Though I agree with Sean Kirby’s assertion that the Islamists’ hatred of the West stems at least in part from the greatest aspects of our society, I find it difficult to support a President who betrays secularism and civil rights while fighting a war in their defense. Kirby defended him in his column of Sept. 16 [Everything is at stake this time for U.S. election]. The haphazard way in which this war has been conducted lessens what confidence I had in Bush’s abilities as commander-in-chief. Add to that his inability to acknowledge the great mistakes of the Iraqi occupation, and the result is my firm support for Kerry.
Still, my disagreement with Kirby is a rational dispute, with a common dedication to the eradication of fundamentalist barbarism. Reason, sadly, is something Jeff MacPherson’s position cannot lay claim to (Everything is at stake for U.S. election: a response, Sept. 20).
The parallel MacPherson draws between the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” is utterly ridiculous. MacPherson believes that both wars are “something intangible that elicits emotion and is used to push through unpopular policies such as the restriction of civil liberties.” I’ll grant that the War on Drugs has not had a demonstrable effect on preventing drug use, but can the author be serious in suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan, coupled with increased Homeland Security measures, has done nothing to prevent another attack on the United States?
Shifting to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, MacPherson claims that, “the peace process has been initiated numerous times, but the U.S. and Israel have either vetoed or been absent (which is the equivalent of a veto) from UN resolutions.” I feel silly having to point out such a rudimentary fact, but there are only five nations with the power to veto a UN resolution. Israel is not among them. Furthermore, being absent from a vote is not equivalent to a veto, but to abstaining.
MacPherson claims that “the Bush administration lied” and that its “deceit and manipulation of facts took place to justify an invasion that was going to take place anyway.” I’m no fan of this administration, but I recognize the difference between a lie and a mistake. Remember the falsehoods I mentioned in the previous paragraph? I’ll give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s just mistaken, and not a “liar.”
I agree that America’s stratification of wealth is a problem, but by no means does it make the U.S. an unfit model for democracy. Somehow I doubt that if Afghanistan is lucky enough to reach America’s level of economic distribution, the women of Kabul will be climbing back into their burqas, yearning for simpler times.
What baffles me is that MacPherson doesn’t argue the understandable position that the War on Terror’s focus should not have been widened to encompass military intervention in Iraq; he argues it should not have been waged at all.
While Kirby described this election as the most important of his lifetime, the outcome could not matter much to MacPherson, despite what he claims. Neither Kerry nor Bush could placate MacPherson’s desire to ignore the greatest present threat to global security.
If only the congressman from Ohio, ultra-progressive Dennis Kucinich, were still running, MacPherson might have a candidate whom he could wholeheartedly support. Then again, one imagines he’d find even President Kucinich positioned to his right.
