|Blood from a Stone
"The trouble with the rat race is even if you win, you find out you're still a rat." -Chinese saying
By Daniel M. Miller
08/28/04 "ICH" -- As the US Presidential Election of 2004 nears closer, the rat race is in full propaganda mode. Parties are declaring empty promises, hopes for the future and continued agendas for American success. The nation is torn between those who feel President George W. Bush wrongly exercises his power to invade nations, squash civil liberties and pursue Christian fundamentalism, while the alternative plays on the hope that change can be made through economic plans and international accompaniment in foreign excursions. Can either of these options seriously be weighed or taken for their word? I think not.
Throughout US society, many people say they dislike President Bush due to the Iraq situation, while claiming Senator John Kerry is a great alternative. What eludes the headlines is that Kerry is questioning all the information and tactics after the fact and followed along during both the Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions. Shouldn’t a Senator compile such inquiries and accusations before such a serious episode and not after? John Kerry supports the use of pre-emptive attacks, growth of military funding as well as continuing the War on Terror. Kerry simply wants other nations by his side as opposed to the ultimate unilateral doctrine of the Bush administration. Comparing Bush and Kerry on foreign policy is like deciphering between mandarin oranges and clementine oranges. They are virtually the same thing with only slight variation.
In Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he stated he “would never give an international institution a veto over US security.” Is this not the same double talk we heard from Bush before rushing to attack Iraq on faulty intelligence? Senator Kerry has yet to make public his plans for building an international constituency to combat terrorism. What could he possibly ask or do that could lead to a different result from that which President Bush received? The only difference would be that Bush’s ‘go it alone’ plan is more direct and aggressive, where as Kerry would stay the course and probably receive the same fallout from foreign nations. Does it really matter whether we run to war, as Bush would prefer or steadily jog towards such actions, as Kerry would like? The fact remains that both of these men are prepared to further polarize the world and create anti-American sentiment by pursuing the War on Terror through similar means. Attempting to combat terrorism in the world by such measures only creates more instability, death and hatred.
As a political ideology, the War on Terror is erroneous. The attack on Afghanistan was a vindictive strike in which more victims were attacked rather than culprits. This is becoming a new theme in US foreign policy. We punish the victims of a regime/hostile nation, while attempting to slowly dismantle their leadership. It's been done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and others, throughout the course of recent history. The US government (both Democrats and Republicans) has no tact, judgment or serious care for our citizens and soldiers. It cares that much less about our enemies or the victims who suffer under their power. The only thing 9-11 did was give our government more reason to be an aggressor in pursuing the goals and agendas of power and profit. We round up 'suspects' and keep them for months against their will in jails with no legitimate reasons, justice or due process. This was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to a number of other places. You may choose to believe that Kerry does not support such actions, but his behavior clearly shows he does. He just asks that other nations go along with us on such excursions and give us proper approval for these injustices and abuses.
I find it funny that the Democratic Party and Kerry have largely concentrated their convention on the fact that they can somehow change and better lead the foreign policy of President Bush and his administration. Kerry is not against pre-emptive attacks; he's for them, just as Bush is. Both Bush and Kerry have virtually the same exit plan for Iraq. Kerry promotes the War on Terror, just like Bush. He is for the same restrictive civil rights that Bush supports to 'stop terrorism' as well.
The Democrats are not saying that they have different plans from President Bush with regard to foreign policy; they say ‘we can do what you do, but better’. Every other word from them is about Kerry's veteran status and Vietnam. Is this what we really want?! Not to change a war-filled world to a peaceful, stable one? Do we really want a better general who can manage US military operations and aggressions more effectively? Maybe you think this is somehow respectable, but if you wish to see a peaceful world without US soldiers dying daily, or a world that hates the US for our hypocritical actions and policies, you would not seriously vote for either Kerry or Bush!
You can vote Bush out of office and think that things will somehow miraculously change or get better, but in truth not much will change at all. We will have the same enemies, support the same regimes/human rights abusers, and continue down the same path of destruction we see in the world under our current administration. If you plan on voting for Kerry, I hope you agree with his social and economic policies because his foreign policies mirror those of the current President.
Both the Democrats and Republicans (together) have led us down the path of wars of terror and aggression. So to seek justice, freedom or peace from such leaders is like asking for blood from a stone. Vote 3rd party and create an alternative to the monotony of regularity in the corporate laden government we now have. They always like to claim they 'keep our interests at heart', but actions speak louder than words, and the truth in such proclamations couldn't be further from it.
Copyright: Daniel M. Miller. <FiveB247x@aol.com>
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)