portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war | media criticism | political theory

OK NOW I'M ***KING ___PISSED___ (at DLC, and corporate media)

look at this headline:

Kerry Calls Iraq War 'Catastrophic Choice'
Published on Wednesday, September 9, 2004 by The Boston Globe

Kerry Calls Iraq War 'Catastrophic Choice'
by Patrick Healy

------------------------------------

now,

go to the link below and read the entire article.

in 13 paragraphs, NOT ONE WORD or mention is made about Kerry's support of the Iraq war resolution, his warmongering foreign policy advisors, etc. Just a bunch of waffling fluff about how he would be [HUH?!?!?] "different" from the current administration in handling Iraq.

this is as bad--or worse--than the corporate media's run-up to Saddam's WMD . . . campaign shill coverage without clear examination of his Senatorial voting record or previous public statements in total contradiction to these. are they gonna say "sorry, we were wrong" about this duplicitous, deceptive advertising too?

homepage: homepage: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0909-22.htm

I don't know 09.Sep.2004 20:46

in my opinion

I'm actually thinking the DLC is finally understanding what it will take to win. Think about it this way: Would you rather have Kerry tell the truth about the war and play the "I was duped by lying Bush" card or for him to lie and say the war was the right thing to do? Everyone knows Kerry is lying but that's not important. What is important is that he's telling people what they want to hear. Military families do not want their family members coming home in body bags. For what? They've abandoned the Hussein was a threat argument and even the Hussein was a bad guy arguments fails with Hussein in custody (which we can thank the Kurds for; the US would have never captured Hussein given his value as the national bogeyman). So now people are expecting the troops to come home. When they don't people are going to continue to get pissed off. So let Kerry do his spinning because it's better that he critiques the war for his own gain then continue to march behind Bush.

Kerry was wrong and this war is not ending... 09.Sep.2004 21:02

EndTheDuopoly!

"George W. Bush's wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq, and they have left America without the resources we need so desperately here at home," Kerry said, in a bluntly worded attempt to contrast his views on Iraq with the incumbent's war policy. "I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we've paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives and the risks our soldiers are taking. We need a new direction."


But SENATOR. KERRY -- you are the one who made wrong choices. You voted to AUTHORIZE Bush's choices (be they right or wrong) which you should have never done. You try to argue that you qualified them somehow, but why did you give Bush a carte blanche if you had any misgivings or hesitations? That is not responsible.

Also, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have ever given the president war powers -- since our constitution states these powers lie with the congress, not the president. This is so ONE MAN cannot declare war, and it makes sense. You violated a delicate balance of power that is part of our constitution.

The sorts of actions that Bush made is precisely what the constitutional power for CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR is made to prevent. Your mistake was in violating the constitution.

Kerry, also, do you not care about the lives of Iraqis, at the very least 11,000 deaths? Would there be less Iraqi deaths with an "international effort"? Does an international effort make the war better? Or does it mainly change which multinational corporations get the contracts to rebuild and pillage Iraq?

Senator. Kerry, will you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?

(Kerry says that he will have a "goal" to get out within 4 years...that's called occupation, not exit strategy).

"Everyone knows Kerry is lying but that's not important." 09.Sep.2004 21:03

interesting rhetoric, but -

it's too close to such Newspeak gems as:

"Everyone knows Bush is lying but that's not important."

and it's pretty important to know that Bush and Kerry are each Skull & Bones Yale elite blood brothers.

(besides which - what ARE the actual DIFFERENCES between Bush and Kerry's campaign stances, issue-by-issue?)

"critiques the war for his own gain then continue to march behind Bush"

--you're really on thin ice here.

Kerry continually says he will prosecute the Iraq War and 'War On Terror' BETTER, MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY than Bush. (it's the ONLY way he can reach the average sheeple who'll vote Bush anyway).

response 09.Sep.2004 21:23

EndTheDuopoly!

in my opinion,

Whoa! Wake up! You say: "I'm actually thinking the DLC is finally understanding what it will take to win"
do you think the DLC is a GOOD THING? The DLC knows about winning, all right, and it's called CORPORATE COFFERS FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY (which amounts to corporate control OVER the democratic party, always at the expense of the PEOPLE)...
The DLC SUCKS and it shouldn't exist. But what troubles me is, why do you think of it as some sort of naive entity, and not the powerful, manipulative and corporatist organization that it is?

The corporatists are winning, of course. They've got practically got everyone rallying behind Bush or Kerry, who both will continue waging this illegal war in Iraq(which creates contracts and oil profits) and signing sell-out free trade agreements (like NAFTA, WTO, and Normalized Trade Relations with China) which imperil American sovreignty and prove destructive to labor and environmental standards.

