A Horse of A (Slightly) Different Color

As a libertarian and occasional anti-war activist, people often ask me what I think about George Bush, John Kerry, and the Iraq invasion. My reply is usually that now, with the damage done, Kerry is not going to get out of Iraq. Unfortunately, I'm right. And let's not forget that Kerry voted for the use-of-force resolution. Robert Higgs, in a harsh but accurate op-ed, pointed out:

Thus, the Democratic challenger for the presidency is represented by his party and by the press as a stern critic of the war, but one has to wonder: where was his steely resolve in October 2002, when he voted in the Senate to hand over to the president the authority that the Constitution gives to Congress alone to declare war? Now, weaseling like a typical politician, he maintains that he was tricked ? Bush ?misled every one of us,? he declares ? and that he voted as he did because he trusted George Bush to go to war only as a ?last resort.? Can John Kerry have been so obtuse that he had no idea who held the reins at the Bush administration? Did he not know what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of that gang had been cooking up for decades in public as well as in private? Clarifying his stance, Kerry maintains not that Bush should not have gone to war but only that Bush should have formed a bigger coalition before doing so. Evidently an immoral and unwise war is hunky-dory if enough aggressors join forces to wage it.

There are differences between Kerry and Bush, but let's face it: the Empire is not one of them.

Share this

we've had this discussion

we've had this discussion amoungst the commodity traders and some think its a way to block oil producers from adopting the euro, while others think its just simple strong arm tactics to keep the 'brats' in line. while others think its a beach head against future chinese control of the last reserves. its a defacto US military control of those reserves anyway. there's a VERY few who thinks its 'good ole freedom lovin' 'merica' sticking up for the oppressed. BWAhh HA HA HA. comparing those two buffoons is like comparing different labels on the same soup can. the military industrial complex is so huge and powerful that most people have no grasp of the control they exert over decisions like this. Bush and Kerry are just pieces of 'bright string' for the 'kittens'.

So how would YOU have dealt

So how would YOU have dealt with Saddam Hussein and the terrorism he was helping to support?

My way of 'dealing' with

My way of 'dealing' with anyone would certainly be constrained by the fact that no one voted/beknighted ME as the world's moral and legal police man. placing 2 'cattle call' retards at the head of the worlds 'rubber hose' morality enforcement agency and giving them the authority to 'deal' with some other idiot would not be my first choice in making a 'positive' outcome. the past record is fairly clear on giving political megalomaniacs the keys to enforcing morality and justice. i expected exactly what is happening years ago once the oil started to dwindle. its a power 'struggle' nothing more nothing less. just because 1 'combatant' won over the other in a pillow fight election does not give him/her the authority to 'rubber hose' morality into existence the world over, wherever they 'perceive' justice 'needs' to be done. the 'terrorist'politics is a side show distraction from the power struggle over the remaining oil reserves.