John Pilger's piece "Bush or Kerry?" is terribly disturbing to me.

I am so in respect of Pilger's work that it takes my breath away to read his assessment of Kerry. What do you think?

http://lewrockwell.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bush+or+Kerry?+No+Difference+by+John+Pilger&expire=&urlID=9501232&fb=Y&url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger7.html&partnerID=10

he'd still be the far superior choice for president.

Among other things, he's smarter, more eloquent and less corrupt than Bush. He served his country rather than avoiding his duty. He's just as much of a pilot and is a better athlete than Bush. He is taller and more sophisticated. He hasn't started any nasty wars. He is Bush's better in many, many ways.

I very much dislike Kerry's recent pandering to the Miami anti-Castro community, and I wish he would draw strong distinctions between himself and Bush on every significant issue.

But even if Kerry gave us the very same policies as Bush, he would at least be able to explain them intelligently.

For that reason alone, Kerry would be a better president.

:kick:

He's exaggerating his case to bring attention to himself. Heck, even a leftist critic like Chomsky can see the important differences between the two. Makes me wonder about the rest of Pilger's writings.

Bushcheney: unilateralist hyperpower seek to overturn the world order and reshape it according to whims of fantasy. Preventive attacks on imaginary threats, ignoring international institutions and world opinion. World vs USA.

Kerry: return to 60 year old international alliances; respectful of international institutions and world opinion. Views world in a grown-up way. USA + world versus threats to intl order.

Current order sucks if you're third world, but at least there's hope of gradual progress through strengthening global institutions.

its just YOUR wishful thinking that makes Kerry look so good.
Kerry won't be doing ANY of the stuff that you have listed here. He'll
be "staying the course" and I'm sure that you'll back him up because
he's "ABB".... :eyes:

investigations exposing BCCI, IranContra, CIA drugrunning and his work on the Kyoto Protocol.

Name one war either of you helped to end.

we have to realize we are a super power. The question is how will we use that power.

Kerry wants to start us on the road to alternative energy, he wants to limit nuclear proliferation, find and buy up "loose" nuclear materials and work to raise the living standards around the world.

Kerry is not tied to Big Oil as a world view. I read a book 20 years ago by Toffler called the "Third Wave" that explained a cheap clean energy source will change the third world. Take a look

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0553246984/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-4213291-9441534#reader-page

It is a scary world out there and we can't just pull the covers over our heads and ignore it. Kerry's stance is that we need to use our power to curtail global crime and terrorism but his view is more intelligence and police actions, not military dominance.

I don't buy the authors view at all.

work, and I'll apply that to Pilger's as well.

MSNBC was just playing an "exclusive" piece on Kerry as a young man, showing how Kekrry said one thing in the '70s and was saying another thing now.

Some people call this flip-flopping. I call it wisdom. If we can't see more sides to an issue when we're 50 or 60 than we did when we were 20, there is no hope for any of us.

That's the problem with Bush. He has held no opinions of his own, not even when he was 40. And once he takes a stand, he never comes back to re-examine that stand or make any adjustments along the way. His opinions were poured into him like pouring water into a mug.

In that respect, Kerry shows the wisdom of looking at his own beliefs, constantly reassessing them with the increase of knowledge that age brings. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child." When we grow up, HOPEFULLY, we are different.

He gets some details wrong, e.g. he says Dean was the only
anti-war candidate.

The core problem is that the current ruling oligarchy doesn't govern
well, in fact they govern really badly, and they are nevertheless
anxious to retain power, and they cannot do that without all the
foreign adventures and such, which serve as a distraction and a
pretext for the various extra-Constitutional maneuverings they employ
to that end.

Hence the bashing of "isolationism", as though minding your own
business was some sort of moral turpitude, or the pretense that it's
selfish of all us citizens to want to spend all that tax money on
something that would improve our lives, e.g. first class schools or
decent public transit or free public health care.

