Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush Or Kerry?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:31 PM
Original message
Bush Or Kerry?
A myth equal to the fable of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is gaining strength on both sides of the Atlantic. It is that John Kerry offers a world-view different from that of George W Bush. Watch this big lie grow as Kerry is crowned the Democratic candidate and the "anyone but Bush" movement becomes a liberal cause celebre. While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests". Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.

One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats", who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism". Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership ..."

Bush has been a beneficiary of this. His neoconservatives derive not from traditional Republican Party roots, but from the hawk's wings of the Democratic Party - such as the trade union establishment, the AFL-CIO (known as the "AFL-CIA"), which received millions of dollars to subvert unions and political parties throughout the world, and the weapons industry, built and nurtured by the Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's leading fanatic, began his Washington political life working for Jackson. In 1972 an aberration, George McGovern, faced Richard Nixon as the Democrats' anti-war candidate. Virtually abandoned by the party and its powerful backers, McGovern was crushed.

People who are aware of such danger, yet support its proponents in a form they find agreeable, think they can have it both ways. They can't. Michael Moore, the film-maker, should know this better than anyone; yet he backed the Nato bomber Wesley Clark as Democratic candidate. The effect of this is to reinforce the danger to all of us, because it says it is OK to bomb and kill, then to speak of peace. Like the Bush regime, the New Democrats fear truly opposing voices and popular movements: that is, genuine democracy, at home and abroad. The colonial theft of Iraq is a case in point. "If you move too fast," says Noah Feldman, a former legal adviser to the US regime in Baghdad, "the wrong people could get elected." Tony Blair has said as much in his inimitable way: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5083
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ductape, thanks for trying to tell us all there is NO difference between
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 01:42 PM by blm
Kerry and Bush. Maybe it will occur to you at some point that many of us don't believe it and do believe that you go OVERBOARD and exaggerate to make your point that they are the same.

YOU don't want the most far left candidate we've ever had in my lifetime to win the presidency. More of us do. You want people to NOT vote for Kerry, well, then BE HONEST about it, cut to the bottom line, and just SAY SO.

Disclaimer: I will NEVER support Bush for president or do ANYTHING to contribute to a Bush win in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. OMG...Here's more of Kerry being JUST LIKE BUSH:
A Cleaner and Greener America
Throughout his career, John Kerry has been a top leader on the environment, fighting to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas. In addition to supporting important environmental initiatives, John Kerry has turned a spotlight on the Bush Administration’s rollbacks of our hard-won environmental gains and their outdated, old-economy notions that our environment must be sacrificed in the name of short-term profit. John Kerry has the courage to take on the polluters that are trying to gut our clean air and water laws. John Kerry has the vision to create a new Manhattan Project to make America independent of Middle East oil in 10 years by creating alternative fuels like ethanol and making cars more efficient. We’ll create half a million new jobs here at home at the same time – and we’ll never have to send our sons and daughters to war for Mideast oil.

America is only as healthy as the communities in which we live, and our economic strength as a nation – and Americans’ deeply rooted love and respect for our magnificent resources – depends on our commitment to clean air, clean water, and our quality of life. Unlike the Bush-Cheney Administration, where special interests rule and the environment suffers, a Kerry Administration will build its policies around citizens’ needs and aspirations. We owe it to our families, our communities, and to our planet to elect a president who will unapologetically pursue our environmental values.

