Those American voters who are isolationists or believe that war is always wrong are without a major candidate in this election.
The masses of protesters have gathered in New York to demonstrate against the war in Iraq, for “women’s lives” and to “Restore France’s Veto Power,” as the signs read.
Their love for George W. Bush can be summed up in two bumper stickers, “Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot” and “Bush Lied, People Died.”
Bush represents everything that that they hate about American foreign policy which they have not shown so much negative fervor against since Vietnam.
The president campaigned on a modest foreign policy platform which specifically didn’t include a nation building policy.
After 9/11, his policy was revamped to address the new threat of international terrorism and despotism, which led to action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John Kerry, who opposed the first war in Iraq but overwhelmingly became a cheerleader for removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq II was a relative hawk in the age of the “New Democrat,” with an interventionist foreign policy that was articulated by Bill Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden.
Before Howard Dean made a splash on the scene as a anti-war candidate, John Kerry wholeheartedly believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace. He said: “[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill [O’Reilly]. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11…”.
On weapons of mass destruction and the Hussein’s threat, he said: “I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.”
Even now, Kerry still won’t say that invading Iraq was unjust. One of his top advisers recently stated that knowing all he knows now, he would have still invaded Iraq. Soon after, the campaign said this was a misrepresentation of the senator’s views after the anti-war forces in the Democratic Party put the heat on them.
You do have an alternative choice, if you loathe American foreign policy.
Ralph Nader of the Reform Party is for those who believe war is never an option and those who think the earth’s protection comes first. There’s also Michael Perouka of the Constitution Party for those who believe we should never fight foreign wars and that we should end the welfare state and shut down the IRS.
The Democratic Party has tried every undemocratic action in the book to keep Nader off the ballot, through intimidation and legal action. They don’t want another Florida, even in light of the fact that George W. Bush got over 200,000 Democratic votes in Florida in 2000.
He is the only serious spoiler candidate who will get the United States out of Iraq unequivocally. It is only feasible that those with anti-Vietnam nostalgia in their mind would vote for him. Democrats are trying to prevent this by not having a clear policy on Iraq until after Kerry is inaugurated.
Michael Perouka would probably get us out of Iraq, Korea, the Balkans and every other place not within the United States. He is the best choice for those believe our Middle East policy is what caused 9/11, and we should not meddle in the affairs of any country, communist or fascist.
Remember, if you are disturbed by the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you probably don’t need to vote for one of the major candidates. If you really want to send a message, vote third party.
Edward Sanders is a junior political science major. He can be reached at [email protected].