Man of the Moment: John Kerry

http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/NewsManager/ShowNewsGen.aspx?NewsID=577

A recent SRA Commentary by Chris Sanders<1> drew attention to the astonishing swiftness with which Howard Dean's candidacy was displaced by John Kerry's. Now that the dark horse candidate, Kerry, has indeed won the Democratic nomination, and given that he has campaigned against the Bush administration on the war on terror, what exactly are the foreign policy views of this man who, like Bush, is a member of the Skull & Bones society?

Kerry's position was made clear in two speeches, one at the University of California in Los Angeles on 27th February 2004 <2>, and the other given on 3rd December 2003 to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.<3> Both speeches show that Kerry subscribes to all the same doctrines of militarism, worldwide democratisation and interventionism as his rival, the incumbent president.



Kerry told his audience at UCLA that, "Americans deserve a principled democracy … backed by undoubted military might … a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity."He called for "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."

Fine words. So fine, in fact, that they are effectively identical to those contained in George W. Bush's National Security Strategy of September 2002, in which exactly the same claim is made that America cannot be safe until the whole world subscribes to American values, and until every possible source of tension, including things like AIDS and lack of education in third world countries, has been removed.

...more...

I'm sure this will tick off many here...
But then again, I think we need to REALLY start taking a MUCH closer
look at Kerry. We need to KNOW what (who) Kerry stands for. We need
to question whether or not he will really redirect this country
away from the destructive course that shrub has embarked us upon.

But then again, I'm also concerned that many here just "want one
of ours" in the WH and then it doesn't matter...we continue doing
the same crap.

We need REAL change people....

the people in this country wants it. Yes I guess I'm one of these people that do want one of our own until this time. If bush gets this next election there will be no Democrat party. I'm hoping that with one of our own we can try and change things and not the same old crap. We have so much to do to try and get this country back from the things that have been lost in these past 4 years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that's my guess

Bush or Kerry: do you choose Bush?

Sure we need REAL change, and I agree that Kerry doesn't offer enough of it. Unfortunately, REAL change is not going to happen overnight. The current political reality in the United States makes it impossible for a Kucinich or Nader (and probably a Dean) to be elected president.

What would be the chances of the Democratic nominee if he tried to expose the nature of Imperial America and advocated a complete reversal of half a century of hegemonic policy, including withdrawl from Iraq under the current circumstances?

He would be applauded by us and pilloried by the corporate media and the fearmongers of the right, and soundly defeated in November.

I do not suggest that John Kerry secretly subscribes to our world view and plans to implement REAL change after he's elected.

But I will say the article by John Laughland is a bit of a stretch at times. For instance:

Kerry is, in any case, less anti-unilateralist than he likes to pretend. He told his UCLA audience that, “If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests … As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done.” He repeats several times his readiness to “order direct military action”. Kerry even seems to imply that military intervention might be conceivable in countries which are strong American allies: “We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets".

First of all, any candidate who declares he isn't prepared to use military force unilaterally to protect our security has no chance whatsoever. And secondly, does Mr. Laughland really suggest that Kerry will invade Sweden, Canada, etc.?

I strongly disagree with the contention there would be little or no difference between the interventionism of Kerry and Bush. Kerry certainly is part of the Washington establishment that has facilitated the American military hegemony of the last half century, but this establishment has also worked within the framework of multilateral institutions like the UN and NATO. The neoconservative Bush administration has so radically departed from this framework that many career officers in the military and State Department (and the rest of the world's population) are aghast at these developments.

Laughland takes great pains to compare similar rhetoric spouted by both Bush and Kerry. Taken at face value, most of this rhetoric speaks of lofty goals the vast majority of people would support. The difference is how these goals are acted upon, and to what degree it is merely a rhetorical smokescreen for imperialism.

We've witnessed the actions of the Bush administration whose foreign policy has been captured by neoconservatives, some of whom openly advocate invasions of Syria, Iran, and more. They are so blinded by ideology and agenda, they refused to consider the reality of postwar Iraq because the experts who could have helped them cautioned against the invasion.

Stephen Zunes would argue the main difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would have done a better job of invading and occupying Iraq, and I can't dismiss that contention after reading his essay:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-01.htm

The evidence does indeed show that Kerry helped to make it happen. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt Kerry would have been so arrogant and reckless, and he advocates a much stronger role for the UN. Kerry's foreign policy speech of 12/3/03 deserves consideration:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

When John Kerry is elected president the world will breathe a sigh of relief, and so will I. We are much better off with him in the oval office than Bush, and let's not forget the many domestic issues for which the difference between Kerry and Bush is indisputable.

Am I satisfied with John Kerry? Heck no. I sincerely doubt he will shrink the military or dislodge the entrenched interests which have been the impetus behind a half century of imperialism. Kerry is the lesser evil, though much less so in my book.

By all means we must continue to push for REAL change. But this can never be accomplished until enough of our fellow citizens are informed and persuaded. It will be a long struggle, and one we must continually wage if we want government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This goal cannot be attained overnight, but I believe we will have a better chance to advance it over the next 4 years with John Kerry than with GW Bush.

and regrettably lacking in comprehension skills.

The writer is enamored of words so much that he neglects to show what reality and truths matter. Of course Kerry has not been running the policy making. We presume by his character in war and stands in Washington that the content of his words are true and idealistic.

On the other hand, accurately reflecting his sorry character and his skewed right words of the past, none of the policies, especially the pious ideals and positive aid for people, bear any resemblance to actual results. Which actual results not only are no concern except for bad PR, but ignored so much as to lay completely bare the real objectives of the Bush clique.

If people, after all this pain and damage, are going to weigh a vote choice solely on the surface words which can be changed to mollify or confuse any "issue oriented" electorate, we might as well let computers weigh the verbiage and award the election to the one with the purest promises.

Such an ivory tower wordsmith is this writer, confusing the reality of the Bush anti-America record with the unknown quantity of a more proven idealist of character. Then we might actually liberate countries, spread real democracy, get at the roots without shedding blood, etc. rather than the direct and humanity destroying OPPOSITE we have in our Anti-President Bush.

Kerry is comparable to Clinton; a Left-speaking, Right-leaning Moderate Internationalist.

Like Clinton, Kerry will be able to assuage fears, at home and abroad, that his administration will NOT rule like Bush's with an Iron Fist.

The Bush Administration representatives 'threatened war' upon the Taliban in Summer 2001, (before 9-11), if a gas pipeline deal were rejected. Oppressed people spawn desparate acts of terrorism. Iraq War II was planned from Day 1. The failed Venezuela Coupe de tat. Haiti. Cause and effect, practiced by the Bush crowd; their object: to induce acts of terrorism. Bush blurts, "Bring it on", as if inducing terrorism prevents terrorism.

On the domestic front, Enron and West Coast Energy scandals, cultural warfare divisions. Underhanded rapaciousness. More cause and effect.

With Kerry, we elevate a leader like Clinton, who, despite his flaws, (NAFTA), led the world through 8 years of hope and relative prosperity. Why are so many republicans so shortsighted?