Priorities
Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil
John Kerry has outlined a comprehensive energy plan that will tap America’s initiative and ingenuity to strengthen our national security, grow our economy, and protect our environment. Kerry’s plan will increase and enhance domestic energy sources and provide incentives to help Americans use energy more cleanly and efficiently. When sixty-five percent of the world’s oil reserves lie beneath the Persian Gulf states and only 3 percent lie beneath America, we cannot drill our way to independence. We can, however, develop and deploy clean energy technologies that will make us more efficient and allow us to capitalize on domestic and renewable sources of energy. John Kerry’s plan for a renewable energy trust fund to invest in the development of renewable energy will reduce our oil dependence by more than 2 million barrels of oil a day – about the same amount we import from the Persian Gulf. Kerry’s plan will also create 500,000 new jobs over the next decade and work toward producing 20 percent of US energy from renewable fuels by 2020.
See John Kerry’s Energy Plan

A Commitment to Cleaner and Greener Communities
John Kerry believes that addressing the environmental needs of our communities will improve the economic vitality and quality of life of the places where we live and work. Kerry will fight for “Green and Clean Communities” by removing the threat of toxics from our communities, reinvigorating the Superfund cleanup program, improving our parks, and taking on traffic congestion and sprawl. As part of this commitment, Kerry will create a Toxics Task Force at the EPA that will identify the top toxics threats to our citizens and develop an action plan to address them, and he will work to ensure that every American child has access to a clean and safe neighborhood ball field or park.

Fighting for Environmental Justice
For too long, low income and minority communities have borne a disproportionate burden of air pollution, water pollution and other environmental hazards. John Kerry will make environmental justice a national priority. He will create Environmental Empowerment Zones to ensure that environmental justice is considered in decisions that affect these communities and, more importantly, to empower communities from the ground up for positive change. He will also create a national health tracking system for chronic diseases and environmental health hazards. And, John Kerry will reinvigorate action on environmental justice at the federal level.
See John Kerry’s plan for Environmental Justice

Enter into a 'Conservation Covenant' with the American People
John Kerry will enter into a “Conservation Covenant” with the American people to tread lightly on the public lands and protect and restore our nation’s parks and other treasures for the benefit of future generations. As part of the covenant, John Kerry will implement the Endangered Species Act in a cooperative manner that extends the benefits of wildlife and habitat protection to public and private lands. He will put new teeth into requirements that private companies who lease public lands return the land to its original state. The Covenant will reinvest royalties obtained from extracting resources from public lands back into protecting our lands, and require that before remote public lands are opened up to new resource development, the federal government evaluate the long term economic and environmental costs associated with such actions.

Protect our Health by Reducing Dangerous Emissions
John Kerry understands the connection between air pollution and public health. As President, he will immediately reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks of our nation’s Clean Air laws, plug loopholes in the laws, and vigorously enforce them. He will take bold steps to protect the health of all Americans – particularly our most vulnerable seniors and children – by adopting an aggressive program to meet ozone and air quality standards, stop acid rain, and reduce mercury emissions. His plan also includes addressing global warming emissions through a combination of innovative programs that will drive technology change and create jobs.

Restoring America's Waters
Our nation has fallen far short of the Clean Water Act’s goal of making our waters “drinkable, swimable, and fishable.” John Kerry will lead a “Restoring America’s Waters” Campaign to clean up our nation’s waters, protect communities’ fresh water supplies, and help communities reclaim their riverfronts and lake-fronts as new centers of economic growth.

Reassert US Leadership in Global Environmental Progress
John Kerry understands that some of our most serious environmental challenges – and opportunities – are taking place on an international stage and that they require American leadership in the international community. Unlike the Bush Administration, John Kerry will not abdicate this responsibility and opportunity. When John Kerry is president, the U.S. will reengage in the development of an international climate change strategy to address global warming, and identify workable responses that provide opportunities for American technology and know-how. And a Kerry Administration will meet new challenges associated with the global exploitation of marine resources and the global crisis of access to fresh water supplies.

Promoting Smart Growth and Livable Communities
John Kerry recognizes that local communities are struggling with how to address issues of traffic congestion and sprawl. A Kerry Administration will work with states and communities to ensure they have the tools and resources they need to tackle these difficult problems. Kerry will ensure that we have “Clean and Green Communities” throughout America by coordinating federal transportation policies, federal housing incentives, federal employment opportunities and the use of federal dollars to acquire parks and open space.
>>>>>>>
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy /

Oh THANKS for opening our eyes and now we can clearky see there is NO DIFFERENCE between Bush and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. that's all good -- what's his position on privatizing water?
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. True, so true..
Many of the supporters of other candidate simply to refuse to acknowledge the past records of candidates that they supported.

For example, Deans supporters hold Kerry's record up to microscopic scrutiny, while ignoring Deans past record of almost total opposition to liberal/progresive policies,his continual cuts to social programs, his failure to support socially liberal programs except in cases in which he had no choice but to pass. We must remember that while Dean passed civil unions under duress, he vetoed liberal legislation which passed both houses of the Vermont legislature to alow the medical use of marijuana, fought for over 4 years allowing the use of methadone maintenance in treatment clinics, and opposed the Vermont Courts which allowed such treatment in prisons, whithout ofering any sort of alternatve treatment. We can see when faced with liberal political ideas, Dean stood up in firm opposition, when legislators and the public showed overwhelming support for such programs.

In fact, Dean was often give the very same high grades for conservatism by the ultraconservative Cato Institute that George Bush was given. Kerry has neve been given those kind of accolades by ultraconservatives. In fact in one year Cato rated Dean as the fifth most conservative Governor in the United States. They noted that this was highly unisual for Democrats, but they noted that Dean was one of those rare exceptions who met their criteria for conservaitism.

Kerry on the other hand, has recived the very lowest grades by conservative organizations, and given the very highest grades for liberal/progressive political ideology.

Much of the Kerry is like Bush drivle that is being thrown around DU is the result of sour grapes that cannot be supported by fact, by people who have supported cndidates based on lack of study of those candidates record, using the same criteria for examining those past records, not using a less severe method of searching the records of the cnadidates they support.

If one were to examine the past records of all the candidates using the same yardstick for each, one would find that the candidate who has a political record most distant from BUsh is John Kerry, and the candidate who has acted most in accordance with the Bush Doctrine has been Howard Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's already taken me in (the Big Lie)
I'm firmly convinced that there's one hell of a diffence between these two. Oh what will I do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. War vs. diplomacy
Yes. They're exactly the same. Thanks for clearing that up. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL_Zebub Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Diplomatic imperialism?
Orwell would be proud. As a matter of fact, I'll ask him......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
littlejoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. What is it you are looking for, DTF?
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 01:48 PM by littlejoe
Socialism?

Anarchy?

Anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL_Zebub Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Perhaps a government NOT run by imperialistic fascists?
That would be my preference, but I'll let DTF speak for himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. I respect Pilger, but his historical understanding of the US is weak
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 01:53 PM by jpgray
We've had the doctrine he so reviles long before Wilson. Standard Oil and Brown Brothers had fun with mixing investment in foreign countries with the US military before Wilson came to office, and of course we have had a goofy invasion under false pretexts during Polk's time--Mexico/Iraq has attacked us! :D

It comes down to either trying to rein in or exacerbate the problem. Kerry's the best bet for reining it in, Bush is the best for exacerbating it. All we have to do is pick the one who suits our agenda. Staying home or voting Ralph indirectly helps one of those guys as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Pilger knows about that stuff too. He starts referring to Wilson only
because he quoted from the New Democrats' manifesto - which mentions Wilson as its first historical marker.

Anyone who's read William Blum knows about all these little sordid episodes (Mexican War, etc) of US history. (Pilger cites Blum in the article.)






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. the contrast is more pronounced
when you struggle to make ends meet. When you have the financial means (or familial dependence) to make blogging your career, it's fairly easy to lose sight of all the "little people" who depend on subtleties like "domestic policy" for their bread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. I am not insensitive to the plight of Kerry's "little guy"

My admiration for Kerry's commitment to the reduction of capital gains taxes for the benefit of the "everyday investor" is second only to his clever avoidance of the charge of "socialized medicine advocate," backed as it is with his revolutionary proposal to empower low income families to make wise choices with their personal wealth, and use cash on hand to purchase medical treatment, for which prudence they will be rewarded with a tax deduction at the end of the year.

For all we know, he may even finagle a way to make this boon available to renters, who are less likely to be able to itemize in the first place.

No less brilliant is his courageous adherence to the Democratic candidate tradition of calling for a rise in the minimum wage; only a politician as shrewd and smooth as Kerry would dare to suggest "indexing it to inflation," causing many a wink and a chuckle among his old and helpful friends in the business community.

With the gap between rich and poor having widened over 70% in the last few years, breaking all previous records, and the average apartment rent now at almost 4 times the minimum wage, any candidate who suggested a Living Wage would be, and have been declared "unelectable."

Wily Kerry knows when to bend to the will of the people, and his strategy of focusing on the investor tier of what shreds of middle class remain is sound.

He has no need for votes of those being phased out, nor of those for whom "investing" means having 50 cents to buy the Giant Size box of crackers to save the 2 cents per ounce.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. more adhesive catechisms
What is the alternative, precisely? A time machine so you can advocate a corporeal candidate when it still mattered? Or would you continue to support the quantum smudge of a non-candidate whose ethereal splendor even Kucinich couldn't match? Since the context of this forum is a "Primary" election, such esoterica could provide an external point of reference for people who want to advance a cause in lieu of equal-opportunity destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Your clever avoidance of saying what you think outright -
There is no difference between Kerry and Bush.

But you use such ELEGANT words to say so....better for those who need to hear it from such a gentle soul as yourself and are swept into that vortex which some of us recognize is just pure HORSESHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Fortunately
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 09:49 PM by Nicholas_J
The public notices that one candidate alone offers the record of the clearest differnce between Bush and any Democratic candidate. Kerry.


Dean did not cut the mustard. All it took was a few revelations from his record for the democratic electorate to notice that Dean's actual performance as Governor was very close to that of Bush's than Kerry's was. Gephardt reveealed Deans actual stance and his actual performance regarding social programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security, and Dean was out. Kucinich's past stance on right to life had enough women unsure of him for his campaign to never take off. It takes more than saying what you are going to do. It takes people looking at what you have already done. ANd the public has become aware that only Kerry has a record of protecting programs near and dear to the heart of the voters, not merely talking about it to get votes.

In the end, more than eighty percent of the electorate said that they do not trust Dean to keep his campaign promises, based on his record.

Any other consideration of Kerry and the choice of the voters is simply based on sour grapes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I wonder if you could be missing the point?

You are correct that the miniscule minority of the US population that participates in the political process is giving a resounding YES to the continuation of the policy of imperialism.

What the author is saying, and I agree with him on this, is that imperialism is not a Good Thing (TM)

Not for you, not for me, not for the minority who vote, the even smaller minority who make money from the blood of innocents, nor for the majority of the American people who do not vote.

You may want to collect your reference to sour grapes and put it in a safe place for a more appropriate occasion.

I do not now, nor have I at any time supported any of the candidates, and have said so on numerous occasions, as the search function will confirm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Except Kerry is NOT an imperialist...no matter how you try
to paint him as one and no matter how often you imply he is just a well spoken version of Bush. That's just plain old horseshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. please see post 68 thread link below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. If Kerry is not an imperialist
Then where did he get his money from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. please see post 61 thread link below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's all so simple
as long as we forget about a dozen other issues like...um...

Reproductive rights
Our standing in the international community
Privacy rights
The alignment of the Supreme court
Regressive taxation
Underfunding of Education
40+ Million without healthcare
The FUTURE in Iraq
more more more.

Hell I'll give you Kerry v Bush on the initial invasion of Iraq...hate it hate it hate...terrible. But it's a year later and somehow I want to see us actually improve the situation...not dream about it...but actually make a change AND also improve the above list as well. And since I worry not about 1 issue but Several issues...I see huge differences between Kerry and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. John Pilger wears his hatred of America on his sleeve
Even when he might have a valid point to make, he lets that hatred polarize his argument to the point where no thinking person can take him seriously.