Also, you say:
"Would you rather have Kerry tell the truth about the war and play the "I was duped by lying Bush" card or for him to lie and say the war was the right thing to do? "

What makes you think that the truth is Kerry was "duped" by Bush. C'mon -- that makes NO sense. Again, why do you believe that Kerry is naive or unintelligent, instead of facing the fact that he is a long-term and powerful senator from a priveleged background (who attended Yale, and is in the same secret society as Bush) who is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Kerry was duped? Kerry was acting in political expediency. He was worried about public opinion (and CORPORATE opinion). To believe that Kerry voted out of ignorance is IRRESPONSIBLE. You are neglecting your duties as a citizen to hold our representatives accountable. Being "duped" is not accountable. If he did vote because he was "duped", he definitely should NOT be president because that is the most unsound judgement. Finally, see my other posting (above) because constitutionally, Kerry should NEVER have given Bush war powers. War powers belong in Congress, not in the Executive Branch.

But, besides that, HYPOTHETICALLY - If you think that Kerry is "lying" about thinking the war was the right thing to do, shouldn't you be concerned about what else he is "lying" about? You think he is "lying" to THEM, but why dont' you think he would "lie" to YOU? Are you special somehow that prohibits a politician from lying to you?

I wouldn't want to think that someone I was voting for was lying to me or anyone else, but being upfront so that I could based on the issues and platform. This is about political represenation, it's shouldn't be some sort of poker game.

I admit 10.Sep.2004 00:18

in my opinion

I didn't lay out my points well, it was quick post, but there's no need to read into what I wrote either.

"do you think the DLC is a GOOD THING?"

I never said anything to the effect that it was, and no I don't think it's a good thing. I've been an outpoken critic here and elsewhere.

"But what troubles me is, why do you think of it as some sort of naive entity, and not the powerful, manipulative and corporatist organization that it is?"

Because I think they honestly believe, have believed, that outdoing the republicans was the path to victory in an election. That doesn't mean they're not a "powerful, manipulative and corporatist organization" but they are naive in a number of ways, as are the DNC, RNC, and most other political organizations. But they're not all naive in the same ways but they all make a large number of mistakes that seem trivially obvious to me. And yes, those mistakes are probably trivial to them too since they will be making plenty of money either way.

"What makes you think that the truth is Kerry was "duped" by Bush"

I don't think Kerry was duped, that's just going to be his defense. And it's a good defense, despite it being a complete lie, because people that were duped will identify with him. It allows all of them to pin their guilty consciences on Bush instead of Kerry's role. That's what people want. They want to be told that the troops are coming home and that the guilty person has been punished.

"I wouldn't want to think that someone I was voting for was lying to me or anyone else, but being upfront so that I could based on the issues and platform. This is about political represenation, it's shouldn't be some sort of poker game."

All politicians lie, that is the game. We should work toward increased accountability but we should also use their lies to our advantage. Again there are really only 2 choices: have their lies work for me, or work against me. As someone who is against the war and not supporting Kerry I would still rather have Kerry criticizing the war than cheerleading it. I would rather have Kerry parroting Nader than parroting Bush. And the reason is the rhetoric has value unto itself, even if it's not true. Just about everything out of Kerry or Bush's mouth is a lie but their lies have power. I don't expect Kerry to end the war, but if he promises to end the war, and is elected based on those statements, that has power. It means people want to see an end of the war, and will hopefully hold him accountable for those promises. And if he doesn't come through they'll elect someone else who promises to end the war. That may be another republican but I hope it will be a third party candidate.

With Bush, we will have 4 more years of Anybody But Bush and in 2008 have another impotent, pathetic democratic candidate. With Kerry, we have the opportunity to shatter the illusion that the democrats stand for substantial change. I doubt that is enough for me to vote Kerry but it is what I believe. The revolution will not come from 4 more years of Bush, but it might come from 4 years of Kerry. Think about it.

u r confused 10.Sep.2004 07:24

imho

"The revolution will not come from 4 more years of Bush, but it might come from 4 years of Kerry. Think about it."

you got it backwards... if kerry is elected, we'll have four years of a boring old pompous asshole, everyone would be sick of him and it be a piece of cake for the repubs to usher in jeb or ahnuld.

with bush again all we have to do is get the truth of 911 out and he's toast.

thinkin' 10.Sep.2004 16:01

Vern next door

Is it coincidence that help from Clinton and Dukakis campaigns went to help Kerry and all this fake document stuff comes out shortly there after.
Is Clinton sabotaging Kerry for Hillary run in 2008????

Good news that Nader is back on Oregon ballot!!!

speaking the unspeakable 10.Sep.2004 21:55

thinking the unthinkable

> with bush again all we have to do is get the truth of 911 out and he's toast.

Who's gonna "toast" him? The Republican congress?

Most people ALREADY think those motherfuckers planned 9/11/01 or knew about it in advance. Where's the toastin'?

The Atwater/Gingrich/Rove crowd has successfully turned the Republican Party into a bona fide fascist institution. The Republicans just DON'T CARE about the truth any more. If Nixon was in office, they wouldn't impeach him this time. All they care about is staying in power. Forever. Look at the PRI in Mexico. Look at all of Latin America, for that matter. "Liberals," i.e. the opposition, any opposition, are "traitors." They MEAN it.

Sometimes the truth isn't enough. The toast is burning already, but it's not Bush's ass in the toaster. It's ours.