As I promised …
I don’t need to wait 2 years to tell you you’re wrong. I can, with
complete confidence, tell you right now that you’re wrong. We should
NOT re-elect Bush. We cannot afford to reelect him. Quite apart
from the dire position he has led us into in Iraq, we Americans (I’m
in Chicago) have so much going on internally that simply can’t
withstand another four years of a Bush White House.
I’ll just mention the Supreme Court. There are at least
three judges who have stayed on for this term of Bush’s so that he
wouldn’t have the opportunity to stack the court with right-wingers.
They’re old and want to retire, but have held on to keep Bush and his
right-wing fundamentalists at bay.
If a newly-elected Bush has an opportunity to get at the
Supreme Court, I predict that we will lose abortion rights entirely;
our essential freedoms, already markedly abused by the so-called
‘Patriot Act’, will continue to be chipped away; anti-gay legislation
will go forth. This is quite apart from the budget, already in
Maybe in a strange way another 4 years of Bush will serve the
world well, in that it will bring about a quick end to the supremacy
of the American state. There are many countries in the world who
would welcome that. Is that what you’re hoping for? Because I
believe with all my heart that we cannot survive another four years
with these scoundrels at the helm.
The most recent polls show that the more educated Americans
don’t think that a quick withdrawal from Iraq is the answer. They see
the shades of grey and the potential for disaster. I myself feel
very conflicted: it was a mistake to go in in the first place, so why
should we dig that hole deeper by staying in. On the other hand, we
went in and ‘broke’ the country…can we now in good conscience leave
You’re wrong in urging support for Bush. The world is too
fragile to withstand 4 more Bush years. It would be calamitous.
p. From a parallel universe …
bq.. Andrew Brown’s piece is as usual clever and ironic – has he not missed an
obvious possible alternative course of action though? If Kerry is elected
in November, might he not re-enlist UN help with Iraq and Afghanistan,
start the difficult job of repairing diplomatic relations with Europe,
readdress the role of NATO, and begin some initiatives for calming and
reclaiming the moderate Islamic world’s faith in America? That to my mind
would be much more helpful than having Bush in power and colliding
inevitably with this Nemesis he refers to.
I’d be interested to hear what he says, if you get the chance to pass this
p. I think it is too late for all that stuff. The time to do it would have been when we invaded Afghanistan. I still think that this was the great missed neo-colonial opportunity. To restore Afghanistan as a functioning state would have done all the Friedman-type things that toppling Saddam was supposed to do. there would also have been a certain logic and elegance to it, since it was our arming and encouragement of the people’s mujahedin which did so much to destroy the country in the first place.
From Annapolis, the first appearance of Godwin’s law:
bq.. Sort of like “nach Hitler uns”, which didn’t work out very well for anyone.
Surprisingly facile for Brown.
I voted for Dick Gregory in 1968. The popular vote for Dick Gregory
exceeded the number of votes by which Nixon defeated Humphrey. In 2000
there were those who followed the same course with Nader, and we got Bush.
Steven A. Bookshester
p. Even in Stockholm comes a kindly phrased reproach.
bq.. Andrew Brown, I don’t need two years to find out whether you’re wrong.
You’re wrong now. Your position is a dilettante’s. Iraq is a ghastly
mess, but it’s only one of Bushes many. Kyoto and terrorism are two
other areas where he is jeopardising the world. And surely, tactical
voting is the last resort of the cynic. Or the cynical liberal. Talk
about what you conscience tells you, then tell us. Anything else is
just journalism for titillation.
All the best from sunny Sweden (you’d miss it now — remember ‘mellan