portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

imperialism & war

All Right Liberals, Here's Your "Alternative" To Bush

Notice the words missing from this op-ed published on April 13 in the Washington Post.
Words like invasion, occupation, democracy and open elections with universal suffrage are just a few key terms missing from Kerry's op-ed. Very revealing. Kerry is promising to be a better manager of the occupation of Iraq and likely will be if elected. I'm against that and that's why I don't want Kerry to win the election. I'm voting for Ralph and hoping the bumbling bafoon we've got in the White House now wins.

A Strategy for Iraq

By John F. Kerry

The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 13, 2004; Page A19

To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.

In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them. Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work.

Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned. The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy. Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition. We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.

In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.

This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies. We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust.

Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

homepage: homepage: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html

Theory of "It has to get worse in order to gets better" 17.Apr.2004 12:56

politics as possible

The thing about the "get worse in order to gets better" theory in a situation like where we are today in the world and in the U.S.A. is:

YES, it will get worse, much worse, if the Bush machine continues in power;

BUT, NO, that will not lead to a situation where the American people will suddenly become enlightened and then will make the necessary changes to suddenly jump forward and bring a progressive agenda into action in American politics.

More likely, the American people will be misled even more than they are today, and the result will be that Bush will be replaced in (or before) 2008 with an openly fascist regime.

It won't be one baby step backward and then two giant steps forward. It will be two giant steps backward and then . . . what?

'politics as possible' 17.Apr.2004 13:08


it will get worse no matter what.

things have been getting progressively worse in America since 1979.

look at any indicator:

mass media conglomeration / ownership
ever-increasing wealth disparity across social class
US imperialist genocide adventures (Kerry voted for Iraq war)
government graft and corruption
covert operations and domestic surveillance (Kerry voted for USA Patriot)
employment / exporting jobs
health care
electronic voting machines (Kerry voted in favor of them)

if the current regime (Democrat/Republican, across ALL of Congress and the White House) *isn't* "openly fascist", I'd like to know what is.

even more presciently: I'd please like to know how Kerry would conceivably REVERSE *any* of the above-listed trends.

Whenever I hear someone talking about "Liberals" 17.Apr.2004 13:11


I wonder if that person is a Republican. They have been brainwashed into seeing everything through the Liberal-Conservative Paradigm.

I suspect that the person who posted this story will not vote to Ralph, I think they will vote for George.

Me, I will vote for John. He's not everything I want by a longshot, but I'll be damned if I'll help the smerking chimp stay in office another four years.

'PHH' 17.Apr.2004 13:52


"He's not everything I want by a longshot"

--TRANSLATION: lesser of two evils.

"but I'll be damned if I'll help the smerking chimp stay in office another four years."

--Bush was never elected, but APPOINTED to the White House by corrupt SCOTUS decision.

what makes you think your 'vote' against Bush is going to do anything more than your 'vote' for Gore did in 2000?

Kerry=Bush=fascism=racism=imperialism=satanism=white americans 17.Apr.2004 14:09


The globalization elite have left very few national leaders that they still cannot buy, topple, kill or create scandals for. Hell has come to overpower Earth and they are winning in this country at least. This coming election, unless Ralph wins, nothing will change no matter who they choose with their Diebold machines. There is nothing you can vote for or nothing you can do and you just have to sit there and watch as your country turns into the worst monster the human race has ever spawned. And soon you will be one of them and, as you sit to dinner to eat your children roatsed in your new oven, maybe you will sit and wonder how you got there, was whatever you go for keeping your head down and not protesting worth it? Do your children taste good? You are disgusting...

To PHH 17.Apr.2004 15:41

Nader Supporter

You're full of shit. I'm voting for Ralph, as I did in '96 and 2000.

