[R-P] Kerry no va a ser mucho mejor que Bush

[Nestor Gorojovsky]

Este correo de la lista A-list muestra que el plan de Kerry es 
mantener la hegemonía norteamericana, pero usando medios más sutiles 
que los de la Bestia Tejana.  Está en inglés, lo siento: no tengo 
tiempo para traducirlo.  Pero el mensaje es claro: piensa seguir con 
la política de Bush, solamente que ahora buscará con mayor empeño 
asociar a los antiguos aliados de Occidente...


[A-List] US Imperialism: An update on two fronts
Anyutka annewilliamson at msn.com
Mon Feb 23 22:41:08 MST 2004

    * Previous message: [A-List] Why gold?
    * Next message: [A-List] Why gold?
    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I'm in despair after reading this....believe me, I really, really 
want the Democrats to have a winning candidate, but Kerry is not 
looking like progress to me.....I have no knowledge of the Press 
Action group, whether they be liberals, conservatives, socialists or 
what - I found the link below from the LRC blog.

But the question may be moot, if the bear market is back - and the 
market does appear to be topping.....more of interest below this 
story on the fate of the US empire.

http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html#001294>http://w
ww.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html#001294

February 09, 2004
'It's Time to Get Over It'
 John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On

By Mark Hand

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the
neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned 
George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New 
Democrats, has been  pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony 
but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist
program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in 
the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been 
promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive 
internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment 
Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and 
political world that, if installed in the White House, they would 
preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, 
gentler fashion than the current administration. In the domestic 
battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in
their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New 
Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who 
will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, 
Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for 
"maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great 
power rival, and shaping the international security order in line 
with American principles and interests."

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

The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for invading 
Iraq. They take issue with the Bush administration's strategy of 
refusing to invite key members of the international community to the 
invasion until it was  too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, 
the New Democrats believe, will ultimately harm U.S. political and 
economic dominance around the world.

"We are confident that a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the 
party's tradition of muscular internationalism, can keep Americans 
safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated 
our natural allies and overstretched our resources," the New 
Democrats say in their foreign policy manifesto. "We aim to rebuild 
the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing 
America's awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy. A 
new progressive internationalism can point the way." 

Proponents of "progressive internationalism" are a lock to control
leadership positions at the State Department and key civilian posts 
at the Pentagon in a John Kerry administration. How do we know this? 
Because these New Democrats obviously ghostwrote Kerry's campaign 
book, A Call to Service: My Vision for A Better America. Place the 
Progressive Internationalism manifesto and Kerry's chapter on foreign 
policy side by side and you'll immediately notice the similarities.

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

Now, turn to page 3 of the New Democrats' manifesto. It reads:

"As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded
internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents 
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United 
States to victory in two world wars and designed the post-war 
international institutions that have been a cornerstone of global 
security and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged 
democratic alliances such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the 
Cold War. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the 
survival and success of liberty."

Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against 
the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

"I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully
employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque 
Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the 
Atlantic Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in 
victory, should in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet 
up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the first 
place." There's much to digest in this paragraph. Perhaps the most 
interesting nugget is Kerry's statement that the United States should 
"meet repentant Europeans halfway." Hmmm, John, could you elaborate 
on what sins the Europeans committed for which they must repent?

On page 50, Kerry details his beef with Old Europe:

"The Bush administration is by no means the only culprit in the 
breakdown in U.S.-UN relations over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia 
never supported or offered a feasible policy to verify that UN 
resolutions on Iraq were actually being carried out. . Our British, 
Spanish and Eastern European coalition allies are eager to rebuild 
European unity." Throughout the foreign policy sections of the book, 
Kerry does his best to convince the reader that he would not run from 
his role as war criminal in chief if elected president.

Perhaps the most repulsive section of the book is where Kerry 
discusses the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement. On page 42, Kerry 
writes:  "I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who 
dismissed our troops as war criminals or our country as the villain 
in the drama. That's one reason, in fact, that I eventually parted 
ways with the VVAW [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] organizations 
and instead helped found the Vietnam Veterans of America."
If the United States was not a villain in the "drama" of the Vietnam 
war, then who is to blame for the million-plus Vietnamese who were 
killed during the 20-year period of naked U.S. aggression that ended 
in 1975? Surely, John, you don't wish to blame certain communist dead-
enders in Vietnam for the  carnage?

On the next page, Kerry informs his reader that it's time we stop
questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions: "As a veteran of both the 
Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both 
conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's 
time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling 
example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. 
If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that 
conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose 
involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than 
ideology and legend." This last passage is probably the most 
unsettling part of Kerry's book and one  that every advocate of the 
Anyone-But-Bush 2004 election strategy should read before heading to 
the polling station in November. 

In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people
slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the 
twentieth century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in 
Vietnam is no longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as 
the work of know-nothings.  Kerry and his comrades in the progressive 
internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action 
as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy 
difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is 
that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in 
full view of the international community, while the progressive 
internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind 
the cloak of multilateralism.


Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro en fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _