The Economist gives grudging support to John Kerry, but support nonetheless. Here is a sample from the article "The incompetent or the incoherent" published in the October 30th - November 5th edition:
"Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantanamo, but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned."
AND
"But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers. The eventual success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy."
As if that isn't surprising enough, Scott McConnell of the American Conservative has endorsed Kerry.
Here is a link to that article, lest you fail to believe me:
Chop
The most persuasive case against President Bush is made by traditional conservatives, I think, which is why I like to publish their detractions. When I make many of the same claims I am dismissed as "partisan", but when Scott McConnell makes them that is hardly applicable.
This is a crucial election that will shape America at home and abroad for years to come. Here's hoping the best man wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment