COMMENTARY
Anyone but Bush = Kerry
A positive equation or more of the same?

By Thom White

Who is paying attention to the ‘end game’ of the ‘Anyone but Bush’ movement sweeping America? Democrat John Kerry appears to be the winner of this wave of dismay. I do hope for the best with President Kerry, but one question: Is Kerry really better?

Bush’s Disaster

Bush’s political collapse early in 2004 is due to his failed war and the ‘harsher than expected’ economic and human consequences that have unfolded since the March 2003 invasion.

The Bush Administration was hoping to pretend to wind down operations in Iraq this year (with the ‘handover of power to sovereign Iraqis’), but this whole armed insurgency by ‘terrorists’ (U.S. troops are still not sure against whom they are fighting in many cases -- are they foreigners or Iraqis?) since March has made that hard to do. It now appears that ‘full Iraqi sovereignty’ (unelected and under protection of the U.S. military boot) in place since June 28 means only official martial law on top of the unofficial chaos and war that has persisted since the disbanding of Saddam’s government in April 2003.

Who is J.F. Kerry-Heinz?

John F. Kerry was in the military in Vietnam and then he was spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) for a few years (while Nixon was president) and testified before Congress about ‘atrocities’ he and other American soldiers had committed, gaining some fame that way.

Even though John Kerry supports President Bush’s failed strategy of endless war on terror and open-ended American military control over Iraq, because he is of the Democratic wing of what many commentators call ‘The War Party,’ he is electable.

The Iraq disaster has made Team Bush and the neoconservative end of the War Party that favors ‘unilateral American military action’ less popular, and tipped the scale to Kerry’s ‘liberal’ wing of the Party that favors a policy of kinder and gentler U.S. world domination with all major ‘military actions’ justified by support from ruling elites of other wealthy, technologically advanced countries.

Kerry has never said he wants to bring Americans soldiers home. He wants 40,000 more soldiers in the military to send to Iraq, in fact. Kerry voted to ‘authorize U.S. military action’ against Iraq in October 2002. He voted to create the Department of Homeland Security in December 2002. And, like many others, he voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 which allows the federal government to legally spy on you for no good reason.

Kerry still says that the world is a better place now that we’re rid of Saddam. But how do we know that? There seems to be a lot of evidence that things are much worse now (in free Iraq and around the world) than they were in January 2003 when Iraq still hadn’t tasted the sour fruits of ‘liberation.’

As an aside, Kerry proposes a program requiring two years of mandatory civil service (or military service) by any American who wants federal education loans. This proposal is similar to Bush’s plan to expand Americorps, announced at a State of the Union address. The only serious thing Bush and Kerry disagree upon may be abortion, and of course whose companies and patronage networks will win the government contracts once executive privilege is secured this November.

Conclusion

No one knows for sure what Kerry will do when he is President, but I confess to being cynical about this ‘Election 2004’ business. I expect a media-driven euphoria once Kerry wins, but he may just use this to rev up terror/war fever and really ‘bear down’ in Iraq so we can ‘win the war’ there.

It is likely Kerry will continue the War on Terrorism (or War against Islamic countries, or World War III or IV) and his election has the potential to ‘re-popularize’ the war, or at least neutralize anti-war opposition whose fuel may be spent with the end of Bush’s reign.

If Bush wins the election, with so much current domestic and worldwide opposition to his even opening his mouth, he may prove to be an impotent President as far as gaining support to start new wars. But with soothing ‘Give War a Chance’ rhetoric, John Kerry may re-energize Americans’ willingness ‘not to give up.’ John F. Kerry, Soldier President, will help us ‘win’ the wars that form World War III.

Even with Bush’s general unpopularity, this may of course be a close election. The only way for Bush to certainly lose is by a split in Republican voters mirroring the 1992 election results when Ross Perot entered the fray. If a conservative anti-war / anti-police state candidate (such as Libertarian Michael Badnarik or the Constition Party’s Michael Peroutka) is able to garner more than 5% of Republican voters and ‘Naderize’ conservatives in certain pivotal states, this could lead to Kerry getting 25% of all potential voters, and to Bush losing with around 22% instead of winning with 24.9% like last time.

If Bush does win again, after four years of fraud, it is going to be madness. It may get so bad, in fact, that Bill Clinton may have to ride into town like Julius Caesar with a mob of supporters and private bodyguards to restore order and declare himself first emperor of the American Empire.

----

Iraq as Launching Pad

All this talk of U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq among certain journalists and political minds does not take into account one of the “realities” of U.S. reconstruction plans, that being several strategically placed permanent U.S. military bases being built around Mesopotamia. One main military base will be the United States Embassy in Baghdad, which, when completed, will be the largest and most “secure” U.S. embassy in the world. Also, as announced by President Bush, the U.S. plans to build a newer, better prison on the site of Abu Ghraib.

John Kerry has in the past supported “regime change” (invasion and conquest by the U.S. armed force) for Syria and Iran. With U.S. military control over Mesopotamia, the Middle East’s strategic gemstone, both Syria and Iran now face potential ground invasions from U.S. and Axis of Good (Coalition) forces on more than one front. As the map demonstrates, Iran can be attacked now by U.S. forces from east and west, while Syria faces invasion from U.S. forces in Iraq to the east, and from Israeli forces to the south who would likely stampede through the Lebanon “corridor” in the assault.

Should he become president in 2005, John Kerry may want to seize this golden opportunity to make the world a better place and carry out a simple regime change or two before the tides of discontent on the homefront over our widening World War III flood D.C., and force the politicians to “bring the boys home” and end U.S. military occupation of Iraq before the 2008 elections.

Reader Comments

No Comments.

Citizine Home