Is Kerry's foreign policy PNAC-lite?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Foreign policy page on Kerry's website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy

Key Foreign policy speeches:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_0122.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[Old and In the Way]

1. Of course it isn't, but that won't stop the pro-Nader and RNC ops

here from trying to convince us otherwise.

[mobuto]

2. Mantra Mantra Mantra

Perhaps if we can repeat that Kerry is Bush-lite enough times, that'll make it true.

[sangha]

5. "There's no difference"

(gnashes teeth)

"There's no difference"

(gnashes teeth)

"There's no difference"

(gnashes teeth)

"There's no difference"

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Kerry is prochoice

foreign policy not destinguished right now. It just isn't.

[sangh0]

70. Mantra, Mantra, Mantra

Perhaps if we can repeat that Kerry is Bush-lite enough times, that'll make it true.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. So vague I can't tell

right now I would say yes, and I am really fucking depressed about it. There are many red lights like Chavez bashing, bashing of the prime minister of spain, coming out against an "evenhanded" policy in Israel, and saying Israel and Americas interests are identical, IWR vote, and using Will Marshall{PNAC signitory} as speech writer.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Since US foreign policy is current in a state of chaos,

just what "hard positions" should he be taking? Whatever he says today could be irrelevant next week. He should stay flexible, vague as you call it. Why should Kerry give the Republican Corporate Media inflexible positions that they will happily distort and twist?

It's really pretty simple....either you look at Kerry's entire record and understand where he's coming from....or you can march in lockstep and vote for Bush/Nader. Getting worked up about about Kerry's preceived foreign policy positions on nuanced comments to the press is a bit of over-reach.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. I am not suggesting voting Bush Nader

but the only reason to be hopeful as of now over Kerry is that he is not Bush. I am depressed. Nader voters might as well not vote. it is just a worthless effort.

[Bill Todd]

23. No, Nader (or other non-major-party) votes are definitely useful

because they let both parties know that there are people out there whom they could win, not just drop-outs uninterested no matter what. That at least opens the possibility that one of the parties will eventually find them useful to pursue.

- bill

[KittyWampus]

4. Forget Kerry's Policy Speeches... I'll Have To Read Black Commentator

before I cast my vote in your poll

:D

[IndianaGreen]

7. Bush follows PNAC's raw imperialism

Kerry follows PPI's sugar-coated imperialism.

To its victims, it doesn't matter if they are killed by a PNAC bomb or a PPI bomb, they are still dead!

[corporatewhore]

10. PPI = Compassionate Colonialism

:evilgrin:

[JohnLocke]

26. PPI is NOT colonialism.

Back that up. Show some evidence.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. Will Marshall is PNAC signatory

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

[JohnLocke]

35. So? One member in common doesn't mean that PNAC is comparable to PPI.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. PPI position was identical to the PNAC

and Will Marshall is Chairman.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=65&contentID=251557

[JohnLocke]

76. How is PPI "identical" to PNAC?

Cite some excerpts from the position papers that are "identical." I'll even settle for remotely similar.

[mobuto]

14. PPI Bomb?

The PPI is the public policy think-tank of the DLC. They don't have bombs.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. PPI is PNAC in a "shiny new wrapper"

But it's the same old shit.

[JohnLocke]

27. Not true.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Then how do you explain Will Marshall's involvement with the PNAC

He signed their statement in support of the Iraq invasion.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

[mobuto]

31. Lots of progressives supported the Iraq invasion

That doesn't make them conservatives, it just makes them progressives who made a mistake. I'm not a huge fan of Will Marshall, but he's not a Republican.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Why did he sign a PNAC document then

They are the ones that plan a conquest of the entire middle east. IF that is not colonialism what in the hell is. I don't think Marshall has ever apologized for supporting it either. Until he does he is shit as for as I am concerned. Republican light.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. "Republican" has nothing to do with it.

Neocons may pose as members of both major parties, and in fact have hijacked the leadership of both, but they are neither Democrats or Republicans, they are fascists, following a plan that bears an eerie resemblance to Mein Kampf in the way that their agenda, including the invasion of Iraq and the "new Pearl Harbor" that would be neccessary to implement it, is in the open for all to read, yet there is so much BLIND IGNORANT DENIAL of the obvious truth.

