From: "Mark" 


"Gene McAloon"  wrote: Very odd
thinking, that. Even as president, it would never be in Kerry's
> interest to vindicate Bush's war by emphasizing Saddam's guilt.
Especially not
> when Kerry would be left the task of cleaning up the mess Bush created in
Iraq
> and everywhere else with his dumb war.

I'm not talking about what Kerry wants or would want, I'm talking about
what the media thinks would be best for them. They don't actually give two
thumb thumps for Kerry in particular, they simply want to do their liberal
thing and Bush doesn't fit that mold, hence, their perception would be
reversing course as advantageous to their cause when a liberal is in
office.

If they're successful in outing Bush this November, via their slanted
reporting, the backlash will begin four years later after Kerry's failed
"diplomacy" and "nuance," get us into trouble
(interpretation: Chirac doesn't give two craps about the US, be it Kerry,
Bush, or "Kadiddlehopper") and the Dems will be impotent for
decades thereafter.

I'm sure that the Dems will be much better off letting Bush continue his
doctrine for another term and then take the Presidency in 2008 to move the
country back on the road to socialism after the foreign/terrorist threat
has been neutralized by the hawks vs. the "daisy zipper-pull"
doves of the Kerry administration.

That puts me in a quandary, do I want Kerry to win, thus ensuring the long
darkness of a socialistic platform in the future doesn't come to pass?, or
do I want Bush to win
to save lives in the short-term? I think I'll come down on the side of
Bush, but I may live to regret it if it does so empower the Dems in the
post-2008 era.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5