[R-P] Kerry no va a ser mucho mejor que Bush
nestorgoro en fibertel.com.ar
Mar Feb 24 08:33:14 MST 2004
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.
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
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Más información sobre la lista de distribución Reconquista-Popular