[Tinoire]

44. Name some. Please do.

History at DU tells me that your definition of "progressives" vastly differs from mine.

"Lots" of progressives most certainly did not support this war.


"Lots" of shills did, only to disappear for a few months and recently reappear claiming that they never supported it but that "lots" of other progressives did.

Name a few.

[IndianaGreen]

21. The policies they advocate do result in bombs

and in death squads.

[mobuto]

30. Death squads?

In truth, I'm no fan of the PPI. And I'm on their mailing list, so I get almost all of their publications, which I duly read. And in none of those publications do I recall reading support for death sqauds. Lots of silly, factionalist attacks on the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but no support for death squads.

Maybe you could help me out here.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Many supported the Contras in the 80s

. That is death squad support.

[IndianaGreen]

37. not to mention Clinton's Plan Colombia

which Kerry supports.

[strategery blunder]

43. What is "Plan Columbia?"

Could someone please explain?

I was but a child during the Clinton presidency...

[IndianaGreen]

47. "Plan Colombia ... Plan of Death"

There is a lot of information on the internet about Plan Colombia, which was sold to the US public as part of the war on drugs. In reality, Plan Colombia is a counter-insurgency program that resembles our early involvement in Vietnam with Special Forces combined with Agent Orange type agents.

Here is but one article:

http://www.soawne.org/Pccrops.html

[hedgetrimmer]

24. Richard Perle was just a think tank member.

Dick Cheney only headed Haliburton.
It is ignorant to point the finger in only one direction. It is also detrimental to this republic.

[mobuto]

32. Richard Perle was never a member of the PPI

And I find it exceedingly hard to believe that John Kerry would hire Richard Perle for anything.

[hedgetrimmer]

42. No, he would have his own boys collecting the loot. n/t

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Kick

till I get 100 votes

[RichM]

12. Please note: even on a Dem website, the 'No' option is barely winning!!

DU is predominantly a place for zealous Democratic partisans - and even here, you can barely get a solid majority to say that Kerry's foreign policy is anything other than PNAC-lite!! IOW, even Dem Party cheerleaders can barely stand this disgraceful Bush-Lite candidate!!

BWA-HaHAHHAHAHAhahhaahahha!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Don't hold back

tell us what you really think

[Cocoa]

15. you think any online poll has any meaning?

I question your analytic abilities. Online polls actually mean zero.

[WilliamPitt]

41. "DU is predominantly a place for zealous Democratic partisans"

Um...if the poll is going as you suggest, maybe not. Instead of a website full of "zealous Democratic partisans," perhaps what we have here (in this forum anyway) is a pack of masturbatory wreckers who can't come up with workable solutions to the problems we face, and so instead piss on anything and everything they can reach with their stream.

Maybe? I think yes.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Fire Will Marshall, that is completely practical

Aren't you even a bit disturbed that PNAC vampire is working for Kerry particularly given some of Kerry's recent gaffs.

[OKNancy]

50. You always write that same tired -- like being a partisan is a BAD thing

I am proud to be a Democratic partisan...thank you very much.
Oh, BWHAHAHAHA to you too because ....
Kerry WILL be President in 2005. Not Nadar or Harry Browne or any other minor candidate.

[tinanator]

74. partisanship is unpatriotic

given the extreme lack of distinction between Bush and Kerry foreign policy, this contest is much less of an opportunity for the lesser evil than usual. Support for Kerry is nearly akin to supporting Selection 2000. Gore was abandoned then by the same folks who denied him his return.

[EdGy]

16. look, ANY US foreign policy is going to be PNAC lite

doesn't matter who's in power. That's the way it is.

Of course, for the rest of the world, the velvet glove approach is much more palatable, it lets them retain vestiges of dignity, and therefore is much more effective in achieving the PNAC-like goals, while the Bush bully-boy approach is actually doomed to failure.

