Kerry, Michael Moore and getting rid of Bush

Now that Michael Moore and his film have won the Palme D’Or in Cannes, I
thought it was time to posit this possibility. We hear quite often that
Kerry’s main draw is that he is a Vietnam vet who later became anti-war,
unlike Bush and his gang, many of whom avoided Vietnam but are very keen to
send soldiers to fight a pointless war in Iraq.

Supposing Kerry gets into power later this year, and something comes to light which supposedly justifies yet another war. Say some “proof” emerges that what Michael Moore has been saying about a Saudi role in the Sept 11 attacks is actually true. Kerry then announces that while Bush took on the Saddam Hussain based on lies, he’s going to be a real hero and take on the Saudis, who on top of being corrupt, being repressive, cutting off people’s heads and hands and locking up their wives and daughters, abusing their foreign workers, not letting women drive or vote (they always say that and ignore the fact that it’s
not a democracy and nobody can vote!), trapping girls in burning buildings, owing the US money over the first Gulf War and sitting on a massive oil reserve which they might start demanding more money for, they or some of their people may have had some role in Sept 11 … and then we won’t have the same ammunition against Kerry that we do against Bush, because he’s a Vietnam vet who got injured for his country and he’s anti war, so he knows war is awful, but it’s sometimes necessary …

I’m just glad I won’t be voting in that particular election.