Why vote Bush? More why not to vote Kerry...
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader's absence from the ongoing Iraq/Kerry/War discussion is, alas, sometimes unavoidable as he is now spending more time away from his ubercomputer. But, the Minister of Agriculture has objected to me describing him as squishy on war. Touche. Poor choice of words on your Maximum Leader's part. But in his post "Is Smallholder Squishy?" the Minister of Agriculture asks why your Maximum Leader will still support Bush, domestic policy concerns notwithstanding.
The good Smallholder does want to win the war in Iraq. So does your Maximum Leader. And your Maximum Leader will assert that all of the other Ministers in this space do to. The question has come down to can we still win?
The Smallholder points out, and your Maximum Leader agrees, that troop strength should be increased in Iraq. Your Maximum Leader believes that to increase strength in Iraq, we ought to start pulling troops out of Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Withdraw them from those nations permanently. Additionally, we should increase the size of our armed forces. Build them back to 1989 levels perhaps? Troop strength in Iraq is a problem to be overcome.
The Smallholder asserts, with substancial proof in fact, that the Bush Administration firmly resists the idea of sending more troops to Iraq. Rumsfeld said as much to Congress last week. This is bad. But your Maximum Leader doesn't hear John Kerry clamoring for more troops in Iraq.
Your Maximum Leader agrees with the Ministers of Agriculture and Propaganda that Senator Kerry will not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. But, your Maximum Leader does believe that Mr. Kerry will do what he can to minimize the US role in Iraq. While he wants to send NATO troops to Iraq under a new UN mandate; he certainly isn't going to send more US troops.
And has the Minister of Agriculture stopped to think of how many more NATO troops (assuming the US and UK will not send more) will go to Iraq under a UN mandate? Would it be enough to "free up as many as 20,000" Americans in Iraq? Which NATO countries exactly would these be? France? Germany? Belgium? Turkey? Spain? Your Maximum Leader seriously doubts if any of these nations would actually participate in an expanded force in Iraq. Even if it would be acting under a new UN mandate.
Speaking of that mandate... How likely is it? The US is already working with Lakdhar Brahimi to create a provisional government. And while the Bush Administration is not clamoring for a UN mandate, from what your Maximum Leader had read the French, Germans, Belgians, Russians, and others are not rushing to propose anything either. Your Maximum Leader believes that key nations who's support would be instrumental in getting a new UN mandate would not help in getting one for either George Bush or John Kerry. They simply believe that all they need to do is let the US run out of patience and will, leave (or seriously draw-down forces in) Iraq, and they will come in and re-establish the status quo ante.
Additionally, your Maximum Leader believes that John Kerry, while an honourable and patriotic man, is not going to aggressively pursue American interests abroad. He will seek international consensus on foreign policy decisions (as did Bill Clinton) and in your Maximum Leader's view international consensus is never aligned with US interests.
In reviewing Mr. Kerry's positions on trade, your Maximum Leader finds some laughable. He proposes to review all major trade agreements and make sure that our partners are playing fair. He is going to go to the WTO to mediate our trade problems with China (his example). Yeah. That is sort of like going to the UN General Assembly and asking for a unanimous endorsment of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. The reason that neither Clinton nor Bush went to the WTO often was because the nations who would do the mediation are inherently anti-US in trade talks. The WTO will not even admit that the French are protectionist in their agricultural policies. This is surely the group we want deciding if China and the US are trading fairly.
Your Maximum Leader also likes the Kerry position on keeping manufacturing jobs in the US. Give them Tax Breaks. Of course in the paragraph immediately preceeding the tax breaks paragraphs, Kerry states that many corporations export jobs so they don't pay their fair share of taxes. Let me see if your Maximum Leader understands this. Corporations aren't paying their share of taxes. So he will entice them to come back to the US, and then give them a tax break for doing so? Will they pay their fair share of taxes then? How?
(NB: for full disclosure, your Maximum Leader does believe that too many manufacturing jobs have left the US. Many defence-related manufacturing jobs should be required to remain in the US.)
In the end what do most of John Kerry's foreign policy statements amount to (at least thus far into the campaign)? They amount to statement after statement saying that he will go to international bodies to mediate our foreign policy problems. Your Maximum Leader believes that these international bodies have never shown the slightest inclination to support the US in any significant area, and as such your Maximum Leader sees no reason to believe that they will reverse their previous positions simply because John Kerry is president. Your Maximum Leader would prefer to keep Bush, who has limited success in foreign policy; rather than change to a man whom your Maximum Leader believes would lead us down a path he would prefer not to travel.
