Seattle Times endorses Kerry

The Seattle Times has endorsed John Kerry for president. Four years ago they endorsed George Bush.

Today's endorsement seems to be based on a misconception: that John Kerry will remove troops from Iraq. ("The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq.") But Kerry's strategy isn't withdrawl: it is replacement of American with other troops. Even Mumia Abu-Jamal doesn't believe that will work.

Another misconception starts the sixth paragraph:

A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States.

But Al-Qaida cannot be appeased -- our show of weakness from the 1970s to 2001 only encouraged escalating attacks. Less than three years after 9/11, the Times editors seem to have forgotten that.

In fact, they seem to have forgotten that we are in a war not of our own choosing. The words "terrorism" and "al-Qaida" appear nowhere in their endorsement. It is as if President Bush's actions have existed in a vacuum, unprompted by world events. Kerry is not held to account for lacking a plan to fight terrorism, at least one deeper than asking our allies for more cooperation. Is it too much to ask of one of Seattle's major newspapers that it grapple seriously with the issue voters most care about before endorsing a candidate for president?

Posted by Andy MacDonald at August 27, 2004 05:04 PM | Email This