I can't distinguish his position on Iraq and Israel from the Bush position - they're both wrong. Before you start blathering about how Kerry will bring in the international community - I don't think they'll come in for Kerry anymore than they will for Bush. Has ANY foreign leader said they'll send troops if Kerry is elected? No. Do I think Kerry will do a better job than Bush? Yes. Will that get us out sooner? I don't know. I think at this moment, Bush is VERY eager to get out of Iraq. He might get us out before the election - then where would Kerry be?
Kerry: Carrying Bush's Big Stick
Kerry's goals in Iraq are "the same goals the Bush administration has," says Jonathan Winer, Kerry's former legal counsel and a foreign policy adviser. "It's how you achieve the goals that would be very different." Specifically, "John Kerry would be less authoritarian than the Bush administration," Winer says. "And that might have substantial benefits."
Kerry pitches his global view
So there it is in black and white. Kerry is no different than Bush except in style. He's all for bombing and killing Arabs in the name of neo-con-neoliberalism. He'd just be a little less "authoritarian than the Bush," whatever the hell that means. I guess it means he wouldn't rant and rave like the neocons, although the end result would be the same -- dead Iraqis.
It would be interesting to hear what the ABBers have to say about this, especially those outraged by Bush's invasion. Is it possible they will vote for a continuation of mass murder and a brutal occupation in Iraq? Is a "kinder and gentler" and less "authoritarian" kind of imperialism acceptable for them?
John Kerry has called for U.S. military dominance and signalled his willingness to strike preemptively against terrorists overseas ... "My No. 1 security goal will be to prevent the terrorists from gaining weapons of mass murder. Because al-Qaeda is a network with many branches, we must take the fight to the enemy on every continent and enlist other countries in that cause."
Kerry willing to act preemptively against terrorists
Sounds just like somebody who spent the last three years sharpening pencils at PNAC. Same Bushian preemptive arrogance. Only difference is he wants to get "Old Europe" back in the loop. Since the only state in the Middle East currently developing nukes is Iran -- or so we are told, the Iranians deny this -- Kerry's foreign policy is almost identical to that of the Bush neocons, who take their lead from Israel. Of course, Israel is the only state in the region that actually has nukes -- and has threatened to use them.
Mr. Kerry said that in leading the United States into war without the widespread backing of other nations, the Bush administration violated Theodore Roosevelt's advice to leaders that they "walk softly and carry a big stick."
Kerry Outlines Plan for Foreign Policy Based on Cooperation
Just so we have a point of reference on Kerry's "big stick" remark, I am including an excerpt from Roosevelt's speech where he used the term:
If we are to be a really great people, we must strive in good faith to play a great part in the world….We cannot avoid the responsibilities that confront us in Hawaii, Cuba, Porto [sic] Rico, and the Philippines.
In other words, as a "great people" faced with "responsibilities," Roosevelt approved of the annexation by the US of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii. In 1901 the US contrived the Platt Amendment and declared the unilateral right to intervene in Cuban affairs. In 1903 the US stuck its nose in Colombia's business and agitated for the independence of Panama so it could get its hands on the Panama Canal. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine declared the US to be the policeman of the Caribbean and the Dominican Republic was placed under a customs receivership. In the years that followed -- inspired by Roosevelt's big bloody stick and his Monroe Doctrine corollary -- the US intervened, invaded, and mucked around in Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Panama, and elsewhere. Kerry wants to continue this legacy.
Naturally, we can expect demented Republicans and neocon fellow travelers to approve of this sort of nastiness. But what about the ABBers? For some reason they sincerely believe they can influence Kerry and move him away from neoliberal interventionism. This reveals a surprising ignorance of the tiny elite that rules this country and has ruled it since its inception.
"If Kerry is elected, we'll have a little ledge to stand on," Zinn said, referring to the potential influence progressives would be able to impart on a Kerry administration. Presidents can be moved by their constituencies." -- Howard Zinn
"Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." --Noam Chomsky
"I believe we are at a pivotal point...and there are times when you have to pursue coalition politics [that is, vote for Kerry] against the forces like the kind we're facing in the White House today." --Michael Parenti
Unfortunately, because of their influence on the Left, Zinn, Chomsky, and Parenti will bear some of the responsibility for a continuation of neoliberal policies against Iraq and much of the third world if Kerry is elected. As noted above, Kerry intends to "carry a big stick," just like Bush. I don't know how any self-respecting progressive could rationalize a vote for Kerry and continue to struggle against US imperialism.
But then all of this will not matter if Bush steals the election or cancels it as now seems entirely possible.
Kurt Nimmo |