Also, I'm not arguing that things need to get worse before they will get better. I'm arguing that thing WILL GET WORSE with Kerry in the White House because we will not be able to mobilize the same kind of opposition to him that we can against Bush. Bush's bumbling unilateralism is fracturing the alliance system that is essential to the maintenance of the U.S. power globally. That's a positive development. Kerry would be better for the Empire than Bush and worse for the Iraqi people who want the occupation of their country ended. Kerry would be able to sweet talk more countries into sending troops to Iraq to oppress the Iraqi people. This is an "alternative" to Bush.

And Bon Jovi sucks.

Strategy for Iraq 17.Apr.2004 17:07


I think a managed withdrawal is the solution in Iraq. To evacuate immediately would likely lead to civil war. The US should pull back US forces to bases. The US President should meet with Sadr and other religious leaders in Dubai, Cairo, or someplace like that. A negotiated cease fire should occur and in its place, a massive humanitarian effort should go forward. All Iraqi forms of press should be repermitted, however critical of the US, but they should have to give the back page to a full-page advertisement about freedom of speech and why the US is allowing this expression.

The problem is that Bush (and anybody who's ever followed Bush, Kissenger, Rumsfield, etc, knows this) never had any serious intention of creating democracy or alleviating suffering. The goal was the subjugation of the masses and the seizing of their resources.

Okay, I give; gimme the greater of two evils 17.Apr.2004 18:32

lesser of two weasels

"'He's not everything I want by a longshot' --TRANSLATION: lesser of two evils."

Will anyone ever stop flinging that phrase around as an insult? Do you want points for that observation? Hey I know what, to heck with this lesser of two evils business, let's vote for the greater of two, let's all vote for the biggest bastard that we can find running, okay? Happy now?

This coming to you from someone very likely to write in Kucinich in the final election, I have no idea what's wrong with people having made different and tougher choices when with all this brilliant observation of how many evils are afoot, everyone failed nonetheless to pull a more viable candidate out of their a$$. You want to chose to pretend that Kerry didn't get the nomination, or that Nader might win, fine, that's your choice. We'll all have to live with our choices, thanks, but why insult someone's choice as a prelude to reminding them it doesn't matter anyway?

Whenever I hear someone talking about "Liberals" 17.Apr.2004 18:59


On this site it is almost always somesort of Leninist speaking.

Out there it is almost always somesort of Fascist.

'lesser of two weasels' 17.Apr.2004 19:18

nice name

"You want to chose [sic] to pretend that Kerry didn't get the nomination"

--Oh, he will. nobody's pretending, and he hasn't even gotten it yet. that was a done deal after Dean kicked the bucket.

"or that Nader might win, fine, that's your choice."

--and your 'choice', 'lesser of two weasels', is that you're going to write in Kucinich.

"We'll all have to live with our choices, thanks, but why insult someone's choice as a prelude to reminding them it doesn't matter anyway?"

--You live with Kucinich, we live with Nader/whoever. who's insulting anyone, except the Corporate One-Party System giving the American People the "choice" between two Multimillionaire Elite Skull & Bonesmen?

the Presidential Candidacy DOESN'T - in fact - MATTER. some of your local / state / regional / Congressional election choices may matter - and you'll have a far greater proportional chance of affecting the outcome of those races with your 'vote' - but puttering about the Presidential race is more pointless now than it has ever been (and it's been pretty pointless since the WWII era).

the American Oil Empire will roll on and on, its native citizens will get poorer and poorer, more and more unemployed, less and less affordable health care, and more pavement + SUVs for the wealthy. (at least until Peak Oil kicks in.)

and, 'lesser' 17.Apr.2004 20:26

nice name

"'He's not everything I want by a longshot' --TRANSLATION: lesser of two evils."
Will anyone ever stop flinging that phrase around as an insult?"

--tired of / don't like that one?

how about:

Cancer or the Plague-You get to Choose!

I don't know... 17.Apr.2004 22:43


...but a White House staff that did nothing before the fact and nothing immediately after the 9-11 attacks sound like treason,if not worse, to me. For that simple reason, they don't deserve the ground they stand on.

