The situation in Iraq grows worse every day. More than 68 people died earlier this week in bombings, including many U.S. soldiers. The United States has attacked a country unilaterally without the support of the United Nations, and look what has happened. As a peace activist and one who demonstrated during the build up to the Iraq work, a whisper slips from my lips: “I told you so.”

I told you that the president’s drive to war was a bad idea. I told you that a pre-emptive strike would set a dangerous precedent. I didn’t believe the reports of weapons of mass destruction, but I did believe that it was going to be difficult to stop Bush’s drive to war. Practically impossible.

Beyond going to war with Iraq, the Bush administration has instituted some of the most destructive policies the nation and the world have ever seen.

These policies range from the environment to energy needs to international policy and have all left the United States in a terrible situation at home and abroad.

His assault on civil liberties, women, the LGBT community and persons of color, are enough to make Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activists turn in their graves.

His policy toward Iraq has been one of the most destructive policies in recent memory.

The Bush administration’s drive to war has divided countries and broken international law and peace treaties, as well helped foster an anti-colonial sentiment, which in recent terms is anti-American. But what was the war for? Why did we go to war with Iraq?

In the beginning, the war was about weapons of mass destruction. Then it was about Iraq posing an imminent threat.

Then it switched to being about liberating the Iraqis and establishing a democracy. All of these claims proved unverifiable.

I would like to suggest that Bush and his neo-con advisers were wrong to go to war. Why? Because each of the arguments they offered has now failed.

We have failed to find weapons of mass destruction. Iraq didn’t pose a threat to the United States or our allies in the area.

We liberated Iraq from Saddam, but now the U.S. Army is occupying Iraq.

If anything, Iraq poses more of a danger to the United States and its allies now because of the resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

But we have to understand that the United States is in Iraq now, so we need a good plan now to resolve the situation.

We have an opportunity this fall to elect a man with a plan for Iraq. His plans go far beyond Iraq.

He has a plan that will make America safer, more environmentally clean and provide a better economy for Americans.

John Kerry, as president, would do much good for not only Americans, but also for the world. While I disagree with some of John Kerry’s policies in the Middle East, I find he is a good alternative to the current policy-makers in Washington.

John Kerry’s plan to solve the problems in Iraq includes the international community.

John Kerry proposes a plan to include the United Nations in the peacekeeping mission in Iraq.

His plan includes providing security for the Iraqis as well as internationals.

John Kerry proposes an idea that President Bush ignored: Working with the Iraqis to help set up a stable country they would like to live in, not a puppet-run country established by the United States.

If another country’s military came to the United States and attempted to establish a new government, how many Americans you know would sit back and let this happen?

The time is now. The time has come to stand up to the neo-cons and demand justice and demand that we get our country back.

We must demand, for the sake of the world, for the sake of our future children, that we elect a president who cares about the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights and provides a solution to the war in Iraq.

The time has come to support John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

Ramsey Tesdell is a sophomore in technical communication from Slater. He is a member of the ISU Democrats.