Pilger article on Kerry from New Statesman

Bush or Kerry? No Difference
by John Pilger

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 preeminence, 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 . . ."


What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.


http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133205
http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger7.html

1) link
2) cut down your post to four paragraphs.

Thanks :-)

Nevertheless, though differences are not very large, they do exist. The current incumbents may do severe, perhaps irreparable, damage if given another hold on power - a very slim hold, but one they will use to achieve very ugly and dangerous ends. In a very powerful state, small differences may translate into very substantial effects on the victims, at home and abroad. It is no favor to those who are suffering, and may face much worse ahead, to overlook these facts. Keeping the Bush circle out means holding one's nose and voting for some Democrat...

Cited in http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5128">Alam Interviews Chomsky



BTW, I think you are violating rules by pasting more than four paragraphs of a copyrighted work.

I will vote Kerry but I think he is has become the candidate because corporate interest, government, and military want Bush out. I think that long-range we need different leaders.

What is the difference between Bush and Kerry's policy on Iraq? How is that going to "translate into very substantial effects on the victims". Who are the victims? They are the Iraqis. Any continued occupation is a continuing crime, but Kerry doesn't just want to stay there he wants to raise the amount of US military by 40,000. What's the difference between Bush and Kerry on Israel? None.

I don't think it's fair to just say "small differences may translate into very substantial effects on the victims" without showing what those differences are and how you think they will have positive or negative effects.

it's true that, in foreign policy at least, there's probably not a whole lot of difference between Republicans and Democrats . . . where there may be a difference, I feel -- I hope -- is that a Democratic administration might at least be open to hearing what those of us on the left, and even in the middle, have to say . . .

both parties must respond in some way to their base to stay in power . . . the Republicans' base is the Christian right . . . the Democrats' base is more diverse and includes the left . . . with the Democrats I at least know that I'm part of that base that must be listened to . . . beyond that I have no illusions about any kind of major change taking place under a Democratic administration . . .

on edit: for example, there are two things I would like very much to hear from John Kerry during the campaign . . . first, that he would withdraw the US from Iraq and turn it over to the UN and, second, that he would not institue a draft if elected . . . I doubt that we'll hear either, however, since both seem to be part of the Republicrat foreign policy . . . hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so . . .

Kerry supporting the death penalty.
------>
"..in a 1996 debate when Weld belittled the senator for opposing the death penalty, even for cop killers. "I know something about killing," Kerry said in the debate. "I don't like killing. I don't think the state honors life by turning around and killing."
http://news.bostonherald.com/election2004/blogs/

But he likes to capitalize on the fact that he was against Vietnam and was tailed by the FBI. It's a funny sleight of hand. "Look at what I stood for 30 years ago and assume I still stand for it". He doesn't.

If not, perhaps a list of Kerry positions from the Kerry site (from the site rather than just rehashed as represented by the media), and your suggestion on how those positions should be changed could be posted.

For instance Kerry explains why additional troops - not US Troops - are needed - and explains why he would go the international co-operation route rather than Bush's coalition of the willing/bribed that includes almost no military help. What should Kerry change - and what is the expected result, over and above the result Kerry is aiming for - that you see coming from the change you want?

Neither happens if either become president. Just to preempt any accusations that I support Nader, I think Nader is just as much a problem as Kerry and Bush. I believe this because I don't think it matters who the president is, it's the policies that have to change. Even if Nader won (absolutely impossible) he wouldn't be able to change US policy because the invested interests in the power elite of this country would fight him all the way.

You have to look at the debate between Bush and Kerry as one over tactics and not strategy. They both firmly believe in US empire. Kerry is arguing that to effectively maintain US hegemony you must pander to Europe. Of course even this pandering is superficial as it is always done on US terms. He is not arguing for real cooperation with "our allies" he is arguing for giving them the illusion of cooperation so they will support our actions. And even if he was arguing for coop with Europe what of the rest of the world? It is messed up to pander Europe while ignoring the interests and desires of the rest of the world.

The year was around 56 - Procedure back then was to have one topic each year for all the debate contests.


It was almost (unless ones foes were really poor debaters) always the losing side since all "creditable" quotes were against UN being remade into a world government.

Sounds like you are on that quest. I'd join you except I do not move that fast these days! But my heart is with you. :-)

Meanwhile the difference between Bush and Kerry is that with Kerry my grandkids - who are unlikely to see a world government - are likely to be closer to getting such a government - and will be at least be able to discuss the idea without loss of job or place.

A Bush win is the end of caring Society (the evil Nanny society) and the end of any hope of a peaceful sharing of the wealth with the rich, because the price of poor/middle class votes - as in election counts that reward the rich with their whores being elected - will have been shown to be so cheap relative to the rewards obtained by the rich.

And while I will be teaching the kids how to shoot - I do want a peaceful society where one does not need guns to get fair treatment.

I guess you just believe what you want. NO WAY would Pilger just be an inaccurate blowhard, eh?

BTW....Pilger never knew that Dean was FOR the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR for use of force? What rock was he hiding under for over a year?

And I guess Kucinich doesn't exist at all for Pilger?

Pilger is an idiot who was ONLY attracted to vitriolic speech that was aimed against the Democrats along with the Republicans.

He is a PISSPOOR journalist, in fact, he's NO journalist at all. He is an egocentric MORON who should be bought for what he knows and SOLD for what he THINKS he knows - we could retire the national debt.

