coming at this late date in the process, it is clearly a case of cynical bandwagon-jumping. The right-wing media (aka the media) knew that Kerry was too dull to survive front-runner status through all of 2003, so they built up Dean, giving him full hours on Sunday talk shows and magazine covers galore. Then they started to portray him as angry and volatile, finishing him off in a quick week surrounding the Iowa caucuses. They suggested that his "volatility" made him unelectable, meaning that Democrats should resort to "electable" Mr. Dull just like in 2000.
So please, please don't vote for Kerry if you've still got a vote to give in a caucus or primary. He's better than Bush, just not by enough.
<< Home