The fact is that "isolationism" is a perfectly reasonable political
position, and in fact it dominates in most countries in the world,
and it was held in high regard by the founders of this nation. All
the speculation as to the harm that might follow from "isolationism"
is quite condescending in it's attitude towards the rest of the World,
as though it would all collapse without our constant intervention.

i am just realistic enough to know that it isn't a viable option in our global village.

It would takes years if not decades to re tool our nation to fill our needs for goods again. We have shut down so many industries (look at the bullet issue for the military-they are having to outsource ammo)

But I think it is a goal to work toward, self sufficiency is a good thing in my book.
edit spelling

Economic trade, ties, and dependencies are OK, although there is
much to be said for self-sufficiency. It is the military and
political meddling that is the problem. "Isolationism" is about
avoiding foreign wars and interventions, not foreign trade and
peaceful social contacts. For peaceful contacts, the more the
better. It is the imperial pretensions that need to be dispensed
with.

that is most pernicious in the US is the maddening disconnect, the provincial ignorance of the "informed" US citizen versus nearly anyone else in the world. That, while our militaristic and corporate interests and consuming of world resources are a cause of great concern to even the poorest shirtless one or sand farmer.

We are in fact too isolated to presume to act wisely or fairly in the world even if we just sit here on our guns and sulk.

traits, nor did we invent them, and were we to stick to
our own business, as most nations do, it would be much less
of a problem, and an internal one. It is our political elites
that are evil, ordinary Americans are much like the ordinary citizens
of any other well off country.

OTOH, I must admit that since we are in theory a democratic
republic, i.e. that in theory the people rule, then the people
do have some culpability for their failure to rule well, to elect
politicians with some shred or morality and public spirit.

It is, of course, ridiculous to suggest that we have any right
in law or equity to decide for the rest of the World what is best
for it.

Don't worry about him, he was the guy cheering for the Iraqi's to win this war. Does anyone--who isn't a Green or Communist already anyway--really give a damn what Mr. Pilger thinks? I'd certainly hope not.

You seem to have something to say, right? Character assassination
won't cut it.

Bush has got to go, and the Democratic nominee is the only person who has a chance of beating him.

Pilger is Australian, his understanding of the intracacies of the Democratic Republic that is America is skewed at best.

He is reacting to what he regards as fascist tendencies sprouting up in the US. As such, his reaction shouldn't be calm. Like Robert Fisk, his writing can be more emotional than factual at times, but don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Watch this (recommend downloading if you have broadband) short documentary and you will see where his rhetoric is coming from.

It's worth watching just to see Douglas Feith's reaction to the Civilian Deaths in Iraq. In other words, what reaction? What civilian deaths?

I think that foreigners view the current political parties within
the US as being basically the same. Buchanan stated it best: the
political parties are Xerox copies of one another. He's DAMNED
right about that.
Can't remember who is attributed to this quote: "Clinton was the best
damned republican the republicans EVER had." Clinton was such
a centrist that he was indistinguishable.

Bottomline is: NOTHING will change if a dem gets into the WH. NOTING.
I think people deep inside are hoping that their country hasn't
truly become the imperial nation that it appears to have become over
these past 3 years. Unfortunately, its started way before shrub came
into power and the methods were just the same.

I'm concerned that IF Kerry is permitted to win, that NOTHING will
change...and THEN WHAT? Are we going to take the place of repukes and
start defending Kerry's "actions" because he's a "dem"? THINK about
that...

You don't want Kerry to win:

"I'm concerned that IF Kerry is permitted to win, that NOTHING will
change...and THEN WHAT?"

Which obviously means you feel we would be better served by another four years of Bush, unless you believe someone other than Bush or Kerry has a chance to win in November -- in which case I will never bother replying to one of your posts again because it useless to argue with the delusional.

So, what is your scenario? Is it something like this:

The 2nd Bush term is a bigger disaster than the first, forcing the majority of Americans to finally open their eyes to the lies and crimes of the right-wing neoconservatives, eventually resulting in a much more progressive government than would have emerged from a Kerry presidency.