Kerry does not equal bush 18.Apr.2004 10:37

Just tryin' to make it

Okay,here's the deal.There IS a difference between Kerry and Bush.Social programs.The democrats are ALWAYS better about helping the poor and needy.Not much better,mind you,but it is something that liberals expect and when we've got one of "ours" in office,things always are a little more tolerable for the poor.Nowadays,that's really become just crumbs.I don't think Kerry cares anymore about the needy than bush does,but he will be forced to be more responsible by his constituency.I also think that Kerry doesn't HATE the poor and working class like bush does(quote from bush:"poor people are poor because they're lazy").I'll take indifference over hate any day.
Just a little personal info:I am a single disabled mom of a 5 year old living on disability.I have multiple personality disorder,post-traumatic stress disorder and depression resulting from childhood abuse,satanic ritual abuse,etc.I CANNOT WORK FULLTIME.I even have a huge problem working part-time.I take care of my child (born of a rape,btw)and I manage my house,I go to therapy and take meds.I need my disability payments(and payments are what they are,too-if you,as a society,turn a deaf ear to abused children,this is what you get to pay for with your taxes).If I lost my disability,I would be on the street,lose my child,etc.I would not be able to "pull myself up by my bootstraps";thanks to the monsters of my childhood,I don't have any bootstraps.
Bush wants to roll back the New Deal.He's in the middle of doing that now-have you seen the new medicare bill?He hates the poor.HE HATES US.He would like to see us all die,I think.That would fit in with his survival-of-the-most- evil philosophy.
So please think before you say that bush=kerry.Yes,its the lesser of the two evils-it always has been and we're not going to be able to change that this election.Kucinich and Nader have ZERO chance of winning,and everyone knows that.It breaks my heart,b/c of course I want Kucinich to be our next president.Sometimes people posting here get clouded by the idea of revolution- they forget who will be lost and hurt.

One final thing.4 more years of bush will NOT lead to revolution.Instead it will lead to a bigger stronger military(all the better to crush the revolutionaries,my dear)and less opportunity for dissent than we have now(can you imagine?)If the sheeple haven't reacted to what's going on now,worse fuck-ups from the bush admin aren't going to suddenly wake them up.

Reread 1984.And remember the people(maybe not you) who would be devastated by "4 more years".

'Just tryin' to make it' - keep living in dreamland 18.Apr.2004 15:41

(if you really are who you say you are . . .)

Kerry and the Democrats don't care about the poor,

and ARE helping dismantle the welfare state just as fast as your benefits run out.

Clinton / Gore was an irrelevant, forgotten blip in the 24th Year of the Reagan Revolution (Karl Rove stated recently that GWB was "Reagan, Phase III").

Excuse me? 18.Apr.2004 20:27

Just tryin' to make it Still

Yes I am who I say I am,fuckhead.What's the matter?Can't believe someone who's poor and struggling and has mental health difficulties could be articulate and have an informed opinion?Ooooh-surprise,surprise.We poor rednecks have a few tricks up our sleeve and I know you'll be shocked when you find out that poor people are just as intelligent as your sorry ass thinks IT is.

No,baby,you're the one livin' in dreamland.We are getting bush or kerry this time.Here, let me say it in big caps so maybe you'll begin to understand:WE ARE GETTING BUSH OR KERRY THIS TIME.No one else will win/be appointed.No one.Do you Nader and Kucinich people get that(and remember,I ADORE Kucinich)?

There are so many fucking reasons to vote for kerry over bush-I couldn't count them.See,your problem is,you're trying to manipulate the system and pretend to be outside it at the same time.You can't have it both ways,buddy.Either you believe the entire system is fucked,and therefore avoid it completely,or you think that voting for Kucinich or Nader will somehow change things in that same system.It's a double blind,dude,and you're screwing your own credibility by participating.

Every time I post something like this,I get called a troll or have my authenticity challenged.Well,guess what,folks.You/we are never going to increase the size of our side as long as we alienate every fucking voice that doesn't fit in to your tiny little worldvie

A landslide victory or any victory for kerry(so long as its a high enough margin that bush can't easily steal it again)would send a message to the neo-cons:yer outta here.More importantly,we send a message to ourselves and the rest of the world-there's hope.Maybe someday Nader will win.

