More on Kerry

Hmm, perhaps a bit of clarification is in order. Lest it seem like I'm a big John Kerry booster, let me just say: I'm not. I will be if he's the Democratic nominee facing off against Bush, and if no amazing third-party candidate enters the race. I'd prefer Howard Dean's backbone or Dennis Kucinich's progressive innovation over another Al Gore, but, when it comes down to Election Day, I'll be voting for whoever has the best shot at ousting Bush. And perhaps Kerry/Clark could do it. Perhaps.

Still, I realize that, posting something touting Kerry's Purple Hearts (which say little about his abilities to govern) right before the MoveOn primaries might seem like, well, bias. So I'd direct you, again, to the Boston Globe's comprehensive series, which includes Kerry's voting record, some of the controversies surrounding his antiwar (and pro-war: he supported the most recent Gulf War) activities, and his climbing of the political ladder. Read it, then decide for yourself.

For other viewpoints, particularly on Kerry's recent war views, see Noam Chomsky's 1998 ZNet article:

Senator John Kerry added that it would be "legitimate" for the U.S. to invade Iraq outright if Saddam "remains obdurate and in violation of the United Nations resolutions, and in a position of threat to the world community," whether the Security Council so determines or not. Such unilateral U.S. action would be "within the framework of international law," as Kerry conceives it. A liberal dove who reached national prominence as an opponent of the Vietnam War, Kerry explained that his current stand was consistent with his earlier views. Vietnam taught him that the force should be used only if the objective is "achievable and it meets the needs of your country." Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was therefore wrong for only one reason: it was not "achievable," as matters turned out.

Or read the letter from a Veterans for Peace activist to Kerry after his vote to support George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

(Thanks, Heather.)