The Only Bush I Trust...
An article in today's Guardian reveals that Vladimir Putin - a former KGB officer, wannabe dictator and a man responsible for the slaughter of thousands of people in Chechnya - has "waded into the American election campaign in support of George Bush". Apparently, "International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term." Quite where Putin has derived this insight into the thinkings of Osama Bin Laden from is not immediately clear. Nonetheless, he continues in the same vein, "If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition. In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world." So there you go. Any suggestion that Putin's stance might stem from a belief that the Texan will be much more willing to stand aside while Russia continues its destruction of Chechnya is obviously nonsense.
The truth of course is that Al-Qaeda probably don't give a damn who's in the White House. Liberals often make quite the opposite argument in support of Kerry, with as much evidence. Bush's policies have fuelled anti-American feelings across much of the world, driving untold numbers into their arms. It is possible that Kerry might be able to repair some of his damage, although I remain unconvinced. His position on foreign policy is little different from that of Bush. Indeed, Rahul Mahajan points out that where he has criticised Bush it has usually been for being insufficiently militaristic and agressive and his postion on Israel appears to be even more hawkish than that of his contender.
All that aside, one thing which struck me particularly was a quote, later in the article, from Dubya himself, made at a rally in New Jersey: "Senator Kerry's approach would commit a response only after America is hit. That kind of September 10 attitude is no way to protect our country." Which just about says it all really. The policy the Bush Administration were pursuing prior to September 11th was, by the President's own admission, "no way to protect" the US.
The truth of course is that Al-Qaeda probably don't give a damn who's in the White House. Liberals often make quite the opposite argument in support of Kerry, with as much evidence. Bush's policies have fuelled anti-American feelings across much of the world, driving untold numbers into their arms. It is possible that Kerry might be able to repair some of his damage, although I remain unconvinced. His position on foreign policy is little different from that of Bush. Indeed, Rahul Mahajan points out that where he has criticised Bush it has usually been for being insufficiently militaristic and agressive and his postion on Israel appears to be even more hawkish than that of his contender.
All that aside, one thing which struck me particularly was a quote, later in the article, from Dubya himself, made at a rally in New Jersey: "Senator Kerry's approach would commit a response only after America is hit. That kind of September 10 attitude is no way to protect our country." Which just about says it all really. The policy the Bush Administration were pursuing prior to September 11th was, by the President's own admission, "no way to protect" the US.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home