So this is not a reason to oppose Kerry. The only way you'll get away from this kind of foreign policy is to drastically reduce the power that the US has relative to the rest of the world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. We have to aggressively want to control the world?

And that is the policy Kerry advocates?


Those assertions do not seem consistent with the facts, to me.

[EdGy]

18. control the world, yes

that's been a consistent thread in US foreign policy after World War II.

Americans don't really seem to realize this, but the rest of the world certainly does.

The advantage of Kerry or anyone but Bush would be that this policy would be pursued more diplomatically, the velvet glove rather than the stick.

But yes, world control is the goal of the US and has been.

46. Someone who speaks the truth

While I disagree with your conclusions I completely agree with the way you have broken down US foreign policy. This is in fact what I've been trying to tell people for quite sometime. Not only is there no fundamental strategic difference between Bush and Kerry on this issue there is no difference between dems and repubs. Of course i conclude that we should not simply accept this fact, but fight for something different (voting isn't fighting).

[Bill Todd]

19. If we just voted to continue the status quo

we'd just re(s)elect Bush.

Some of us vote on the basis of the changes that we want to see. And it's not necessary to reduce the power that we have relative to the rest of the world to adopt a foreign policy that avoids using that power actively to further exacerbate that inequity, and simply positions us as a good world citizen: it's only necessary to get rid of those leaders (including those in our own party) who believe we should be a bully, velvet glove or none.

- bill

[AGD4y2357y]

25. You're right

people will vote Kerry if they want something different than what Bush is offering.

I think you missed the point of the OP, however. He was asking if Kerry will actually provide that different direction once in office.

The person above saying Kerry must follow PNAC is rather scary. Sometimes I think there are dems who would agree with everything bush does so long as it wasn't bush doing it...

[Bill Todd]

40. I think you misunderstood

1. I wasn't replying to the OP, but to reply 16 (and perhaps to the similar sentiments expressed in reply 18). Yes, those sentiments are scary, and I agree that there seem to be Democrats who would embrace them as long as they weren't being expressed by Bush.

2. Unfortunately, I see sentiments far too similar for my comfort in Kerry's own positions (and even more so in the PPI positions that the DLC promotes). They're scary, too, and that's why I answered 'yes' to the poll (as, I'm extremely encouraged to note, have the majority of respondents so far).

- bill

[MessiahRp]

38. The people who vote "Yes" are ridiculous

Since when did the PNAC OR BUSH ever want to involved the World Community in anything? I don't see Kerry picking Middle Eastern and European targets to take out to begin Pax-Americana Empires. The fact that so many people vote "Yes" either means they are misinformed, or they are on the wrong site. Try FreeRepublic.com if you really hate Kerry so much.

Rp

[IndianaGreen]

49. Did you read Kerry's statements about Cuba, Venezuela, and Iraq?

They gave aid and comfort to the enemies of peace.

On Cuba, Kerry said that he will not change US policy of aggression against Cuba without checking first with Miami's exile community (pandering to Elian's kidnappers).

On Venezuela:

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

The Democratic candidate for President of the United States, John Kerry, published a statement on his web site this past March 19, setting forth his position on the political situation in Venezuela. In this declaration, Kerry relies on inaccurate information and repeats views identical to those of the Venezuelan opposition to democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez.

<snip>

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. You are misrepresenting Kerry's positions.

Why?

[IndianaGreen]

56. Kerry supports the Venezuelan elites, not the workers and peasants

Why do you defend Kerry's support for the Venezuelan rightwing? This is like supporting Pinochet over Allende.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Why are you misrepresenting Kerry's position?

Why? Why not let Kerry represent his position, and simply disagree with what he says, if you disagree? Why make up a different position to disagree with?

[IndianaGreen]

58. I posted the CommonDreams article. I guess they are too liberal!

Kerry is another "Ugly American" for Latin America!

Published: Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Bylined to: Philip Stinard

International court cases to be brought against US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles S. Shapiro

VHeadline.com correspondent Philip Stinard writes: On April 11, in Caracas, the Venezuelan group ASOVIC (Association of Victims of the April 11, 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez) announced that they would file charges in US courts, and in the World Court in the Hague, against US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, for his involvement in sniper shootings at the Llaguno Bridge during the coup at the Miraflores Palace that left several people dead, including a journalist.

According to a statement released by Merly Morales, a spokeswoman for the lawyers representing ASOVIC, there are “elements for conviction, which in our judgment, serve as evidence to ask for the opening of an inquiry before US courts and the appropriate international tribunals” against Ambassador Shapiro. Such evidence ranges from “special courses in assault given by US authorities to members of the Caracas Metropolitan Police Phoenix Group and Chacao and Baruta municipal police in the months of October 2001 and with greater frequency in March and the first days of April 2002, to conversations recorded in the Center of Operations of the Metropolitan Police on April 11 of that year (2002) between Commissioner Forero and Ambassador Shapiro during the hours of greatest intensity of shots fired by members of the aforementioned police institution (Caracas Metropolitan Police) against people concentrated in the areas immediately surrounding the Miraflores Palace.”

In addition, there is also evidence “presented by the (Chavez) administration relating to the presence in Venezuelan territory of US ships on April 11, as well as (US) military personnel in the military installations at Fort Tiuna that would lead one to believe that there was an act of State committed against the constitutional government of Venezuela that directly affected members of our association that were injured and killed.”

With reference to a court case brought against Hugo Chavez before the World Court in The Hague by opposition groups, Morales continues, “a group of Venezuelan citizens, tied to international conspiratorial factors that participated in, and still participate in, plots against the President, asked for an investigation before the Prosecutor of the World Court in The Hague against our Head of State and other high officials for supposed crimes against humanity; this obligates us to take part in these legal processes because we are direct victims of these processes, and (we do this) in honor of dismantling the international judicial landscape activated by the coup leaders, who were the true ones responsible for those occurrences (the shootings).”

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=17335

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Who gives a fuck about commondreams or how you label them?

That is totally off topic.

Here is Kerry's actual statement on Venezuela:

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

Here's what you wrote about that statement: Kerry supports the Venezuelan elites, not the workers and peasants.
Why do you defend Kerry's support for the Venezuelan rightwing

So either you were ignorant of Kerry's position, or you were misrepresenting it.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Kerry's statement on Venezuela is full of lies and disinformation

It is shameful that a Democrat could adopt the views and policies of the most extreme fascist elements in Latin America and their friends in America.

That's what the CommonDreams article was addressing!

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com


It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Could you point one out?

Don't cut and paste some article, just point out something in Kerry's statement that you think is 'a lie' or 'a misrepresentation' and state why.

Please?

[IndianaGreen]

63. An Open Letter to John Kerry: You Are Wrong on Venezuela, Senator

March 24, 2004

An Open Letter to John Kerry
You Are Wrong on Venezuela, Senator
By EVA GOLINGER

As a registered Democrat who supports major changes to current US governance, I must express my utmost disappointment and disillusionment with your March 19, 2004 Statement on Venezuela. I am a US citizen of Venezuelan origin. I have voted on the democratic bill since I was first legally permitted to vote many years ago. Along with many other residents and citizens in this country, I believe the current US administration has acted in ways contrary to my beliefs and perceptions of democracy and progress, and has betrayed notions of what the United States of America should truly represent and pursue in the world community.

Up until Friday's statement, I had hope that you, as a presidential candidate, could offer the American people a true alternative and change from the brutal, insensitive and interventionist government we have had during the past four years. As a Venezuelan-American, I must tell you that your statement on Venezuela is not only highly misplaced, but also demonstrates how truly uninformed you are about the situation in Venezuela. It also leads me to believe that you have been influenced by interested parties insisting you take a stand on this issue in their favor.

You declare that international pressure should bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed, which clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the referendum process in Venezuela. As per the Venezuelan Constitution, certain procedures must first be completed before a recall referendum can be held on President Chavez' mandate, and those clamoring for the referendum have yet to fulfill the necessary requirements that would permit such a vote to take place. It may be easy for you to make a statement on an issue you do not fully understand or care about, merely to acquire approval from a targeted voting pool, yet I would warn you to not make such whimsical declarations without first examining the entire situation.

You, as others in the current administration and congress, may feel as though President Chavez is somehow interfering in the referendum process. But, Mr. Kerry, I suggest you seek out other news and information sources than those currently serving you, because a more accurate report of the events in Venezuela would demonstrate to you that President Chavez has taken no steps whatsoever to impede a recall referendum. Venezuela's Electoral Council and Supreme Court are currently determining whether hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent signatures are subject to further review and certification. Determining whether substantial numbers of signatures on a very important petition is an issue, which I hope, you would consider worthy of scrutiny and absolute certainty. Or would you permit such a situation to occur in your own election and just let potentially fraudulent votes against you be counted without any further verification or review?

http://www.counterpunch.org/golinger03242004.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. I recognize that you have an ability to cut and paste.

How about advancing your own view about Kerry's statement? Could you please try?


I asked why you are misrepresenting Kerry's position. You said. Kerry supports the Venezuelan elites, not the workers and peasants.
Why do you defend Kerry's support for the Venezuelan rightwing


Here is the statement:

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html

Where is the support for the Venezuelan elites, the support for the Venezuelan rightwing ?
Was that true when you said it or was it a false statement?

[Classical_Liberal]

68. Ok I'll take it

For one thing it is absurd to blame Chavez for undermining the democratic process, when he is in fact democratically elected, without mentioning the coup against him by his opponants, or the fact that there are forged signitures on this referendum which was sponsered by the coup plotters.

Secondly their is no basis for the accusation that he is close to Fidel Castro, or that he has used politically motivated incarcerations. Kerry needs to back up these assertions with facts.

As pointed out in the artcle IG posted their is no evidence he has assisted narco terrorists. Infact their are agencies in the US government who have said this claim is false.

Finally how has Hugo Chavez subverted the referendum process? All he has done is taken issue with the legimacy of the signitures. Nothing wrong with that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. If you are going to criticize someone for lying, you should be truthful

while doing it.

First of all what I was asking for was some corroboration of the statement:

Kerry supports the Venezuelan elites, not the workers and peasants.
Why do you defend Kerry's support for the Venezuelan rightwing

You haven't shown anything that corroborates this untrue, deceptive smear.




Your comment:For one thing it is absurd to blame Chavez for undermining the democratic process, when he is in fact democratically elected, without mentioning the coup against him by his opponants, or the fact that there are forged signitures on this referendum which was sponsered by the coup plotters.



But that is actually untrue:

Kerry: Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html


Why did you make this false comment? Wouldn't you be more persuasive if you limited yourself to truthful statements?


Let's be very clear: you said: "without mentioning the coup" and that is not true.





Your commment: Secondly their is no basis for the accusation that he is close to Fidel Castro, or that he has used politically motivated incarcerations. Kerry needs to back up these assertions with facts.

SO we have your unsupported assertion, versus Kerry's unsupported assertion. But you've already made one assertion about this comment that has been demonstrated to be untrue. So who has more credibility?

You go on to make other unsupported assertions and attacks against the only person on the planet who has a chance of defeating Bush.


So we have a choice of believing the Democratic nominee, or an anonymous poster on a message board. I know who I believe.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. Why the hell would anyone want Bush to intevene in Venezuela

more than they have?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. What does that have to do with your false statements?

[IndianaGreen]

64. Venezuelan "exiles" in Florida are taking responsibility for Kerry's views

They are completely close to the Cuban American National Foundation in South Florida, which held a massive anti-Chavez parade on the very day the entire REST OF THE WORLD was conducting massive anti-Iraq war demonstrations last winter.


Published: Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Tampa-based Free Venezuela, Inc: Our goal is regime change in Venezuela

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:42 GMT

Subject: Error: It was Venezuelans in TAMPA

In David Coleman's article "Venezuela's relations with USA to improve if Bush 2 loses election this fall" you stated that Senator Kerry's statement regarding the Chavez regime amounted to "Parroting anti-Venezuelan Miami Herald propaganda."

In fact, the Kerry position statement was the result of the effort of Venezuelan-Americans from the Tampa area who contacted his camp and conducted an education campaign to be sure that Kerry understood what a threat the Chavez regime represents to US interests, regional stability, and how it endangers democracy across the hemisphere.

We have been working constantly over several years to establish good contacts with our representatives, and it was through those contacts that we made direct contact with John Kerry and delivered to him the message you will find below.

We are now in the process of publishing more Op-Ed articles, organizing round table discussions about the Chavez regime, and speaking out on nationally syndicated radio shows. Let there be no confusion: the "Miami Mafia" had nothing to do with this. It was the result of hard work by US citizens and Venezuelan expatriate organizations like FREE VENEZUELA that we influenced Kerry, and we will continue to push US policy until we achieve our goal.
(snip/)

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=16656

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. I take responsibility for the Theory of Relativity, and the polio vaccine.

[zulchzulu]

39. Stupid poll options

To even try to say that Kerry is PNAC-lite is about as stupid and misinformed that Kerry is Bush-Lite.

PNAC is pure evil. Anyone who says that Kerry is "fill-in-the-blanks that is kind of like Bush"-Lite is probably some numbnut who is for either the short guy who is still running against Kerry and has 28 delegate votes, a sore loser with a bad case of the sour grapes because their candidate went nowhere or just a pothead too lazy to actually read anything important.

Mind-melded horseshit is still horseshit.

[IndianaGreen]

48. PNAC and PPI are two sides of the same imperialist coin

Kerry is not PNAC, but he is PPI. Kerry will continue with Plan Colombia, and with efforts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez Administration in Venezuela. Kerry will stay in Iraq!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Your statement is false.

Kerry is not PNAC, but he is PPI.


That is a false statement. If it was said anywhere but DU, I'd call it a lie.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. One of the answers is stupid.

That doesn't mean the question is stupid.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. You've convinced me

that reality has so little to do with the opinions voiced on DU that you could say it is completely unrelated.

I've basically thought this was a total waste of time, for months. Now, I'm completely convinced.

50% think Kerry's foreign policy is PNAC-lite?


YOU PEOPLE ARE WEAK-MINDED VICTIMS OF REPUBLICAN PROPOGANDA


and I'm glad you won't get what you deserve.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. I'm totally prepared to accept the results of the poll. That's my point.

If you poll the American people and ask the question: Is George W. Bush honest? you will probably get at least 50% who say yes. That tells you what the respondants think, but it does not tell you anything about the truth of the question asked.

[Snivi Yllom]

69. Other, Kerry is not sure what his foreign policy is.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. What is it about Kerry's foreign policy are you unsure of?

Is there something in the included links you didn't understand, or that backs up your statement? or is this just an unsupported and false attack on the Democratic nominee?

[sangh0]

73. How to attack it

He doesn't know how to attack it, so he posted some generalized anxiety. Anxiety doesn't require facts

[Zynx]

77. What the hell is with our forum?

I don't believe that Kerry would have gone into Iraq and I was as anti-Kerry as they came during the primaries as many here know. Now is the time to support our candidate and not say "Oh I wish (Insert Candidate X) would have won instead".

[ACK]

78. Kerry is evil. Didn't you get the memo?

They still blindly believe that the dream candidate with the charisma of John Edwards, the organization of Dean and the platform of Kuicinch will drop out of the sky of a cross of purity to save them.

Kerry is right of Kuicinch and Nader and this is true.

However, he is to the left of Lieberbush and Clinton.

At least we got a yankee with a liberal voting record for goodness sakes.

At least he wants to modify NAFTA and is not going to endorse the FTAA.

At least he has a good voting record on the environment.

At least he wants to come up with a national service plan that helps to put kids through college without them having to carry guns.

At least he wants to repeal the tax giveaways to the rich.

At least he wants to repeal the bill that gives tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas.

At least he wants to return the US to community of nations.

At least he is pro-choice through and through.

At least he has a healthcare plan.

What real choice has anyone else got?

+