Alas, your Maximum Leader would like to go on more in this post. But, as he mentioned before, he is obliged to get the Pope to his esteemed sister's wedding. That said, your Maximum Leader bids you all...
Carry on.
The good Smallholder does want to win the war in Iraq. So does your Maximum Leader. And your Maximum Leader will assert that all of the other Ministers in this space do to. The question has come down to can we still win?
The Smallholder points out, and your Maximum Leader agrees, that troop strength should be increased in Iraq. Your Maximum Leader believes that to increase strength in Iraq, we ought to start pulling troops out of Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Withdraw them from those nations permanently. Additionally, we should increase the size of our armed forces. Build them back to 1989 levels perhaps? Troop strength in Iraq is a problem to be overcome.
The Smallholder asserts, with substancial proof in fact, that the Bush Administration firmly resists the idea of sending more troops to Iraq. Rumsfeld said as much to Congress last week. This is bad. But your Maximum Leader doesn't hear John Kerry clamoring for more troops in Iraq.
Your Maximum Leader agrees with the Ministers of Agriculture and Propaganda that Senator Kerry will not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. But, your Maximum Leader does believe that Mr. Kerry will do what he can to minimize the US role in Iraq. While he wants to send NATO troops to Iraq under a new UN mandate; he certainly isn't going to send more US troops.
And has the Minister of Agriculture stopped to think of how many more NATO troops (assuming the US and UK will not send more) will go to Iraq under a UN mandate? Would it be enough to "free up as many as 20,000" Americans in Iraq? Which NATO countries exactly would these be? France? Germany? Belgium? Turkey? Spain? Your Maximum Leader seriously doubts if any of these nations would actually participate in an expanded force in Iraq. Even if it would be acting under a new UN mandate.
Speaking of that mandate... How likely is it? The US is already working with Lakdhar Brahimi to create a provisional government. And while the Bush Administration is not clamoring for a UN mandate, from what your Maximum Leader had read the French, Germans, Belgians, Russians, and others are not rushing to propose anything either. Your Maximum Leader believes that key nations who's support would be instrumental in getting a new UN mandate would not help in getting one for either George Bush or John Kerry. They simply believe that all they need to do is let the US run out of patience and will, leave (or seriously draw-down forces in) Iraq, and they will come in and re-establish the status quo ante.
Additionally, your Maximum Leader believes that John Kerry, while an honourable and patriotic man, is not going to aggressively pursue American interests abroad. He will seek international consensus on foreign policy decisions (as did Bill Clinton) and in your Maximum Leader's view international consensus is never aligned with US interests.
In reviewing Mr. Kerry's positions on trade, your Maximum Leader finds some laughable. He proposes to review all major trade agreements and make sure that our partners are playing fair. He is going to go to the WTO to mediate our trade problems with China (his example). Yeah. That is sort of like going to the UN General Assembly and asking for a unanimous endorsment of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. The reason that neither Clinton nor Bush went to the WTO often was because the nations who would do the mediation are inherently anti-US in trade talks. The WTO will not even admit that the French are protectionist in their agricultural policies. This is surely the group we want deciding if China and the US are trading fairly.
Your Maximum Leader also likes the Kerry position on keeping manufacturing jobs in the US. Give them Tax Breaks. Of course in the paragraph immediately preceeding the tax breaks paragraphs, Kerry states that many corporations export jobs so they don't pay their fair share of taxes. Let me see if your Maximum Leader understands this. Corporations aren't paying their share of taxes. So he will entice them to come back to the US, and then give them a tax break for doing so? Will they pay their fair share of taxes then? How?
(NB: for full disclosure, your Maximum Leader does believe that too many manufacturing jobs have left the US. Many defence-related manufacturing jobs should be required to remain in the US.)
In the end what do most of John Kerry's foreign policy statements amount to (at least thus far into the campaign)? They amount to statement after statement saying that he will go to international bodies to mediate our foreign policy problems. Your Maximum Leader believes that these international bodies have never shown the slightest inclination to support the US in any significant area, and as such your Maximum Leader sees no reason to believe that they will reverse their previous positions simply because John Kerry is president. Your Maximum Leader would prefer to keep Bush, who has limited success in foreign policy; rather than change to a man whom your Maximum Leader believes would lead us down a path he would prefer not to travel.
Alas, your Maximum Leader would like to go on more in this post. But, as he mentioned before, he is obliged to get the Pope to his esteemed sister's wedding. That said, your Maximum Leader bids you all...
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 5/14/2004 08:47:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home