'It's Time to Get Over It'

[ozone_man]

'It's Time to Get Over It'
John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On

By Mark Hand

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

<snip>

The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for invading Iraq. They take issue with the Bush administration's strategy of refusing to invite key members of the international community to the invasion until it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, the New Democrats believe, will ultimately harm U.S. political and economic dominance around the world.

"We are confident that a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party’s tradition of muscular internationalism, can keep Americans safer than the Republicans’ go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources," the New Democrats say in their foreign policy manifesto. "We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America’s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy. A new progressive internationalism can point the way."

(more)

http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html

[Ilsa]

1. I admit, I'm not up to date on all the most important news,

but is this supposed to be a democratic form of US imperialism? If so, I might need to reconsider who will be getting my vote. Why didn't Kerry say this, oh, several primaries ago?

[ozone_man]

2. "Progressive internationalism"

sounds like the New Democrats version of PNAC. A behind the scenes version.

<snip>
Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism.
<snip>

[cprise]

52. Try 'Imperialism'. It has less syllables.

.

[WillyT]

3. But Hey... He's Better Than Bush, Right ???

We are really in trouble.

[Eloriel]

8. Yup -- as someone I know is fond of saying:

Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss.

(It's not for no reason some of us have been against Kerry from the start.)

[lojasmo]

77. Marginally

I am a conscientious objector. I will NEVER get over Kerry's vote to allow this "War" in Iraq. I might hold my nose and vote for him in November (if he's the Democratic candidate :puke: )

[madfloridian]

4. This part I did not realize. "Coke or Pepsi"

From your link:

SNIP..."In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Partnership for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?"

The PPI shares an office and phone with the DLC. And a secretary, last time I called.

I guess I just don't see why we must be building an empire.
:shrug:

I can not get over this war very easily.
Not time to move on.
It does not sound like he opposed the Iraq War at all.

SNIP...."Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

"I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in victory, should in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the first place."

[drfemoe]

62. Squeeze Bottle or Twist Off Top ..

same product, different delivery method.

[Zhade]

70. MAJOR RED FLAG.

Shit gets deeper.

EDIT: "...and that Jacque Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic Alliance..." - that reads like a neocon wrote it.

God save us.

[ozone_man]

90. Kick for the morning crowd.

I can't believe this stuff wasn't brought out for discussion earlier in the campaign season. Here we were berating Clark for apparent flip flopping on Iraq, while chief PNAC (the DLC version) slips right under our noses.

[democratreformed]

5. This is just what I was afraid of

Kerry people, please debunk to save my sanity.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Tactical Progressive]

11. Yeah, there's black and there's white

And here I was foolishly thinking that there were all kinds of colors and shadings in the world. Thanks for clearing that up.

[hedda_foil]

64. I realized this last year ...

When it came out that Will Marshall (the founder and head of the PPI, also a member of the PNAC-founded Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and signator of all PNAC letters since the invasion) was Kerry's "foreign policy advisor" I understood that this was the case. It was one of my most profound reasons for being very uncomfortable with Kerry as a presidential candidate. Why does he need a PNAC signator as an advisor if he's such a foreign policy guru himself? The answer is obviously that he's on board with the policy of PNAC with a multilateral facade. Certainly, he's too smart, savvy and sophisticated to be taken in. (And if he were, that would be saying he's no smarter than Bush*, which isn't the case.)

The neocons are neither conservative nor Republican at heart. They are imperialists. They truly don't care if it's done with a mask of conservatism or even FDR-style liberalism. It's about Empire with them. Whatever domestic policy works in that context is fine with them. Remember, the whole PNAC "intellectual" crew started out as Scoop Jackson Democrats ... very liberal at home, very, very hawkish abroad. It's hawkishness and imperialism in pursuit of total world domination that drives them. And if the Bushgang can't implement their policies smoothly enough, their ideology doesn't limit them to one party over another or one domestic policy over another. Kerry (or Lieberman or Bayh) will serve as well as long as the goals are pursued vigorously.

