I’m currently listening to JAZZ-FM, one of the best radio stations in Canada. Why? Because I love jazz music, I play jazz music and it’s even techno-savvy with the digital age – listen to the station online here.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Most of you know I don’t politically identify with U.S. President George W. Bush, for I sincerely hope the man gets defeated in this year’s presidential race against Democratic candidate John Kerry. But he and his campaign team have truly outdone themselves with this travesty of a campaign ad. The G.O.P. has decided, in its “infinite” wisdom, to include images of the 9/11 terrorist attack as part of Bush’s re-election strategy.
Is there anything the Republican Party won’t do in order to get Bush and Cheney back into the White House? Apparently not. It’s positively disgusting to use images of 3,000 people being murdered by terrorists to justify the re-election of a man who never actually won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election (and no, Bush never won the presidential election on sheer popularity – he won because of a technicality in the American political system that barely verified his victory in the eyes of Republicans and Democrats alike) but happened to be in the right place at the right time to take his place in History.
Kerry’s facing an uphill battle right now. He’s going against against two men who enjoy a $200 million war chest and a nation still deeply unsettled by 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and an economy that remains sluggish. But, that being said, Kerry has some things going for him that Al Gore didn’t back in 2000:
A) He’s not Al Gore. I like Mr. Gore as a person and politician, mostly because he’s written some good policy books, is well-educated and is deeply devoted to public service. But that being said, he’s still too close to Bill Clinton, whom was a good president, yes, but Clinton’s time is in the past and you don’t want to go back to the past politically.
B) The American Economy is tanking because of Bush. Imagine if you were financing grand military adventures on the tab of future generations? Sounds pretty sweet in the short-term, eh? Well that’s going to come up and bite the American people harshly in the future if the country goes down the path of Total War for generations to come. Kerry isn’t opposed to going to war if required to do so, but he at least will not throw the country’s economy down the tubes to finance wars that may or may not be based on factual evidence.
Those are two powerful weapons against the Republicans, and even they have to admit that Bush, while very strong on issues of national security, is weak on the economy. He’s not indestructable and heaven help the Republicans if evidence comes to light that Bush knew all along that no WMDs ever existed in Iraq, and that U.S. soliders are dying on a daily basis to justify a imperialistic dream of neo-conservatives.
If Bush wins in November, America could enter an era of war after war after war. I can promise you that if Bush wins, Syria will be attacked by 2006. Iran could be next. With North Korea planning to stand down from a nuclear weapons build-up, it seems less likely a U.S.-South Korea led invasion could happen there in the coming years. But the evidence of the last few years is clear: the neo-conservatives of the Republican Party have taken over and the results could be horrific in the years to come.
If you’re an American voter, ask yourself this question: is Total War worth another terrorist attack? Wouldn’t intelligent, assertive diplomacy and a massive international aid drive help to curb terrorist threats? What about finding Osama Bin Laden? Aren’t these preventions to a disease the “War On Terrorism” cannot cure?