A vote for Kerry is worth two for Bush

Yawar Herekar–Guest Editorial

This article is not about taking sides. I’m neither Republican nor am I Democrat. Hell, I’m not even American, so some may argue that I don’t have the right to say anything about U.S. domestic politics. But everyone has a right, because not only does U.S. domestic politics determine who will be the most powerful man in the world for the next four years, the outcome of the elections in effect shapes global agendas. There’s no denying it, the universe revolves around the U.S.A. and the centre of the universe is the U.S. Commander-in-Chief. Who will rule the universe, Bush or Kerry?Election Day looms closer. As the U.S. presidential race shifts into high gear with both Kerry and Bush demonizing each other, one wonders if there’s a clear line between the good and the bad. The Democrats, among other things, blame Bush for tax cuts that help the rich, environmental policies that help corporate America, outsourcing of jobs that help the Chinese and the Indians, and a sinking economy that helps no one. But it is evident that there is barely any difference between Kerry and Bush in another very important issue: the War on Terror.

A little bit of history: Kerry supported the war all the way, voicing not the slightest doubts about its purpose. Even now, the only criticism of the war that he allows himself is that Bush went ahead without taking America’s allies into confidence (is Blair an ally or is he just a “yes” man?) and created enemies on the way, namely France and Germany. In the run-up to the war, Kerry was an important member of the Senate’s “coalition of the willing.” According to Kerry, Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was attempting to develop nuclear weapons. In October 2002, he voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. When the war started, he co-sponsored a Senate resolution in March 2003 stating that the invasion was “lawful and fully authorized by the Congress” and that he “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the president […] in the conflict with Iraq.” There has been no backtracking or apology for the stand he took. Even though it could be the determining factor, Kerry and the Democrats are not taking full advantage of anti-war sentiments. So far, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus to largely fudge the issue and get on with other things. Is Kerry really the better choice?

Some food for thought before you throw your vote in the Republican camp. A victory for Bush would be a victory for a well-intentioned, though misdirected, attempt not only to protect American interests but to protect people as a whole from those who seek retribution from “injustice” through the shedding of innocent blood, aka terrorists. A defeat however would be the price Bush would pay for putting America, and dragging the rest of the world along, in a war that was full of outright lies and cheap propaganda.