Kerry 'will not change foreign policy'

[Robbien]

By David Rennie in Boston
(Filed: 29/07/2004)

America's allies expecting a shift in United States foreign policy from a President John Kerry should think again, his top advisers said yesterday.

Instead, members of Mr Kerry's inner circle could promise only "stark contrasts" of personality and style between President George W Bush and their candidate, who they vowed would be a "hands-on, engaged, diplomat-in-chief".

Rand Beers, the national security adviser to the Kerry campaign, opened a high-level briefing with a warning: "In many ways, the goals of the two administrations are in fact not all that different."

. . .

Instead, Mr Holbrooke, a former United Nations ambassador who is spoken of as a possible secretary of state in a Kerry administration, offered what he clearly hoped was a reassuring psychological sketch of Mr Kerry as a cosmopolitan internationalist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/29/wus129.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/29/ixnewstop.html

[Kira]

1. What???????

Why are they saying this garbage? No real difference? What is going on with them?

[shanti]

26. they know we have no choice at all

it's either kerry or more of the chimpster. you do the math.

[Jack The Tab]

2. NOT a good soundbite...

Enough with this pandering bullshit.

[hedda_foil]

3. Progressive Internationalism

PNAC with a reasonable face.

[Dhalgren]

6. That is what it sounds like.

[TahitiNut]

12. Or a game of "good cop, bad cop".

I'm fundamentally uncomfortable with a "might makes right" policy stance. US militarism has moved from being a global stabilization posture to being one of the most destabilizing foreign policies since the Roman Empire.

The invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. The invasion of Iraq was outright, blatant criminality!

[Dhalgren]

19. You know (and I am open to an accusation of naivite),

it is really hard for me to believe that a person with Kerry's education, experience and background would not agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was "outright, blatant criminality". From his stand on Vietnam to his very progressive career in the senate, Kerry just doesn't seem to be a person who would honestly say he was in favor of extending and maintaining the occupation. Is he lying? Or has he changed? What is the deal?

[TahitiNut]

28. Well, then I'm more than a bit naive, too.

For me, that's the $64,000 question. I'm fully in the Wellstone/Kucinich camp on such issues. I'd give a minor appendage to sit down mano-a-mano with Kerry and explore that very perspective.

My "working hypothesis" is that he's dealing with some realpolitik (it's a done deal - so what now?) and trying to map the most navigable course out of the bog, given that some degree of consensus is essential to any policy position.

A life-long dilemma is having one foot on utilitarian ethics and the other on deontological ethics -- and trying to keep a balance.

[Lorien]

4. "given the choice between a republican and a

democrat who acts like one, the people will choose the republican every time".

An old, and obviously forgotten, proverb.

[daleo]

5. Consider the source

The Telegraph has a way of putting the worst spin on things, but it is troubling to contemplate the possibility that Kerry will continue prosecuting the Iraq war. One hopes the futility of it will come clear to him very quickly, as the futility of Viet Nam did.

[blm]

14. This is the rightwing Telegraph twisting words to fit their goal

pushing the meme that there is no difference. That tactic assures the depression of votes for the left.

[ecoalex]

7. There is no difference really

Last night the delagates for Dennis Kucinish ,were told to not cause any dissent against the Dem party platform. When Bill Richardson on the podium rushed the platform thru, he asked the delagations are there any who do not accept this platform? The Kucinish people said yes, but were ignored.Earlier big hitters like Fritz Mondale came to the Kucinish delagation, and told them the Dems must have lock step unanimous voices. Sounds like the republicans to me.

[aquart]

8. He can't and WON'T repudiate the war.

Not and be elected as a war president.

This is very shaky ground.

I'm for total withdrawal and I know there's no way that's gonna happen.

If Kerry says he'll end the war in January, then he's "giving aid and comfort." The Republicans can use it to galvanize their disaffected members.

It isn't going to be nice. Bush has created a mess of mammoth proportions. Kerry cannot appear IN ANY WAY to be undermining the current war effort.

[paulk]

9. an opinion piece

from a right wing newspaper should always be taken with a grain of salt.

[msmcghee]

10. Let Kerry play the game.

He knows that any difference in foreign policy that he describes can be twisted into "fear for our safety with a weak-on-terrorists Dem in office". Anything he says different from "we need to create stability in Iraq" and "win the war on terror" will be used against him. Any details. Anything.

The sheep will hear the slogans and pay no attention at all to whatever justifications or logic Kerry could back it up with. They'll only remember the slogans - especially if they fit with the memes the pukes have already infected them with - weak-on-terrorists Dems.

That's why the puke pundits are all complaining that he doesn't provide any details for his policy. It's a game. Details can always be attacked because they are never in context of the complete policy on the issue. And even in context - they are all arguable and confusing to all sheep.

We have reached Orwell's prophecy. You will never see details in presidential campaigns again. You will only see reassurances that the candidate is a "good guy", a "better guy" than the "other guy" - and smears and attacks to convince us that the "other guy" is a traitorous, serial-lying, earth-tone loving, slime-bag whore-mongerer - which is exactly what Bush* did in 2000.

Thank goodness Kerry understands this.

[cspiguy]

11. he has to say that to get elected.

problem is - nader is saying the he WOULD change the policy, big time.

[demoman123]

17. How do you know this?

How do you know what would happen if he proposed a plan for withdrawal from Iraq?

[LibLabUK]

13. Hmm..

James Rubin, Kerry's foreign affairs advisor, said something very similar two nights ago in an interview on the Channel 4 19:00 news.

[Pastiche423]

15. Why is anyone surprised by this?

Or believe it to be untrue?

Has kerry stated otherwise?

No, he hasn't.

[cthrumatrix]

16. I agree ....

[denverbill]

18. I'm not surprised. And I'm not happy either.

But from Israel to Venezuala to Cuba to Iraq, Kerry has come out on the side of the PNAC'ers 100%. It would be nice to have a choice.

[mac56]

20. Beware the spin, people.

It'll make you dizzy.

Don't you see the wedge the Telegraph is trying to drive here? Don't buy into it.

[nolabels]

21. The best part about it is many with half a brain have jumped ship on chimp

Some of the folks working for Kerry wouldn't be doing this if they thought it wasn't going to work (I trust it will work), even with the last Hurah (coming down the tracks). One or more big traitorous surprises is in the works, you can read it like writing on the wall.

No matter who calls what in the media, I would bet it's just about a wash now. Most of them know how to do the double back spin with a triple twist. There is a War out there, you just can't really see it :scared:

[Pastiche423]

22. It isn't the Telegraph that is delivering the wedge

It's kerry.

[mac56]

23. Think so?

When I hear those words directly out of Kerry's mouth, I may agree with you.

[Pastiche423]

24. You mean his "nuanced" words don't count?

Answer me this, is kerry for staying the course, or not?

Has he admitted that his IWR was wrong, wrong, wrong?

[mac56]

25. What exactly does Kerry need to say to make you happy here?

"I'm sorry I cast that vote"?
"I quit"?
"Pancakes is tasty"?

Tell me, I'd really like to know.

[aneerkoinos]

27. This:

The war in Iraq was a mistake, and we trust that the good people of Iraq can govern themselves. Here's a clear date for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq right after free and honest elections, and US will keep providing financial and material aid to rebuild what the wars and sanctions have done to Iraq. Also US will materially aid troops from Arab and Moslem countries (but not from neighbouring countries), if they are welcomed by majority of Iraqi people to help in building stability.

Thats what the Arab League is saying, and Europeans and the rest of the world can hardly disagree with that. So why is Kerry disagreeing with the world and sticking with the PNAC Imperial plan, other than the obvious, that he's committed to it?

[FlaGranny]

29. Mac, I believe Kerry can say nothing to make some people happy.

Some jump on EVERYTHING like chicken little - the SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Perhaps we should just vote for Bush - after all there is no difference is there?

Sometimes I pretty much believe that there is an office full of Neocons somewhere spending hours combing through news stories to look for something about Kerry they can spin into some evil. Then a few of them, posing as rabid left-wingers, come here and post them.