Chomsky (reluctantly) Backs Kerry

by redjade Tue Mar 23, 2004 13:59

As a high-profile activist who crossed the country criticizing the Nixon administration's role in the Vietnam War, John F. Kerry was closely monitored by FBI agents for more than a year, according to intelligence documents reviewed by The Times.

In 1971, in the months after the Navy veteran and decorated war hero argued before Congress against continued U.S. involvement in the conflict, the FBI stepped up its infiltration of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the protest group Kerry helped direct, the files show.

The FBI documents indicate that wherever Kerry went, agents and informants were following — including appearances at VVAW-sponsored antiwar events in Washington; Kansas City, Mo.; Oklahoma City; and Urbana, Ill. The FBI recorded the content of his speeches and took photographs of him and fellow activists, and the dispatches were filed to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Nixon.

The files contain no information or suggestion that Kerry broke any laws. And a 1972 memorandum on the FBI's decision to end its surveillance of him said the agency had discovered "nothing whatsoever to link the subject with any violent activity."

by Nader Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:23

If he prefers Nader why wont he vote Nader. This lesser of two evilism is utter rubbish. Kerry WILL NOT pull troops out of the middle east, HE JUST WILL NOT DO IT

by Merkin Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:32

And this comes from a supporter of Sharon. It's a weird, wacky world.

"With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez's policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having
just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by
leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

March 19, 2004

by Mike Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:35

John Pilger has just written a very good article on why the two are the flip side of the coin. Chomsky shows himself to be a wishy washy liberal if he thinks there are serious differences.

Bush or Kerry? No difference
Cover story
John Pilger
Monday 8th March 2004

The man who, after Super Tuesday, is all but certain to become the Democrats' candidate for president is as dedicated as any Republican to the American empire. By John Pilger

A myth equal to the fable of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is gaining strength on both sides of the Atlantic. It is that John Kerry offers a world-view different from that of George W Bush. Watch this big lie grow as Kerry is crowned the Democratic candidate and the "anyone but Bush" movement becomes a liberal cause celebre.

While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests". Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.

One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats", who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism". Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership . . ."

What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops". He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.

Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance". As for Bush's "pre-emptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat". That's how Bush himself put it.

What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness - its crude honesty, if you like - in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority". New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable.



Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats' warmongering manifesto. "The time has come," he writes, "to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism" along with a "tradition" that honours "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt . . . and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war". Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats' manifesto:



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 . . . [Truman's policies] eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomised America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty".



Mark the historical lies in that statement: the "victory" of the US with its brief intervention in the First World War; the airbrushing of the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the Second World War; the American elite's non-existent "triumph" over internally triggered events that brought down the Soviet Union; and John F Kennedy's famous devotion to "liberty" that oversaw the deaths of some three million people in Indo-China.

"Perhaps the most repulsive section of [his] book," writes Mark Hand, editor of Press Action, the American media monitoring group, "is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam war and the anti-war movement." Self-promoted as a war hero, Kerry briefly joined the protest movement on his return from Vietnam. In this twin capacity, he writes: "I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognise it as an exception, not as a ruling example of the US military engagements of the 20th century."

"In this one passage," writes Hand, "Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the US military and its surrogates during the 20th century [and] suggests that concern about US war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary . . . Kerry and his colleagues in the 'progressive internationalist' movement are as gung-ho as their counterparts in the White House . . . Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?"

The "anyone but Bush" movement objects to the Coke-Pepsi analogy, and Ralph Nader is the current source of their ire. In Britain, seven years ago, similar derision was heaped upon those who pointed out the similarities between Tony Blair and his heroine Margaret Thatcher - similarities which have since been proven. "It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers," wrote the Guardian commentator Hywel Williams. "But the imperialism of the liberal may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature - its conviction that it represents a superior form of life."

Like the Blairites, John Kerry and his fellow New Democrats come from a tradition of liberalism that has built and defended empires as "moral" enterprises. That the Democratic Party has left a longer trail of blood, theft and subjugation than the Republicans is heresy to the liberal crusaders, whose murderous history always requires, it seems, a noble mantle.

As the New Democrats' manifesto rightly points out, the Democrats' "tough-minded internationalism" began with Woodrow Wilson, a Christian megalomaniac who believed that America had been chosen by God "to show the way to the nations of this world, how they shall walk in the paths of liberty". In his wonderful new book, The Sorrows of Empire (Verso), Chalmers Johnson writes:



With Woodrow Wilson, the intellectual foundations of

American imperialism were set in place. Theodore Roosevelt . . .

had represented a European-driven, militaristic vision of imperialism backed by nothing more substantial than the notion that the manifest destiny of the United States was to govern racially inferior Latin Americans and east Asians. Wilson laid over that his own hyper-idealistic, sentimental and ahistorical idea [of American world dominance]. It was a political project no less ambitious and no less passionately held than the vision of world communism launched at almost the same time by the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution.



It was the Wilsonian Democratic administration of Harry Truman, following the Second World War, that created the militaristic "national security state" and the architecture of the cold war: the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council. As the only head of state to use atomic weapons, Truman authorised troops to intervene anywhere "to defend free enterprise". In 1945, his administration set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as agents of US economic imperialism. Later, using the "moral" language of Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy invaded Vietnam and unleashed the US special forces as death squads; they now operate on every continent.

Bush has been a beneficiary of this. His neoconservatives derive not from traditional Republican Party roots, but from the hawk's wings of the Democratic Party - such as the trade union establishment, the AFL-CIO (known as the "AFL-CIA"), which received millions of dollars to subvert unions and political parties throughout the world, and the weapons industry, built and nurtured by the Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's leading fanatic, began his Washington political life working for Jackson. In 1972 an aberration, George McGovern, faced Richard Nixon as the Democrats' anti-war candidate. Virtually abandoned by the party and its powerful backers, McGovern was crushed.

Bill Clinton, hero of the Blairites, learned the lesson of this. The myths spun around Clinton's "golden era of liberalism" are, in retrospect, laughable. Savour this obsequious front-page piece by the Guardian's chief political correspondent, reporting Clinton's speech to the Labour Party conference in 2002:



Bill Clinton yesterday used a mesmerising oration . . . in a subtle and delicately balanced address [that] captured the imagination of delegates in Blackpool's Winter Gardens . . . Observers also described the speech as one of the most impressive and moving in the history of party conferences. The trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, described it as "absolutely brilliant".



An accompanying editorial gushed: "In an intimate, almost conversational tone, speaking only from notes, Bill Clinton delivered the speech of a true political master . . . If one were reviewing it, five stars would not be enough . . . What a speech. What a pro. And what a loss to the leadership of America and the world."

No idolatry was enough. At the Hay-on-Wye literary festival, the leader of "the third way" and of "progressive internationalism" received a long line of media and Blair people who hailed him as a lost leader, "a champion of the centre left".

The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defence" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.

In addition, Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was reinforced and Iraq was subjected to a medieval siege that claimed up to a million lives while the country was being attacked, on average, every third day: the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign in history. In the 1999 Clinton-led attack on Serbia, a "moral crusade", public transport, non-military factories, food processing plants, hospitals, schools, museums, churches, heritage-listed monasteries and farms were bombed. "They ran out of military targets in the first couple of weeks," said James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia. "It was common knowledge that Nato went to stage three: civilian targets." In their cruise missile attack on Sudan, Clinton's generals targeted and destroyed a factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to Sudan reported: "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor country died as a consequence . . . but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess."

Covered in euphemisms, such as "democracy-building" and "peacekeeping", "humanitarian intervention" and "liberal intervention", the Clintonites can boast a far more successful imperial record than Bush's neo-cons, largely because Washington granted the Europeans a ceremonial role, and because Nato was "onside". In a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down.

A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch". Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat". Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century".



Collusion between the Bush and Gore camps was common. During the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke, who probably would have become Gore's secretary of state, conspired with Paul Wolfowitz to ensure their respective candidates said nothing about US policy towards Indonesia's blood-soaked role in south-east Asia. "Paul and I have been in frequent touch," said Holbrooke, "to make sure we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests." The same can be said of Israel's ruthless, illegal expansion, of which not a word was and is said: it is a crime with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats.

John Kerry supported the removal of millions of poor Americans from welfare rolls and backed extending the death penalty. The "hero" of a war that is documented as an atrocity launched his presidential campaign in front of a moored aircraft carrier. He has attacked Bush for not providing sufficient funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, which, wrote the historian William Blum, "was set up by the CIA, literally, and for 20 years has been destabilising governments, progressive movements, labour unions and anyone else on Washington's hit list". Like Bush - and all those who prepared the way for Bush, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton - Kerry promotes the mystical "values of American power" and what the writer Ariel Dorfman has called "the plague of victimhood . . . Nothing more dangerous: a giant who is afraid."

People who are aware of such danger, yet support its proponents in a form they find agreeable, think they can have it both ways. They can't. Michael Moore, the film-maker, should know this better than anyone; yet he backed the Nato bomber Wesley Clark as Democratic candidate. The effect of this is to reinforce the danger to all of us, because it says it is OK to bomb and kill, then to speak of peace. Like the Bush regime, the New Democrats fear truly opposing voices and popular movements: that is, genuine democracy, at home and abroad. The colonial theft of Iraq is a case in point. "If you move too fast," says Noah Feldman, a former legal adviser to the US regime in Baghdad, "the wrong people could get elected." Tony Blair has said as much in his inimitable way: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war [in Iraq] was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."

by Dave O Tue Mar 23, 2004 15:51

Pilger’s savaging of Kerry (and Clinton) is a vital rejoinder to those with illusions in the Democrats. But as an answer to the question, who does the anti-war movement want to win the election – Kerry of Bush – it must surely be read as “Neither” or “Either one of them”. Is this helpful? Who in the global anti-war movement wants Bush to win? The forthcoming election will be a referendum on his war presidency – it follows that we need him to lose.

As to whether President Kerry will be even a fractional improvement on Bush, the answer is perhaps, just, we’ll see. Of course, he might be worse, but only time will tell. For the moment, or we can do is speculate. One thing we can’t do is stop either of these clowns winning. In November, it’ll be either Bush or Kerry. We know all about Bush and we don’t like it. So I suppose if I had a vote I’d have no choice but to go with with Kerry unless I gave my vote to Nadar which is a roundabout way of voting for Bush, so why would I vote for Nadar? (Rhetorical question – Marxists please note, don’t feel the need to provide an answer).

by Alfie Tue Mar 23, 2004 17:00

Wow - Pilger has me convinced. I'm voting Bush to keep Kerry out.

by pc Tue Mar 23, 2004 18:40

is the last paragraph not by kerry

it seems to be it contradicts the first few?
???

by Tom Shelley Tue Mar 23, 2004 18:41 Boulder, CO USA

Kerry is nowhere near as centrist/moderate as Lieberman is, I'd almost say he's to the left of Clinton and Gore.

I have no idea how Dave O can suggest Kerry might be worst than Bush. That is totally ridiculous- they would have to reincarnate Hitler to find someone worse than Bush.

The important thing is, who are Bush's allies and voters and who are Kerry's? Bush depends on right-wing activists and voters to get elected and right-wing legislators to get stuff through congress. Kerry, the opposite. And unlike in the 90s, right now the liberal, progressive, and socialist wings of the Democratic Party are energized and mobilized and will preassure Kerry to advance a progressive agenda.

A good article to look at is at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&s=corn . It describes some key moments in Kerry's Congressional career.

Nader should not be seen as a progressive alternative. He has launched his campaign (after telling the Greens to take a hike) this time by saying he will attract conservative voters, and ridiculousing saying his critics are censoring him.

If Bush gets elected he will be able to go even further than he has. He won't have to worry about getting elected again (term limits), and he will be able to spin his election as a full endorsement of his policies.

Tom

by Phuq Hedd Wed Mar 24, 2004 05:12

He voted for:
Patriot Act
Afghanistan War
Gulf War II

that's just the recent stuff. Kerry is just the Pepsi to Bush's Coke.

Kerry will win the next election and then people like Tom Shelley will be wondering why they were "betrayed" again. Wake up Tom.

by Tom Shelley Wed Mar 24, 2004 22:16 Boulder, CO USA

I don't expect Kerry to create a worker's paradise or anything close to it. I expect him (and a hopefully Democratic Congress) to end Bush's tax-cuts on the rich, financially support states that are cutting public services left and right, re-instate over-time pay for those who were recently denied it, repeal at least the worst parts of the Patriot Act, protect reproductive choice, and re-engage with the international community etc. etc.. It'd also be really nice if he transformed US policy in Iraq (i.e. bringing in the UN or, if appropriate, just leaving) cut the military budget in half, re-instated Aristide as President of Haiti and didn't block aid, etc. etc. But even the more moderate measures I mention above are worth supporting him.

I'd also point out some details of his voting record. He has a 90% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO. Although they don't provide such a figure, by looking at his votes in recent years on the web-sites for Public Citizen (A Naderite public-interest group) and the Sierra Club (the major US environmental group), I'd estimate they both give him a similar approval rating.

Obviously Iraq and the Patriot Act votes are important and his votes in favor of them are very disapointing. But, as you may have noted, Bush not only supported them, he was the main architect of them. If Bush is re-elected, it will be a nightmare. If Kerry is elected, much less so, in fact it might even provide an opening for progressives to successfully push their issues.

Tom

by gaillimhed Thu Mar 25, 2004 13:49

Bush bad : Kerry good
Of course its not that simple, BUT one of the salient points of this election is the so called 'Bush doctrine', ie the idea that america can do as it pleases with foreign policies founded on the principle of pre-empitive strikes and military aggression to get what it wants, as opposed to international cooperation, adhering to treatys, diplomatic solutions etc.
No matter who the oppositon is, a vote for bush is a vote to endorse this form of governance, to enshrine techno-violence and anti-democracy as the new american way.
Lets face it :what choice is there, Bush has led the world into a dead end, all international institutions and efforts to deal with global problems have been paralysed by his administration. He must go. For the good of planet earth and its peoples.

by Ellen McCann Thu Mar 25, 2004 22:59

Eh, isn't Chomsky an anarchist? Why is he voting for anyone: Kerry, Nadar or the fourth guy?

by o as if Thu Mar 25, 2004 23:15

some time ago, if he dared to come to Barcelona Forum 2004, but ye didn't take me seriously then, nor us for that in the 5º for that matter...

"you want rid of Darth Vader
= you put in Nader".

simple as pie.
pi as we pointed out
is was and will be a mystery.

by Ois Thu Mar 25, 2004 23:32

Yeah Chomsky is an anarchist. I don't understand it. maybe the fame has finally gotten to him. I think his wife's family came from Kerry, maybe that's it. God only knows.

As for suggesting that Kerry's AFL-CIO experience means he's pro-worker. That's like saying Blair has been at the forefront of the british labour movement for the last 20 years. (The AFL-CIO (or AFL-CIA as I heard someone call them) was one of the organs used by the USA gov't to channel money to the anti-Aristide rebels).

by Tom Shelley Fri Mar 26, 2004 07:11 Boulder, CO USA

First, it's my understanding that Chomsky has always considered himself an anarchist, but a somewhat unorthodox one- he has consistently recognized that the Federal government can and should do good things like providing services. He has actually been along-time member of the group I used to belong to, the Democratic Socialists of America (US section of the Socialist International), although he is probably a member of many left-wing groups; I don't know if he was ever an ACTIVE member of DSA.

The AFL-CIA joke used to be VERY true; after John Sweeney became President in 1995 that changed, at least a little bit if not completely. I don't know about the Aristide stuff, that is the first I have heard of it.

What do you think Bush's record from the AFL-CIO would be if he were in the Congress? I doubt it would be more than 10%. I think you might be underestimating the hostility that American conservatives have for organized labor here, and how vulnerable unions are here. It is not, as I understand it, like it is in Europe. Only about 15% of American workers are unionized, it is very dificult to form a union here, it is quite possible unions can be wiped out by a second Bush administration. Kerry, although he will probably disapoint on trade issues, will almost certainly make it easier for unions to operate here. And that is VERY important.

