v
^ taking ^
etl t0 Pag.;
3 ^g $10.?
:h er infoti
: 979.45j.;
! dorm 1
90O/mo.
I0r rnoniii,'
applicafot;
s. Apply j,
'H.-Thurs.,
nted.
'k mwf7|
'■ Please if
ttcom ory
wo posi
Sons opein
Gooii
113 Wat
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Tuesday, August 3, 2004
First-rate disgrace
einz Kerry’s public behavior would cause embarrassment for White House
iS. Grace
¥ F(;
•F tel
i*. Com:
11002 Gik
3bdml2ttl
I remodel?.
ath condo l:|
oan, /wrtl
$88,000. C:
t/lbth.Mao
-los area,e'.
9-229-285S
male neeoa
Dime, furnist
> +bills,a»i"
648-9493.
ba. home 1
1 0-8'
) dogs. C?
696-613S.
✓/d. Jew
“3/2 hois
1/3util. Ci
3-3564,
25/iW.
3use in ®
(3-1638.
house»'
es, luce®
all 979-2!'
“irTdi#
-5713.
, m campit
$1504*
g. 979-4!!
? ded
Cofidc
w/d, ce^
2-2551,
Tgbih^
caihp®
Melisse ^
>drin/1.5f 1,
ad, fi '
Despite Kerry’s
war in Iraq was
fall/sp (l ’ |, i
= . k praii*
Idoru#
11 Sham 11 '
iraiid^
smokii 1 !
iiTsu^
I 979-7P
^Tiee^
still 0
=481.
- ooitifWj
’villea,
ab
it 97!
^ i-roo*
$425/f
^3-324«
"4-0487.
ercifully, the dog-
and-pony show that
was the Democratic
National Convention is finally
over, and as all the televi
sion ratings indicate, it was
a sleeper. Ben Affleck and
the rest of the Hollywood
elite preened, John Kerry
was wooden in a 50-minute
speech that addressed his
senatorial career for only 26
seconds and Teresa Heinz Kerry, well, she was
there too. Surprisingly, though, Heinz Kerry
didn’t embarrass the Kerry campaign in her
speech as she has done in literally every
other public speaking engagement she has
had. She doesn’t see it as being embar
rassing, but rather, “speaking her mind.”
But make no mistake: Heinz Kerry will
continue to say and do stupid things along
the campaign trail, indirectly affecting
the election and helping to guarantee that
George W. Bush spends four more years in
the White House.
Former Texas Gov. Ann Richards remarked
at the 1988 convention that George H. W.
Bush “was born with a silver foot in his
tm mouth.” The remark got laughs from the
liberal audience, but wasn’t very fitting.
It does, however, fit Heinz Kerry like a
glove. She’s nothing but a liability for the
Kerry campaign. There is no filter between her mind
and her mouth, and as if that weren’t enough, she
isn’t the ideal first lady.
A far cry from John Edwards’ good ole boy “son
of a mill worker” upbringing, Heinz Kerry was bom
the daughter of a wealthy doctor in Mozambique. Her
full name, counting her high-dollar marriages, is Ma
ria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry, which
in no way rings of pretension, really. She met her first
husband, ketchup heir H. John Heinz III, while receiving
posh schooling in Switzerland. So, clearly, she shares the
common man’s values and can relate to anyone, whether a
billionaire or a mere millionaire.
Interestingly, the billionaire Heinz went on to become
a Republican senator in Pennsylvania. Heinz Kerry was a
registered Republican too, changing her party designation
to Democrat only last year. While a Republican, Heinz
Kerry made some damning remarks that could now work to
dampen her husband’s unrealistic presidential aspirations.
And so it begins.
In a 1975 book entitled “The Power Lovers: An Intimate Look
at Politicians and Their Marriages” by Myra MacPherson, Heinz
Kerry railed against her current political party. “The Democratic
machine in this country is putrid,” Heinz Kerry said. She went
on to call Sen. Edward Kennedy a “perfect bastard.” While her
remarks have a ring of truth to them, they don’t exactly jibe with
her new political leanings. It is, therefore, quite ironic to consider
that Kennedy and Heinz Kerry spoke on the same night of last
week’s convention, though neither was as lively or rousing as
Dennis Kucinich.
