Kerry’s Foreign Policy Record Suggests Few Differences with Bush

[kalian]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0305-03.htm

Those who had hoped that a possible defeat of President George W. Bush in November would mean real changes in U.S. foreign policy have little to be hopeful about now that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has effectively captured the Democratic presidential nomination.

That Senator Kerry supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq and lied about former dictator Saddam Hussein possessing a sizable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify it would be reason enough to not support him. (See my March 1, 2004 article “Kerry’s Support for the Invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine Still Unexplained” )

However, a look at his record shows that Kerry’s overall foreign policy agenda has also been a lot closer to the Republicans than to the rank-and-file Democrats he claims to represent.

This is not too surprising, given that his top foreign policy advisors include: Rand Beers, the chief defender of the deadly airborne crop-fumigation program in Colombia who has justified U.S. support for that country’s repressive right-wing government by falsely claiming that Al-Qaeda was training Colombian rebels; Richard Morningstar, a supporter of the dictatorial regime in Azerbaijan and a major backer of the controversial Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline, which placed the profits of Chevron, Halliburton and Unocal above human rights and environmental concerns; and, William Perry, the retired Republican Senator, former Secretary of Defense, member of the Carlisle Group, and advocate for major military contractors.

...more...

I guess that now Common Dreams no longer is on the "good list" either.

[WillyBrandt]

1. No, Common Dreams is a mixed bag, just like all good

sources are. I disagree with the article, but CD isn't WillyBrandt Dreams. It's a progressive site that sometimes misses. (In my all-knowing opinion :) )

[Malva Zebrina]

2. I really do not know where we are heading with Kerry

and that is kind of sad.

I will vote for him as many I know and talk to will be voting ABB

But, I have never been confident that Kerry is my man as I am an unapologetic liberal and proud of it re pre-emptive attacks and an imoperialistic mind bent when it comes to the postion of the US in the world view.\

How come I do not know where Kerry stands?

I find it disconcerting, that I really do not know on this world imperialistic view, yet I am forced to vote for him. There is no choice.

I can only shrug my shoulders and think that ABB is better.

[blm]

9. Because you never bothered to read Kerry's actual positions yourself?

Try it.

Zunes apparently never researched it, either.

[Frances]

3. That's like saying there isn't much difference between

Bush and Kerry's IQs

[David Dunham]

5. Read NY Times On Line Now: Kerry Blasts Bush on Haiti

[jpgray]

4. LOL! I wish you (and others) could see the irony here

From the left, Kerry is portrayed as a military stooge who loves inflated budgets.

From the right, Kerry is portrayed as a traitorous peacenik hippie who cuts important military programs.

Whee. :)

Look at his record yourself and make your own interpretation. Don't just regurgitate the interpretations of others.

[blm]

6. No...but Stephen Zunes is an apparent MORON.

Kerry and Bush's foreign policy positions are NOT alike.

Only lazy people would accept Zunes' essay as well researched.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. That's one of his main selling points - that's why he's "electable"

his supporters should embrace it, not deny it.

Focus on how Kerry will implement the policy BETTER than bush!

[blm]

10. Horse***feathers. Kerry is the same as Bush is a lie.

Only LAZY people will believe Zunes' tripe and your prettied up version of Nader 2000's Gore = Bush bullshit.

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. I think you need to decide whether you want to beat bush, or whether

you would rather spend your energies arguing with people who disagree with US foreign policy.

the voters you need in order to beat bush don't have a problem with the policy, although some of them are getting a little disenchanted with bush.

Now you can call them superficial if you want to, and say differences of style are not important, that bush's ham-handed way of putting things, and his smirk, don't matter.

And there are some bush regime loyalists who will agree with you.

But I think you will do better if instead of insulting the voters that you need in order to beat bush, you pay a little more attention to Kerry himself, and focus on how Kerry will implement the policy BETTER than bush does.

[blm]

13. You should just be HONEST and say it straight - Kerry is the same as Bush.

Oh, except you do credit him with being a more well spoken version of Bush.

That's your bottom line in ALL your posts lately. You know it and I know it and so do a few others.

Typical voter suppression tactic.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. I'm not clear on the voter suppression thing. It is my understanding that

last Tuesday, more of them voted for Kerry than for any of the other candidates, including two who proposed deviations from the status quo.

Now you can agree with that, or you can disagree with it, or you can say the results were tampered with and all those people really voted for someone else, or somebody suppressed them, or whatever you like.

Or you can take my advice and decide whether you want to beat bush.

[fedsron2us]

8. So what do you suggest ?

Vote Bush ?

Do not vote at all because the whole thing is rigged and you just can't beat the system ?

Wait for the revolution because its bound to happen one day ?

Political change has got to start somewhere.

Kerry may not be perfect but he is a huge improvement on the current
incumbent.

[mike_c]

11. for gods sake he has supported all of the incumbant's worst...

...mistakes! How is that a "huge improvement?!"

[Disturbed]

15. Kerry's Speech

I read the entire speech he gave for handing over the power to Shrub to invade. He knew that there would be an invasion and that Congress could not stop it. A Pres. can attack another country if that country is an immediate threat for a period of 48 hours. Shrubco gang pounded that theme and the American public bought it. Kerry's speech was in favor of the invasion. He now says that he though Shrub would not invade without several of the Allies and UN sanction to go forward. We cannot know if Kerry really thought that because he didn't say that at the time. I admit it's confusing. I think that the invasion would have taken place even if all the Dems voted no on the proposal that they had to vote on. Am I correct?

[Martin Eden]

17. If all Dems had voted against IWR ...

...the resolution would have been defeated 51-49.

51= 49 Dems + 1 independent and 1 Republican who voted against it.

[fedsron2us]

16. You have not answered my original question

If you do not think people should vote for Kerry then what should they do ?

[Martin Eden]

18. Vote for Kerry

You put it very well, fedsron2us.

The choice before us is Bush or Kerry, and Kerry is the better choice.

Political change cannot happen overnight -- we have to make the best of every opportunity, always keeping the big picture and long term goals in sight.

[Martin Eden]

19. Can anyone refute Zunes' specific charges?

Zunes cites these specific Kerry votes and quotes in his March 1 essay:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-01.htm

<<SNIPS>>
Back in October 2002, when Senator Kerry voted , he ... declared that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons” and even claimed that most elements of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs were “larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” Furthermore, Kerry asserted that Iraq was “attempting to develop nuclear weapons,” backing up this accusation by claiming that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree” with such an assessment. He also alleged that “Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq’s neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.”

Senator Kerry and his supporters claim that he was fooled by exaggerated reports about Iraq’s military prowess from the administration. ... former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter personally briefed Senator Kerry prior to his vote on how Iraq did not have any dangerous WMD capability; he also personally gave the senator – at his request – an article from the respected journal Arms Control Today making the case that Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. Members of Senator Kerry’s staff have acknowledged that the senator had access to a number of credible reports challenging the administration’s tall tales regarding the alleged Iraqi threat.

During the summer of 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Iraq’s alleged military threat which only invited witnesses who would argue that Iraq was somehow a danger to U.S. national security. Kerry – one of the senior Democrats on the committee – ignored thousands of phone calls and emails encouraging him to invite Ritter and other witnesses who would challenge those who were falsely insisting that Iraq had a dangerous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

When President Bush actually launched the invasion ... Kerry praised him, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution in which he declared that the invasion was “lawful and fully authorized by the Congress” and that he “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict with Iraq.”
<<END OF SNIPS>>

Much of what Zunes cites in this essay deals with the factual record. Is he in error, or is it possible for these quotes be taken out of context to the extent that it misrepresents Kerry's record?