Tom

by Ois Fri Mar 26, 2004 17:49

Yeah, Kerry would be better than Bush. And with the AFL-CIO, I said it was no better than Blair saying he's pro-worker because he's head of the Labour Party. But obviously Blair would actually have a point if he made that argument. Labour is more pro-labour than the toriesm, and Kerry and the AFL-CIO is more pro-labour that Bush and the neo-conservatives.

As for Chomsky saying that the federal gov't can and should do good things. Well that's not a diviation from anarchism. Anarchist say the State should provide free education, health-care and all the essential services. We just say that the State and socialism can't co-exist. And we therefore build for a stateless socialism, while making demands on the State, while working for it's destruction, and while building democratic institutions that can satisfy those demands. There's no contradiction there. But to support Kerry well yeah that's a contradiction. And goddamit, it don't make no sense.

by -the unknown wombles Fri Mar 26, 2004 23:26

have you noticed that it really wasn't the wookies Aznar and Bush we were worried about, it's the brains behind the badness.

Nadar.
in one word.

by eric - union of non-organized anarchists Tue Aug 17, 2004 01:17

chomsky alluded to the removal of bush in light of policies that will certainly proove, "harful, [perhaps] irrepairable," but in no way advocates that of kerry. he claims that if kerry were elected, there's a greater chance that he would sway somewhat to social pressures. so, if kerry is elected, it's time to put on even more heat.

by What Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:24

Nader is running on a reform party ticket.

Nuff said.

by Andrew Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:51

Why is Kerry any better on the war in Iraq. Perhaps he thinks the US public were tricked into supporting the war but he is not for withdrawal. If anything an Iraq occupied by the US with Kerry as commander in chief will make it harder and not easier for the anti-war movement. Bush is vunerable on everything from his Vietnam war non-record to his oil links. Kerry is a 'war hero' and claims to oppose the corporate influence (yeah right).

This isn't an argument for a Bush vote but a warning of the dangers of this 'x is slightly better than y on issue A' approach.

by redjade Tue Aug 17, 2004 13:37

Andrew:
''If anything an Iraq occupied by the US with Kerry as commander in chief will make it harder and not easier for the anti-war movement.''

To me this kind of talk is quite ignorant of how American politics works - while the US electoral system allows for '3rd parties' it penalises those who vote their conscience - in many states a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for Bush - because it will dillute Kerry's strength. This is why in some states the US Republican party is pushing to put Ralph on the ballot.

The US does not have the Irish system where one can vote for several candidates and rank them according to preference.

Kerry may not be much better - but he does have a brain. considering the last 3 years, thats a lot of progress!

I would not want to make arguments for Kerry but he does have a few things going for him:

1) years back he was instrumental in exposing the CIA's smuggling of cocaine into the US and its targeting of black communities - that any candidate knows and understands this and now has a strong possibility of becoming president, I'd say is a good thing.

2) I do not think that John Kerry wants to go down in history as another 'LBJ' - Lyndon Johnson is known in history for inheriting a war, expanding it and thus destroying himself by his own hubris. Sadly, LBJ's accomplishments in creating the closest thing America ever had to a social-democratic society based on civil rights for all americans is forgotten because his reputation for the Viet Nam war.

3) I have heard people often say that Al Gore would have done the same as Bush after 9/11 - I do not think this. Certainly President Al Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, but it would be hard to convince me that the US would be in Iraq today and I doubt Gore would have all but declared wars on Iran and North Korea, as well. Al Gore, probably, would have just continued the genocidal sanctions on Iraq keeping it weakened and on the brink of starvation, as did Clinton.

4) I'd rather have an experienced military veteran who has a concept of the moral consequences of war, first hand, than the current idiot in power.

Again, a President Kerry may end up having the US in Iraq for sometime to come - but strategically for the peace movement Kerry offers new possibilities of resistance and public pursuasion. The current global peace movement is stuck in a rut, waiting for the elections to happen in November, and seems rather unimaginiative in its strategies - more mass rallies again and again with dwindling attendance because the debate has become stale and rehashed over time.

With a President Kerry there will be a renewal of the peace movement and an opportunity for America to change course.

by Andrew Tue Aug 17, 2004 14:04

I wasn't arguing for a vote for Nader (who is a no hoper). Rather just on the issue of the war pointing out that Kerry may well be able to prolong the occupation of Iraq for a lot longer than Bush can. And pretty much precisely for the reasons you point out. I see nothing to suggest that IN TERMS OF IRAQ Kerry is 'better than Bush'.

Personally I think the Iraq situation is a good illustration of the old slogan that 'whoever you vote for the government wins'. Iraq is not Vietnam (which was and is a backwater in terms of the world economy). The US bosses cannot afford to be driven out and whoever they choose to fund will have to recognise that.

by Anonymous Tue Aug 17, 2004 14:42

Bush is a serious menace and needs to be disempowered. However, for ideological anarchist reasons, you would rather people ignored the ballot box and hence facilitate his re-election. Actually people like you are dangerous fools.

by Terry Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:01

Or if voting could change anything, it would be made illegal

by realism Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:16

Accepting that John Kerry is not the dog's bollix, let me ask one question - which is more likely to end the war in Iraq - a Democratic Administration in the US, or an anarchist revolution?

by Chekov - Dangerous Fools United Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:30

Kerry's election will facilitate greater US military force in Iraq. He has already promised 40,000 extra troops. Of course, Bush is no less inclined to send troops to Iraq - but he'd face much greater opposition.

For a start, recruitment appears to have dried up so whoever gets in will have to adopt some sort of coercive measure to top up troop numbers. Whether this is conscription, an extension of the current economic conscription or some new type of coercion (how about serving you prison sentence in Iraq?!), I don't know, but it will be much easier for Kerry than it would have been for Bush. "Dubya left me this mess, and sadly I need more people to clean it up..." will sound reasonably plausible for the first couple of years of his presidency. On the other hand, nobody would fall for something like this from Bush.

As one of the dangerous fools who think that there is no possible outcome of the election which will lead to an improvement in iraq, could I ask one of our wiser contributors to specify the policy areas where they believe a Kerry administration will make a difference? You can leave out the 'better leadership skills' and other personality based attributes as they are not relevant.

Oh and the answer to the above question about ending the war is actually much closer to the revolution one. Realistically, there is precisely no chance of the US leaving voluntarily without having achieved absolute victory, regardless of the administration. The factors that could contribute to a US withdrawal are: Iraqi resistance, popular resistance in the US and popular resistance internationally - again regardless of which wing of the capitalist party is in power at the time.

by realism Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:31

The logic of the anarchist argument here then is that they should campaign or at least hope for a Bush victory as this will make opposition to the war more effective?

by Chekov - Unrealists Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:39

Please don't put words in our mouths. You can quite clearly read several anarchists here saying that whoever gets elected it will make no difference to US policy in Iraq - nobody has said that a Bush win would be better.

US democracy is carefully crafted to ensure that the president is selected by big business. US business interests will select a president who best serves their agenda and part of this agenda is ensuring total victory in Iraq. I just don't see why anybody else would pay much attention to which particular candidate is chosen to carry this out.

by realism Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:45

For beleiving that there might be any logic in the anarchist argument, even though that is the logic of what you are saying. Looks like the people of Iraq will just have to wait for an anarchist revolution so ....

by Surrealist Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:57

How about you answering a question? Do you honestly believe that a Kerry victory will lead to a better life for the Iraqi people. Let me see which party did Albright represent? How many dead Iraqi's did she believe was a sign of progress for the Democratic Party policies on Iraq.

