Who is more anti-war, Dean, Clark, or Kerry?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Just like Dean, Clark supported all the wars until this one. But when the war is on, Clark is obviously on the side of the United States, and is going to cheer for the United States, and is going to do what he can so that the United States wins.

It's horrifing to watch everyone fall into line when the war propaganda starts isn't it? But let's face it, do you want soldiers questioning their orders in a time of war? If you care about the integrity of the United States as a soverign nation, you don't. Russia and China have a lot of nukes, and anyone can build a bomb and become a terrorist. Just like the Marine said, "war is a racket" - if you want to stop war, you have to take the profit out of it. That means going after the profiteers. If corporations can make money from war, they will hire politicans to start wars.

Of course, in our case, the US is the single military superpower in the world. We dominate the land, the sea, and the air, and space. No one is even close to threatening our military. When we go to war, it's our choice, for political or business reasons, and with humanitarian (Kosovo) or self-defence (Iraq) pretexts.

Since 911 we now know that having aristocrats like Bush in office brings terrorism from their rival families, in Bush's case, the Binladens and Saudi royals. We know that having compromised corporate executives like Cheney in positions of power invites retaliation for their crimes overseas and sell-outs of our security and reputation for bribes and contracts.

If you think Dean is more anti-war than Clark you're fooling yourself. Dean is BEGGING Clark to be his VP - so obviously Dean thinks Clark is anti-war enough.

As a liberal progressive populist, I think we are getting a raw deal again - two favorite candidates are neo-liberals when it comes to class war and the economy. This is exactly what drove so many people into the Reform party, the Green party, and to simply not vote. I suppose Bush is so horrible and the situation since his selection and 911 is so dangerous, we'll have enough concerned people to get to the polls and make sure Bush and his whole gang is thrown out - and utterly refuse to let them steal the election with fake voting machines. I know I will.

Then what - Dean/Clark/Kerry inheirits a horrible economy, a massive debt, world wide war and anti-American hostility, and a right-wing media machine that still blames Bill Clinton's penis for every problem in the world. Any slightly liberal ideas these jokers propose will either be shot down by corporate Democrats and Republicans, or blamed for the bad economy. The middle class continues to get poorer, employees will make less, family businesses will go under, and FOX and CNN will still spread their propaganda.

I guess the best part is watching the Clark team use all of the tactics they picked up watching Dean go from a right leaning centrist governor to a ultra-left Democratic party base builder to dead center of the road "against this war but supported all the others" moderate. The Clark team spent the last six months registering DU accounts, getting usersnames on online forums, setting up mailing lists, and astro-turfing the same internet forums that Dean did - which of course actually started with the far-left crazy college activists when the internet first became popular. Those crazy college activists hooked up with everyone around the world to stop the new global government, the multinational corporations and their IMF, World Bank, and WTO. The craziest among them started yelling about the Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones, the BFEE, and all the rest of the wealthy aristocratic families that have interfered with our democratic republic since the beginning.

Watching the DLC and the corporate sponsors of the Democratic party co-opt that network to elect centrist candidates, fine-tuned in focus groups and straight from Central Casting, has been an amazing educational experience for me. I am literally in awe - I remember when McCollough told us we were going to sink all that money into a communications network about two years ago, and obviously the man is earning his money - that's why they call him the "notorious bagman", he can astro-turf better than anyone and bring in the corporate cash like a pro.

I am confident that the Democratic party will win the next election, and I'd even wager that we'll pick up a few seats in Congress. I hope the new Democratic president follows Clinton's lead and raises taxes on the rich and pays off this obscene debt Bush has chained us with. Oh, and would you mind doing something about the outsourcing? If we don't have jobs, we can't buy anything, and we tend to get restless.

[Bread and Circus]

1. Here is a better question...

Who is likely to bring more peace in the future?

Being anti-war doesn't really mean anything.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. None are antiwar

If you are asking who is the most Hawkish. It is Kerry without a doubt. Kerry opposes the peace process Carter started, and voted for the resolution to give Bush war powers. Dean and Clark are about the same in terms of hawkishness. Neither were hawkish on Iraq. Both were hawkish on Kosovo, and Afghanistan. I don't know what Clark's position is on the Israelis settlements.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Bullsh*t! Let's Compare Dean and Kerry

Kerry calls for parallel concessions, which most Arab thinkers see as the only feasible road to peace:

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace.

Dean, despite his triangulating talk about "honest brokering," flew to Israel (paid by AIPAC), met with Sharon and promised UNCONDITIONALLY to give 4x the current military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion), and 4-5x the loan guarantees ($2 billion to $8-10 billion). That is further than even Paul Wolfowitz is willing to go.

-------

On Iraq, Kerry said that every peaceful option must be exhausted, but Dean came up with the bizarre proposal to give the UN 30-60 days to allow Iraq to comply.

------

Dean has good intentions, but Kerry has real and comprehensive Middle East trade policies designed to "drain the swamps" of terrorism, designed to create jobs, promote diversified economies, inter-Arab trade, and anti-corruption measures.

Dean may have said he voted "no" on the IWR (although he agreed with Biden-Lugar and his dumb 30-60 day thing), but he is either in over his head, or - in the case of Israel - dangerously wrong.

[blm]

17. More like he doesn't know what to say, and wings it

depending on who is in his audience.

"Gary, what do I do?"

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. shameless

kick

[CWebster]

4. Kucinich

Dean has captured the spirit and mandate of the base. Kerry is a consumate Democrat. Clark is a projected image.

[reachout]

5. on and off

I don't really believe that any of them are anti-war. This is, all of them have bought into the notion that wars actually solve problems rather than just creating more of them. I don't think any of the three is likely to be thinking outside the militaristic box any time soon to find peaceful solutions to the challenges that face us.

That being said, their willingness to at least open up a dialogue about this particular war has value in a society so saturated by the myth that violence is THE redemptive force in the world. If you can get people considering why this war is wrong, perhaps you can actually start them thinking about the wisdom of war in the first place. A teachable moment perhaps?

As to a question in your post:

"do you want soldiers questioning their orders in a time of war?"

Yes, I do. Even the Uniform Code of Military Justice recognizes that it is the duty of each individual to refuse an illegal order, and that failure to do so can be no excuse for any illegal action they may perform.

[CWebster]

7. good post

stick around. We need more thinkers and less cheerleaders.

You have to swat them off with a club. ;-)

[Terwilliger]

6. none

they all favor war

[DrFunkenstein]

12. What Do You Mean "Favor" War?

I'm not sure if that is an irresponsible statement or just dumb.

[Terwilliger]

16. what do you mean what do I mean?

Did you think US foreign policy has been enacted by conservative Republicans for the last 50+ years? DEMOCRATS have been the prime mover in our interventionist, imperialist policies. None of the three mentioned above are anti-war. Even Kucinich isn't anti-war. The three listed would not have hesitated to make war on Saddam. They may not have done it like Shrub the war criminal, but they would have done it. And claiming that Democrats are somehow more moral when it comes to war is just goofy.

[GalleryGod]

8. Dem's to BUSH: "Thanks, but, You're RELIEVED,SIR!"

I think that President Flight Deck-Big Dick is STILL a hard target,because of his lovability.:puke:
Having said that- the Corporate Motorcycle Gang surround-ing him is EMMINENTLY HATE-ABLE! So...we start NOW by attacking the guys he "Signed-up".:think:

Make-it such a drumbeat (like Big Dawg's "a bridge to the 21st century") that folks hear it in their sleep.

:hangover:

[IndianaGreen]

9. Kerry voted for the war, and he continues to support the occupation

I don't know what is the point that you were trying to make in your thread by name dropping Dean and Clark together with warmongering Kerry, but the arguments you used are somewhat convoluted and left me confused as to what were you trying to convey.

I must admit that I just woke up and I haven't had my caffeine fix for the day. Perhaps I will be able to think more clearly in a couple of hours.

:shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Warmongering? Drink Some Coffee!

Dean is TRIANGULATING your ass on Israel. He went over on AIPAC dime and promised to QUADRUPLE the military aid UNCONDITIONALLY.

As for Kerry warmongering, he voted - like Clinton - to use the real threat of force to hold Saddam accountable. Show me one statement where he has ever warmongered. He laid out EXACTLY what needed to be done with Iraq, but was given a no-win resolution to vote on.

You may disagree with the vote, but Kerry himself is hardly pro-war. He was laways explicit about making war an absolute last resort.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Kerry’s Deceptions on Iraq Threaten His Presidential Hopes

Published on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Kerry’s Deceptions on Iraq Threaten His Presidential Hopes
by Stephen Zunes

In a speech on the Senate floor immediately prior to the October vote, Senator Kerry categorically stated that Saddam Hussein was “attempting to develop nuclear weapons.” However, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that Iraq had had an active nuclear program for at least eight to ten years prior to the U.S. invasion. Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in 1998 and subsequently that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled.

To justify his claims of an Iraqi nuclear threat, Senator Kerry claimed that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.” The reality, of course, was that much of the U.S. intelligence community was highly skeptical of claims that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials.

Indeed, despite unfettered access by IAEA inspectors to possible Iraqi nuclear facilities between this past November and March and exhaustive searching by U.S. occupation forces since then, no trace has been found of the ongoing Iraqi nuclear program that Senator Kerry claimed existed last fall.

In addition, Senator Kerry stated unequivocally that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” He even claimed that most elements of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs “are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” He did not try to explain how this could be possible, given the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990.

The Massachusetts senator also asserted that authorizing a U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country was necessary since “These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

[Terwilliger]

18. Did he STOP the fucking war????

Did he tell the American people that we were responsible, FIRST MIDDLE AND LAST, for Saddam Hussein? Did he make sure we stopped supporting Saddam after the so-called "gassing of the Kurds" in 1988? Did he make sure that Saddam was taken out in 1991? Did he make sure that the people of Iraq were not unduly screwed by the sanctiones we imposed on them for 10 years?

NO

He voted to give Bush a blank check, and talked about bad ole' Saddam. He's a liar like the rest of them.

[sangh0]

22. Did you?

If not, you must be PNAC

[TLM]

23. Will you bashers make up your minds?

"Dean is TRIANGULATING your ass on Israel. He went over on AIPAC dime and promised to QUADRUPLE the military aid UNCONDITIONALLY. "

So now Dean is back to being too pro-israel, last week you bashers were trying to spin him as anti-israel.

Which is it?


"Show me one statement where he has ever warmongered."



Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

[blm]

24. Kerry wants to DROP the occupation and

internationalize it ASAP.

IG...he called for it last July to much criticism, and has repeated it in the debates. You never noticed?

[maha]

13. Historically, ex-military presidents AVOID war.

If you're trying to argue that an ex-general will be more likely to send troops overseas than a lifelong civilian, history says otherwise.

The fact is, Presidents who have seen bodies on a battlefield work harder to avoid unnecessary military action than the civilians.

[blm]

14. LEAST likely to go to war would be Kerry.

And anyone who has examined his position papers over the last 30 years would know that. He's labeled the "Tough Dove" in DC.

[TLM]

25. I do not give two shits about his position papers...

Because Kerry's actions prove his position papers are bird cage liners.

Kerry does what he thinks will help his career, that's it. That's why he voted for the war, the no child left behind act, the 350 billion tax cut and sat out the PBA ban vote.

Kerry looks at our troops just like Bush does, as props. He proved that when he lied and let all those vets think he tossed his own metals over the fence of the White House for the political boost.

[blm]

27. History reviser to prop up YOUR boy.

It will only last for so long.

Try doing some honest to goodness homework on the last 30 years.

Your guy had no real position on Vietnam even. He just knew that he didn't want to go and didn't care to protest that others were being sent.

He supported EVERY OTHER WAR, he said.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Your Diagonis Is Spot On... We Might Disagree On The Treatment

I have argued many times on this board that there is no fundamental difference between the defense/foreign policies of Mr.'s Gephardt, Graham, Dean, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards... Joe Lieberman might be a tad more militarist/interventionist.... Only Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley Braun offer a sharp departure from Democratic orthodoxy on defense/foreign policy which I'll call the interventionist lite school of foreign policy...

Like the other main stream Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and General Clark supported the Clinton foreign policy which included the use of force in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq... Dean and the others supported the Afghanistan War...


Let me be perfectly clearly the Dems are light years ahead of the reactionary Republicans on foreign policy.... Just at there is not a diplomatic solution for every problem there is c-e-r-t-a-i-n-l-y not a military solution for every problem....

Where you and I depart my good friend is that I have no problem with the "interventioinst lite" school of foreign policy...

To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton if men were angels, there would be no need for militaries....

There also would be no need for police, locks, gates, and handguns either.....

[Terwilliger]

20. yes...you have decided that America will decide what's what

and enforce it with their military might

Let's see how this agrees with Kennedy's assessment of being liberal...

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/sept60/jfk140960_ny04.html

actually...having read that, you're probably right...I'm not as positive as JFK seems here

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. JFK

also said

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, That we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the Survival and success of liberty."

-Inaugural Address, Washington DC, January 20, 1961


I am in favor of the judicious use of force under a narrowly circumscribed set of circumstances with an emphasis on bringing a quick and successful conlusion with the minimum amout of casulaties-ours, our adversaries, and civillians, i.e. the doctine of just war which is part and parcel of Christian theoology...

[Oracle]

26. None of them!

They will all say, they accept war as an necessary evil and for protection, etc...then how come there has been a war (of some kind, or military or "police" action) under every republican and Democratic president? (EXCEPT UNDER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER)

We are and always have been the most aggressive, imperialistic, resource grabbing nation, the world has ever known (with the possible exception of Britain.) Shit, the US just took over two more countries...stole the worlds second largest oil reserves and has control of the world largest opium producing nation (as well as built a gas pipeline through it)

You think we are just going to get up and leave.

And ALL the Democrats said "Yea!"

[MrPrax]

28. 'Positioning' is Not a Principle

None of these guys are running the show and as such they can BE against a war that had already happened...
Ergo their 'flip-flops' and the morally repugnant position of--"well I was on record ('cept Kerry) of being against the War and carried a sign maybe and released a press release questioning whether we should involve the UN or not"...
Really I was...
But today I support the efforts to rebuild, bring freedom to the Iraqis and continue a 'preventive' policy foreign policy...

I would have respect for any of these guys if they said at least, 'hey I agree with Chirac--months not years and pull them out'

But not likely to happen...

BTW did Clinton ever sign that landmine treaty?