You are NOT on the DirtyGreek.Org homepage. Please CLICK HERE to go there.
Honestly... I don't know what the hell I'm going to do in November. I'm torn between a war criminal mastermind and a war criminal who gives me no reason to think he'll be any less of a war criminal mastermind. This article at Press Action gives some great reasons not to vote for Kerry, but then it goes on to say that therefore, people who really want the imperialism to be less severe should actually vote for Bush.The US Left should decide today to become the most vociferous, activist constituency of the Bush campaign.
Yeah, I know, it's a gobsmacker and jaw-dropper, but don't react — think. And consider: Bush has a good chance of winning. You want to back a winner, or a loser? Be realistic.
And yeah, I know — Bush is almost Hitler-like. No doubt about it. I hate him as much as you do. But do you want Kerry, an ardent militarist, and the richest man in the Senate, in the White House? He says he's going to spend more on the military than Bush, add 40,000 more troops to the Army, and insists the US remain the world's preeminent military power. He wants to exercise US power boldly, says he won't wait for a green light from allies or the UN to use military force, and has articulated a doctrine of preventive war. That sounds pretty Hitler-like to me.
Bush, on the other hand, is only "almost" Hitler-like. A slight difference, but important.
What's more, Kerry's an admitted war criminal. He was in Vietnam, shooting up peasants in free-fire zones. Bush isn't much better, but at least he stayed home, and kept his hands clean. There's no Vietnamese blood on him. That makes Bush marginally better. And while his hands are indeed stained with the blood of Afghan peasants and Iraqis, Kerry, who voted for and approved Bush's wars (but thought the French and Germans should have been invited along for the ride) hasn't escaped the same taint. So, the way I see it, Kerry has more layers of blood to scrape away.
And yes, Bush represents the other wing of the business party, but at least he's open about what he's up to. There's no beating around the Bush with Bush. The Hitler-like Kerry, however, would hide his zeal for the bold exercise of US power behind a veil of moral authority — and behind words like "muscular internationalism." At least Bush says, "Look, we want total control, and we've got the firepower to get it." It's nice to know what you're dealing with — an incompetent incapable of putting a pleasing gloss on the expansionist logic of US capitalism. For that reason, he's slightly better. And you know, these guys have so much power, a slight difference can have an enormous impact (or so I've heard it said.)
There are, then, two choices this November. You can vote, or not vote. If you don't vote, there's a chance the militarist, war criminal, Hitler-like Kerry will become President. Or you can be realistic, and vote for the one candidate who has a chance of stopping him: Bush. Now, I'm obviously not going to vote for Bush. I think that's an awful, awful, awful idea. At least, if you're going to protest against the establishment, vote for Nader or write in someone else's name... But vote for bush? This guy's nuts for coming up with that conclusion. Of course, he says that what he's saying is nuts, and I'm not sure that he really means it, but he makes a pretty good point. Just because Kerry is not Bush does NOT mean that Kerry is better than Bush. He may be, he may not. But there really are not that many differences.
However, another important thing to remember is that the President himself isn't the only person we have to worry about. His cabinet plays a huge role... in Bush's case, it plays the role of President. I think that whoever Kerry brings in with him has to be better than the bunch of neocon, Reagan/Bush I leftovers that Bush Jr. has running the show.
|
