portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war selection 2004

'It's Time to Get Over It' - John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On

> February 09, 2004
>  http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html#001294
> 'It's Time to Get Over It'
> John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On
> By Mark Hand
> 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
> preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder,
> gentler fashion than the current administration.
> In the domestic battle to captain 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?
> In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,
> Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for
> "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."
> 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."
> The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for invading
> Iraq. They take issue with the Bush administration's strategy of
> refusing to invite key members of the international community to the
> invasion until it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach,
> the New Democrats believe, will ultimately harm U.S. political and
> economic dominance around the world.
> "We are confident that a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the
> party's tradition of muscular internationalism, can keep Americans
> safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated
> our natural allies and overstretched our resources," the New
> Democrats say in their foreign policy manifesto. "We aim to rebuild
> the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing
> America's awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy. A
> new progressive internationalism can point the way."
> Proponents of "progressive internationalism" are a lock to control
> leadership positions at the State Department and key civilian posts
> at the Pentagon in a John Kerry administration. How do we know this?
> Because these New Democrats obviously ghostwrote Kerry's campaign
> book, A Call to Service: My Vision for A Better America. Place the
> Progressive Internationalism manifesto and Kerry's chapter on foreign
> policy side by side and you'll immediately notice the similarities.
> 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."
> Now, turn to page 3 of the New Democrats' manifesto. It reads:
> "As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of
> tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America.
> Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led
> the United States to victory in two world wars and designed the
> post-war international institutions that have been a cornerstone of
> global security and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged
> democratic alliances such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the
> Cold War. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the
> survival and success of liberty."
> Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against
> the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:
> "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, not
> ratchet up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the
> first place."
> There's much to digest in this paragraph. Perhaps the most
> interesting nugget is Kerry's statement that the United States should
> "meet repentant Europeans halfway." Hmmm, John, could you elaborate
> on what sins the Europeans committed for which they must repent?
> On page 50, Kerry details his beef with Old Europe:
> "The Bush administration is by no means the only culprit in the
> breakdown in U.S.-UN relations over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia
> never supported or offered a feasible policy to verify that UN
> resolutions on Iraq were actually being carried out. . Our British,
> Spanish and Eastern European coalition allies are eager to rebuild
> European unity."
> Throughout the foreign policy sections of the book, Kerry does his
> best to convince the reader that he would not run from his role as
> war criminal in chief if elected president.
> Perhaps the most repulsive section of the book is where Kerry
> discusses the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement. On page 42, Kerry
> writes:
> "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 [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] organizations
> and instead helped found the Vietnam Veterans of America."
> If the United States was not a villain in the "drama" of the Vietnam
> war, then who is to blame for the million-plus Vietnamese who were
> killed during the 20-year period of naked U.S. aggression that ended
> in 1975? Surely, John, you don't wish to blame certain communist
> dead-enders in Vietnam for the carnage?
> On the next page, Kerry informs his reader that it's time we stop
> questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:
> "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."
> This last passage is probably the most unsettling part of Kerry's
> book and one that every advocate of the Anyone-But-Bush 2004 election
> strategy should read before heading to the polling station in
> November.
> In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people
> slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the
> twentieth century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in
> Vietnam is no longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as
> the work of know-nothings.
> Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement
> are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in
> the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two
> groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are
> willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the
> international community, while the progressive internationalists
> prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of
> multilateralism.
> Mark Hand is editor of Press Action.
Vote for Bush 16.Feb.2004 18:56

until the DLC gets it right

Kerry vs. Bush is Clinton vs. Bush, Act II

Why give the Dems any more $? They will just kill people in an enlightened way.

Easy to say... 17.Feb.2004 00:29

Fuck american arrogance

when your country isn't the next to be carpet bombed.

That's why he was the media's darling... 17.Feb.2004 08:42


I had none of this knowledge (thanks!) but intuition picked up on two things for me to argue against this sob for the last two months: 1. When someone looks as dead as he does, there has to be something ominous about him and 2. he was the one chosen by the corporate media devils - this was the clincher because these mad dogs are the worst of all the evil ones which we consistently identify and must guard ourselves against. The media is the poison of civilization and the vanguard of fascism. Death to the media and to its servants kerrybush and bushkerry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To Easy to Say 17.Feb.2004 19:39

We have been bombed

And if you live here long enough you will feel the impact.