Kerry is a pro-Israeli, anti-castro, anti-chavista, NED loving politician. As a top American pundit has acknowledged there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Kerry.
It's a bit like choosing between Mussolini and Hitler.

by Chekov Tue Aug 17, 2004 16:00

Could you please point out the logic deficiencies in the anarchsit position? And, more importantly, to restate my request:

"could I ask one of our wiser contributors to specify the policy areas where they believe a Kerry administration will make a difference?"

so far all that I see from the anti-war, pro-Kerry people looks a lot more like blind faith, fuelled by personal animosity against Bush uninformed by reality than anything resembling logic.

by let me think Tue Aug 17, 2004 16:39

While American administrations always play a realist game in international relations (like every political administration) which means they will serve only there own interests and do so with force if necessary. This, I'm afraid, is why there will be no perceptible change in Iraq under either administration. However in internal American politics the Democratic base demands that certain policies be enacted. For example we will see the 'no child left behind' school regeneration policy (initiated by Bush) given financial clout and become a working policy. We will see more money in Medicare, we will see domestic pollution tackled and the key example of this is the Yucca mountain nuclear waste dump being scraped as it is ecologically unsound. We won't see any drilling in the Artic Nature Reserve. These are a few of the domestic policy implications of electing President Kerry. If any one can say it will happen otherwise they have a crystal ball that can predict the future without using any relevant facts (like stated opposition, consistent opposition in the Senate, re-election possibilities, the Democrats financial base). While Chomsky is correct in saying that they are two branches of the same business party there will be differences.

"The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population."

by redjade Tue Aug 17, 2004 16:44

Hardly, Chekov.

Its about taking the best option available for a better future. It is a realistic position.

Voting is not the only thing to be done, just one of many things that people can do. Politics is not as black and white as many activists wish it to be. Hitler/Mussolini comparisons are simplistic and silly.

''could I ask one of our wiser contributors to specify the policy areas where they believe a Kerry administration will make a difference?''

As I said before, I do not think Kerry will be launching a war on Iran or North Korea. But everyone here seems to be able to predict the future better than myself and seem to know exactly what Kerry will and will not do in his 4 to 8 years ahead.

We know pretty much what Bush will do with his next four years.

Also, if people think that the Iraq War is solely about Oil and Business interests, you're not paying attention.

Not all US Business interests are for this war in Iraq (especially since it has nothing to do with 9/11) and neither has it helped the general US economy - ask anyone previously employed by the now dead dot-com boom.

John Kerry's agenda wouldn't be my own, but George Bush's direction is straight to hell for America and the rest of the world.

by let me think Tue Aug 17, 2004 17:08

You hit the proverbial nail right on the head "Politics is not as black and white as many activists wish it to be". In my experience the grey area that occupies many parts of the world (not only politics) is one that anarchists and other activists fail to recognise. In the words of a soon to be ex-president (hopefully) "you're either with us or against us".

by R. Isible Tue Aug 17, 2004 17:16

Bush could be argued to have been to some extent constrained in his actions by the consideration that if he wanted to be re-elected to a second term then he had to moderate his actions to some extent. (Frightening to imagine what an unrestrained Bush would be like!). If he gains this second term then he faces no such consideration.

Kerry is not quite as repellent as Bush on the issue of gay marriage (he's against it for personal reasons but wouldn't legislate a consitutional ban like Bush is currently trying).

On the issue of Iraq I don't think there's any doubt that Kerry has declared himself to be more of a war-monger than Bush -- some dismiss this as election-promises (in which case why not dismiss everything the candidtates say, not just this one point).

I don't know that the peace movement has become stale as redjade claims -- certain sections of it (the trotsyist/leninist organised ANSWER/NION marches have) but meanwhile there are lots of banner-drops, street-corner vigils (the latter are especially effective and probably reach more people that are unaware of the large marches) and targetted smaller protest.

A big section of the "Peace Movement" has become active in electioneering for Kerry/Edwards -- to some extent these folks were always "anti-Bush/Democrat/liberals" whose concerns centered mainly around reviling the hate-figure of a Republican puppet. They see no problems with the legacy of Democratic administrations, are ignorant (deliberately in some cases) of the history of US interventions of the last couple of centuries and seek merely to see their candidate oust a Republican.

It's a demonstration that US democracy is a sham and a farce.

Anyone calling for a Kerry vote on the grounds of "lesser evil" can only sustain that position realistically if they are also part of a movement preparing for a massive upsurge in political activity.

by Peter Tue Aug 17, 2004 17:23

I agree with redjade that politics shouldn't be viewed as a simple black and white issue but to me it is redjade who is guilty of falling into his own trap.

The Democrats in the course of this election have offered no alternative to neoliberalism and in fact theirs will be the the richest ticket in the history of the world. They agree with virtually every major plank of the Republican Party. They overwhelmingly supported Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Attorney General Ashcroft’s Patriot Act. Bush’s (not-so) “healthy” forest plan. The Republican’s prescription drug bill. The tax-cuts for the super rich. The $87 billion occupation funds. You name the crime, and the Democrats are there supporting the criminals.

I'd vote for Nader. Democracy isn't pretty but what you prescribe would be translated in this country to voting for Enda Kenny instead of Bertie if we could choose our leader in the American way. Thanks but no thanks.

by R. Isible Tue Aug 17, 2004 17:23

Chekov wrote: "For a start, recruitment appears to have dried up so whoever gets in will have to adopt some sort of coercive measure to top up troop numbers"

Bush addressed a veterans organisation gathering yesterday and revealed a "global stance" repositioning involving the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from Western Europe. This is currently asserted to be something that will take place over a decade and thus not affect troop numbers available for Iraq .... but I wonder.

by What Tue Aug 17, 2004 17:30

Can I not sustain it on the ground that I'm a single mother in a lower middle class area and the likelihood is that my local school is promised a massively inflated budget for problem children (my child included) if the 'no child left behind' program is given full budgetary support as Kerry promises. And that the unbearable weight of thousand $ health insurance combined with the rises in drug costs under the prescription drug bill could be reduced as promised. While I don't believe everything I'm told these are explicit policies which have had budgets drawn up. That gives me some hope that some small change may occur.

Are those not grounds?

by Dreamcatcher Tue Aug 17, 2004 17:36

What about Clinton's promises for medicare before his election?
Did it happen - did it fuck!

by redjade Tue Aug 17, 2004 18:05

'it is redjade who is guilty of falling into his own trap..

'The Democrats in the course of this election have offered no alternative to neoliberalism'

You are asking too much from the Democrats - neoliberalism is not an issue discussed in the mainstream of American politics - I'd like it to be, of course. But wishing it does not make it so, you have to play the cards that are available and use your wits to pull some more out of your sleave when you can - thats politics.

'and in fact theirs will be the the richest ticket in the history of the world.'

And aint that the truth!

'They agree with virtually every major plank of the Republican Party.'

Once again, black and white. Lefties said the same about Clinton and yet he put about extra 200,000 more into college than Daddy Bush or Reagan combined. Clinton made a difference in many people's lives. I didn't like him much, but I'll give credit where its due.

'They overwhelmingly supported Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan'

As I said before, I agree.

'and Iraq'

this gets a little more complicated - Kerry did vote for the president's ability to go to war - read:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004512.php

'Attorney General Ashcroft’s Patriot Act.'

Yes, and it is also the Dems that have been trying to repeal parts of it, but cannot because the Repubs have a majority in Congress.

'Bush’s (not-so) “healthy” forest plan.'

Im not to familiar on this issue, sorry.

'The Republican’s prescription drug bill.'

Yes, and what other things have Dems proposed to counter it? Or what did dems add to that bill to make it better when it was in Congress? Congress and Political Parties do not behave in the same manner as the do in the Dial.

'The tax-cuts for the super rich.'

And who brought in the earned-income credit for America's poor? And who has bee trying to repeal it?

'The $87 billion occupation funds.'

Can't disagree with ya there.

'You name the crime, and the Democrats are there supporting the criminals.'

Still, me wonders if you know who has majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives right now?

'I'd vote for Nader.'

That would be your choice to make. I did too in 2000 - but I live in a safe state that was not a close election - Presidents are elected by state in the US - not nationally. I voted for Ralph because I wanted the Green Party to get Federal Matching money - and they did, I'm happy to say.

But are the US Greens backing Ralph now? Nope.

Why is the US Republican Party petitioning to put Ralph (now running as an Independent) on the ballot in states that poll closely for Bush and Kerry?

'what you prescribe would be translated in this country to voting for Enda Kenny instead of Bertie if we could choose our leader in the American way. Thanks but no thanks.'

Yes, and thank goddess that Ireland doesn't such an absurd system as the US! Be thankful for that.

I really do not want to be advoting Kerry, but just say that he aint evil and as I said before offers some new political space and chance for something different. We know what George W will bring.