Bush is a tool to them and nothing more. The Republicans are tools to them and nothing more. Conservatism is a tool to them and nothing more. The xtian fundies are tools as well. And the "liberals" in their view can serve the same purpose if it better serves them in furthertherance of their imperial vision.

[Cha]

7. Yeah! I bet he would like us

"to move on"! Down the memory hole, Alice!

[Ilsa]

9. What's the freaking point of being a Democratic if

we're just Republican Lite?

I haven' had a chance to vote yet, but if I had already, and if I had voted for Kerry, I'd be feeling deceived right about now. Someone please say this story isn't true. I don't want my candidate to be Republican Lite or a Neo-Demo.

[w13rd0]

10. I'm SHOCKED!

SHOCKED I tell ya...

[poskonig]

12. What is to rebut?

For example, in one passage the writer reports that Kerry thought it is unjustified to assert our soldiers were war criminals solely by virtue of fighting over in Vietnam. The writer proceeds to claim how ludicrous it was to say the United States was not the "villain" in Vietnam, as if the passage about the troops justifies this mysterious leap.

In other passages Kerry is attacked for supporting internationalism and interventionism, as if fighting ethnic cleansing was the same thing as looting countries for their natural resources. The implication is that Kerry is the same as the neocons, but nothing is brought to support this claim.

In short, it is all innuendo, like most attacks on Kerry.

[hedgetrimmer]

60. Read the links...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ (PNAC)

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004 (PPI)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (PNAC)

http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf (PPI)

Note the similarities of the two... one a Republican manifesto endorsed by the Bush administration and the other a Democrat manifesto endorsed by Kerry. If you are wiling to look past your selected candidates bias, gain a non-partial perspective and see what is really going on. Note the similarities... the words are different but in the land of Dictionopolis many words can be used to make the same thing "sound" very different.

Many blessings.

[Capn Sunshine]

13. For some reason

the tune "Love for Sale" just popped into my head.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. Jeez... even I am shocked at this

:puke:

[Taeger]

15. DIMANTLE WTO

If part of the "Progressive Multilateralism" is continuing the IMF war against 3rd world nations, then I'm 100% AGAINST Kerry.

The only difference may be that he won't direct the war against the American middle class as Bush has.

The WTO/IMF combination makes sure that cheap foreign labor is plenty and available. The IMF policies will make sure that 3rd world living standards will NEVER rise. At the same time, WTO is forcing outsourcing and the destruction of the American middle class.

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. idn't I hear that Kerry is outsourcing campaign phone call jobs?

I heard both India and Canada. I don't have a link, but I did see reports. Anyone have more info on this?

[milkyway]

22. Yes, there have been reports that campaign calls for Kerry in Michigan

showed up with Canadian phone numbers on caller i.d.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[poskonig]

20. You're still mad about Vietnam?

Fuck, I wasn't even alive then.

[greatauntoftriplets]

23. I am still angry about 58,000 men of my generation being wasted

in a pointless "war".

I am angry that my nephew may be wasted when he goes to Afghanistan soon.

[poskonig]

26. yeeeeearrrgh!

Seriously, you guys need to chill. Kerry was not responsible for the Vietnam war.

[nonconformist]

32. Nobody said he was.

But he's telling people to 'get over it'. How long will it be before he tells the people that protested the Iraq war the same? Do mistakes become less important because time has passed?

What would your reaction be if you read that Bush said the very same thing as Kerry did?

[poskonig]

37. Kerry is claiming U.S. involvement isn't always bad.

Remember World War I? World War II? Kerry was talking about regaining perspective.

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

I'm starting to get creeped out by people around here. "GGGGGRRRRR I'm ANGRY though I have no rational reason why! GRRRRRRR"

:crazy:

[Cheswick2.0]

80. NO, Kerry is talking about you not looking

We are supposed to ignore what he does and vote for him anyway because he says so.
The mans sense of rich guy entitlement is vulgar.

[MadHound]

95. And Kerry is lying through his teeth

When he says "recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century." Let's see here. Starting in the 1890s we have the pre-emptive Spanish American War, followed by the Mexican American War in the teens, Korea in the '50s(granted, that was done under UN auspices, but was mainly an American war of aggression), various South American brush wars starting in the '50s and still ongoing, Vietnam, Grenada, Gulf War I, Panama, and Gulf War II. Opposing these wars of American hegemony are WWI and WWII. Gee, John, looks like your wrong there in your assesment, looks like wars of empire are the rule, not exception.

[greatauntoftriplets]

34. Seriously, you need to read the history of the Vietnam war.

I do NOT need to chill. No, Kerry was not responsible for the Vietnam war. But his words indicate that he will continue the Iraq invasion and occupation. I will NOT get over being anti-war. I have seen too damned much of it in my life.

[poskonig]

40. where did kerry tell the antiwar movement to get over it?

Kerry is asking for perspective on the 20th century. Take the good with the bad, instead of claiming everything is bad.

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. You guys are getting angry over innuendo.

[greatauntoftriplets]

44. I have plenty of perspective on the 20th century, having lived through 51

years of it.

I was an adult during Vietnam and remember reading the body count every day in the newspaper for years -- until Tricky Dick quashed it. People I knew were killed there. Same damned thing is happening again, and Kerry tells us to get over it? No way.

[poskonig]

46. I disagree with you. WW2 was a noble thing.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Or is Kerry correct?

[greatauntoftriplets]

47. Where did I say anything about WW2?

I am talking the Vietnam and Iraq quagmires.

Kerry is wrong.

[poskonig]

53. I feel like I'm in a Monty Python skit.

"Look, this isn't an argument." "Yes it is." "No, it isn't" .....

Kerry, in an passage in his book, said we needed to view the wars of the 20th century in a greater context. We can't condemn everything because of Vietnam; we need to get beyond that.

Why do you insist he is wrong?

Oh, the absurdity!

[greatauntoftriplets]

56. I have not read Kerry's book.

And never will. Please read Vietnam history -- Stanley Karnow, Neil Sheehan and Frances Fitzgerald are names that come to mind immediately. Then say we should not condemn pointless wars -- like Iraq -- because of Vietnam.

Presidents lie -- and young men die.

[poskonig]

57. You are upset about something you've never read!!!

Unbelievable!

If you read the article, btw, you'd know the quote at issuewas from the book. See post #37.

Do you believe WW2 was immoral, or do you agree with Kerry that not all wars are bad like Vietnam?

[hedgetrimmer]

63. WWII is a very complicated matter....

noble, yes by the people who fought what they believed was a noble cause...

noble is what you want it to be, yet another complicated matter... anything experienced is real... noble is a complicated matter because it's meaning is not concrete, it is subject to ones own belief system... to Hitler his actions were noble, to the service men on the beaches of Normandy, their actions were noble... so yes WWII had a lot of noble(ness)...

but the Auntie did not say anything about WWII

[Cheswick2.0]

82. Nice side lateral arabesque on Kerry's part

and it is amazing to watch his supporters fall for it.

What you seem to be repeating is Kerry's bullshit tactic of saying "WW2 was good, therefor Iraq was good". But Iraq was/is not good.
But i have a message for kerry. Iraq can not be justified no matter how hard he tries.

It seems to me he has sold his soul to the PNAC crowd so they will allow him to be president. He is such an idiot, they will never allow him to be President and even if he should win by some fluke, all we are going to get is the DLC/PNAC version of bush.

[Leilani]

71. How about David Halberstam?

The Best & the Brightest

[Cheswick2.0]

81. What are you talking about?

You answer a post about viet nam with a reference to WW2?

[Fleshdancer]

29. It's the not learning from our mistakes concept that I'm mad at. n/t

[poskonig]

33. Kerry said Vietnam was a mistake.

Why would he say it is an exception to the rule if he didn't think that way?

Bush baaaaaaad.
Kerry goooooood.

[stickdog]

67. And which of our last dozen or so wars other than WWII was not a mistake?

PNAC baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
PPI baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

[Cheswick2.0]

79. well as long as you weren't alive

I wasn't alive during WWII. Maybe I should tell all the Vets who were on the Bataan Death march to "get over it".

But Viet Nam is not the main issue here. The issue is Kerry's support of the Iraq war.

[hedgetrimmer]

17. Anti-War Movement will move on, on March 20

The anti-war movement will move on to the streets in a global day of action...

link: http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m20/

[RichM]

18. Most chilling: Kerry 's attitude towards Vietnam - in his own words...

Look at this amazing quote:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

This paragraph, rightly emphasized by the article, speaks volumes about Kerry's world view. He really thinks we should just "get over" Vietnam, and that it was an exception to how US power is typically used in the world. True, the US killed millions of innocent civilians in Vietnam - which qualifies it as an "exception" in terms of sheer SCALE. The quantitative aspect doesn't, however, mean that Vietnam was qualitatively out of the ordinary pattern - ie, a brutal use of force to accomplish strategic aims that are systematically lied about.

This little article provides great insight into Kerry. His basic attitude towards the antiwar movement is contempt. He basically thinks the public should just forget about America's crimes, and he takes the position that the crimes can be simply explained away as "exceptional cases," even when millions of civilians were murdered, and chemical weapons used to permanently poison millions of acres of a country that never harmed the US in any way.

[jpgray]

21. Liberal interpretations are always welcome at a progressive site. (nt)

[Kanary]

38. Kerry has published his "free speech zones" in advance n/t

~

[Cheswick2.0]

83. kerry's basic attitude towards anything inconvenient to his wants

is contempt. Get over election 2000, quit crying in your teacups. Get over the Viet Nam war and accept that Iraq was good because we liberated the Iraqis just like we liberated the jews in WW2. Get over it and vote for me for I am JFKerry.

[kenny blankenship]

102. Is there anything we SHOULDN'T get over?

since the list of things we're supposed to just forget about is so incredibly long, maybe it would be easier if Weasel would list for us the one or two things he wants us to remember.

[nonconformist]

24. NO, I won't "get over it"

This stuff really pisses me off. It smacks of the condescending arrogance the repugs are so famous for.

re: stolen 200 election, "quit crying in your teacups"
re: antiwar movement, "get over it"

I'm disgusted that these statements were made by a Democrat, not to mention one that is well on his way to securing the nomination.

You know, there are things I like about Kerry and I've been trying to be optimistic so I can really get behind him instead of just holding my nose when I vote for him (IF he gets the nom). But it's getting harder every day.

[poskonig]

27. Kerry did not tell the antiwar movement to "get over it"

What is wrong with everybody? Kerry's comments were about Vietnam.

[Cheswick2.0]

84. wrong

his comments were about vietnam and Iraq and WW2.

[gate of the sun]

25. well I hope you all are happy with your choices?

This is just the crap we have to look forward to but hey.....anyone but bush right? See what fear gets you.....it gets you nothing.....issue's on the other hand can make a change. This whole primary has been disappointing and for all of you who "only care" about getting bush out......you will have to live with your choices.The rest of us who tried to bring some change into the White House will have to live with it as well....but at least we cared and tried to make a difference.

Something that is too often apparent on this forum is once someone makes up their mind....blinders come over the eyes of people who support someone.......regardless of what anyone says.....Most people on Du I believe would like to see a better world,but the strategies and choices that have been made in fear of bush are not going to leave us with much promise....very sad.....we had a chance and we blew it.

[poskonig]

30. That's ridiculous.

We're talking about the same John Kerry that protested the Vietnam War, exposed what Reagan was doing in central America, and voted against the first Gulf War, no?

People have all of this rage over an article that was devoid of anything concrete.

[nonconformist]

35. Same Kerry that voted for the IWR, PATROIT act....

Yep, that's him.

