Kerry essentially endorses the Bush policy on Iraq

EllisDTripp · Feb 3, 2005

Despite the claims by his supporters, Kerry wouldn't be doing anything different in Iraq if he had been elected. Skull or Bones, the machinery of Empire grinds on....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/kerr-f01.shtml

KERRY REJECTS CALL FOR IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL

Defeated Democratic candidate on "Meet the Press"
By Bill Van Auken
1 February 2005

For any of his erstwhile supporters who cling to illusions about what might have been had the vote gone a bit differently on November 2, the defeated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry provided a definitive answer Sunday.

Appearing on the NBC television news program "Meet the Press," Kerry was shown a videotape of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Edward Kennedy, calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, beginning with the immediate removal of at least 12,000.

"Do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?" asked NBC´s Tim Russert.

"No," replied Kerry.

"Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?" Russert continued.

"No," Kerry repeated.

The tone of the televised exchange was the exact opposite of ambush journalism. It was evident that Kerry welcomed the opportunity to disassociate himself from Kennedy´s proposal and embrace a policy that, in all essentials, is indistinguishable from that of the Bush administration-one that means US military occupation for years to come.

At the same time, the establishment media was anxious to get the Democratic standard-bearer on record, affirming the unity of the two parties of big business on the all-important issue of the continuing war in Iraq.

"Now, obviously, you´ve got to provide security and stability in order to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops," Kerry declared in the interview. Asked if he would vote to approve the Bush administration´s request for $80 billion in additional funding for the Iraq war, he responded, "The likelihood is yes."

Providing "security and stability" is a euphemism for crushing the resistance to US occupation. It means killing thousands upon thousands more Iraqis and sacrificing hundreds, if not thousands, more US soldiers. This is what the $80 billion will pay for.

The revealing interview follows the trajectory of the Kerry campaign. The senator won the Democratic primary by posturing as an antiwar candidate and denouncing Bush for "misleading" the American people, but once he emerged as the undisputed front-runner, he rushed to declare his commitment to the occupation, and even condemned the Bush administration for failing to send enough troops.

He turned from trying to hoodwink the overwhelmingly antiwar Democratic base to assuring the US ruling elite that he could be trusted to prosecute the war, and do it more competently than the Republican incumbent. In granting the interview, Kerry was merely dotting the "i´s" and crossing the "t´s" on the policy that he advanced in the run-up to the election.

Now, in defeat, Kerry speaks of the election as a "mandate for unity" and "finding common ground." That ground, evidently, is to be found on the killing fields of Iraq.

Kerry lost the election in November because the Democratic Party was unable and unwilling to offer any genuine alternative to the policies of the Bush administration. The Democratic presidential candidate embraced the fraud of the "global war on terror" and the lie that the colonial war to conquer Iraq and its oil reserves is part of this supposed struggle against terrorism.

Interviewer Russert quoted to Kerry an article that appeared in Newsweek magazine citing a post-election meeting of Democratic Party supporters at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington. Kerry, according to the report, "told the group they needed new ways to make people understand they didn´t like abortion. Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party." The magazine reported, "[T]here was a gasp in the room."

Asked if the report was accurate, Kerry replied, "It´s pretty accurate, sure." He went on to say he would support federal legislation to require parental notification of planned abortions, a measure that would drastically undermine abortion rights, threaten the health of minors, and criminalize a legal form of medical care.

The lesson drawn by Kerry and other leading Democrats from their defeat in the 2004 election is not to advance a program to counter the reactionary social policies of the Bush administration or end the war in Iraq. Rather, they are convinced that the party must turn even further to the right, competing with the Republicans in the use of "values" demagogy and appeals to religious backwardness.
Click to expand...

Duck · Feb 3, 2005

I saw that interview. I really like Russert. He ripped Kerry apart. He does that to a lot of people.

Pressed_Rat · Feb 3, 2005

Holy shit, I am totally surprised.

trombonebleu · Feb 3, 2005

Well, it was a matter of choice. Did you want this Yale Skull & Bones member or that Yale Skull & Bones member....cut from the same cloth...

RevoMystic · Feb 3, 2005

"Kerry lost the election in November because the Democratic Party was unable and unwilling to offer any genuine alternative to the policies of the Bush administration."

That's not why Kerry lost the election. That's just evidence that the Democratic party has completely abandoned its traditional constituency. Kerry "lost" because of voter intimidation and suppression, and computer manipulation. The corporation that manufactured and supplied the voting machines were openly pro-republican, so how could there be no suspicion of foul play? Run a google search on Greg Palast, there'll be tons to sort through.

I can still have my sweet daydreams of what it would be like to have President Nader :-D

element7 · Feb 4, 2005

Shocking. lol. Really, is it that surprising?