Kalian, I am truly trying to understand why anyone on the left would work to undermine Kerry's election. I can only surmise the rationale is that major change can never be brought about in this country without a major shock to the system, such as the Great Depression.

But what IF another four years of Bush merely solidifies the RW grip on this country, further erodes democracy and Constitutional protections, and eventually leads to a disaster from which America can never fully recover ... THEN WHAT?

Strong words.

My only point is that we're being duped. BOTH parties are being
duped by the same cabal.
I could care less if Kerry or dubya wins...it will continue to take
us down the exact same course that has been selected for us.

What happens, IF Kerry wins, and nothing changes? What happens if the
soldiers are kept in Iraq? What happens when the draft is reinstated?
What happens when another "attack" occurs, but this time under
Kerry's watch? He will be strongly pressured to "act decisively" and
thus more invasions will ensue.

As for your great depressions statement...that's coming along no
matter who occupies the WH. The only question is: what will Kerry do
to control the eventual chaos that will be brought upon this country.
Shrub will definitely install martial law...but then again, he and
his cronies are just itching to get that instated since it would
give them free reign and the power to silence dissenters.
IF a great depression were to hit under Kerry's watch, then you can
bet the farm that a general impeachment would be called for. The
precendence has been established: California.

Again, my concern is that no matter what "candidate" is "selected",
we're going to head down the same path. The only difference is that
us "dems" will be cheering for "our boy". That's it...

"I could care less if Kerry or dubya wins...it will continue to take us down the exact same course that has been selected for us."

This is where you are wrong. Kerry and Bush are not "exactly the same."

Sure, if you look at them from afar you can't see much difference -- like viewing two figures half a mile away. But if you examine them closely, many differences become apparent.

Foreign policy is not the only issue, yet even so, Kerry is much more of a multilateralist and he will have a much better chance of restoring our relations with our allies and with the rest of the world. Nor is he nearly as likely as the neocons to launch another war. I have not forgiven Kerry's vote for the IWR and I disagree with his policy of trying to achieve "victory." In my opinion, the Iraqi venture is doomed to failure and "staying the course" is waste of blood and treasure.

But on the other very important issues in this election -- economic and environmental -- Kerry is head and shoulders better than Bush.

The presidency has an impact in so many areas and there are so many differences between Bush and Kerry -- whether large or small -- it is myopic to believe they are "exactly the same", that it makes no difference who gets elected.

Sure, from the perspective of the far left (seen from half a mile away) Bush and Kerry look more alike than what our ideal of government looks like. I do not for one minute think that necessary MAJOR change will be brought about by a Kerry administration, but I also see the Bush administration for what it is -- an extremely dangerous radical departure from what had been the (unsatisfactory) norm.

I try to be a realist and a pragmatist in all things, while not losing sight of long term goals. I agree much more with Ralph Nader than I do with Kerry, and I believe this country truly needs an effective third party. But without instant runoff voting, I will not help the greater evil gain power by failing to support the lesser evil.

If you don't vote for Kerry, if your arguments discourage people from voting for him, then you are undermining Kerry's election.

If you did actually have in mind the scenario I described in my previous post -- in which the disaster of a 2nd Bush term would result in a backlash of positive change -- then I would say you are taking a big gamble but at least you had a vision of what the effects of this election might be.

Intead, you paint Kerry and Bush with the same broad brush and fail to articulate a practical alternative, while not caring a whit whether the lesser evil of Kerry prevails over the greater evil of Bush.

as well as who runs the bureaucracies. Well spoken Martin Eden, I just wanted to add.

I don't think some truly understand how far right Bush is. Kerry is making centerist moves now, which I am not happy about, but he's in no way an extremist on the right like Bush.

If we don't shift the spectrum back from the far right to the center now, and restore the effort to make progressive changes from there, then we may end up with generations suffering under fascism.

I've said this so often I should make it my sig line:
I'd rather fight Kerry from the left than Bush from the center.

Yeah.