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. Don't forget the Department of Homeland Gestapo.

er, Security. Same thing.

[poskonig]

39. There were no inspectors in Iraq in October 2002.

Supporting honest disarmament and supporting pulling out the inspectors are two different things.

As for the Patriot Act, all of the Democrats in the Senate sans Feingold voted for it after 911. It will be set to expire, but it won't if we keep forming circular firing squads and give SpaceShrub another term.

[greatauntoftriplets]

41. And then there is Patriot Act II.

.

[revcarol]

51. No it will NOT expire!!

Some parts of it that are the most egregious do not have expiration dates.

It must be REPEALED, otherwise those parts just stay in effect on the books. Kerry doesn't want to repeal it.

Go to the ACLU site. They have a big write-up about the Patriot Act, the implications of the different parts and list what will and what will NOT expire.

[stickdog]

68. Kerry was hiding while Bush was invading. If Kerry just wanted inspectors,

why didn't he say so?

[Zhade]

73. SOME PARTS WILL EXPIRE.

This is a dangerous pattern I'm seeing - people mistakenly expecting the PA to expire en toto.

Sorry, that's not the reality of the situation. Most of the act will remain law, with or without b*sh around.

[HFishbine]

43. Void of anything concrete?

Just the writing on the wall, that's all.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[hedgetrimmer]

54. you didn't read this article, did you? n/t

[poskonig]

55. Yes I did.

See #12

[Cheswick2.0]

85. he exposed what Reagan was doing in south america......LOL

and exactly what happened to Reagan and bush and their merry band of Iran contra criminals? NOTHING! That's one of kerry's specialties. He runs great meaningless Senate investigations. Just enough comes out to satisfy the public and then the damage control begins.
Seems to me that most of those people are back in the whitehouse and kerry is voting for all their favorite legislation.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Pepsi or Coke?

Name your poison!

[corporatewhore]

112. ditto

[quaker bill]

28. I have been attempting to make this clear for sometime

The only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry wants more allies.

Sorry, not "getting over it".

He is not republican 'lite'.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[BurtWorm]

50. Good point, grovelbot!

:toast:

[Edge]

42. This is why I don't like this man.

I wonder if he's any different than Bush. :grr:

[BL_Zebub]

106. Of course he is.

He's taller, and his nose is bigger.

[Shanty Oilish]

49. Just another smear piece

I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you. You all know how to read if you want to. The writer, Mr. Hand, is trying to equate PNAC and PPI, neither of which is behind John Kerry or vice versa.

Go to the link http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html where it gives the link for PPI, read their ideas. Better yet, ask your librarian to find you a copy of Kerry's book, Call to Service, and read that.

Unless you're just interested in taking down John Kerry.

[Cheswick2.0]

86. sorry Caroline but PPI and DLC share an office

and they are the "left" wing of PNAC. The evidence is right before you and you don't want to see it.
You had better believe I want to take down Kerry. For the first time since I started voting I will not vote for the democratic nominee if it is kerry. That is 29 years of voting for every democrat in every race available for me to vote in.

At least with bush, he only gets another 4 years. With kerry we get a possible 8 more years of Middle East adventurism.

[hedgetrimmer]

58. According to this and related articles, many here are TRAITORS!

to the party... myself included...

Kerry is the traitor... Kerry is a liar...

we the few, the proud that need to see that the Progressive Internationalism manifesto and PNAC are, well, similiar...

you see Georgie is a bit of a dipshit... Kerry can handle the scene like Clinton and still the little Sunday morning political mumbo-jumbo watchers will believe that everything is okay...

Lets think about a democrat draft, would Kucinich impose the draft?....

Kerry really served, why can't you?

Kerry is so sorry about the IWR, he was misled ... we can tell...
here is a litle clip from the manifesto that Kerry endorses...