Isn't it funny how articles like this get run in foreign press, but never in the US. You should look at the picture of the magazine cover. It's amazing to put that into contrast with the kind of covers time and newsweek put out.

It's here: http://pilger.carlton.com
it's on the right hand side of the "Palestine is still the issue" article.

the Iraq invasion and actually tried to repeal the vote.

And what is this: "party's tradition of muscular internationalism". Put in Arnold as Defense Secretary?

George Carlin said the other night on Bill Maher that the US government is responsible for the death of 190 million civilians in the last 50 years. That covers both parties. The biggest exporter of terrorists is the US. The citizens have to wake up and take control.

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

before the fact, even.

Especially when he offers no alternative - what's the point?

Pilger calls himself a journalist, when in reality he has become nothing more than a pundit for the reactionary left. This particular piece reeks of propaganda - it's hardly what I would call balanced reporting. Pilger's contempt for America and all things American shines through. He distorts, he takes words out of context; Karl Rove would be proud.

He refers to Bill Clinton as a "crypto fascist"- how far out on the left must one be for this characterization to make sense?

He ties John Kerry to the PPI, an organization Kerry is not a member of. He claims Kerry has subverted democracy in Venezuela, when all Kerry has done is call FOR democracy by demanding Chavez allow a referendum. He claims Kerry (and all the other candidates sans Dean) supported the invasion of Iraq, a rather selective and biased reading of the situation. He twists Kerry's Rolling stone interview to mean what Pilger wants - this is journalism? What tremendous conceit.

And questioning its very assumptions. When I compare Reno to Ashcroft I have to ask what is the difference, practically speaking. Reno oversaw the largest expansion of prisons and police institutions this country has ever seen. Add in the Waco massacre and the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995 (a Clinton policy) and the only difference is what you're able to get away with after 9/11. The ATA is intimately connected to the history of the PATRIOT Act and in fact the PATRIOT Act was cobbled together with many things that were left out of the ATA, not because officials didn't want them, but because the American public could not be brought to assent unless there was a larger fear, i.e. 9/11.

I remember the Benito Mussolini quote, "Fascism should properly be referred to as corporatism for it refers to the situation in which corporations and the government share power."

And in this regard Clinton and his New Democrat model has been all about tying corporate interest directly to the interests of the Democratic Party and thereby state power. If fascism means anything then there is a kernel of truth to describing Clinton as a "crypto fascist", although it is definately an exaggeration.

He ties Kerry to PPI with Kerry's own words. They sound almost plagiarized from the PPI document. But if that isn't enough what about the people Kerry surrounds himself with? Ever heard of Rand Beers? He's the man who engineered Plan Colombia. He worked under several US presidents not just Democrats. People like Beers are the ones running the show and they are only in the vaguest sense partisan. They have a higher agenda and that is guarding and running the empire. Read the Grand Chess Board by Brzezinski. These are the real motivations and ideas behind US foreign policy and it is true of every president this country has had since Wilson.

because it was the only way they could raise the kind of money needed to compete in our elections. I would blame the "system" before I would blame Clinton. Pilger attacks Clinton (and Kerry) for things they have no control over - a power structure that forces one to play it's game if anything is to be accomplished at all. It's a bad situation we've gotten ourselves into - but one thing is for sure - we have no hope of ever changing things as long as Republicans control all three branches of govt. The Democratic party may be compromised, but short of a revolution it's the only game in town, IMHO. So I don't see where trashing Kerry like Pilger does accomplishes much. And revolutions have a nasty, unpredictable way about them.

I don't think judging Kerry with Rand Beers is any more legit than judging Richard Clarke with Rand Beers. It's a logical fallacy. And Plan Columbia's goals aren't necessarily a bad thing - although it's implementation certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.usip.org/library/pa/colombia/adddoc/plan_colombia_101999.html#planC

You know, every country in the world has a foreign policy aimed at bringing the most economic advantage to itself. The USA is the preeminent military and economic power right now, and while I don't agree with many of the ways we use that power, what would, for instance, John Pilger (or you) rather see? Who would you rather have in charge?

Clinton and the Democrats sold their souls to the corporate state because it was the only way they could raise the kind of money needed to compete in our elections.

Dean raised tons from non-corporate sources. Kerry does this because he chooses too. I won't stick up for Pilger's rant, but I won't pretend Kerry is my ideal either. Kerry has done some stupid things on foriegn policy in the last 2 months or so, and if he keeps it up it will definately generate cynicism in all those people who were opposed to war. I hate to see sincere political activism unrewarded. Why take the light out of eyes of real citizens who tried to be involved in this countries politics, in favor of the consumer voters, the dlc prefers.

and Kerry had a career with the highest environmental rating and a very high prolabor rating yet so many uninformed folks call Kerry the DLC corporatist while deifying Dean who as a DLC member was MUCH further right than Kerry who maintained his high liberal rating throughout.

He has openly hoped for mass American casualties in Iraq to teach the US a lesson of sorts. This guy is an extreme--and I mean extreme--leftist, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt.

Of course Kerry and Bush are the "same", when you're on the far left ideological boundary, totally out of touch with ordinary Americans.

I'm willing to bet that Pilger sees Noam Chomsky as being a little too far-right for comfort, as well.

views on the Middle East - WAY left.

If someone's views aren't widely held they don't have any legitimacy. I wonder would happen if everything worked that way. Would Einstein's theories have been disregarded as extreme?

Zionist agent.

Pilger is one of those guys that makes all liberals (ahem, progressives) look bad.