on this question of the relation of a presidential candidate to war
which in this case is framed in a really unfortunate way
i would prefer having somebody who not only knows about war, but is able to confront things that go horribly wrong (kerry, exemplified in his actions around vietnam, which i would think would be understood as a courageous act rather than in the neo-mccarthyite terms presented both above and by the right media in general) than someone as vacant as george w bush.
you have 4 years of reactionary, ill-concieved policy culminating in the farce that is the iraq war to examine, if you are able to do it.
you have the inability to deal with complexity marketed as resoluteness.
the idea that anyone anywhere would feel safer under a second version of the bush regime than they would under kerry is inexplicable to me.
but i suppose such a belief could be reinforced in a negative manner, which explains the otherwise absurd label "pacifist."
the rest of the opening seems little more than an index of the sorry state of right media at the present time.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
Last edited by roachboy; 10-22-2004 at 07:52 AM..
|