That is why, as Democrats, we supported the Bush administration's toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of United Nations Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law. We believed then, and we believe now, that this threat was less imminent than the administration claimed and that the United States should have done much more to win international backing and better prepare for post-war reconstruction. Nonetheless, we are convinced that the Iraqi people, the region and the world are better off now that this barbaric dictator is gone.
link: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

how stupid are we willing to be?
how stupid are we willing to let ourselves be?
how stupid are we willing to let them believe we are?
are we ready to say enough?
I am.

[madfloridian]

59. This part from your article is scary.

OMG, this is scary to me.

SNIP...."While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough. We need to do more, and do it smarter and better to protect our people and help shape a safer, freer world.

Why must we reshape the world as we are trying to do? I have trouble with this concept.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Removing Bush will not address the serious problems in the country

It is an illusion to believe that the issues confronting working people can be resolved simply by the removal of Bush. The Bush administration is, in the final analysis, the political expression of the desperation, disorientation and recklessness of the American ruling elite as it confronts a systemic social and economic crisis for which it has no rational, let alone progressive, solution. There is no question that Bush and his associates represent an especially foul, reactionary and even criminal element within this elite. But even if they were to be removed in November, their replacement by the candidates of the Democratic Party would not substantially alter the violent and destructive trajectory of American capitalism, either within the United States or internationally.

In the event of a Democratic Party victory, the campaign promises would soon be exposed as cynical exercises in electioneering demagogy. A new Democratic president would remain subservient to the same corporate interests and pursue the same imperialist strategy of world domination.

<snip>

The Democratic Party, despite the occasional populist posturing of its candidates, remains one of the two main political institutions of American capitalism. It serves the interests of the financial oligarchy, which is deeply concerned with the selection of the candidate who may well, if circumstances warrant it, replace George Bush in the White House. The entire election process—from the primaries to polling day—is dominated by big money and the media, which put the various candidates through their paces and whip them into shape, even as they work to manipulate public opinion. In the final analysis, the choice of president will reflect a consensus within the ruling elite, rather than the democratic will of the people.

The conflicts within the Democratic leadership, however intense and bitter, are fundamentally over tactics: how best to position the Democratic Party to preempt, if possible, and eviscerate, if necessary, an upsurge of social protest, containing and diverting it along channels that do not threaten the capitalist system as a whole. Whatever their differences with Bush, all of the major Democratic candidates stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republicans on the most fundamental interests of the ruling class. Hence the insistence—even by those who claim to have opposed the invasion of Iraq—that the United States maintain its occupation and crush the resistance of Iraqi guerrilla forces.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

[hedgetrimmer]

65. I thought you were a Green!

The problem with the Socialist is that they are speaking the truth and the American people have been brainwashed to despise Socialism... the great strides Socialist made in this country at the end of the 1800's and into the 1900's... basically a foundation for the "New Deal" has built enemies from both major corporations (parties)... Even in the education systems Socialism was considered Communism and Communism is BAD... further, many have to suffer to make a few fat, how can that few fat stay fat if we don't suffer some more... so the ppeople who loved the "New Deal" and re-elected that president 4 times forget that any Social programs we have today come from the Socialist party via "New Deal" legislation.

I thought you were Green.

[Zhade]

74. Look at this neoconservative-minded bullshit.

"We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing,"

LIE. Even Powell said it was working, BEFORE THE IWR VOTE.

"because Saddam posed a grave danger to America"

LIE. Millions around the world knew better - Kerry sure as fuck knew better!

[drfemoe]

88. Well I can see clearly NOW

why hopes and dreams to stop a crazy war were dashed into blood and tears!! This just explains so much. That cold grip of fear as we watched the Dems in the Senate debate the IWR issue. Was that just for SHOW? Is there a BIG rubber stamp in the Senate disguised as an alternative to Republicans/neo-cons?

Unfortunately, this won't make any difference to many. "New Democrats" are the answer if you would believe them.

Really, once you understand why very few have stood up for our interests, the picture comes into focus. It's a relief, actually. A clearer view of reality.

Wisdom seeps in.

