Washington Post endorses Kerry

Hurrah (I suppose).

It's a very half-hearted endorsement, and it reflects a flawed viewpoint in many ways, for example: "His (Bush's) commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism." In my opinion, it reflects no such thing. It reflects a narrow, parochial view of other cultures which assumes that the whole of the rest of the world wants to be like America. This is manifestly not the case.

"But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators." Oh, so now Saddam Hussein's not friendly, it's OK to destroy him, while supporting the Saudi royal family, the Emirs of the UAE and the Sheik of Kuwait, Musharraf of Pakistan, etc.? And let's not even talk about Israel and the bloody-handed Sharon, shall we?

"Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention." Afghans in Kabul may be better off in some ways. Outside Kabul? Doubtful. And I very much doubt if US security is better off as the result of an invasion of Afghanistan.

"We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily." Wrong word. The word missing from the whole of this editorial is LIAR. The fact that George W. Bush talks about the UN inspectors not being allowed into Iraq when he addresses US audiences, but omits this "exaggeration" when talking to the UN shows that he is perfectly aware of the fact that he is lying.

"We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts." These are more lies, which he never had any intention of seeing through into anything like a real state of maturity, as they are mostly untenable slogans. For proof, look at the decline in Texas school standards since Bush played around with these concepts. A little homework on the part of the Post might well have found out that many of these programs are doomed from the get-go, simply on grounds of ideology.

About Kerry: "He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy."

But with friends like this, who needs enemies? No, although I'm glad that the WP has come out against Bush and for Kerry, they are missing the truth of the matter: the Bush administration is twisted as a knotted corkscrew, and cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about any situation, let alone do the right thing. Liars certainly, traitors probably, fools and rogues for a surety, and definitely in the lowest category of scumbags.