Bill Clinton as crypto-fascist? That takes a leap of faith.

As usual, Mr. Pilger does a good job describing what's wrong with the world, both real and imaginary, and as usual, he offers absolutely no solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Do you not see that using a phrase like "hatred of America" to dismiss
criticism of US policy is essentially a rightwing tactic? It makes it impossible to ever criticize US policy, because the criticism can simply be defined as "anti-American," & thus can be airily dismissed.

Pilger is plenty specific about what policies & tendencies he's objecting to. Why don't you be equally specific, and try to spell out where you think he's wrong?

And to say, "..as usual, he offers absolutely no solutions" - this is also just facile baloney. You can always say such a thing, about almost anything anyone writes. For example, your post also "offers absolutely no solutions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Mr. Pilger has a worldview where the United States is 100% wrong
100% of the time. The United States is responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened or ever will happen. His black and white view distorts everything he writes. He's an ideologue, and I don't find that any more appealing from the left than the right.

Yes, Mr. Pilger is specific. Bill Clinton is a crypto-fascist. Bush and Kerry are the same.

Whatever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. Given that Pilger thinks that
"all the Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean" I can't think why you're giving him your attention, DF. If he can get something as basic as that wrong, then what can you trust him to get right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Right--Pilger earns some respect, but his knowledge of the US sucks
His characterization of McGovern is similarly superficial and light on research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. I caught that Mairead, and I think that you and I and everyone else who

did should mail the Statesman and call him on it. It is a glaring inaccuracy in an otherwise very good piece: I can let him slide on all the candidates voted for, assume a typo, omitted "who could do so" or something, and considering the thousands of posts on this board with people arguing over exactly where Dean stood on the crusade, I guess you could argue that Pilger just happened to land on the wrong side of the fence on that one, but the fact remains that NO candidate even TRIED to say, let's just get OUT completely out now, today, no running it off on UN letterhead, no hemming and hawing about who we could bribe with the oil to empower the Iraqis to get murdered by people with different uniforms and accents, Kucinich and Sharpton came the closest.

When you take into account the amount of consideration either of them received in the US, from the media or the voters, I can't really express astonishment that Pilger doesn't mention them, hell, people are already calling him an anti-American as it is. To point out that even suggesting that the oil does not belong to the US gets a candidate immediately declared "unelectable" might not get past his editor. England wants some of the oil, too, after all. :)

But his main point is, the policies that the US has had for a very long time are not in the best interests of anybody, and like an out-of-control credit card bill, become more harmful with time.

Not that England is any role model, they have pretty much poodled along, and in fact the imperialist tradition of the US is a child of England's.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti-NAFTA Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you so damn much!
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 07:03 PM by anti-NAFTA
It's about time someone here pointed out that the neocons are basically . There is no reason not to suspect that Kerry's administration will conduct a foreign policy any different from that of Bush's. Kerry is known to have written something with the title "Israel's Cause is America's Cause." This is neoconservative code language for "Do what Ariel Sharon tells you." I think what will determine how much Kerry can be trusted is how he deals with the issue of the wall in Israel and parts of the West Bank. If he blasts Bush for putting sanctions on Israel because of it, then he will not get my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
23. The election does not appear to hinge on --
-- Bush's assault on Iraq, at least not at this moment.

As I've suggested before, the notion that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush is utter horseshit. Historians will make the distinction; so can we.

You want a torches-and-pitchforks attack on the U.S. Congress? You're welcome to organize one.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. There are alarming things...
about Kerry. If no one knows about Rand Beers, he is Kerry's top national security adviser. He had been a counter-terrorism adviser to Bush. I urge everyone to look into who Kerry surrounds himself with, and what he says (see his website, read about progressive internationalism) before placing trust in him.