[stickdog]

66. A kinder, gentler PNAC.

Look up in the sky, Daddy. Is that the thousand points of light the DLC promised us?

[Zhade]

69. And let's not forget the DLC's ties to PNAC.

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. I'm glad that most Democratic voters aren't this liberal

They have been making the right choice this primary season.

[Brian_Expat]

75. Indeed!

Thank God Democrats aren't so liberal to argue for extremist positions like trials by jury with evidence, equal rights for all Americans, or that going to war unilaterally under false pretenses is bad.

Those sorts of values drag America down! :eyes:

[Zhade]

76. Posts like yours make me weep for America.

PPI and PNAC share an office, and you're "glad that most Democratic voters aren't this liberal"? How can this not be a problem in your mind?

No offense intended toward you, but I must disagree vehemently.

[Cheswick2.0]

87. yeah, good ignorant sheeple

the DLC loves sheeple

[BL_Zebub]

108. The RIGHT choice indeed!

The choice of the imperialistic fascist right wing, to be exact.

VOTE NO ON PNAC - no matter which party it claims to be! :grr:

[Cheswick2.0]

78. my favorite passage

Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

"I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in victory, should in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the first place."
There's much to digest in this paragraph. Perhaps the most interesting nugget is Kerry's statement that the United States should "meet repentant Europeans halfway." Hmmm, John, could you elaborate on what sins the Europeans committed for which they must repent?

Kerry has such an arrogant way with words, doesn't he? I am sure Chirac will fall in line now that Kerry has called him foolish, rebellious and suggested he be repentant. Just makes me want to run right out and vote for kerry. </sarcasm>

[LizW]

89. kicking

the most important thread this year

[Duder]

91. Tin soldiers...

...and Kerry coming...

[candy331]

92. Speaking of Vietnam my husband did 2 tours

one in 68 and one in 71 and he sure as hell has not gotten over it. Some things people never get over, they may bury it and not talk about it because it is too painful but it is there, they just learn to live with them. Max Cleland certainly could never get over it as his missing limbs are a reminder every wakening minute of the day. I thought Kerry was sincere when he protested the war but now as I learn more about him I question whether he truly believed it was wrong or just fell into an opportunity of the times since the protests were well under way when he came back. I see Kerry as an opportunist willing to exploit any and every thing to gain advantage for himself. Does Kerry really care about those Vietnam vets he is exploiting to get their votes, really ? And to dig up the vet who supposedly saved his life but yet hadn't contacted him in years shows just how concerned he really is and to what extent he is willing to go..

[greatauntoftriplets]

93. Wise words, candy331.

My very good friend was in Vietnam 1966-1967 -- he has never told anyone about it and swears to God that he never will. A couple of times, he has come close but always backs off. What devils he must live with....

[Duder]

94. You're not alone...

From today's KC Star:

"The military's very popular right now, and Kerry's trying to take advantage of it," said Christopher Sager, a Vietnam veteran and retired Kansas City police officer. "he's exploiting it for his own benefit. Vietnam War veterans shouldn't be used as leverage to gain office."

[redqueen]

96. Oh my God

Do I want a democrat in charge of the draft, or a republican? A democratic occupation and war on other countries, or occupation and further war under a republican?

[MadHound]

97. And people wonder and wail about why lots of people are going Green

Well here is your answer folks. Once again a prime-time example of our two party/same corporate master system of empire in action. Kerry is fully willing to do whatever his corporate masters want him to do, including pre-emptive war. He just wants it to be a kinder, gentler war:eyes:

So explain to me the differences between Bushco and Kerrycorp again. Both for war, both want us to get over it, both want to outsource until the middle class is destroyed and we're all serfs on the corporate farm, both love the concept of unconstitutional security laws. So what's the diff?

Oh yeah, that's right, Kerry has a D behind his name, and is ABB. Sheesh, some folks are so damn gullible.

