US Election 2004

Author Scott Holleran has analyzed President Bush’s progress in the war and found it so lacking that he has says that Bush should be fired, and replaced with Kerry.  In part he writes:

The President neither explicitly defined nor properly declared -- let alone waged and won -- the war. When he should have urged Congress to declare war on states that sponsor terrorism -- he trivialized it as a war on a tactic. When he should have named the enemy, Islamism, asserted America's right to self-defense and waged war on those who sponsor it  he praised Islam, reduced the military to a mission of mercy and left Afghanistan and Iraq to the ayatollahs, whom Bush regards as free to elect an Islamist dictatorship.
 
Each argument against Kerry -- liberal, willing to yield to the United Nations, eager to expand government -- applies to Bush first. Kerry's agenda may meet resistance in Congress, which blocked Truman's and Clinton's socialized medicine; Bush's faith-based domestic and foreign policy will spread.
 
Should Sen. Kerry enact his worst war views  including globalism and his anti-nuclear notions  he, too, will fail to win the war, but he will have failed without having his policies wrongly branded an offense. Without the façade of strength, Kerry's appeasement will be judged as appeasement and Kerry's presidency holds the faint promise of gridlock in government intervention and an end to America's sacrifice in Iraq.
 
Bush the cowboy is a fraud -- these war years have been one appeasement after another -- and the enemy knows it.  [S. Holleran, John Kerry for President, Capitalism Magazine, 10/28/2004] 

As noted previously, USE2004 has endorsed the re-election of Bush despite the flaws cited by Holleran, as Kerry offers no credible alternative for a more aggressive war.  Further, I would agree with all the criticism Holleran makes about Bush except Holleran’s proposed narrowing of the war targets to only be Islamism.
 
This particular dispute lies in the fact that many collectivist ideologies are sources for international terrorism:  Marxism in Columbia, nationalism with the IRA, and Islamism from the Middle East.  By focusing on only one ideology, we risk missing international interaction between terrorist organizations across ideologicalmotivations.  Here are several specific examples:  (1) training provided to the IRA by Libya, (2) the technical assistance from the IRA to terrorists in the Middle East and South America, and (3) the havens given to al-Qaeda by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

• #1 Comment from kheadenmd 
  10/30/04 7:55 AM | Permalink

  This site is obviously run identical to model the current administration runs the country and the war. Fiction. Maybe thats why it's so one sided.