[Marxism] A nickel's worth of difference?

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Wed Aug 11 09:16:33 MDT 2004

Counterpunch, August 11, 2004

Bush v. Kerry?
Not Even a Dime's Worth of Difference

Kerry goes from bad to worse. Last week he dropped Saddam's non-existent 
WMDs as a campaign issue. He did this huge favor to Bush via his 
(Kerry's) foreign affairs spokesman, the insufferable Jamie Rubin, 
formerly the top State Department flack in the Clinton years. Rubin told 
the Washington Post last weekend that knowing then what he knows today 
about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would 
have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have 
launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president. 
Up until the previous day Mr flip-flop O'Kerry had said he only "might" 
have still gone to war.

Then on Monday Kerry did some further clarifying in Arizona where he 
told the press he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war 
against Iraq, although he would have handled things "very differently" 
from President Bush. Kerry said the congressional resolution gave Bush 
"the right authority for the president to have." (Since Kerry voted for 
that resolution, what else could he say?)

But, Kerry went on, (as reported by CNN) "I would have done this very 
differently from the way President Bush has."

After this blather, Kerry proclaimed that "There are four real questions 
that matter to Americans, and I hope you'll get the answers to those 
questions because the American people deserve them.

"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan 
to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not 
do the hard work [what "hard work"?] necessary to give America the 
truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? [What 
does this mean?] Why has he not brought other countries to the table in 
order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and 
relieve a pressure from the American people?"

In other words, absolutely nothing separates Kerry from Bush's positions 
on Iraq except he claims he would have lied more efficiently and somehow 
wheedled the UN and NATO into giving support. This business about 
getting the Allies on board, you may recall, was Howard Dean's posture 
back in the spring.

So Bush, a lousy president but ludicrously over-demonized, is bracketed 
by a Democratic candidate, Al Gore, who was calling for immediate war on 
Saddam back in 1999, flanked by all the neo-Cons who subsequently 
flocked to Bush, and by Kerry who now says he holds exactly the same 
position, rationalized by the same neo-Cons.

If the war on Iraq bothers you, a vote for Kerry is a vote thrown away.

full: http://www.counterpunch.org/


The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

More information about the Marxism mailing list