Will Kerry condemn the PNAC?

[whosinpower]

Thoughts anyone? I hesitate to mention that, so far, for all intents and purposes, it might be construed that Mr. Kerry would continue along PNAC lines, given that he has supported the assasination of the latest Hamas leader, and has also supported the "no right of return" to the palistinians.....
Don't flame me now - I would dearly love to hear Mr. Kerry condemn the policies, and principles of the PNAC. It is a strategy of neverending war, violence and conflict.

[judy]

1. Kerry already has my vote, no problem.

However, I think the question is a good one.
I was shocked by his endorsement of the assassination and "no right of return". I was so horribly disappointed, I cannot discount my feelings in order to support a rosy picture of John Kerry.

I also dislike the mixing together of Jews and Sharon policies. Israel has a large peace movement, and Jews are not all like Sharon just like Americans are not all like Bush.

Merely in terms of getting anyone closer to Peace, Sharon's policies are a disaster and a dismal failure. Peace is what most people of most countries want, unless they have been whipped into fanaticism.

If anyone can explain to me Kerry's positions on the war, and the Palestinian problem and make me feel better, that would be great.

edited for horrendous grammar

[whosinpower]

4. What you say is true

Not all Jews are Sharon, and not all Americans are Bush. It is encouraging that at least you and I beleive that Sharon's policies are a disaster. Am I mistaken in terms of history, that it was not so long ago, that we had an Israeli prime minister who was assasinated after admitting that the palistinians were actually there before the Israeli's - that the land was not empty....Rabin, wasn't it? If history serves me correctly, it was he who finally admitted some of the palistinians trials and hardships. Was anyone charged? Was there any investigation? After he was killed, the Likuds were swept into power....is that correct?

[judy]

7. It was a guy named Egal Shamir, I think.

He assassinated Rabin, just like Al-Zawahiri assassinated Anwar Sadat not long before that.

Shamir was arrested and maybe tried. I don't quite remember.
Rabin and Sadat were making great headway in their quest for peace in the region.

I don't condone assassination of any kind, but why is it always the good guys who get assassinated ??

On Edit: In the world there are those who search for Peace and those who create situations that lead to war. Bush, Sharon, Al-Zawahiri, Shamir, they are all peas in a pod.

Where does John Kerry stand ? Is he with the legacy of Rabin and Sadat, or that of Sharon and Bush ?
By the way, I wrote to him to ask him this very question. We'll see if I ever get an answer.

[strategery blunder]

2. Average Joe Voter: "What is PNAC?"

Slight problem here...trying to explain this to the more ignorant voters out there.

He should condemn its policies. Condemning PNAC itself will make him look like a conspiracy theorist.

[judy]

3. Good point, chair094

Here is a good site to learn about PNAC for the people you might run into who don't know what it is

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac_timeline.htm

I just hope (for my own peace of mind, as I have said before, Kerry has my vote already) that he comes up against those policies eventually at some point...Otherwise, it will be hard to trust him.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Exactly. Kerry's job is to win, not say the things that will make US happy

[Guaranteed]

6. Psssh. No.

LOL

[Daniela]

8. No

There is no reason to suppose that John Kerry is anything other than a full supporter of PNAC in every way except the method.

Kerry will mask American Imperialism under cover of the UN, as Clinton did.

But Kerry will never deviate from the racist Likud line.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. couple of things...

Couple of things:

1) Kerry is not going to differ much with Bush on Israel policy at any time during the run-up to the election. There are several reasons for this. First, it's lousy as a campaign issue. Even without the current complications, it's going to be lousy as a campaign issue. It's complicated, and just doesn't resonate with the average American. Second, it would be very easy, were Kerry to come out in opposition to Sharon and his policies, for Bush to paint him as a terrorist sympathizer (something Kerry is trying to avoid at all costs.) Third, he doesn't want to antagonize Jewish democrats in any way whatsoever. He will stay close to bush on this issue. It really doesn't matter anyway, because in all likelihood the situation in Israel will have shifted radically by that point anyway. Who the hell knows... we may even be back on the Road Map. Nothing that anyone says about the conflict seems to have any bearing on the reality on the ground. As for his position on the Hamas assinations, I can see the headlines now: "Kerry against killing terrorists." Catastrophe.

2) Regarding PNAC: The others are right about the conspiracy theory stuff. For myself, I think Kerry has already come out against the PNAC doctrine of unilateral US action for the purposes of world domination. Neither candidate is advocating that the US stop using it's superpower status. That just isn't a credible position to take. The difference here is about *how* we exercise that power, and Kerry has consistenly come down on the side of multilateralism (as much as he possibly can in the current political climate)

3) As always, it's important to separate words from actions. I will be the first to admit that Kerry has done some things (the war vote, for instance) that I disagree with. However, I understand the political expediency involved here. Quite frankly, no act of God or Congress was going to keep Bush from going to war. It was going to happen. A Kerry vote against the war would have done nothing to stop it, (and let's all try to remember what the political climate was like when that vote was taken) I don't want an ideologue as president. Historically, they've made pretty lousy presidents. All I want is a pragmatic politician whose views are relatively in line with mine, and who isn't going to try to BLOW UP THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD. It's really pretty simple. You've got the choice - Bush or Kerry. Quite frankly, who gives a good god damn about PNAC in that context? If Kerry is elected, PNAC goes back to being a lame position paper released by a piss-poor excuse for a think-tank.

[judy]

10. Thanks, yibbehobba,

This helps :) !

[Dark]

11. PNAC.

Maybe he's only avoiding creating the controversy of threatening to destroy that abominable organization.