Jesus Christ!Revolution will be here soon enough.With global warming probably leading to climate change(bush-worst environmental "president" ever- want 4 more yrs of that?)and Peak Oil on its way or here already,there'll be plenty of excitement real soon.Why bring it on ourselves?

Whew. 18.Apr.2004 21:35


"Yes I am who I say I am,fuckhead."

--looks like we rattled the Trollchain.

who exactly are you, again?

"There are so many fucking reasons to vote for kerry over bush-I couldn't count them."


even if you can't count them, could you please enumerate / list off a dozen of them ( . . .) here for us, please?

"landslide victory or any victory for kerry"

--you mean,

like that "landslide victory" for Gore? Bush was never even elected - he was APPOINTED to the pResidency by corrupt SCOTUS decision. Is your 'vote' this time around going to be even more valuable than yours was in 2000 for Gore? Keep dreamin' . . .

I Hear What "try'in" is Try'in to Say...but I Have to Disagree 18.Apr.2004 21:37

E. Combatant

Kerry is an admitted Vietnam war criminal, who has supported Bu$hcos agenda at every turn. His gripe about the Iraq invasion, is that we are not 'winning' as fast as he would like. He has no intention of ending the Iraq occupation. He simply prefers that others die as our proxies.

Kerry offers nothing other than a more pleasant form of fascism. His selection would only serve to water down opposition to the US empire, while offering no real alternative. I would much prefer that the Bu$hco remain as a clear target.

My vote will go to Ralph Nader, as he is the only candidate that represents me in any fashion. Voting for Al Capone (Kerry) instead of Jeffery Dahlmer (Bu$hco) is no choice at all. Our democracy is on the line in the US, and this could be our last chance to recover it without massive bloodshed, if that chance has not already passed.

Welfare Reform Act 19.Apr.2004 01:47

George Bender

It was Bill Clinton who signed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, ending welfare as an entitlement and putting a 5 year lifetime limit on it. He betrayed poor people. Kerry voted for the Welfare Reform Act. So I find it hard to believe that he is going to be on our side or do anything for us. If anyone has reason to believe differently, based on something Kerry has actually DONE rather than something he is saying, I would be interested in hearing it.

Considering Kerry's record, some of it recent, I cannot bring myself to vote for him. If Nader manages to get on the Oregon ballot I'll vote for him. Otherwise I'll vote for the Green candidate, if the Greens ever get their shit together, or Walt Brown, the socialist candidate. I've met Walt, and he impresses me as a good man.

Kerry is *worse* than Bush in many ways 19.Apr.2004 09:19


Kerry wants 40,000 additional permanent troops in the armed forces. Feel that draft? Dubya knows he doesn't have the clout to pull that off. Only a Democrat who puts middle-class activists to sleep can do such a thing. Quit pretending that Kerry would be any less warmongering than Bush. He is much mroe likely to start WWIII than Bush. Kerry's main problem with Iraq is that the US diodn't bring more countries in on the action. So I guess inviting several prominent rapists to the gang bang makes the rape more legitimate? Fuck Bush. Fuck Kerry. The mommy party/daddy party republicrat demopublican BS is stale.

Who brought the US into WWI? A Democrat President.

Who brought the US into WWII? A Democrat President.

Who brought the US into Korea? A Democrat President.

Who brought the US into Vietnam? A Democrat President.

Who gave the order to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A Democrat President.

Who brought the US into a naval 1962 standoff with Russia, risking planetwide nuclear annihilation? A Democrat President.

Who killed more than 1.5 million Iraqi civilians in sanctions? A Democrat President.

Democrats and War: Not a real lesser evil:

The other war party:

Anybody but Bush?

"There's hardly anything more important that people can learn than the fact that the really critical thing isn't who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in- in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating- those are the things that determine what happens."
-- Howard Zinn