Appallingly, Democrats want to disregard these remarks
because they were made nearly thirty years ago. Kerry adviser
Marla Romash said that “a lot has changed since then.” But
when it comes to her husband’s war service, they want to ride
that boat all the way into Boston Harbor. Anyone who saw Kerry
speak Thursday had the unfortunate burden of witnessing his
gooey ‘Band of Brothers’ entrance. He was practically draped
in an American flag and running laps around the FleetCenter
screaming “U.S.A., U.S.A.” It was a production straight out of
Hollywood. In case anyone hadn’t heard yet, Kerry apparently
served in Vietnam.
But it gets better. According to Newsweek, a campaign
worker in Chicago told Heinz Kerry “I have ADHD, but I’m
working my tail off for your husband.” She replied, “But you’re
focused now, right?” She told Newsweek reporter Melinda
Henneberger that her husband has “some movements he makes
that are very inviting and some that are forceful, (like) Hitler.”
As Henneberger said, she broke “one of the simpler rules for
political wives: never mention your husband and the Fuehrer in
the same sentence.”
By now, everyone has heard that she told reporter Colin
McNickle to “shove it” after he confronted her about remarks
she’d made in an earlier speech. But knowing the context of the
exchange is crucial. She was giving a speech on how politicians
and the media need to be more civil to each other and called such
feuding “un-American.” Not only that, but she denied to McNick
le and the world that she said things she is clearly on tape saying.
Then she told him to “shove it.”
Interestingly, the Kerry camp hasn’t made any attempt to
explain why Heinz Kerry lied about her remarks; they’ve just
tried to brush the whole nasty incident under the rug. What
happened? Did she forget? Was she medicated or drunk?
Maybe this is just more of that “nuance” her husband swears
he’s full of.
Whatever the case, the “THK” show isn’t over yet, and there
will be plenty more road stops before November. And while
Heinz Kerry’s convention speech was tame, the sparks will fly
again. If the Kerry campaign hasn’t learned by now to rein her
in, it won’t by Nov. 2. \
George Deutsch is a senior
journalism major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe
criticisms,
last resort
MAIL CALL
B
y now many
Aggies are
probably tired
of seeing yet another
Iraq opinion article
in the back page of
The Battalion. Yes
if s true that Iraq is a
salient current topic
— the United States
still has soldiers fight
ing in Iraq and with
it being an election year, its handling and
its very existence as a current American
engagement is in question. But a remark
by the Democratic Party’s Presidential
nominee Sen. John Kerry gives Aggies
the opportunity to leam something about
political and military ethics.
Never mind that it’s the pot calling
the kettle black, but Kerry is accusing
President Bush of “breaking his word”
when Bush promised to pursue war as
the last resort in Iraq. Pay attention to
the words, “last resort.” What Kerry
is referring to is a principle of the Just
War theory, and here’s where people
can leam something about the actual
principles that underlie political deci
sion-making.
The Just War theory has two parts:
The conduct of soldiers in war and the
decision to go to war itself, and it’s the
latter that Kerry is talking about. Accord
ing to the Just War theory, the decision
to go to war is only just if it meets the
following criteria: just cause, legitimate
authority, good intention, expectation of
success, proportionality and last resort.
The scope of this article does not allow
a critical review of all these tenets, but
since Kerry is attacking Bush’s “last
resort” promise, it calls for analysis.
For a war to be just according to the
theory, aggression must be used only
if peaceful alternatives have been tried
and exhausted. Kerry is accusing Bush
of violating that, but on what grounds?
The problem here is that this principle
is quite subject to interpretation. At
Bush broke
no promise
when it came to
pledging to ap
proach war as a
last resort.
what point do you throw your hands
up and say “Well, all we can do is
declare war”?
The answer: Whenever you person
ally lose faith in peaceful resolution.
Obviously, Bush reached that point.
