Monday, October 11, 2004

Shooting From the Hip: Kerry Out-Hawks Bush

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 10/11 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. The guy (Kerry, not Josh) is just doing what his corporate masters tell him to. Thanks for more insightful reportage Josh. I’m glad to hear that Kerry is a neo-neo-con, I heard they were running into tough times of late.

    Jeff Blankfort just sent out an article from the New York Times entitled New Scrutiny of the Flow of Iraq Oil to American Consumers. His comments:

    “For those, like myself, who have argued that the war in Iraq was not primarily “a war for oil” but a war for Israel, this article offers proof that the major US oil companies were doing quite well dealing with Saddam and vice-versa without going to war and destabiizing the industry.”

    I guess the counter to this argument is that it was not cheap oil that the US necessarily wanted, but control of the oil (Chomsky’s thesis), thereby blackmailing the industrial world into submission to Pax Americana.

    There is another thesis, which I have not seen supporting data, that Israel wanted control of Iraqi oil in order to lower the prices and destabilize the Arab World: i.e., oil as political tool.

    Just where Peak Oil comes into this I’m not sure, but it seems to be another real and complicating factor.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/12  at  03:28 AM

  2. I think it is the last you said - not so much Israel but Israel/Turkey/US/Jordan. And the Times article that Blankfort must have sent out ignores the fact that it was not to help specific companies, capitalism that they wanted this oil.  It was control, to make sure OPEC does not switch to EUROs or a Petrol based currency.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/12  at  10:08 AM

  3. Thanks Jordy. Blankfort responded to the assertion that Israel wanted the war to use Iraqi oil as political tool against the Arab world:

    “I don’t buy this argument since it is totally unrealistic. They did of course want Israel to have access to cheap oil, but the bigger interest was for the US to destroy Israel’s enemies while, for the Israelis it was to have the [US] become embroiled in the Arab world as a fellow occupier, thereby giving Israel greater leeway in attacking Palestinians as we see now in Gaza.”

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/12  at  05:38 PM

  4. The two views are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are complimentary.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/14  at  12:18 AM

  5. I THOUGHT JOHN KERRY WAS BRILLIANT HE CLEARLY IS THE MAN FOR ME . A COMBAT WOUNDED VIETNAM VET. IN MISSOURI

    Posted by PAUL EATON from ANNAPOLIS  on  10/14  at  06:39 AM

  6. I wonder what Paul Eaton thinks about John Kerry’s Vietnam troops referring to parts of Vietnam as “Indian Country,” some of our troops --with Kerry’s imprimatur-- in Iraq...doing the same at present.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/14  at  10:54 AM

  7. imprimatur, indian country , quotes like that mean NOTHING.  JOHN KERRY IS SMARTER , MORE STATESMAN MORE DIPLOMATIC , THE LIST GOES ON AND ON IF YOU THINK THAT GIVING IRAQ,S THEIR FREEDOM AT THE COST OF ALMOST 1100 YOUNG AMERICAN LIFES AND 200 BILLION DOLLARS AND COUNTING THEN YOU ARE DUMBER THAN GEORGE BUSH I AM A SIMPLE OLD COUNTRY BOY, BUT EVEN I CAN SEE THE LIGHT.  imprimatur...really

    Posted by PAUL EATON from missouri  on  10/14  at  02:44 PM

  8. You’re a fucking fruitcake! What is your simple solution for winning the American presidential election and restoring stability in Iraq -now that the place is in state of chaos? Please share it with us.

    Posted by Sick of bush from Reality  on  10/16  at  01:06 AM

  9. Sir,
    I think you are completly wrong in your assesment of Kerry, He did not sent the troops to surround Iraq prior to the inspector finishing the job they were elected to do,He did not bypass the UN.
    He did not divert the military resouses that were suppose to be going after the terrorist ,mainly Osama. He did not say to the world “you are either with me or against me, He did not create the havoc and fear that is arround the world today, so please tell the facts, what else can Kerry do now beside taking over the mess that Bush has left him, yes he will win the presidency because deep down no one is happy with Bush Doctrine which says I can do it alone and the hell what other think because God told him so.
    Kerry got to follow it through one way or another and I fully trust the guy ,at least he got the brain to do so and he is courageous enough to admit a mistake when he makes one and let us be honest He experienced the viet war and the effects that wars has on people.
    PS I do not belong to any party just my opinion.
    sincerely yours
    Franklyn nash
    London.

    Posted by frank nash from london uk  on  10/16  at  06:15 AM

  10. Whats the point of view here, is it that we have no hope for a better leader, or a reason to vote Nader come Nov, or are we talking wishful right-wing thinking? There will never be a perfect candidate, only two choices, we have to round to the nearest whole number to estimate their worth. And remember its NOT about Iraq anymore, its now become an ongoing issue that we will be forced to deal with day-to-day, its not enough to bring back a draft or bring this country down, however we are looking at the person that is going to get us into the next engagement, this is the one that will break Americas back. Iraq only served to weaken our situation, we can solve this crisis in time given we dont engage anyone else. If god told Bush to attack Iraq then whats stopping his god from telling him to go into Iran or North Korea, he has said it himself; he only answers to a higher power. That it very scary thinking, the neocons already talk about him like hes Jesus Christ, and some seem to actually think he represents the second coming of Christ. To me its less about the specific issues; its about the hardcore ideology, and the fundamental foundation of the policy. Lets move on and quit hanging on to this old Bush baggage, he has contaminated his Administration with failed ideology and a half ass doctrine that simply overextends and misuses some of the principal tools of the presidency. (1000 monkeys in a room with 1000 computers could have written a more effective doctrine by the end of the day.)

    Posted by Mike-Underwood from  on  10/16  at  12:40 PM

  11. Kerry also answers to a “Higher God,” although he wouldn’t dare couch his thoughts in the arrogant, tactless language that Bush uses, and—probably-- most readers here will find it difficult to think of him in those terms. The game plan for places like Iran, etc. is already set in motion, and doesn’t depend on who the commander-in-chief happens to be; certainly that thought applies to our policies toward Isreal. The notion that Bush is sitting around in the Oval Chair being inspired by his God to do this or that is truly sophomoric. The Neo-Con talk about Biblical inspiration is inspired, at least in part, by PR considerations for their constituency; the really delusionary thoughts they harbor are off and running (albeit in a different form) also in Kerry’s head vis-a-vis a belief in Science as Religion.  This business of this or that leader/potential leader in the U.S. being trustworthy, etc. in the face of no U.S. leader being willing to subject U.S. troops and actions to international judgement seems absolutely ludicrous; and that’s putting aside the historical record that underscores how that stance has been part and parcel of our ongoing attitude/policies.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/16  at  01:01 PM
    12. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Views from Two Ground Zeros

    Previous entry: A Courtroom Speech

    [ads]

    Support Press Action