[redqueen]

98. *sigh*

kinder, gentler war

too accurate :(

[stickdog]

99. Maybe the Kerry intern story was planted to bury this bombshell? (nt)

[Zhade]

100. Anti-imperialism-in-all-its-forms kick

This story is incredibly important.

:dem:

[redqueen]

101. I agree wholeheartedly

This is very important. Will it sink below the threads about Kerry's affair again?

[SeattleRob]

103. keep kicking this

:kick:

[redqueen]

104. Why

Nobody cares!

Unending war under a democrat is goooooood.

Now that Clark (!) is delivering all the votes he can to Kerry, and with most people ignoring this with all their might, what's the point? Really?

[madfloridian]

105. More condescension toward peace activists....Will Marshall PPI

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=251785&knlgAreaID=127&subsecid=171

SNIP...."The party divide shows up in today's nomination contest. On one side are anti-war candidates Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, whose arguments echo those of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. On the other are Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards, who, like Britain's Tony Blair, backed using force against Iraq on the condition that President Bush challenge the United Nations to do its job. While scathingly critical of Bush's botched Iraq diplomacy, once an impasse was reached in the U.N. Security Council, they did not flinch from going to war with a smaller coalition.

This enraged "peace activists," who passionately and sincerely believe they speak for most Democrats. They are passionately and sincerely wrong: McGovernism is a distinctly minority view in the party, held mainly by left-leaning activists who have disproportionate influence in caucus states like Iowa. Polls show that two-thirds of Democrats (and more than three-fourths of all Americans) approve of the second Persian Gulf War. And lest we forget, McGovern himself suffered the worst landslide defeat in U.S. history, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia and winning only 38 percent of the national vote against Richard Nixon.

To win next year, Democrats need to return to their real national security tradition -- one that's tough enough to keep Americans safe and smart enough to build alliances and institutions that make the world safer for democracy.

I am sorry, but I would think this could be done without wars. I guess not. They voted for it. I guess most people want this empire and the accompanying wars.......according to Will Marshall.

[BL_Zebub]

110. That's Will Marshall, folks....

PNAC signator and Kerry campaign adviser. And about as qualified to speak for Democrats as David DuKKKe is for the Rainbow Coalition :grr:

[corporatewhore]

107. thats a big Fuck You to all the Military Families whoprotested because

their loved ones over there

[anti-NAFTA]

109. Anyone who still supports Kerry after reading this must be delusional

Kerry will continue the imperialism, continue free trade. Bah.

It'll be the exact same thing now except the President will be brighter.

This is the Democrats' version of neoconservatism and must be repudiated by us immediately!

Note: the Kerry propaganda book has Chirac's first name misspelled. It's "JacqueS" not "Jacque".

[madfloridian]

111. PPI view of the New World Order. When did we decide the world is ours.?

SNIP..World leadership.
"Democrats believe
energetic U.S. leadership is integral to
shaping a world congenial to our interests
and values. World order doesn’t emerge
spontaneously; it must be organized
through collective action by the leading
powers, in particular the leading
democracies. The main responsibility for
global leadership falls on America as first
among equals.

But our country cannot
lead if our leaders will not listen. The surest
way to isolate America—and call into being
anti-American coalitions—is to succumb to
the imperial temptation and attempt to
impose our will on others. We believe,
instead, in renewing our democratic
alliances to meet new threats, in
progressively enlarging the zone of market
democracies by including countries that
want to join, and in strengthening and
reforming international institutions—the
United Nations, the international
financial institutions, the World Trade
Organization—which, for all their obvious
flaws, still embody humanity’s highest
hopes for collective security and
cooperative problem-solving." END SNIP

I guess Iraq is one of the countries that wanted to join us. :shrug:

Edit to include the pdf link from the PPI.
http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf

[BeFree]

113. Is there something wrong with this?

"We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America?s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy. A new progressive internationalism can point the way."


What is wrong with using American power as long as it's for the betterment of the world?

We've got the power. Let's use it the right way. Not the way the pugs do.

[madfloridian]

114. Big assumption....that we have a right to the world.

Big assumption.