For Americans with short memories,
recall that for more than a decade,
Saddam’s regime had stubbornly tried
not to allow inspectors into its country
and had occasionally violated no-fly
zones. His forces
fired missiles during
the last invasion that
they weren’t even
allowed to have.
By no definition
did it quietly follow
the conditions that
the United Nations
set up regarding its
surrender after the
first Gulf War. But
all of that is insig
nificant compared
to the biggest thing
Americans seem to
forget: Saddam killed his own people
by the thousands. His sons personally
raped, tortured and murdered innocent
people. Minions such as Chemical Ali
used weapons of mass destruction to
commit genocide against the Kurds.
They’re still finding Sarin gas warheads
in the Middle East, despite the liberals’
cry of “Where are the WMDs?”
But forget about the murder, tyranny,
WMDs and crimes against humanity.
One could certainly argue that such
things happen in African warlord-con-
trolled countries, and we do nothing
about them. Why Iraq?
Tyrants oppress their own people,
yes, but international law is broken
when this violence spills over into other
countries. Saddam didn’t just want to
kill his own people — he financially
encouraged suicide bombings in Israel
and invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. So
when he was proving to be a nuisance
regarding weapons inspections, and was
suspected of aiding terrorist organiza
tions, Bush asked himself, “How long
before he does something again?” As
the old saying goes: “Fool me once,
shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me.”
Saddam refused to fully comply with
the terms of his surrender and U.N.
resolutions, and continued to oppress
his people. This had been happening for
a decade.
Bush broke no promise
when it came to pledging to
approach war as a last resort.
The problem with crying,
“Not the last resort!” is defin
ing what that point is.
There isn’t an objective
point, it’s merely when the
leader decides enough is
enough. But can anyone rea
sonably claim that a decade
wasn’t long enough to wait?
Philosopher John
Stewart Mill once said, “War
is an ugly thing, but not the
ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is
worth war is much worse.”
Every American wishes the trag
edy of Sept. 11 never happened, and
Americans could live in peace again.
Peace is a wonderful thing, but no one
should be willing to have it at any price.
Bush believed he was making Ameri
cans and the world safer by removing
any potential threat Saddam posed,
and he had given him every chance to
avoid war, including a month’s warning
prior to invasion. There are many valid
criticisms of the Iraqi war, but given the
facts, criticizing “last resort” doesn’t
seem like an intelligent argument.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
Kerry’s abortion stance is appropriate
In response to Joshua Dwyer’s July 29 column:
John Kerry is not hypocritical nor just trying to get votes. He believes, as most
pro-choice people believe, that, until birth control methods work 100 percent for
everyone and are available to everyone, no one has the right to tell any woman
that she must give birth to a child. No one has the right to tell a woman that
she must give birth to a child with disabilities. No one has the right to tell any
woman what she has to do with her body.
The effects on a family that is forced to bring a child into the world that
wasn't planned for can hurt the child. Children bring can bring joy, but they
also bring huge amounts of stress. I know. Many years ago, I had decided that
I didn’t want children, but, guess what? I couldn’t find a doctor who would do a
tubal ligation on a woman in her twenties. And, of course, I got pregnant. Birth
control is not 100 percent effective. I thought it over long and hard because
abortion had just become legal the year before. I decided to have the child. I
was depressed for the next year and a half. Having a child I didn’t really want
put unbelievable stress on me and my marriage. The price of raising a child
these days is unbelievable and, if your child is disabled, even more unbeliev
able. If you think abortions are wrong, then don’t have one, but don’t presume
to tell someone else that because you think abortions are wrong, they have to
have a child.
The fact is that abortions have been around long before they was made
legal. Even if you manage to make it illegal again, it won’t go away. It will simply
go back to women who will die of infections and botched procedures. Do you re
ally think that women should be subject to back alley abortionists because your
beliefs are more important than theirs?
Instead of trying to outlaw abortions, maybe drug companies should come
up with more effective methods of birth control and representatives should seek
funding for birth control for poor women. There are better ways to ensure that
all children are wanted children.
Carol McNamara
Research assistant
tac.ov* t-n-cS