This article is about Rand Beers:
http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue01262004.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Who should we place our trust in,WitchWay?
GW Bush?
I mean, what's your point? One of Kerry's advisors has a questionable background so we should, what??? Vote for Bush?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. who we should trust
Well, who we should not trust is the corporate media. Sometimes an insightful story can fly under the radar, but on a whole so many of our journalists have been muted by being under the banner of corporate interests.

The first thing is that anyone who can should vote for Kucinich, that way he can take these issues to the convention and try to alter the path of the Democratic Party there. That is, anyone in a state that has not yet voted could vote for Kucinich because he may still be able to bring some issues up, in one way or another if he has the support.

The second is, even if you support Kerry, pure awareness of these issues alone will begin to put pressure on our politicians. It's about making sure that politicians DON'T think that the American public is ignorant or that they don't care. So, I am arguing for sane awareness of these issues. Knowledge of corporate powers over our government. Suspicion of the mainstream media.

As for me, I am against ABB. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote third party, necessarily, but that I feel voters must retain leverage of their vote in order that their vote can control the outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
29. This is article is not about Kerry
It is about the post WW II bipartisan National Security State elite. The 'liberals' want to share the imperial loot with the rest of the population (at least until the anti-welfare NAFTA wing took over); the conservatives do not.

Still, you get better environmental policy with Kerry, and the likelihood of blocking the more egregiously stupid Rethug initiatives. That will do it for me. This time.

But only in the GE. My primary support still goes to Kucinich, in the hope that he will be able to push the winning anti-NAFTA platform onto the Kerry backers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. "a bold progressive internationalism..."
This article IS about John Kerry. Please read the two links to see the connection:

Read this article, the full article is on this page in PDF:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID=158&contentID=252144

Then look at John Kerry's statement on Foreign Policy from his website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.” - John Kerry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. All I see is continuity with post WW II imperial policy
Kerry is the last in a long line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Do you approve of imperialism?
I can only take it that you don't have a problem with the imperialist new "progressive internationalism" of Kerry, then. If you have no problem with that, you shouldn't have any problem with a war for oil, either.
Don't you think that imperialist policy also effects the envrionment of the world, or do you not understand that the envrionment is about interconnections that do not exist on political boundaries? Do you think that imperialist policy and NAFTA and WTO do not effect the American worker, and our own economy? Don't you think that imperialist policies give rise to terrorism?
Did you read the report, and notice this is what Kerry is refering to when he calls for a "bold progressive internationalism?"
This is all about Kerry, and what his intentions are for our foreign policy. You can look into who Rand Beers is, if you want to know more about how Kerry's foreign policy will look. If its okay by you, by all means throw your support behind Kerry. For alot of people, this sort of foreign policy is the worst kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Hell, yes, I have a problem with it!
I am just saying that Kerry is part of a bipartisan continuum dating back to WW II. We've NEVER had an anti-imperial choice in a general election. So this time I am going to use other factors (like Kerry just being a politician and Bush being a psychopath) to decide my vote.

Anti-imperial work in the electoral realm is going to require a whole buttload of organizing to build an alternative structure. We aren't there yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. I apologize
I understand your postings better. I apologize for misunderstanding where you were coming from.

To me, I think that it is important not to support Kerry unless and until he can bend on issues. So, I am upset because in the rush to support Kerry, I feel an important oppurtunity is being lost to demand change. I tend to feel like the easier that people give in, the less they get. So, I think that there is alot of organizing that must occur, but part of that is demanding better from our politicians from the beginning and demanding that they understand where we stand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
30. Why do you Hate America?
Let's just cut to the chase. If you want to take an extreme position, well then by gosh I can too.

Imperialism and the sensible matters of national security and world peace are 2 different things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. please see link inside
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. But so often...
But so often imperialism is cloaked as the sensible matters of national security.

What just occured in Iraq? Kerry said that Bush convinced him the war was about sensible matters of national security...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
39. As usual Great Post DTF!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC