"It's Time to Get Over It": Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On

[Andy_Stephenson]

02/18/04: 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 seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the battle to control 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?


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5707.htm

[whirlygigspin]

1. as a Dean supporter

I have to say that I would prefer Kerry over Bush anyday.

You can try to "scare" the established dems all you want
with Nader or whatever, but if you don't get the votes out,
it won't count for much...and that's the name of that tune.

[bearfartinthewoods]

79. according to a poll i just heard on the tube, nader pulls 5%

and bush wins by 2. i'd say that's quite a bit of power...

[Johnyawl]

2. It's the Presidents job to do this

...seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world...

Clinton did that
Carter did that
Kennedy did that

Why wouldn't Kerry do that?

The difference is this; ...in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

From the article:
In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

What the fuck is wrong with that goal???

[Tank in Texas]

3. Nothing In Your Opinion

But what about people with principles? Just kidding, I am certain you are a very principled person.

I don't believe that if America is bold she needs to "exercise" her power. The vagaries in this statement are part of what bothers me. Who defines "liberal values?" Who draws the line between "dominating" and "shaping?" At this point and without deeper review, the "kinder, gentler" Progressive Internationalism could potentially do the same thing the current neocons have done just differ in their terminology.

[kalian]

9. So, will he....

remove the troops from Iraq and allow the Iraqi people to select
their government, even if its based on the islamic laws? :shrugs:
Will he continue to harrass other nations but include the UN's
approval?
Will he continue to detain Americans and continue to support
the Patriot Act (which he voted for BTW...)?

Should I go on...? Sure, "kinder and gentler". :eyes: He'll just
put on the velvet gloves to lash out.

[revcarol]

12. Whoops!! And more questions:

Will he get U. S. contractors and privatizers out of Iraq?

Will he give reparations to Iraqis damaged by our aggression and privatizing?

Whoops!!...PPI, a kinder, gentler "to the victor belong the spoils."

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. What the fuck is wrong with that "goal" is that the description is a LIE

Just as PNAC claims to be about "exporting democracy and freedom", PPI admits their goals are the same as PNAC's, but tries to paint it as "liberal". If the mere suggestion that imperialism can be "liberal" isn't ridiculous enough, then look at the facts.

The PPI shares offices with the DLC, so attempts to deny the relationship are useless. Will Marshall, the head of PPI and John Kerry's foreign policy campaign adviser, is also a signator on every PNAC document since the invasion of Iraq.

So if the PPI is the DLC and the PPI is ran by PNAC'ers, what does that tell you about their goals and commitments?

Not one damn good thing can come from them. Or from having a candidate beholden to them in the White House.

[dfong63]

4. God help us

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

13. Soon enough, statements like this will be banned

I can hardly wait.

[Walt Starr]

14. You can ban the statements, but you can't ban the sentiment

I've watched for more than two decades as the Party I once considered the most consistent with my views devolved into an evil bunch of hacks distinguishable only from the other party by the rhetoric, but certainly not by the actions.

March 16th will be the last ballot I ever cast as a registered Democrat. I go independent on March 17th.

And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, yes, I will be voting for the Ham Sandwich with a (D) come November 2nd, but that's the absolutely last vote the Democratic Party can ever count on from me. Come 2008 if Kerry continues with this crap, I will be voting for the Ham Sandwich with an (R) after his name.

[kiahzero]

19. Have you read this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=373525

All of those issues are things that both Kerry and Edwards are better than Bush on. It's certainly a hell of a lot more than just "rhetoric."

[Walt Starr]

21. Nope, it's all just fluff to me

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Come November of 2008, I vote Republican because the Democrat will continue the policy of empire.

[kiahzero]

25. That's all fluff to you?

I never knew you held the following positions:

Tax cuts for the rich
Restrictions on abortion rights
No gay marriage
Fundie judges like Bill Pryor
Funding for tactical nukes
and more...

I'm kind of surprised, really.

[Walt Starr]

26. Meet the new boss

same as the old boss.

[kiahzero]

34. You keep saying that, even though it's not true

There's a list of 50 or more positions that the "new boss" differs from the "old boss" on. They are, for the most part, important issues. So no, the "new boss" is not the same as the "old boss"

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

[Walt Starr]

41. I don't believe there will be any real difference other than the SCOTUS

Only window dressing difference.

But dontcha worry, in 2004 the Democratic Ham Sandwich has my vote all sewn up, even if it's for the last time ever.

[kiahzero]

43. Bush doesn't think you or I should have the freedom of our faith

I thought at least THAT would be a valid distinction for you. I'm glad you're voting for the Dem. nominee in 04, but I wish you could see that there is a lot more than "window dressing" difference at stake here.

[Walt Starr]

45. I've been hammered with the scare tactics for more than two decades

I was going to lose my freedom of religion and women were going to lose their choice in 1980...

and 1984...

and 1988...

and 1992...

and 1996...

and 2000...

and now in 2004.

It hasn't happened yet. I don't see it ever happening because that would alter the status quo, so Bush makes window dressing rhetorical crap that means nothing for his base and the Democrats do the same for their base.

All the while, the status quo just keeps on keeping on.

[sangha]

71. Facts are fluff, slogans are the REAL deal

Never mind the facts that show the all too real differences. They're just fluff compared to slogans like "Meet the new boss..."

Meanwhile, woman ARE losing their right to choose. Some states have NO abortion providers. SS *IS* going bankrupt, and the freedom of religion is being threatened.

But those facts aren't nearly as fun as repeating cool slogans

[dawn]

69. Do you care about the rights of gays or women?

Or of the poor? Obviously not.

barf barf barf!!!!!!!!!!!!

[greatauntoftriplets]

35. You know, at first I didn't like the "ham sandwich" analogy...

...because I don't like ham sandwiches. Suddenly, in a moment of clarity, it occurred to me how bang on the phrase is.

[Skip Intro]

37. Feel the same, but you lose me WS

As I read that peice, the thought in the back of my mind, which has been there for a while now, suddenly burst into prominence. That thought was that this is the last time the Democratic party can count on my vote, same as you.

But you lose when you say you'll possibly vote repuke in 2008. Hell, I'd vote socialist or communist before I gave my vote to the slimeballs in the rupuke party.

I am hoping for a true progressive alternative to be viable by 2008. This may be the Green party. But what about the Kuciniches and the Gores and the Wellstone Dems and even the Dean movement. Maybe this block as a whole would leave the Dem party, and merge with the Greens? I would definitely want to bring something like that about, rather than vote r in 08.

I share you dismay at what has become of the Democratic party, especially since 2000. Where to go after November, if going somewhere is in order, is the question.

[Walt Starr]

42. Voting third party is throwing your vote away

or at least I'm constantly told that here.

So, my only choices are Republican and Democrat. Logically, if I cannot vote for the Democratic Ham Sandwich, I must vote for the Republican Ham Sandwich.

[AntiCoup2K4]

46. Here's a hypothetical for you, Nu Duer

Let's suppose, God Forbid, that Kerry takes the nomination and actually wins in November (unlikely). Now let's say he continues the PNAC/PPI imperialist doctrine, which seems very likely, given the evidence in this very thread.

Now let's say in the 2008 election, the Republicans have recovered from the insanity in their party and nominate a candidate who may be conservative, but who is not a PNAC imperialist. The question then would be, do you vote for continued fascism, just because it's wearing the Democrat label, or do you vote to end the PNAC sickness and then debate legitimate policy differences with the new GOP administration once the global fascist menace is taken out? That's what I believe Walt is getting at, and I happen to agree.

For example, given a choice between Kerry and John McCain, I would be more likely at this point to vote McCain. Not because I'm a Republican and not because I agree with him on everything or even a majority of the time. But because I recognize that the sickness that is the globalist fascist PNAC/PPI agenda is the worst threat to this country and this planet right now, and I simply cannot endorse those criminals, no matter what label they wear. Their "values" are not compatible with the Democratic party, or at least what used to be the Democratic party, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Yes I despise the Bush Fraudministration but the main reason that is the case is because they are pushing this doctrine. If a "kinder, gentler fuhrer" had taken over Germany after Hitler died, would that have been acceptable? Of course not.

And neither is a "Democratic" PNAC.

[Walt Starr]

50. Well said

A PNAC in Democratic clothing is still PNAC.

[Skip Intro]

52. Agreed.

Yes, if the choice in 2008 was between an imperialistic-PNAC/PPI Dem or an anti-imperialistic McCain/(Buchannan?) type repub then, yes, I would surely vote repub in the interest of humanity, barring a viable third alternative (which is what I would hope for). And I would pray that, if the PNAC crowd had lost control of the repub party by that time, that the repub party will have also rejected the fundie social agenda.

So yes, there is a way I would vote repub in 08, I guess, tho I think the chances of such a scenario presenting itself are very slim.

If you don't mind me asking, if the Dem candidate this November is Kerry, for whom will you vote?

[Walt Starr]

55. Actually, I consider the chances of it happening extremely large

Kerry looks to be the nominee and I guarantee you, look at the new boss same as the old boss.

Kerry is a PNAC in Democratic clothing.

[Skip Intro]

59. But the other half of the scenario

...that depends on a fundamental change in the republican party - I don't consider that anywhere near likely.

I hope you're wrong about a Kerry admin. too, I really do. Hope is all that I have now, for it looks like Kerry is going to be our nominee. That article isn't exactly hope-inspiring either.

As I've said before, once bush is gone, a lot of soul-searching will be in order. Hopefully that will be party-wide, and productive.

A great opportunity has been wasted in these primaries.

*sigh*

[Walt Starr]

64. Even fundamental change of the Republican Party doesn't matter

Changing the PNAC in mid stream is enough to mforce them to back off for a bit. Going to PNAC Kerry from PNAC Bush is enough to set things back for a while, then in 2008 we go from PNAC Kerry to a new PNAC Repuke again.

[foo_bar]

75. the joys of relativism

or an anti-imperialistic McCain/(Buchannan?)

That's about as far out and ironic as it gets. First off, Buchanan is half the reason we live under W; he deep-sixed the Reform Party to neutralize the Perotista siphon, as Nader was picking up steam. Forget that he worked for Nixon among such luminaries as Lucianne Goldberg and William Safire.

"We should not give Saddam more time to manipulate an inspection regime that can never succeed so long as Iraq refuses to voluntarily disarm."

"Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?"

- Sen. John McCain

It almost seems like your (collective) impression of these people is rehashed insinuations of broadcast media.

[Skip Intro]

81. What isn't

"rehashed insinuations of broadcast media?"

I was merely sticking with the premise that in 2008, we could be faced with a Democratic administration all for military intervention as a policy tool, and a republican alternative with a more "conservative" view of foreign policy. Say what you will about Buchanan, but he was against dumbya's invasion of Iraq before, I think, even Dean was.

If it came down to such a choice, which is fantasy imho, the preservation on human life would be reason enough to eject such a Dem admin, and install a less deadly repub admin.

This, again, imho, is a very unlikely scenario. However, if thousands of lives could be saved by voting repub in 2008 vs. voting Dem, I would have no choice but to vote for life, regardless of my political loyalties.


Meanwhile, back on earth, the same logic feeds my vehement support for ousting the utter shame that is the bush regime. Any Dem, or other party nominee if it were viable, would be a saving grace for the nation and the world.

I hope that I don't feel the same way about Kerry (if he's the nom.) four years from now.

[bigtree]

58. PPI is not PNAC

Not in policy, nor in practice. Hegemony or dominance (PNAC) is a far cry from the doctrine of preeminence expoused by the PPI.

It sounds catchy to blur the two, but the PPI's policies are in fact a direct rejection of republican doctrine.

Just because they argue for a reengagement in world affairs with a focus on multilateral cooperation doesn't mean that they will tend to the worst aspects of interventionism. At any rate, it would be a welcome change from the blustering unilateralism of the Bush cabal.

Just what country do you suggest should achieve preeminence over the U.S.? What purpose would it serve for the U.S. to disengage from multilateral engagements? How would the U.N. operate against weapons proliferation, totalitarianism, and world terrorism without the United States support as a military power? Not even Dennis Kucinich believes that we can disengage from our military commitments with NATO and the U.N.

How much of a retreat from the multilateralism implied in the doctrine of progressive internationalism would your objections represent? Do we completely withdraw from our international commitments? If not, then how do we assert ourselves in world affairs without the engagement of our military?

[AntiCoup2K4]

85. Will Marshall is the head of PPI (also Kerry's foreign policy adviser)

Will Marshall can also be found at the following links:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm

And as the PPI shares offices with the DLC, this means that the shitballs currently in control of the Democratic party are, in fact, tied to the shitballs who tell Bush Jr what to do.

And if that's not a problem for you, then you have no business calling yourself a Democrat. And that goes for anyone believing this ridiculous illusion that a FAUX funded Bonesman who hasn't cast a liberal vote in years could possibly be the best candidate for President.

We cannot allow these fascists to take over this party. I'm not violent by nature, but by God, if these fucking treasonous bastards think they will get away with taking over everything, I'll lead the goddamned revolution myself.

[bigtree]

94. Right

I'll let you dictate to me who is or isn't a Democrat. You'll decide for the rest of the country what is right or wrong. You'll lead a "revolution" to force your view, to effect the installation of who you feel is right for the country? We are just sheep in your view? Not smart enough to dicern for ourselves. We must be bound by your interpretation or else be dammed?

Great. Replace conservative for Liberal facism. Tell me who to vote for. Tell me what's right and wrong! I'm just a sheep! Baah!

Tripe.

[dawn]

70. McCain is a hardcore Republican.

Are you sure about that?

[Walt Starr]

73. If it was McCain vs. Kerry in 2008

McCain would have my vote all sewn up as The Ham Sandwich (R).

[AntiCoup2K4]

86. Depends on what you mean by "hardcore Republican"

McCain is committed to what he considers the true, traditional conservative ideology, and I would never say otherwise. As I said, I don't agree with the guy all that often. Historically, I've had a great deal of respect for him, as he's been a man of integrity and you could always know exactly where he stood and where you stood with him, whether you were in agreement or not. As opposed to Kerry who changes his positions more often than most people change socks.

McCain may have played the party loyalist when they needed him to, but trust me, he remembers how they shit on him to nominate the Idiot Son of an Asshole in 2000. The process was not all that different from what they did to Dean. In fact a lot of the same lies/adjectives were used. "Unelectable" "Angry" "Unstable".

In fact McCain was called these things simply because he was a Vietnam vet. Kerry might take notice of that. (Not that I want to help him out or anything)

[GreenArrow]

74. that's an interesting hypothetical

But it's only an hypothetical. The Republicans will not nominate an anti-imperialist in 2008. They'll nominate someone who is a "compassionate conservative" a "uniter, not a divider" and other such moderate appellations and descriptions. He'll campaign as a moderate, in contrast to the extremist policies of the current Democratic administration, (in actuality, a carry-over of policies from the failed Bush II regime) and then, having struck a resonant chord, and lulled the electorate into a pleasant stupor, will be elected, after which point he will immediately begin to govern from the far right.

[jonnyblitz]

47. my last "lesser evil" vote also. n/t

[Octafish]

29. Trouble with that is there may be no elections for your new party.

Seriously, the Little Turd from Crawford could suspend any elections, expand the war in Iraq to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Does serving in such an armed force bother people who say, "Vote for Bush!"? It should, but still, there's no telling what four more years of Bush will bring. There is plenty of evidence of what it would be like, though.

[Walt Starr]

30. Scare tactics

It will never happen. The only scare tactic that works on me this year is the SCOTUS and after this year, I won't even be scared of that any more.

[Octafish]

40. Personally, I agree. For my kids, however, who wins makes a big diff!

I could survive four more years of Bush. My country can't. Think "Richard Perle." The PNAC-gangsters and Bush have brought back, in essence, the neo-confederacy. "Hooray for Dixie!" doesn't sound good to me. That's why I'll vote for Kerry. At least the guy's a Yankee. That makes him a real American, one loyal to the Constitution of the United States.

[AntiCoup2K4]

87. The Little Turd could just as easily do that this year

Last week of October, most likely. And if the Democratic Nominee (or unreasonable facsimile) is ahead in the polls to the point where Jeb and or Diebold can't help Junior out enough to steal the election, look for it to happen.

[Adelante]

49. If the destruction of the Democratic Party is your goal

What the fuck are you doing HERE?

[dawn]

68. Nice to know you can be so pure in your views.

barf.

[randr]

78. I am afraid you miss the point

Many lives, not to mention the very planet we live on, will be destroyed by * long before the Democratic Party falls. Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting your nose off to spite your face"?

[RafterMan]

6. It's a clear choice

It's the PPI's oligarchy vs. PNAC's autocracy. The oligarchy drew the line at 1441 (including France and Syria) and resisted the Iraq invasion (second resolution, anyone?). Kerry had soiled himself with his IWR vote but, if President, would he have broken ranks and gone unilateral? I don't think so, and I've never heard him say he would have (unlike Edwards).

Where do the PNAC autocrats draw the line of US power? Iraq? Syria? Lebanon? Iran? Sudan? Libya? Anywhere?

There's an argument to be made that "it's all the same", but I don't see it that way: An evil internationalist is checked by the inertia of internationalism. An evil unilateralist is unchecked by anything.

I'll take the former any day.

[cyclezealot]

7. William Greider I trust.

In last week's "Nation" Greider quotes Kerry.
" Every Nation has the right to act pre-emptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat."
When asked about the current lack of Iraqi presence weapons of mass destruction. He says, he was duped. Those of us at the time who cruise the international press knew better.
I expect better of a Democratic nominee. Kerry's speech to me
sounds pretty unilateral. Just facing facts. we all might choose to hide our heads in partisan ignorance, but there are plenty of primaries left and we need all face the facts.

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. There's no choice because it IS all the same.

Will Marshall is the head of PPI. Will Marshall is a PNAC'er. There is NO difference.

[kalian]

8. IF Kerry wins....

it'll be more of the same...but...with a dem "flavor" to the entire
adventure.
Nothing, in essence, will change.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. Nothing will change, except

he'll find apologists on the "left" who will convince themselves, because it's now a Democrat's war rather than a Republican's, that it's suddenly a noble enterprise.

[mandyky]

10. Hmm, Kerry said a similar thing about election 2000

something along the lines of quit crying in your tea cups... maybe skull and bones gives a tin ear with membership since shrub has one too.

[mmonk]

11. And you know John Edwards

was so against the war or the idea behind it.:eyes: In fact, so much so he said it was necessary because of 9/11. So all who are against the war should vote John Edwards who is proud of his vote and perpetuates the myth of necessity behind it because of 9/11. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? It makes perfect sense to attack Kerry on the issue and leave the champion of the poor, the downtrodden, and who is against all these trade agreements except the most costly one so far involving China because his integirty is so high, he would never, ever, mislead anyone because he cares so much for each and everyone of us.

[edzontar]

15. An ironic contrast to Kerry's own principled stand 30 years ago

When he had both moral and political courage.

[mmonk]

18. The conflict with another army to win a war is over

All that's left is the decision when to leave, how to transfer power, and how to stabilize things long enough to do so. There's the difference at this particular point. Being against the war now that it's over won't stop it.

[edzontar]

22. History is memory, People are dead and wounded.

Nothing to see here anymore.

Move on.

[madfloridian]

And on to the next country?

Being against that doesn't matter either, I am afraid.

[madfloridian]

33. And on to the next country?

Being against that doesn't matter either, I am afraid.

[Nashyra]

23. Think about the SCOTUS

before spouting off about no change. This weekend another RW conservative hack appointed to a federal appeals court. These judges are the ones that are going to be making final decisions on how our constitution is being interpeted, do you want these judges appointed by * or some one from the Dem party. If anyone is so disgusted with the Dem party get involved in the local elections, sign on to groups to make phone calls for voter turn out, there are alot of things you can do. Clark jumped in the ring with the backing of a grassroot movement, Dean raised millions by a grassroot movement, but it has to continue well after the election just like Clatk and Dean both said it is just begining. We who want real change have got to be willing to continue to push ourselves well after the election and all the hoopla dies down, I think these two candidates both have said that they will continue to stay involved and so should we even if the Dem is elected. That is the time to voice our opinions loud and clear and stay organized and focused so that they hear us in DC.

[Walt Starr]

24. It's always about the SCOTUS

You damn well better hope that the Democrat wins and the ancient members of the court decide to retire during the next four years because I will NEVER fall for this argument again. 2004 is the LAST time I will even consider the SCOTUS in my presidential choice.

[edzontar]

27. Where did I "spout" about no change?

I criticized Kerry's recent position on the war and contrasted it to his Vietnam stance.

Since Vietnam is a cornerstone of his campaign, and war is the topic of this thread, this seems valid to me.

[quaker bill]

56. He gave that up some time ago.

These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

[bigtree]

62. I wonder how our pacifism would hold up under a WWI and II type threat

Would we advocate for defensive weapon systems that would avert attack? I think pacifism is no defense against tyrants.

[snoochie]

63. Who said anything about pacifism?

Boy, strawmen are getting really popular around here.

Not pacifism, but an insistence that our military might be used for just reasons.

It was not in Vietnam, it was not in Iraq.

Is that so hard to understand?

[bigtree]

72. But you refuse to accept that John Kerry's statements and actions

agree with that.

I make a case that Kerry never expoused what Bush ultimately did, not in his IWR vote, nor in his statements before and after the vote and invasion. I maintain that if Bush had followed the restraint implied in the resolution and returned to the U.N., and had actually followed through with the Security Council as mandated by the resolution, then he would have not invaded, and the inspectors that were allowed back in as a result of the threat of force in the resolution would have averted war by confirming the absense of dangerous weapons. Progressive internationalism would have worked. Bush disregarded that.

edit: Most Friends that I know are pacifists. I just assumed . . .

[snoochie]

76. Kerry said Saddam brought military action on himself

How is that not espousing what bush did?

He definitely espouses what bush did -- his only problem is that we should have offered some of the spoils to some other players, and formed an imperialism team so it wouldn't cost so much to get their oil.

[bigtree]

77. That is out of context of his many other statements that condem the course

that Bush took. He definitely doesn't expouse what Bush did. He has no interest in Iraqi oil. Bush does.

“If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg95577.html
_________________________________________________________________

“I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now.

I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that.”

“The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.”

“I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.” (The Presidnetial Determination section was eventually added to the IWR.)

“In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.“

“In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.”

“If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.”

“So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.”

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
________________________________________________________________


“In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=189831
_________________________________________________________________

A couple days later (29th), the President gave his State of the Union address. Kerry’s press release said of Bush:

“He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189997
___________________________________________________________________

Most recently, in Will Pitt’s article, Kerry said:

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

[bigtree]

17. This article is premised on the lie that the resolution authorized war

And it takes a swipe at a group it disagrees with by painting the New democrats with their cynical brush.

Let me be clear. John Kerry never authorized the president to unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq. Neither the PPI nor the DLC spoke or wrote anything in favor of unilateral, preemptive invasion.

In fact, if Bush had followed their doctrine of progressive internationalism to its conclusion there would have been no massive invasion. The U.N. had placed inspectors on the ground, they had been allowed back into Iraq as a result of the force implied in the resolution. Those inspectors (Hans Blix) could verify where opponents and proponents alike could only speculate as to the threat posed by Saddam. That was the full effect of the resolution. Bush pushed past that and unilaterally and preemptively invaded. That is against the doctrine of progressive internationalism as is spelled out in the DLC's policy documents.

"Maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests," is a far cry from the hegemony and dominance that PNAC espouses. In fact, the concept of progressive internationalism was borne out of an effort to present an alternative to Bush's doctrine of preemption and unilateralism.

The PPI and the DLC 'New Democrats' intend to serve as an alternative for those who don't believe that we can just walk away from the dangers in that region and assume that everything will just resolve itself. You see Kofi Annan trying to effect a new government there. He needs our support. How in the world can we pull out all of our troops and expect the U.N. to handle it alone? Did they handle Rwanda? Can they persuade any potentially dangerous rouge power to back down without the threat of U.S. force? Pakistan? Iran? North Korea? What does Mark Hand suggest that we do in relation to the potential threats from these other nations? He offers no solution, instead suggesting that we can cocoon ourselves in self-righteousness and hope for the best.

I want a U.S. that is guileless in its unassailable defenses, not a paper tiger full of bluster but no punch. The U.S. should be the preeminent, superior world power, militarily and economically. Anyone who suggests otherwise better explain just what other country they wish to achieve that role.

Preeminence, multilateral internationalism has been an accepted foreign policy doctrine since the World War. The DLC is reasserting the doctrine in an attempt to reengage in world affairs with the goal of uniting the peaceful nations of the world against weapons proliferation, totalitarianism, and hegemony. Progressive internationalism is the expression of that doctrine. The U.N. can not be effective without the commitment of our military might to back up many of its responsibilities, as in Liberia recently, in Pakistan, in Iran. Just talking the problems of the world down or ignoring them won't make them go away.

BTW, the 50,000 dead soldiers and the 9 million who served in that war were not villains. They were the victims of an arrogant political class of armchair warriors in Washington who refused to heed the international calls to end that war. So what if he refused in his statements to condemn his country. So what if he was selective in his condemnation. Many Americans, soldiers and others, credit the anti-war movement and its followers with helping to bring about the end of that war. John Kerry is to be praised, not scorned for doing everything he could as a twenty-something, war hero to bring about the changes need to keep faith with our nations servicemen and our humanity.

[edzontar]

28. Oh please. Which is it?

nt.

[bigtree]

31. Not talking?

How can I understand you?

You have placed this biased article down as a your expression against Kerry's vote. It offers half-truths and distortions of the IWR vote, Kerry's intentions, and of his service and protest of the Vietnam war. It distorts the DLC concept of progressive internationalism and preeminence as akin to the doctrine of hegemony and dominance of the PNAC. It is simplistic blather that intends to pass as an analysis of these concepts and, by extension, Kerry's views. And you proceed to paste your broad inferences on top of it.

Why don't you address the actual precepts of progressive internationalism as outlined in the DLC policy document and further attribute John Kerry's full statements and actions that relate to that concept?

Progressive internationalism, as presented by the DLC, is a rejection of the Bush doctrine of preemption and unilateralism. John Kerry echos that doctrine in his policy statements. His position amounts to a call for multilateralism which likely would not have resulted in the invasion and occupation of Iraq if we judge what the intentions of the U.N. were after the resolution passed and the inspectors were readmitted. That was a reasonable, measured course. It was upended by Bush's disregard of the restraint implied in the IWR that mandated a return to the U.N. Security Council. Bush pushed past that and invaded.

Progressive Internationalism" proposes a six-step national security agenda for the Democratic Party and for the United States:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=252144

-Advance democracy abroad to make us safer at home: Arguing that America's power should serve our democratic ideals, the authors call for a new push for political and economic reforms in the greater Middle East, which has emerged as the world's most unstable and dangerous region. Their strategy for encouraging forces of reform and modernization in the region includes a new Middle East Trade Initiative to spur growth and development, new aid for governments that embrace openness and accountability, and a crash program to reduce America's dependence on oil.

-Prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction: If during the Cold War we faced an arms race to build weapons, we are now in a race to keep them out of the wrong hands. Democrats would pursue a collective approach in dealing with the dangerous situation in North Korea by engaging the United Nations and North Korea's neighbors; and would focus on preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through expansion of the successful Nunn-Lugar program, rather than relying on military preemption of the use of WMD.

-Plug gaps in homeland defense: Democrats would bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland by creating America's first-ever domestic intelligence organization; offering state and local leaders useful guidance based on genuine threat assessment; merging terrorist watch lists and ensuring information sharing among law enforcement agencies; and by investing in resources to equip police, fire fighters and public health officials with the tools needed to protect their communities.

-Transform the U.S. military and use it more effectively: Democrats would make room for investments to modernize and sustain America's military superiority into the future by dismantling obsolete Cold War infrastructure, working toward assuring the "information dominance" clearly necessary in dealing with today's threats, and making smarter use of American military power. They would also press for an expanded NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and maintain a robust military presence in Iraq until security and stability have been achieved.

-Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization.

-Restore American global economic leadership: Democrats would revive U.S. leadership in the global economy by restoring the dynamism of the American economy through a rejection of the Bush administration's policies of fiscal recklessness; offering a fundamentally new approach to trade and economic relations with the Muslim world; renewing and expanding trade agreements and negotiations; and encouraging reform of multilateral lending institutions to tackle corruption and poverty more vigorously.


Kerry signed the DLC manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm
Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership

The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.

Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the “revolution in military affairs” that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.

Goals for 2010

A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC12 on Aug 1, 2000


I don't view the DLC's call for U.S. preeminence as anything akin to Bush's plan for world dominance or hegemony. The Democratic policy is clearly a rejection of the unilateralism of the Bush regime. I don't think that just because they seek an assertive role in world affairs that they automatically represent the worse aspects of interventionism.


These are the stated goals of the Democratic institute:

"Just over a year from now, the country will face a critical national election. But between now and then, Democrats must cross a threshold of credibility on national security issues before much of the public will listen to the rest of their powerful case for firing the incumbent.

Recent events in Iraq and the Middle East generally, compounded by the Bush administration's chronic failure to obtain international support for U.S. policies, have emboldened some Democrats to believe that the facts on the ground alone can erase the big advantage Republicans hold on national security issues.

That is wishful thinking. Simply exploiting administration policy failures without laying out a coherent critique of the GOP philosophy toward the rest of the world will take Democrats only so far in challenging Bush's claim that the country is more secure than it was when he took office. More importantly, Democrats must offer a clear, bold, and principled alternative strategy for advancing U.S. values and interests in a dangerous world if they are to refute Republican efforts to label them as untrustworthy on national security issues.

To that end, a distinguished group of 15 national security experts convened by the Progressive Policy Institute have drafted an important new document aimed at reconnecting Democrats with their proud tradition of muscular internationalism."


I am not open to broad claims of Kerry's intent as it relates to these DLC documents. I do feel that we can interpret his views on these issues in the context of his actual statements and actions. In that regard I don't think we can tie him to every word in the DLC manifesto. I fully expect John Kerry to form and promote his personal philosophy on these issues if he reaches a position of ultimate influence.

John Kerry Issues Page: Foreign Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy

John Kerry on Foreign Policy:
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm

Text of John Kerry Speech at GU on Foreign Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

John Kerry on VoteMatch
Supports multilateral cooperative internationalism; Progressive Internationalism
http://issues2002.org/John_Kerry_VoteMatch.htm

[edzontar]

32. I did not post this thread.

As to my cryptic post, I have expoused at length on this sophistic argument, and recommend that you consider not posting it if toy want to convince me to vote for Kerry.

I know perfectly well that Kerry voted to authorize the world, and argumenst that up is down and that the world is flat are not going to change that FACT.

[bigtree]

36. This is not a forum to troll for votes

And I am not some campaign hack. Sophistic argument? You haven't refuted it in my view. There is too much loose criticism of reasonable policy doctrine. There are arguments against the DLC view. I haven't heard any that aren't laced with cynical bias related to opposition to the Iraq invasion. I maintain that this DLC doctrine would not have led to preemptive, unilateral invasion, but could have averted war. That is a solid argument that hasn't been refuted. Multilateralism works to diffuse standoffs between nations. This is the policy advocated and expoused by the DLC and Kerry alike.


Edit: On posting the thread, you're right. I got twisted when I saw your post. Sorry for that.

[edzontar]

38. The vote is part of history now.

Each of us are free to make of it what we will.

[bigtree]

44. You’ll be Absolutely Free.

Only if you want to be. :) FZ

[quaker bill]

60. Feeling rather militaristic?

"I want a U.S. that is guileless in its unassailable defenses, not a paper tiger full of bluster but no punch. The U.S. should be the preeminent, superior world power, militarily and economically. Anyone who suggests otherwise better explain just what other country they wish to achieve that role."

"What are we going to do tonight brain?"

"Same thing we try to do every night pinky, try to take over the world!"

The line of thought you posit fits very well into the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) view of geopolitics. Why would you want to compromise it with the hint of internationalism stated in PPI? Do you believe we need a permission slip from the French and the Germans?

Personally I would choose international cooperation such that no nation alone holds such power and influence.

Remember, it was our pursuit of policy like this that caused us to arm Saddam and train Al-Queda in the first place. Or perhaps, you did not know that.

[bigtree]

65. I don't want to stand as a sitting duck

I favor the same policy that Roosevelt expoused, Kennedy followed, the same policy that has kept America free for decades. I wonder how your pacifism would hold up under a militarily dominant Russia, or China? I'm not prepared to surrender our military superiority to any nation. That's the proud posture that our nation has maintained since it defeated the Nazi German and Japanese aggression. That's not PNAC pal. Screw that nonsense.

Now I'm PNAC because I want to keep America strong and vital! What crap! Read whatever cynical view you want into my statements. I am no less for a peaceful world than you are.

If you accept that we were complicit in the creation and approval of the Saddam regime then how can you be opposed to his removal, as Kerry expoused, as Clinton expoused, through international means?

[quaker bill]

88. I am quite sure

Our parents generation of leaders thought they were doing the "right thing" to promote Democracy and freedom when they installed the Shah of Iran. I am sure it seemed like the "right thing" to promote american values when we armed and trained the Shah's troops to suppress opposition. Then came the revolution.

After the revolution it surely seemed like the "right thing" to promote american values to cozy up to Saddam, arm him and support his war against the Iranian Revolution.

It seemed like the "right thing" to overthrow the freely elected government is Chile.

It seemed like the "right thing" to overthrow the revolution against our rightwing dictator is Nicaragua.

It seemed like the "right thing" to support our rightwing dictator is Guatemala and the Philipines.

You see, it is the law of unintended consequences. We thought we were doing the right thing when we made Saddam "all he could be". But in fact we were not. We were only creating the conditions for the next war.

The story of failed empires is replete with examples of people who thought they could sort out the world to their liking. History shows that this sort of policy is not only immoral, it is untenable.

[bigtree]

90. That is your premise

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were creating a ‘dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its ‘dominant' military power."

The Chinese would dispute the PNAC assertion that they pose a threat to the U.S.; as far as I know, there is still a normalization of relations between our two countries. Perhaps they are alluding to the transfer of weapon's technology between nations; or the threat to Taiwan. In any case, the conservative document's allusion to U.S. "dominant military power" sounds a lot like destabilization to me.

Between peaceful nations, parity and balance of our respective forces and weaponry is the maxim in our expressions of our defense and security goals. Any open declaration of the need for military dominance is an invitation to a dangerously competitive, world-wide arms race.

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."

In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq -as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests.

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

‘Peace through strength’; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not to threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.

Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

So their plan is to attack whomever, whenever they feel our security is threatened, no matter if the nature and prevalence of the attack is uncertain. The U.N. should have studied this document before it wasted its time trying to reign President Bush in.

What I speak of and what John Kerry speaks of has nothing to do with conquest. You take my words and drape your own cynical view on top and claim that I am for some dominating bully of a country. My view, and Kerry's does not assume that we are omnipotent, rather that we need to work with other nations to effect the change that we can agree on.

There are longstanding relationships around the world that have been stretched beyond accomodation by Bush's manufactured mandate to dominate. That is a far cry from Kerry's assertion that the U.S. should be the preeminent, superior force in the world, militarily and economically, and work with our partners and others to effect the peace and prosperity that people deserve, not dictating that but working cooperatively, in concert. Short of that is destablizing inaction, beyond that is dominating hegemony.

We should repair these world relationships by reengaging with the world community. John Kerry says that: “Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

I challenge you to move beyond your rhetoric and tell me what other country you would be comfortable with having military and economic superiority over America. Why should we cast ourselves as a weak sister in world engagements?

Progressive internationalisn doesn't have to encompass the worst aspects of interventionism and it shouldn't be tarred with the most cynical of calculations. It should be measured and judged by how it is applied. Certainly nothing that John Kerry has spoken of is akin to the PNAC doctrine of dominance and conquest.

[Indiana Democrat]

20. He's right.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

51. I will cry in my beer about Dean

And then cry some more

[DrFunkenstein]

57. Which Part of Progressive Internationalism Did Dean Disagree With?

Virtually every position this article opposes was wholeheartedly supported by Dean.

Dean supported every military action since Vietnam, and only disagreed on the conditions of this war. And even Biden-Lugar was virtually indentical to the IWR. Beyond that, Dean made statements that were much more hawkish than Kerry.

[quaker bill]

61. Same old BS, another day

Biden Lugar at the time Dean supported it limited military action to WMD only and did not authorize "regime change" read the text.

That being aside, the concept that any candidate or combination thereof supports a idea does not make it better. The concept is morally repugnant regardless of who supports it.

[bigtree]

66. The IWR did not authorize regime change.

[gate of the sun]

84. do you think you've made any head way yet?

with all your Kerry absolving posts?

give up we can't be convinced of what we know to be true big tree.

[bigtree]

95. What arrogance!

Kerry is not the enemy. Neither am I. I am a lifelong Democrat, so is Kerry. We may not be your type of Democrat but I won't worry about that. I don't need to control what you think or feel.

So go on spreading your view of what Kerry represents and I'll continue to push mine. Folks who know me well would not expect me to give up on anything that I believe in. And, by the way, most voters have been convinced that Kerry is the best choice. I suspect this is what frustrates you the most.

edit: tone down

[DrFunkenstein]

67. Actually, You're Wrong About Dean And Biden-Lugar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=894762

And I only mentioned Dean because that is the only way to reach some people around here. I agree with progressive internationalism - particularly what will become the Kerry Doctrine - and I think most people here (when they aren't being misled) would agree.

[quaker bill]

89. I disagree with PI

And I have read the text. It has the same intent as PNAC with a bit of an internationalist flair.

You may be quite right about most people here.

[bigtree]

97. Where is your candidate's foreign policy document?

Policy paper?

Doctrine?

Are you sitting in the catbird seat?

"Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird seat?" -James Thurber

[snoochie]

53. My vote for Imperialism Lite tm

will be the last one I cast for this weak excuse for an opposition party.

[Walt Starr]

80. I'm with ya, snoochie

Pink tutus go the way of the dodos staring on Novembner 3rd.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[thebigthink]

82. Gee, to read that headline...

... a person might almost think Kerry was talking about this war. If you ask me, that should raise a flag about the author's motivations and intentions right off the bat.

I would also tend to disagree with the author's conclusion that this statement:

"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."

Could reasonably be interpreted to mean Mr. Kerry believes that:

"...it's time we stop questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions"

The supposed "neo-con" connection is pretty weak too, when the cherry-picked quotes used to attempt to draw it are taken in context. Mr. Hand writes:

On page 40 of In A Call to Service, Kerry writes: "The time has come to renew that tradition and revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism." What is this tradition to which Kerry refers? As he describes it, Democrats need to honor "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in the two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war."

Here is the entire paragraph from which the "tough-minded strategy" quote was taken:

"Our tradition is defined by the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in the two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war. They recognized that America's security depended not on going it alone but on our capacity to rally the forces of freedom. And they understood that that to make the world safe for democracy, we needed to build international institutions dedicated to establishing the rule of law over totalitarianism and anarchy. That's why Roosevelt pushed hard for the United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF. It's why Truman insisted not only on creating NATO and resisting Communist insurgencies, but also on the Marshall Plan to speed Europe's recovery. It's why Kennedy not only faced down the Soviet Union over nuclear missiles in Cuba but also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and launched the Peace Corps."

I have to tell you, I don't think I really have a problem with the Peace Corps, the UN, the IMF, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty or the Marshall Plan. In my book, these were all good ideas.

Conclusion:

I could go on and debunk the rest of the article, but why bother. The obvious lesson here, and it's one we should all take to heart, is that there are people on the left who are every bit as willing to use distortion and lies to make their case as anyone on the right. Beware anyone who believes that any means whatsoever are justified by their ends.

The only question I have is, when a guy named Hand does a smear job, does that make it a "Hand Job?"

[DrFunkenstein]

91. That Was A Fantastic Reply - I Agree Wholeheartedly

It is really disappointing that we can't assume "hit jobs" would come from the right wing.

[adadem]

93. Absolutely Fantastic and

true.

[regnaD kciN]

83. This article is fascinating...and frightening.

First off, I wasn't aware that Kerry, who made so much of his VVAW leadership, later broke off from them because they weren't "patriotic" enough, and formed another organization without the "...against the War" in its title.

Also, I note the following passage from Kerry's book, written last fall (just before his famous "Trial of John Kerry" luncheon):

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...

:wtf:

Funny...I don't hear any of the latter event's "I didn't support the war, only pressure to force inspections," or "I was misled by the President," or "I trusted the President. I'm sorry." Instead, it seems to be saying that international opponents of the war were "foolish" and now need to be "repentant." Which is it, John? Is there any issue you won't try to be firmly on both sides of? And is there any audience for whom your policy isn't "tell 'em what they want to hear?"

:puke:

[thebigthink]

100. ...and pretty bogus.

***"First off, I wasn't aware that Kerry, who made so much of his VVAW leadership, later broke off from them because they weren't "patriotic" enough, and formed another organization without the "...against the War" in its title."***

That's probably because he never said that. What he did say, as quoted by Mr. Hand in his article, was:

"I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops as war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama. That's one reason, in fact, that I eventually parted ways with the VVAW organizations and instead helped found the Vietnam Veterans of America."

Not really too damning in itself, and Mr. Hand conspicuously left out the paragraph that follows, which reads:

"But serving in Vietnam did confirm my belief that the war itself was a colossal mistake -- not because there was anything ignoble about opposing the expansion of communism in Southeast Asia but because we had intervened in a civil war to fight for a corrupt and undemocratic regime in Saigon. The lesson I learned in Vietnam was that you quickly get into trouble if you let foreign policy or national security get too far adrift from our values as a country and as a people. We knew whom we were fighting against during those patrols in the Mekong Delta but we did not really know what we were fighting for."

***"Funny...I don't hear any of the latter event's "I didn't support the war, only pressure to force inspections," or "I was misled by the President," or "I trusted the President. I'm sorry." Instead, it seems to be saying that international opponents of the war were "foolish" and now need to be "repentant." Which is it, John? Is there any issue you won't try to be firmly on both sides of? And is there any audience for whom your policy isn't "tell 'em what they want to hear?"***

Again, probably because he never really said that either. What Kerry did say at the time of his vote on the Iraq resolution, and the position he has held consistently ever since was:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

Which brings us to France:

Something France has proven time and time again since the end of WWII is that it is possible to oppose to US foreign policy when it is wrong (which it certainly is not in every case) and still not be wrong yourself. France has a long history of opposing US foreign policy in exactly those cases where it is in France's own selfish interest to do so. Their reasons have been duplicitous more often than noble and their means often not particularly helpful to the cause of promoting world peace and human rights. And objectively (as opposed to emotionally) speaking, this case was no exception.

Kerry makes the point on page 50 of his book that:

"The Bush administration was by no means the only culprit in the breakdown of U.S.–UN relations over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia never supported or offered a feasible policy to verify that UN resolutions were actually being carried out."

I happen to think that's a fair criticism. When we talk about France and her role in world affairs, you have to remember we're talking about the country from whom we inherited the war in Vietnam in the first place, the country who hosted the formation of Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist Iranian government in exile in Paris, who propped up Yasser Arafat for decades, making it that much harder to claim the high ground in efforts to reign in the excesses of the Israeli government in Palestine, who blocked intervention to stop Serbian "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans for years, resulting in Europe and the US standing idly by while tens of thousands were driven from their homes and brutally tortured, raped and murdered, who pressured the UN for a premature lifting of sanctions Iraq not for humanitarian reasons, but because French corporations sought lucrative contracts with the Hussein regime... yes, that France.

I regard it as one more reason to hate the Bush administration and the Freedom Fries crowd in congress, that they have managed to put me on the same side of a foreign policy issue as the French government and have taken all the fun out of Franc bashing. But the fact remains that the United States of America is not the only a$$hole in the world or even necessarily the biggest.

Now I don't happen to agree with Senator Kerry point by point on every issue or on every decision he has ever made. He is a long way from perfect in many respects. But in the totality of his record, he has proven time and again that he is a principled man who is as fit as any -- and considerably more than some others I could mention -- to lead the most powerful country in the dangerous and unfair world we live in.

We're not children. There are no fairy princes out there to ride to our rescue and magically transform the world into a place where we all live happily ever after. So the question is, do we want to try and work together to change the things we can for the better, or do we want to go sit in a corner and sulk?

[bitchkitty]

92. Jesus Christ -

Get with the program! USA! USA! USA! USA!

I'm beginning to sympathize with the ABK folks.

[bigtree]

96. What should we chant?

Russia?! Russia?! Russia?! Russia?! China?! China?! China?!

[bitchkitty]

98. Jingoism by any other name

is still jingoism.

We shouldn't chant anything. We shouldn't go with the flow. We should not move along, nothing to see, just because Bush's frat brother says so.

I'm beginning to wonder if I will be able to stomach voting for Kerry.

[bigtree]

99. Love and pride in America isn't jingoism

Expressions of pride in our nation's defenses aren't jingoism either. At least not to the generations who closely followed the defeat of Germany and Japan.

These expressions have been perverted by the reckless unilateralism of the Bush cabal. Patriotism doesn't have to embrace the worst aspects of our political disagreements or necessarily evicerate expressions of pacifism. All of our voices are important. I still believe that America is the finest country on the face of the Earth, but I don't preclude anyone else from believing otherwise.

But I do think that our standing in the world is by no means a given. We have to demonstrate, through our words and our actions, a respect for the needs and concerns of others if we expect the same regard.

I don't think Kerry is a rigid idealouge, nor do I think that he should be held to every expression of the DLC. He has outlined a measured, reasonable approach to foreign policy which may not be seen as progressive from one view but is a marked reversal of the blundering, blustering assault on freedom and democracy, at home and around the world that the Bush cabal would have our country pursue.

God bless our country. I think that we are among the finest on the globe. Sorry if that offends you.