||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNOUNCEMENTS and ARTICLES: http://pnews.org/art/art.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well I will also because he is the ONLY game in town and not such a bad
choice. I looked over his voting choices and read almost all of the bio
from the Boston Globe (the book) and I can understand the methods like
recently not showing up for a vote on the minimum wage because he was on
the campaign trail and knew his vote would not make a difference because
the Republicans were stacked against it - anotherwords, a vote would be
mere symbolism and not affect the results and how context must always be
considered as well as attachments to these bills. He has been consistently
progressive -- and I'm not sure if he had voted against giving Bush the
ability to go to war if he would now be a candidate because I don't think
he would. It is important to remain centrist. BUT I see something else.
Anyone who has seen the results of war up close can't help but be affected
-- either against as in his case or the other way but there is no middle
ground. He chose to oppose the Vietnam War and that is important to me. I
remember at the time it had a profound effect on my own concerns as a
former soldier. Of course I was shielded from combat by my MOS and postion
with the Chiefs of Staff (at the time) and while always assigned to the
top headquarters I was shot at but never as close to the action as he was
nor did I ever have to face the choices he did, when he had to pursue an
"enemy" combatant and kill him. That could not help but affect his entire
life.
IF THE COUNTRY BECOMES MORE ANTI-WAR, Kerry will follow. Some will say
that is opportunism, but I say it is good politics and following the will
of the people. BUT it is enough at this juncture to make his major
position on the war to "INTERNATIONALIZE" it. It is the only way. Of
course we should continue to lobby and demonstrate to get us out of it.
I think the only time we should intervene is with due haste to prevent
genocide (See Samantha Powers for her excellent exposition on Genocide and
how we NEVER have cared or really done anything to prevent it. Not our
policy - but should be).
Hank
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Edward Kent wrote:
>
> I will be supporting Kerry as strongly as I can down the line --
> anything is preferable to the current disaster in the White House.
> However, I can see the dilemma that he is currently in. If he attacks
> Bush directly and firmly for the Iraq incursion, he places our troops
> there in even greater jeopardy than they are now in. He has to pick off
> some of those red states and it is all to easy now to portray a critic
> of the administration as endangering our men and women manifestly at
> great risk. Were I in his place, I would be pacing things more or less
> the way he is now -- indicating that the U.S. should turn things back to
> international standards of behavior and control ASAP. Whether that is
> now possible is another question. The Bush administration has
> grotesquely soiled the diapers of that approach that we should have
> taken from the get go. I think we (and Kerry) will have to see how
> things are developing -- patiently -- before establishing a plan of
> action that can actually work. We shall see. With Rumsfeld now in Iraq
> anything might happen. What a g-d awful mess! One almost feels
> sympathy for an ex-frat president who is probably beginning to realize
> that he has been had and has completely blown it.
> --
---
/ o o \ PNEWS Topic Specific Portals (Vortals)
===OO=====OO=================================================
http://pnews.org/vortal/ New World disOrder and Myth Busters
http://g0lem.net/vortal/ Insane Planet and Wacko World
http://g0lem.net/portal/ Bad-Ass Truth and TheGolemsPortal
http://pnews.org/portal/ Naked Truth and PNEWS Portal
=============================================================
\_/ \_/