Interesting thing is, some anarchists will be Voting for Kerry...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040816_302.html

by Chekov Wed Aug 18, 2004 02:57

'What' wrote: "my local school is promised a massively inflated budget for problem children (my child included) if the 'no child left behind' program is given full budgetary support as Kerry promises. And that the unbearable weight of thousand $ health insurance combined with the rises in drug costs under the prescription drug bill could be reduced as promised."

The key phrase here is "as Kerry promises". Now, aside from the obvious lack of weight that the promises of electioneering politicians holds, even if we were to trust the man, we have to ask what is the meaning of his statement. "Full budgetary support" for this marketing-slogan-program might not mean too much when 'national interests' dictate that you have to shovel cash into the blossoming war in Iraq. And, sure, times are hard, the economy is suffering, we have to tighten our belts, especially after the massive deficit that Bush ran up.

You might choose to believe Kerry's pledges, but there is no evidence to support that position. I don't think that there is any history of greater redistribution of wealth under democratic presidents than under republicans. Maybe if Kerry was to give commitments as to budgets for social programs and ways to fund them, say through military cuts, there might be some reason to think that it might be true. But, you will find that every single thing that Kerry has promised is too vague to have any real worth as a guide to his future policy.

Chomsky has detailed how Clinton's promised health program was driven by the insurance industry seeking to move some of the soaring costs of medical claims on to the state. The program was never passed anyway - shot down by the automobile/oil industry according to Chomsky.

The US system is the most refined system of capitalist democracy in the world. It is guaranteed to produce a president who will act in the interests of big business - and is deeply in their pockets.

The two party system ensures that all votes are cast on the principle of: 'well at least he's not as bad as x' . The need to raise enormous funds means that any candidate who is deemed dangerous in any way by big business stands absolutely no chance of winning any important seat. In a presidential election the result is heavily influenced by the enormous media companies. If you show the slightest hint that you might pander to the interests of the mob, they will destroy you. The US networks decided that Howard Dean had gone insane at one stage - based on him whooping at a rally - and his campaign was over.

The elections are, however, an accurate opinion poll. In the US presidential poll, they are little more than big business checking to see if it is safe to give the people another brutal kicking, or whether they should be a big more subtle about it for a while. Elsewhere, there is often more fine-grained information to be gained. But the difference between Democrats and Republicans mostly boils down to a slightly more liberal demeanour in the PR while they're dishing out beatings.

In the last election, there was a quick dirty job to be done, GW Bush and his think tankers were hired to do it, and now he can be trashed. Kerry will take the reins for the next phase and will attempt to stabilise the occupation of Iraq - his brand of PR is better suited to that than Bush's.

However, having said all that, I do hope that Bush doesn't win. Anybody who votes for Bush is either an asshole, a moron, brainwashed or terribly ill-informed. Although I don't think the result will make much difference in policy either way, I'd hope that the opinion poll will show as few Americans as possible falling into those categories.

by eeekkkk Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:40

Between kerry and Bush on War

Seems like lots of Democratic Party Activists get their kicks here - interesting site -

www.dailykos.com

by LOL!!!!! Wed Aug 18, 2004 13:54

> The key phrase here is "as Kerry promises".

What do anarchists promise?

Anarchism offers no promises. No health care system, no one to build roads or public transportation. Nothing.

Promises may be easy to make by politicians but an honest anarchist couldn't promise anything 'after the revolution'

by Peter Wed Aug 18, 2004 13:58

I know this discussion is really going nowhere. Personally I feel Malcolm X summed up the two party system best.
But in response to a couple of things redjade raises I think it is important to look at the nature of the Green Party in the States. redjade's main argument is similar to Cobb's the official GP candidate (although some state GP's are supporting Nader) 'Safe State Strategy'. Now I know the author is hardly unbiased seeing as he is Nader's running mate. If this piece is anywhere near the truth, well then it raises very interesting questions about the nature of the Green Party in the US. Strikes me that Nader was dumped in a similar manner to the treatment of Patricia McKenna here. Too radical for their own good.
http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/08/cut_and_run.html#more

Also here is a piece by George Monbiot who I think is pretty close to the Greens in the UK and who having been adored by the SWP was quick to fall out with them over their undemocratic antics.

by Don't vote Kerry Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:18

I don't know why this link was deleted

http://www.socialistalternative.org

It's the link to several articles on the US elections from a Socialist perspective.

by shinner. Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:23

Due to the lack of Instant run off voting in the US a vote against Kerry is in fact a vote for Bush, that is the sad reality of an undemocratic system. Therefore until this is changed the only possible option for voters is the lesser of two evils, I wont tell you who I believe that to be.

by Cynic Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:27

"Therefore until this is changed the only possible option for voters is the lesser of two evils, I wont tell you who I believe that to be."

After Hillsborough, St. Patrick's day in the White House, attending the WEF.

It's got to be Bush - hasn't it?

by Pedant Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:40

Shouldn't that read 'a' socialist analysis of the US elections. There are other socialist analyses than the CWI. Aren't there?

by sadoom Wed Aug 18, 2004 15:05

Call it Bush, Kerry, Neocon, "full spectrum dominance",Democrat, Republican etc .....but, really, it's all just Uncle Sam doing what he's gonna do!

by sadoom Wed Aug 18, 2004 15:11

interesting link bout Kerry in 'nam".

by redjade Wed Aug 18, 2004 15:25

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

-- Leonard Cohen, Democracy
http://www.inlyrics.com/lyrics/L/LEONARD%20COHEN/5810.html

'Strikes me that Nader was dumped in a similar manner to the treatment of Patricia McKenna here. Too radical for their own good.'

I don't think that would be the analogy - if US Greens wish to expand democracy the last thing they'd want is to be blamed by the voters for a Bush election, and therefore contributing to the dying of US democracy. I think we agree that in some states a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush - and this is why in some states that the US Repubs are petitioning to put Ralph on the ballot.

Remember, Ralph didn't get full blame for Florida only due to Jeb's vote rigging and selective counting. If an honest election happened in Florida in 2000, Ralph would have gotten the full blame.

Plus, it is not that Ralph's 'too radical' but too egotistical. Remember, he never joined the Green Party during his candidacies - he was simply using the Greens as a vehicle. This was not a 'hi-jacking' since it was a mutual arrangement at the time.

Ralph marketed the US Greens to the US public like no one else could. At some point the US Greens have to let go of their training wheels. And that Ralph is running now without their endorsement shows his own ego and that when it comes to electoral politics he has his own personal agenda and not a party building agenda.

On Monbiot:
Nothing in Monbiot's essay explains how to democratise the US electoral system - other than to vote for Ralph and damned be the consequences.

The US does not have a national referendum system. But there are three ways to amend the constitution, two are lengthy and difficult and the third is a new constituional convention - which has only happened once in American history and it resulted in a switch from the Articles of Confederation to the current US Constitution, which was a long long time ago.

The changes that I'd like to see (and presumably others in this discussion) could only happen with a new Convention. Few in the American Left are calling for such a convention and many on the American Right are - the Right Wing would love a Convention so that they could ban Abortion and limit civil right etc. Convention Delegates would be chosen by State Legislatures and most of the States are run by US Republicans currently.

And on a side note: The only time a '3rd party' ever took the presidency was Abe Lincoln & the Republican Party. Shortly after, America went into a long bloody civil war. And even after, the Whigs faded into the history books and the US reverted back into its old two-party form.

Thus, as you can see, political prospects for an expanded ideal of democracy are quite limited in America for sometime to come.

Wasting one's efforts and vote on a gamble that voting for Ralph because the size of his vote would somehow influence a US Republican dominated White House, Congress and Supreme Court seems to me to be delusional at best and more likely dangerous to all on this planet.

by Fergal Wed Aug 18, 2004 16:29

Saying that Kerry's no different from Bush is a luxury that we in Ireland can afford, but that isn't availablew to Americans who'd have a better chance of a job and a fairer share of the national tax burden under him.

Any national leader's primary job is looking after his own country, and Kerry would be an awful lot better at that than Bush. And before anyone cranks out the old cliche about Americans being insular let's remember that we're no better - if foreign policy determined votes, then Fianna Fail and the PDs would be suffering for their support of the war in the polls right now.

by Peter Wed Aug 18, 2004 16:47

Don't really know who sent me
To raise my voice and say:
May the lights in The Land of Plenty
Shine on the truth some day.

I don't know why I come here,
Knowing as I do,
What you really think of me,
What I really think of you.

For the millions in a prison,
That wealth has set apart
For the Christ who has not risen,
From the caverns of the heart

For the innermost decision,
That we cannot but obey -
For what's left of our religion,
I lift my voice and pray:
May the lights in The Land of Plenty
Shine on the truth some day.

I know I said I'd meet you,
I'd meet you at the store,
But I can't buy it, baby.
I can't buy it anymore.
http://www.lyricsdir.com/l/leonard-cohen/the-land-of-plenty.php


"Remember, Ralph didn't get full blame for Florida only due to Jeb's vote rigging and selective counting. If an honest election happened in Florida in 2000, Ralph would have gotten the full blame."

If an honest election had taken place in Florida in 2000, Gore would have been President and you could hardly blame Ralph on that.

by redjade Wed Aug 18, 2004 17:03

'If an honest election had taken place in Florida in 2000'

Sorry you are correct, I should have said an honest count of those allowed to vote.

'Gore would have been President and you could hardly blame Ralph on that.'

Correct again.

and I doubt the US would be occupying Iraq at this point, and poised to attack Iran and North Korea, nor meddling in Venezuela and Brazil, nor rolling back environmental laws, nor the Climate Treaty and the US wouldn't have withdrawn its responsibilities to the World Court and neither would it be blindly and unquestioningly backing Sharon in Israel, the corruption of billions into Halliburton, KBR etc and on and on and on and on....

you could hardly blame Al Gore on that.

by Archivist Wed Aug 18, 2004 17:04

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So.
Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and
against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South
Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war;
atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war
with Soviet Union.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army
coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election
campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against
rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in
cities.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy
hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get
involved in revolution.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation
during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed
jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops
restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in
area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be
"terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by
Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after
weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia
declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.

by Sadoom Wed Aug 18, 2004 17:06

‘cept it wasn’t we in Ireland who were afforded the “luxury” it was Prof Chomsky.
(and John Pilger) who , I think, would be at pains to disagree on Kerry being ‘a whole lot better’.
It’s hardly a ‘luxury’ to be in a world were currently the main power is being driven by ideologues whose primary concern is to pursue and ,of course, win “World War IV” or “ a War of Civilisations” in which “only one side can win” to paraphrase the neocons.
To use a trite term we “citizens of the world” are deigned a say in an office which may decide the world that we and thise after us will have to deal with.

The reality is that the neocons and ‘New Democrats’ are offshoot of the same root.
- a sobering point for those who cling on to the idea that U.S. foreign policy would change dramatically with Kerry’s election.

On domestic policy again I think you’ll find the aforementioned commentators would be skeptical of Kerry’s credentials. We should instead be expecting something akin to Blairism i.e. Toryism passed of as social democracy.

by Chekov Wed Aug 18, 2004 17:15

Now that is a really good example of blind faith, a blind faith that goes against all of the evidence.

Clinton did not ratify the Kyoto protocol despite 8 years of opportunity. His entire input into it was to attempt to defang it entirely for the benefit of US polluting corporations.

There was never the slightest chance of the US signing up to the WCHR regardless of the president. Can you show me a single bit of evidence that supports your contention that democrats were intending on doing so?

The Clinton era saw the US inflict just as much damage on Iraq as Bush has done. Slightly differenct style - same pile of bodies

The democratic backing for zionist settlement of the west bank is if anything firmer than the republican one. Illegal settlement of the west bank and gaza actually increased under the last labour administration compared to any of the recent Likud governments (as detailed by Chomsky again) with the full and unconditional backing of Clinton. Once again, the only real difference is a preference for a more subtle brand of PR.

Clinton's administration actually threatened sanctions against any countries that manufactured generic drugs for aids and forced several to cease manufacture of them - which has been every so slightly softened under Bush.

If you can present some actual hard evidence to support your assertions that the democrats are better on any of these issues, please do, but so far all that I have seen is faith unperturbed by evidence.

by Peter Wed Aug 18, 2004 17:40

Never has the phrase divided by a common language seemed so apt.
Honest election or honest count - Gore would have won. Only the vote of the Supreme Court decided the election.

As to the rest of what you say, we know where Kerry stands on meddling in Venezuela and Brazil and blindly and unquestioningly backing Sharon in Israel. As to rest we'll have to wait and see.

by redjade Wed Aug 18, 2004 18:20

Chekov on World Court:

''There was never the slightest chance of the US signing up to the WCHR regardless of the president. Can you show me a single bit of evidence that supports your contention that democrats were intending on doing so?''

Here ya go....

>December 31, 2000 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Racing against a deadline, President Clinton announced on Sunday that the United States would sign a treaty establishing the first permanent global criminal court, intended to try people accused of the world's worst atrocities.

"In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries that have signed by the Dec. 31, 2000, deadline established in the treaty," Clinton said in a statement. "We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity."

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/dec_2000/us_signs_on_to_world_court.htm
>

note: it was Bush that withdrew the US from the World Court. And in Clinton signing it (in the last minutes of his presidency) it still would not have had full effect since it needed ratification by the Senate. But Chekov said 'slightest chance of the US signing up to the WCHR' - Clinton did sign it.

''Clinton did not ratify the Kyoto protocol despite 8 years of opportunity. His entire input into it was to attempt to defang it entirely for the benefit of US polluting corporations''

You confuse painfully slow movement forward with moving backwords entirely. As small and slight as some progress was made (and not made or worse in other areas, as well) under Clinton - please don't even bother trying to say the two are the same.

Note: Bush and his corporate gang do not believe in any global eco-treaties whatsoever - period.

Also remember that Both houses of Congress were under control of the Repubs for most of Clinton's reign - treaties require 2/3rds of Senators' votes.

If Ralph were president, he wouldn't be able to get any of these treaties ratified, either.

I know you wish to paint me easily as pro-Gore Pro-Clinton (therefore by conclusion, Pro-Bush because the two are the same) but sorry - im not that black and white. Try as you may, Gore is not Bush and neither is Kerry. And no one knows what Kerry will do in office (Kerry doesn't either peobably since presidents usually act according to circumstance and not by principle or policy, solely).

Also note, that since in an anarchist world there would be no global climate treaties and no world courts.

On Israel, I said 'blindly and unquestioningly backing Sharon' - I did NOT say the Dems would not back Israel, as it traditionally has. For all the flaws in the so-called 'peace process' by Clinton at least people were talking and possibilities existed for path to resolving things.

Under Bush, Sharon has been told he can do anything he likes under the umbrella of 'the war on terror'

Once again, I aint defending Gore or the Dems - just saying that with them possibilites exists for a better future. I know shades of grey bother you Chekov, but it is how the world works.

On the Generic Drugs and South Africa etc - yes you are right - sad to say. And today Generic Drugs are a domestic issue in the US and the Dems are pro-Generic Drugs for seniors in the US. The Repubs have even attempted to make it illegal to re-import generic drugs from Canada to the US, surreal but true. Not to mention that the Repubs do not even believe the government should help people get health care at all!

But, to some, I guess Dems and Repubs are all the same.

--

Peter:
'Only the vote of the Supreme Court decided the election'

I certainly never accepted Clarence Thomas' vote - did you?

by Fergal Wed Aug 18, 2004 18:53

"To use a trite term we “citizens of the world” are deigned a say in an office which may decide the world that we and this after us will have to deal with"

No we're not. We can have opinions, but not a say. Why should we? Saudi Arabia affects the world through its oil. Russia has nuclear weapons. Do we get a say in who's in charge there too?

As to Chomsky's reservations on Kerry's domestic policies, a few points:

1. Chomsky has reservations about everyone who doesn't measure up to his standards. That's fine, but when it comes to election time, you "hunt where the ducks are" to use an American term, i.e. you take what's on offer. This doesn't mean you have to be happy about it, just that half a loaf, etc.

