Monday, May 03, 2004

More on John Kerry

By David H. Mitchell

Read full article...

Posted 05/03 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. We certainly have rhetoric more war-like from Kerry than even Bush.  Kerry is as likely to arrive at a constructive solution to Iraq as Johnson was to end the war in Vietnam.  I’d vote for Bush before Kerry, which is not to say I’ll vote for Bush; nor neglect to keep in mind how little voting matters.  In the penultimate hard Counterpunch, Gabriel Kolko has made a very prescient argument that the “movement” could actually fare better under Bush than Kerry because of Bush’s unilateralism versus Kerry’s seeking to repair alliances which Kolko says are destined to eventually disintegrate.  The Europeans he said despise Bush’s unilateralism, and in any event their interests and those of the US are diverging.  So the sooner the better these alliances break he says, the more isolated the United States, militarily, diplomatically, militarily, the safer the world.  Kolko’s is a penetrating vision.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  05/03  at  04:37 PM

  2. I’ve not had read Kolko’s article.  But I also sincerely believe that as far as US foreign policy is concerned, particularly with respect to the wars and occupations, Kerry could be worse. Indeed Kerry’s position is like that of Nixon-Kissinger et al in 1968 and in 1972 rather than that of the Democratic opponents then who were at least nominally against the war.  Kerry is to the right of Bush, really.

    Even within establishment views, Kerry’s position is that of an extremist, fanatic, who loves violence, and bombing foreigners, no less than Bush and may be more.  He’d (a) send more troops, (b) get NATO endorsement, and (c) share the loot with Europeans, Russians, Japanese, and other allies. Clearly Kerry is an opportunist.  Having murdered Vietnamese resistance fighters, and may be Vietnamese civilians too, he would do the same, with more professional zeal, in Iraq and elsewhere, or at least he has shown no indication of stopping the on-goining killing and torture.

    People like Kerry Bush don’t also care about American lives either, despite all their patriotic zeals.  I mean they don’t care about ordinary US citizens, not the folks at the Yale and their posh clubs.  If they loved the country and its people, why do they send their fellow country into war solely for profit and projecting power?  If they love the country and its people, why do they do things that increase the likelihood of terrorism and violence, here and elsewhere? 

    Kerry_Bush are a big danger to humanity.  The task ahead to create democratic alternatives to Kerry_Bush.  For the sake of humanity, I hope that there will be alternatives soon.

    Posted by Abu Spinoza from  on  05/03  at  05:27 PM

  3. Which Judeo-Nazi stooge for you?

    Patrick

    It is stupid and cowardly to discuss the relative demerits of Baby Bush and John Kohnhead without mentioning that both have received the kosher seal of approval from the cabal of Judeo-Nazi traitors who are behind the fifteen-year long massacre of the Iraqi people and the fifty-year persecution of the Palestinian people. Both are now frantically trying to “out-jew” [Bella Abzug’s term] one another to show that they are eager and willing to sell the UAssA down the cosmic toilet of history for whatever the head Nazis in Tel Aviv want.
    Although this is truly a case of the evil of two lessers, it is possible that one of the two puppets might be the lesser of two evils.

    There are two key arguments that make Baby Bush the hands-down favorite over Kohnhead. First, Baby Bush is now president so he has control over the levers of our government’s state-terrorist machinery and can, therefore, cause a lot of trouble before our Soviet-style election in November. Soviet-style because we did not get to choose the choice. Especially, if Baby’s handlers get nervous, they can pull a wide variety of stunts to rally the brainwashed around the flag.

    Secondly, Baby Bush is widely regarded as a bumbling fool and his neocon handlers have been outed. Therefore, the smart money among the traitors and zero-loyalty subversives, e.g. George Soros, would like to see him go. Precisely because of his visible stupidity, the Baby is the best jerk to have sitting in the Whore House. Let’s not replace him with a slicker oil slick. If Bush goes, there will just be different faces in Washington representing Israel’s state-terrorist racism.

    Posted by Patrick from  on  05/04  at  12:02 AM

  4. The Anti War Candidate

    I agree, Kerry is an enthusiastic supporter of Israeli expansionism in the ME. Abe Foxman even noted that there was hardly any difference between the two candidates on the only issue that matters: support for Israel.

    By the way, I just read that Nader’s campaign is doing pretty well and slowly gathering steam. I’m not sure of the details but Nader seems to be coming out pretty strongly against the war. Although I don’t know how deep his critique of it goes at least he is a truly anti war candidate. If Kucinich wasn’t a dummy duped by the Demon-crack-head Party he would have been Ralph’s running mate and they could have really kicked up a ****storm!

    Go Ralph go!

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  05/04  at  01:43 AM

  5. Instead of discussing (and in frustration lamenting) who will get the next four-year term as the American Caesar,
    perhaps the anti-war movement should concentrate its efforts on structural reform.  Changing America into a parliamentary system would be a first step, albeit a small one.  With a parliamentary system, there would be less hand wringing over “wasting” one’s vote because then smaller parties could form alliances—and then no more party duopoly (hopefully).  But this would not be enough.  To dismantle the New Rome one must dismantle Washington, or at least its importance in an overly centralized America.  Can anyone name the president of Switzerland?  (I mean without using Google). No?  That’s exactly my point—who cares who the president of Switzerland is because political power is more evenly distributed there than it is in overly centralized America where where everyone holds their breath in concern and anticipation of who will be the next Caesar of the New Rome and what crazy new edicts (like Homeland Security) or new wars will please Caesar and his automatic stamp-of-approval, bought-and-paid-for MISrepresentatives in Congress (without any reference to the vox populi).  Succinctly, political power is over concentrated in America. Laws against media concentration should also be implemented because most people do not get their news from the web, and even when they do, they only go to the online versions of mainstream disinformation like CNN, Fox, etc.  These are only a few suggestions.  My point is that fundamental structural changes must be implemented to neuter Caesar and emasculate Washington as the fount of all power in the US. 
    This would necessarily be a long-term strategy since I don’t see any activism in this regard on the near-term horizon .  The correct answer to which is the lesser of two evils (to vote for) is that the political system itself must be voted out of office and completely overhauled so that one does not ever have to choose any “evil”, be it of a greater or lesser variety.

    Posted by Chris from  on  05/04  at  10:57 AM
    6. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Prisoners' Dilemma

    Previous entry: Moving Along the Bubble

    [ads]

    Support Press Action