Kerry has earned the right to criticize Bush. And not to be counter-attacked by hypocritical chickenhawks about his patriotism. They dish it out every day but cant take it. Hiding behind the war as if any crificism will cost US lives. Kerry has always been about saving US lives, by careful prep and maximum number of allies. Genreal Wesley Clark said recently that the military expects and accepts criticism of the policy-makers. Just dont criticize the troops, and Kerry is one of them so never would.
The term "regime change in Washington" has been around for many months. Bush certainly has a regime. It's the most partisan, imperial, narrow-minded administration we've ever seen and wants to be in total control of the public debate (or lack thereof). Their true agenda they wont even tell us. Because if they were to, they'd be voted out immediately.
Thank God we have have tough champions of democracy like Kerry to speak out forcefully against it. As the Iraqis needed to be freed, so do we in 2004, though not sa much as the Iraqis as Bush doesn't go around killing our citizens.
What Bush does want to do though is control this country for his narrow special interests. We cannot grant Bush his wish to be, in effect, a dictator. Because who would suffer? Almost everyone. But especially democracy itself, and freedom of the press and speech in the process.
By the way, if Bush keeps us in a constant state of war, does that mean no one can ever speak out against him without being called "un-American"? Think about it. What if Bush invades Syria, Iran, North Korea for the next six years? does that mean we're all supposed to just cheer him on and salute? Hardly. He gets a pass on Iraq because Saddam is a creep, but starting this week, the real debate begins. After all, this war is all but over. Even if a Saddamite blows up a chemical bomb in downtown Baghdad, it's over for that regime. So we need to concentrate on the next necessary regime-change, which is right here at home. |