2. I wouldn't dream of voting for Kerry if I thought Nader could win, just as I wouldn't dream of voting for someone of similar policies in a more representative electoral system. However (and this is exactly what Chomsky said) the difference between the candidates, when magnified by the power of the office will have considerable benefit in terms of jobs, healthcare, etc. not satisfactory or even sufficient, but considerable. Thats better than none at all.

Archivist - exactly what point does that list purport to prove? I'm not being snotty here, and may in fact agree with you, I just don't see what it had to do with what I weas saying.

by sadoom Wed Aug 18, 2004 20:47

points well taken!

by R. Isible Wed Aug 18, 2004 21:31

QUOTE: "1. Chomsky has reservations about everyone who doesn't measure up to his standards. That's fine, but when it comes to election time, you "hunt where the ducks are" to use an American term, i.e. you take what's on offer. This doesn't mean you have to be happy about it, just that half a loaf, etc."

And in fact, that's exactly what Chomsky has argued. See the title "Chomsky reluctantly backs Kerry". He argues that there are minimal but real differences.

QUOTE: "2. I wouldn't dream of voting for Kerry if I thought Nader could win,"

I wonder how many million Americans are saying that?

QUOTE: "However (and this is exactly what Chomsky said) the difference between the candidates, when magnified by the power of the office will have considerable benefit in terms of jobs, healthcare, etc. not satisfactory or even sufficient, but considerable."

No, Chomsky says that there will be slight, but significant differences. E.g. (fromhttp://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5177 )

"it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction."

"Again there isn't a great difference [...]But there are differences"

Chomsky doesn't specify exactly how Kerry will be better than Bush on these issues, in fact the evidence is that based on Kerry's own statements he will continue the tax breaks for the rich. Add to this the point that Democrats have carried out some of the most savage cuts (Clinton's "welfare reforms") and augment it with the theory that Kerry is an implementor of the wishes of his real electorate (big business) and you can see why he wouldn't.

Instead he dangles an unspecified threat of how the Bush-Hitler will do something unspecifiedly worse than his current performance:

"It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run."

As far as I can see, that threat/fear is the sole motive for voting for Kerry. But that could copperfasten the non-democracy in place unless people really get out and make Kerry do what _they_ want.

by Fergal Wed Aug 18, 2004 22:02

Surely arguing the difference between "significant" and "considerable" is hairsplitting.

Otherwise, well I quite agree, and don't think my post actually said anything contrary to your own words above. A decision to vote for Kerry needn't ( and shouldn't) entail a belief that everything's OK and no-one need do any more work. I actually think that many of those mobilised by dislike of Bush will remain involved in politics, whether he wins or loses. Or at least I hope so.

by R. Isible Wed Aug 18, 2004 23:02

Hairsplitting maybe, but it becomes important to be precise. For instance your post that I replied to gave the impression that you were arguing a different point than Chomsky when in fact your argument is exactly the same as his. And, like him, you offer no evidence to show that Kerrry will be better than Bush.

That's not good enough either from him or you.

What will Kerry do? A short list of non-detailed points from advocates of the Anyone-But-Bush school will provide an interesting historical document the next time the argument comes up in 2009 and we're trying to get Kerry/Bush out. It'll also provide a reality check for people that forget exactly what their lowest expectations were. Similarly a list (in broadest terms) of the things Bush will do would be useful.

I expect:

Bush to:
1. Continue the occupation of Iraq until the exhausted inhabitants buckle down to US rule after a couple of years of civil war.
2. Not to invade Iran
3. Not to invade N.Korea
4. Not to tax the rich
5. Not to implement health-care improvements
6. Not to improved education (more charter schools are likely).

by Fergal Thu Aug 19, 2004 13:21

"What will Kerry do?" is a question none of us can answer. All we can do is look at what he says he'll do, and hope for the best. Among his promises are repealing the erroneously titled Clean Air Act (which allows greater toxic emissions), strengthening the Clean Water Act, Universal healthcare, moves towards independance from Middle-East oil, and moves back to a multi-lateral approach to foreign policy.

Before you make the facile "surely you don't believe those promises?" reply, no I don't believe they will all be satisfactorily fulfilled. I do however think it's better to go with the guy who might try to do these things rather than the guy who cheerfully admits to having no interest in doing them, and is in fact going in the opposite direction.

As to Iraq, I expect Kerry to take the "you broke it, you bought it" approach, and stay there for longer than Bush is willing to do. However, he'll try to turn it into more of a peace-keeping function, by internationalising it. One would hope that would defuse the situation somewhat, especially if arab countries were involved.

He'll presumably take a more softly, softly approach to Iran & N.Korea.

Health care, as I mentioned above, is one of his main policy planks.

Finally, he's on record as opposing charter schools, and increased public school funding is part of his platform.

So he's woth a vote, if only as a bet that he might deliver some of what's promised. How much, depends on how much pressure is kept on him after the election.

by vnz Fri Aug 20, 2004 04:57

Let me start by saying I have a problem with those who believe a vote for nader is a vote for bush.

In every US election in my living memory people have always said voting for the third candidate is throwing your vote away, wait til next time, this one's too important.

Now I know many will say thats just the way the US system works. Well how the hell are you going to change it, neither of the republocrat parties are going to do it, as the system works in their favour. The only answer(if you choose to work within the electoral system) is to start now and vote for nader (or whoever) yeh he'll lose, but if you keep voting every four years he might build up momentum and eventually sway enough people. Constantly deferring democracy for the sake of lesser evilism is a road to nowhere.

Personally speaking, while I'd never vote for bush, I can see how him winning might be better for society in the long run (not the short term though). The reason I say this is that if kerry wins most liberal left americans will drift back to sleep thinking they've won and their system works and is back on track. If Bush wins he'll continue to further polarize society and alot more people will become politicized and more radical which in the long run might actually bring about some worthwhile political movement or change other than the democrats.

Also on the subject of anarchists being accused of not acknowleging shades of grey, I say bullcrap! I'm not an anarchist but I repect their ability not to dilute their personal principles just because some fervour is whipped up that Kerry is our saviour. Where the difference lies is how you choose to react to those shades of gray. The accusers would say we all must make temporary measures or compromises, so at least we can advance just a small bit, rather than living in an ivory tower. This can be wise in some cases but it depends as in alot of cases you end up giving validity and power to the system your against and while gaining in the short term you make losses in the long term.

Often times I think the best way to react is to accept short term losses and setbacks such as bush winning and put your energy into building something for the future that might make a worthwhile change. Voting for Kerry when you'd rather vote for someone else just gives him and their system the validity they require and ensures the future continuation of the corrupt american duopoly mislabelled democracy. You may hope for small rewards and you may get them but in four years you'll just get screwed again when the cycle begins anew and you've done nothing to get out of that loop.

by Fergal Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:23

"Personally speaking, while I'd never vote for bush, I can see how him winning might be better for society in the long run (not the short term though"

If you wouldn't vote for Bush, then you've no business arguing that his victory would be a good thing. You either have the courage of your convictions or you don't.

And to quote JM Keynes, in the long run, we are all dead. You don't have to live in America in the short term, do you? Or if you do, you're obviously well sorted for a job, social security and health care. This is why all Nader's supporters are middle class.

by R. Isible Fri Aug 20, 2004 21:08

A quote from a recent J.St.Clair interview on Counterpunch:

QUOTE: "Greens say Bush has turned his back on the Kyoto protocols. True enough. But they neglect to say that Kerry turned his back first, voting against Kyoto while he was a senator and Clinton was president. This is to say that Bush was tight with Ken Lay and covered for Enron. Right on. We all know Bush, the inveterate nick-name dropper, dubbed Lay "Kenny Boy." But they over look the fact that Lay and the Kerry's are also very good friends and frequent dining companions. Moreover, Ken Lay was recruited by Teresa Heinz Kerry for a seat on the board of her environmental foundation, where he was assigned the task of heading the foundation's global warming task force. "

by Chekov Fri Aug 20, 2004 22:18

First of all, I'm not trying to paint you as anything - I'm just trying to make it clear why I don't think that there is any point in voting in US presidential elections.

You cite Clinton's signature of the WCHR bill as evidence of his progressive nature. He did it in the last week or so of his presidency, in the certain knowledge that it would be vetoed by bush AND shot down in both houses. The equivalent of a bankrupt businessman announcing that all his property will be donated to charity - as the repo man arrives. A PR stunt, plain and simple and absolutely nothing to do with public policy.

Also, you claim that there was slow progress forwards on Kyoto et al during Clinton's administration and contrast this with progress in the opposite direction under Bush. This is demonstrably not true. The increase in CO2 emissions continued uninterrupted under Clinton. The fact that blocking tactics were used to prevent the implementation of environmental measures as against outright rejection is once again a matter of PR rather than policy. Both lead to the same effect on the environment. If you are going backwards at full speed, it doesn't really matter if you are pretending to be doing something to about it or just plain come out and tell it like it is.

Finally, I'd like to ask for a few testable predictions from those who think that there is some real difference between the two. For example, do you think that the current trends in income inequality will be reversed and by how many percentage points? What effect will it have on trends in military funding or on CO2 emissions? Without some even rough predictions like that, it just boils down to blind faith.

by R. Isible Tue Aug 24, 2004 01:30

Feargal wrote: "Before you make the facile "surely you don't believe those promises?" reply, no I don't believe they will all be satisfactorily fulfilled. I do however think it's better to go with the guy who might try to do these things rather than the guy who cheerfully admits to having no interest in doing them, and is in fact going in the opposite direction."

What about the guy who says he'll do those things to your face and then promises other policies that are completely incompatible with them? For instance I summarise your list as you expecting Kerry to:

1. Keep US troops in Iraq and attempt to involve international forces in peacekeeping.
2. Be more "softly, softly" on Iran, N.Korea
3. Improve health care
4. Increase public school funding

Re 1: I don't see how this is any different than what Bush would want to do. If the US can trick international forces into doing some of the dying in iraq then it's all the better for them. As Chekov has pointed out above Kerry is more likely to be able to do this than Bush because he's a new face and hasn't yet established a feeling of nausea in everyone. Kerry has made it quite clear that he was in support of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and would have invaded Iraq _even without the threat of WMDs being present_. At least Bush tried to pretend there was a compelling reason.

2. I don't know what you mean by this. As regards N.Korea the US is very "softly softly" for the reason that the N.Koreans probably have nuclear weapons and are very likely to fight. As regards Iran, who knows. The US isn't any more threatening to them at the moment than they have been in the last century. Which is to say that they live under constant threat of US attack.

3. and 4. sound nice, but given that Kerry is going to keep 98% of the tax breaks that Bush introduced it's hard to see how anyone can take this seriously. Also if we judge Kerry on past deeds (which is a lot better clue to how he'll behave in the future than how he says he'll behave) we can see he voted for the "No Child Left Behind" program introduced by Bush.

The bottom line is that Kerry is manifestly lying in order to be elected. Even if he were _not_ lying then what would his chances be of implementing any radical reforms (not that he's promising any?).

Kerry is probably also no good on the politics of sexuality and gender.
http://www.indybay.org/lgbtqi/


In conclusion:
"We have debated lesser evilism so often on both sides of the Atlantic that it is surely time to stop gesturing at the obvious and to examine critically a system that produces the Bushes and their Democratic shadows. " http://www.counterpunch.org/pilger08232004.html

(Oh, and here's a link for Chekov: Socialist Worker's Lance Selfa appears to agree with most of your analysis! http://www.counterpunch.org/selfa08192004.html )

by Fergal Tue Aug 24, 2004 17:58

Just because you don't believe him, it doesn't necessarily follow that he's "manifestly lying". Maybe he will turn out to have been lying, maybe not, but right now, it's not in the least bit manifest.

But hey, you can win any argument by just refusing to believe anything the other side says.

But assuming, for arguments sake, that there really is no difference between the two, which would you prefer to win, and why?

by vinnie Tue Aug 24, 2004 23:03

>But assuming, for arguments sake, that
>there really is no difference between the
>two, which would you prefer to win, and why

Well the easy answer is Kerry, which is what my heart tells me but my brain says bush.

Reason being is that bush is a bastard and acts like a bastard up front. Kerry like most democrat presidents will be charming and act like a bastard behind everyones back.

This has always been the way. Clinton killed just as many people in Iraq as Bush did, using sanctions rather than bombs (although he used them quite often too). Democrats can run capitalism better because they keep some of its barbarities out of sight, while the republicans just show it to us all in glorious technicolour.

So if you believe that voting for Kerry will somehow be better feel free. I'm sure it will seem better while sitting on your liberal well fed ass watching TV in western suburbia, I'm sure you conscience will be salved and you'll feel you've done your bit.

But if your starving and dying of AIDS in africa while your government pays most of its money in repayments to US banks, or your house in the west bank is about to be bulldozed by an american overseas statelet, or your street in Sudan is randomly bombed becasuse the US president reckons its a bomb factory, then you won't give a f**k whether its Bush Junior or Kerry, or Clinton or Bush Senior because they're all out to screw you and none of them have real practical concern for anything other than power and money.

So go vote for Kerry, or vote for the shrub, but personally I'd rather go and do something more useful with my time.

by old one Wed Aug 25, 2004 02:59

Why vote for a lesser evil?

by R. Isible Wed Aug 25, 2004 03:56

If _you_ claim that Kerry is better than Bush. Really, when you ignore Kerry's stated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-tax platform _and_ you ignore his past deeds (voting for NoChildLeftBehind, voting against KyotoRatification, voting for the PatriotAct) then you're blundering into the realims of insanity when you claim that there's a difference.

QUOTE: "But assuming, for arguments sake, that there really is no difference between the two, which would you prefer to win, and why?"

If there really is no difference between the two then I'd prefer Nader to win because he _is_ different. I think he's deluded for other reasons but at least it puts an end to the situation where US voters are willing to be gulled and the faux democracy keeps on keepin' on.

by Fergal Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:59

Well I'd prefer Nader to win too (as I said above somewhere) but that wasn't quite my question. Which would you prefer, Bush or Kerry?

And please, if calling me a liar is the best you can do, then lets just stop this discussion right here. You don't have to agree with me, but if I want to be insulted by complete strangers I can find plenty of other sites to visit.

Old one, you ask "why vote for the lesser evil?". Well, why vote for the greater one? The clue is in the word "lesser".

by R. Isible Wed Aug 25, 2004 19:28

Then you are quite simply telling an untruth. I think it's important to call you on that.

Again, I don't see anything to choose between Bush and Kerry. It's like asking me which type of excreta I'd like in my sandwich. Neither thanks, I'll take the pesto and grilled vegetables instead.

Now, you've studiously avoided all evidence which indicates that Kerry and Bush are both warmongers and instead stated your _hopes_ that Kerry will be better despite some evidence which shows that he may be worse. Can you not find a small bit of evidence to back up your assertion that Kerry will be even a _little_ bit better?

by mr data Thu Aug 26, 2004 21:08

When looking at bush vs kerry it is important to remember that despite the wishes of the masses this is not an international affair, yes it has interntional effects and global reverberations but it (the election) is a national affair.
The american voter will focus on whats better for them, Bush is demonised for his tax cuts/mishandling of the economy, the majority americans want to see the US as number 1 player on the international stage so why on earth would anyone run on the ticket of giving up the crown and lowering itself to a level playing field?
International on lookers want a candidate who respects international law and the voters want someone who will protect their interest. the US can only hold what has by force so a hawk will aways roost in the whitehouse, even if it sometimes is in doves clothing.

by R.Isible Fri Aug 27, 2004 00:11

Don't really know what you're arguing. It's fairly obvious that as you say

QUOTE: "The american voter will focus on whats better for them,"

But how on earth voting for either Kerry or Bush will be better for the average voter is hard to see. US citizens have steadily lost real earning power since the late 60's under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The hard-won achievements of "Welfare" have been scrooged away and taxes on the rich have fallen resulting in a tiny number of people owning more than the vast majority.

If US voters were really focussing on what was "best" for them then most of them would be backing a candidate that is promising to jack up corporate and personal taxes to unprecedented levels.

The imperial gains of the US go disproportionately towards that elite 1% while the disadvantages of empire (outsourced jobs, more wars, less control) affects the poor.