Editorial
The case for Kerry

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Seldom do Americans have a presidential election that hinges on foreign policy. This is one of those times, and on this matter we cast our vote for John Kerry.

This page has other reasons to support Kerry. We agree with him on affirmative action, the right of abortion and his opposition to a federal marriage amendment. He opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We support his tough stand against the domination of the media by large conglomerates. In clear language, Kerry has said he would appoint FCC commissioners opposed to loosening controls on media giants. We are less enthusiastic about some other things, like his class-warfare rhetoric and his promises of expensive new programs.

All of these issues have been swept aside by war.

War is the oldest activity of government. Unlike health insurance or Social Security, it is almost entirely in the hands of the president. Congress insisted on a vote on the Iraq war, but it was a high-pressure vote right before the 2002 elections. The result was to give Bush power to unleash America's military at his discretion. He did, and the troops performed extraordinarily well. The question now is not whether to support the troops. It is whether to support the man who sent them to Iraq.

His reason was to protect the United States from chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When war was imminent, the weapons inspectors said Iraq didn't appear to have any such weapons. Bush ignored them. As it turned out, they were right.

There has been a massive effort to bury that simple fact by labeling the conquest of Iraq as part of a "war on terror." We use that term in quotes, noting that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in the Hamdi case, wrote it that way.

Terror is a tactic, not an opponent. Al-Qaida is an opponent; a war with al-Qaida makes sense, because al-Qaida attacked us. A "war on terror" is not clear, either as to its target or duration.

War centralizes power. After the 9/11 attacks, federal authorities arrested some 1,200 Arabs, Muslims and others, and held them incommunicado. The Patriot Act allowed the FBI to rummage through citizens' Internet and bank records. The Bush doctrine of "unlawful combatants" allowed him to lock up, indefinitely and without trial, anyone at his discretion.

Bush argues that all these things are necessary, which suggests that if he is re-elected, they will continue.

Kerry has not said he will dismantle them all; he, too, uses the term "war on terror" and promises a victory.

We wish Kerry had more clarity. Bush has clarity, but it is the clarity of wrong ideas.

Imagine Bush on TV next year, saying we had to invade another country. Could anyone trust him? That may be the best reason for supporting John Kerry.