“I laugh when I read your posts, because it could be me writing them! I said to my wife just last night “I may just opt out entirely and vote for the Libertarian”. Like you, I am still undecided, and I’m tortured about how to cast my precious vote.
I had been ready to vote for Kerry for a number of weeks now. Time for a “break from Bush’s history making” and time for the whole country to know that we’re in this war on terror together, that it isn’t “Bush’s war”. Being hip-deep in Iraq, we can’t make any big dramatic moves regardless of what happens over the next four years, regardless of who is president.
Of course, the big development we should expect is Iran going nuclear. Once we discover that the current talks are found to have only bought the mullahs time in their weapons building, the best case scenario would be for us to launch airstrikes and call for sanctions. A few weeks ago I would have said, “well Kerry would do that, and would be in a better position to get sanctions by far”. But would he even take any military action if necessary to stave off Iran getting nukes? He talked about how he would “engage” the mullahs (as if Bush hasn’t done so via European and IAEC proxy) and go one step further: give them the nuclear fuel they needed for their “energy program” so that we all knew that they were using it for energy and not weapons.
Of course Kerry will wimp out! There is not one moment in his life that he has shown an ounce of political courage. Not one. Even his railing against the Vietnam War after he served was the smart and easy thing for a young man of his generation with an eye towards a political career to do. He will be Jimmy Carter at a time in our history which couldn’t be worse for a Jimmy Carter.
I’m afraid we have a choice between Bush, a man who shoots first and asks questions later (or doesn’t ask them at all) and Kerry, a man who will ask questions forever and never shoot (he couldn’t even find circumstances in which he could support the ’91 Gulf War!). We have a man, Buhs, who apparently never even considered the lessons of Vietnam, and a man, Kerry, who is paralyzed by them.
It is simply too early to hand over the reins to a weak Democrat, no matter how much I would like to believe it’s time.” I’m very sympathetic to this point of view. But we just found out that the Bush administration itself has now reversed itself and is offering incentives to the mullahs in Tehran. Again: what’s the difference?
THE NYT ON AUSTRALIA: It’s amazing what a few days can mean. Before John Howard’s victory, it was clear that Iraq was an important issue in the election campaign. Here’s Ray Bonner’s headline: “War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia.” We learned that
On Iraq, the differences are stark. Mr. Howard has defended his decision to go to war and has said the 800 Australian troops in the Persian Gulf region will stay there as long as needed. Mr. Latham has said that he will have the troops home by Christmas. Opponents of the Iraq war got a lift in August when 43 retired senior military commanders and senior diplomats issued a public statement saying that Australia went to war “on the basis of false assumptions and the deception of the Australian people.” The signers included a former chief of the navy, a former chief of the air force and a former secretary of defense. Australia’s “unquestioning support for the Bush administration” has harmed Australia, they wrote. “Terrorist activity, instead of being contained, has increased.”
We also learned that it was surprising, given the economic boom, that there was a close race at all – with the implication that Iraq was the reason. But after the election, we discover:
Iraq loomed in the background during the campaign, but Australian political analysts cautioned that the voting was not a referendum on the war. The main issue was the economy, and that is booming.
Same reporter. Same paper. Same spin.
The Dish 