Should peaceniks vote for Bush?

As the Bush administration comes under increasing fire for its decision to attack Iraq, the Democratic contender, John F. Kerry, is profiting from his perceived status as a critic of Bush’s foreign policy. A patrician grandee with a pleasing mix of liberal and patriotic views might seem to many Americans a welcome relief from the bellicose Texan with his faux swagger and his team of men who seem to have ‘military-industrial complex’ written across their menacing foreheads. But if anti-war Americans do elect Kerry for that reason, they will have duped themselves. Warmongering will be worse under Kerry than under Bush, and real peaceniks should therefore vote for Dubya.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec270.html

Do you agree? Should peaceniks vote for Bush?

One of Bush's innocent victims:

Unless of course they're masochists and want to see still more results like the poor little girl pictured above! :grr:

B-)

And libertarians are on the same branch of the ideological tree as Republicans. Their only real difference with the Repukes is that they think Repuke economic policies aren't sufficiently slanted in favor of the wealthy.

Even though they know in their hearts that Bush is a warmonger, and if given a second term would probably plunge us into WWIII, they just can't bring themselves to admit the truth and support a Dem candidate.

It just wasn't Kerry.

- bill

Who was the candidate? Who were the libertarians? When did they voice their support? Why? Was their support significant, or meaningless? And what does that have to do with the choice Americans face now?

And how did you vote in this poll?

There were vocal Libertarian Dean supporters over at his blog and forum. Republicans, too: Dean, as I've noted elsewhere, drew from a considerably wider political spectrum than the other candidates (and yes, that included left as well as right, plus a good-sized chunk of previously apathetic non-voters).

I said peaceniks should support Nader, that being based on current positions. I do hope that Kerry and the party will change sufficiently before November that they would merit consideration, but suspect that this won't happen without considerable pressure.

- bill

The quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation could have been averted and needs to be ended expeditiously, replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php#iraqwar

That's the only statement I can find on Nader's website that addresses what he would do at this point in Iraq. But that is Kerry's position. So why vote for Nader? If you want Kerry's position to prevail you should vote for Kerry. If you want Bush's position to prevail, you should vote for Nader or Bush.

Why should peaceniks vote for Nader when his plan is no different from Kerry's?

That's the stupidist thing I've ever heard.

in a solid red or blue state, I'd probably vote for Nader or do a DK write-in. I'm not going to chance it this time. I don't want it on my conscience that my vote could've helped Bush get in the back door. I think Kerry has some responsibility for the war (at least Edwards could fess up to his), but as much as I dislike his war vote, it's not the only issue. I'm scared of Bush concerning almost every issue - economy, environment, foreign policy... That's really the only reason I'm supporting Kerry.

as Jews for Hitler.

who has a friend in the State Department, Cheney has a hard on to invade Iran and North Korea.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0407-12.htm


I'd say peacenicks should vote Kerry.

The Neocon/PNAC crowd wants war with Iran, North Korea, and Syria. And if we ever invade NK, China certainly won't sit back and watch.

Grandiose sense of self; pathological lying;
lack of remorse; shallow emotions;
early behavior problems; secretive;
paranoid of the press.....

Least of all peaceniks.

And don't worry: peaceniks know this.

It's RW Republicans and fascist libertarians (claim to be libertarians, but support Dubya's destruction of liberty) who push crap like this.

"Warmongering will be worse under Kerry than under Bush, and real peaceniks should therefore vote for Dubya."
Kerry may have voted IWR but that was a hard decision plus he's voted to cut from the DOD before, and he opposed Gulf War I and other wars. Bush on the otherhand has prolly supported all of our wars, and is a big supporter of raising the defense budget. As someone who considers himself a peacenik, I would vote Kerry over Bush without even thinking about it.

I think many voted for Kerry in the Primaries because they so hate Bush. It wasn't because Kerry had real policies they could get behind. so now this is what we are stuck with. I think this article wherever if came from is ridiculous. Who would vote for Bush if they wanted Peace?