Pressed_Rat · Feb 4, 2005

Yep. Dems and Reps are both torn from the same cloth, they simply use different words.

Mui · Feb 4, 2005

*shits pants* you mean the people arent really represented in the US? I am totally shocked!

Sera Michele · Feb 4, 2005

RevoMystic said:

"Kerry lost the election in November because the Democratic Party was unable and unwilling to offer any genuine alternative to the policies of the Bush administration."

That's not why Kerry lost the election. That's just evidence that the Democratic party has completely abandoned its traditional constituency. Kerry "lost" because of voter intimidation and suppression, and computer manipulation. The corporation that manufactured and supplied the voting machines were openly pro-republican, so how could there be no suspicion of foul play? Run a google search on Greg Palast, there'll be tons to sort through.

I can still have my sweet daydreams of what it would be like to have President Nader :-D
Click to expand...

Kerry lost because of gay marriage.

Pressed_Rat · Feb 4, 2005

Kerry lost because the elections were rigged for him to lose.

It's no joke that Ohio and New Mexico were stolen. I mean 90,000 extra votes just don't turn up out of nowhere.

Mui · Feb 4, 2005

America should be like Ukraine and demand a new election..

i think its been forever sense we have had an election that wasnt fraudulant.
its just too big of a thing... its impossible to have a legitimate election...

RevoMystic · Feb 4, 2005

"Kerry lost because of gay marriage."

you're joking or being sarcastic, right?

Pressed_Rat · Feb 4, 2005

RevoMystic said:

"Kerry lost because of gay marriage."

you're joking or being sarcastic, right?
Click to expand...

That's what I said.

Rhythmdevil · Feb 4, 2005

Pressed_Rat said:

Kerry lost because the elections were rigged for him to lose.

It's no joke that Ohio and New Mexico were stolen. I mean 90,000 extra votes just don't turn up out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah, being from NM and it being my first Presidential Election is was pretty maddening that they declared victory before we could even get our votes all counted. Oh well, that's democracy for ya...

RevoMystic · Feb 4, 2005

um...no it's NOT democracy.

green_thumb · Feb 5, 2005

Why are people even still talking about Kerry? Who cares about that loser. Stop giving him attention. Idiot/sleepwalkers at democraticunderground.com are talking about Kerry in '08! Freaking morons. Drop him.

EllisDTripp · Feb 5, 2005

Why are people even still talking about Kerry? Who cares about that loser. Stop giving him attention.
Click to expand...

This coming from one of the loudest Kerry supporters on this board? The person who rudely attacked anybody who even THOUGHT of going third party because they knew Kerry was a sellout corporate tool even BEFORE the concession speech?

skip · Feb 5, 2005

I lost all respect for Kerry because he didn't attack Bush's Iraq & economic & social policies hard enough, and didn't fight for a recount - which to me proves not only that the elections were fixed, but that Kerry was IN ON IT.

So yes the ruling cabal are having their way with everything including Iraq. I tell you it's because of a shift of power to the right in the US. It's gone so far over, it appears there's no longer a way to balance it, and you're either with 'em or you're dead politically if not in reality.

The rich have got so fucking rich they control all the mainstream media, and reality no longer reaches most of America anymore. Any potential challengers like Dean, Kucinich, and especially Kerry are either completely sidetracked or eventually bought out.

The real crime here is that almost 50% of America is so aliented and unrepresented by the government, they won't even participate in the American pseudo-democracy anymore.

That means the system has FAILED!

It is no longer representative of the full range of political & social views.

The Christian religion is regarded far too highly in government circles, leaving other religions and NON-RELIGIOUS viewpoints without standing to challenge the prevailing moral view.

The hypocrisy of this situation is that the US is trying to promote a secular government in Iraq, and even had to allow reference to Islam as another source of laws in Iraq, because otherwise the hypocrisy would be unbearable.

Indeed Iraq has already presented a BETTER democracy in it's first days than the US can manage 230 years after it's birth. And that's saying a hell of a lot. But you can be sure that due to the US still controlling the shots, that fledgling democracy will very shortly be corrupted and a fascist system will be soon in place to guarantee the oil money goes into the right pockets.

I would love to see the Iraqi people kick the US out and take it all over for themselves. That should be the cause that unites them. Fear is being used by both sides against the Iraqi people as the pretext to stay and control. The US has proven that it's main aim is to protect the oil flow for it's own ends, and anything else including human lives and democracy or morality are unimportant impediments.

RevoMystic · Feb 5, 2005

wow, right on Ellis and Skip!! I wholeheartedly agree with both of you!

green_thumb · Feb 5, 2005

EllisDTripp said:

This coming from one of the loudest Kerry supporters on this board? The person who rudely attacked anybody who even THOUGHT of going third party because they knew Kerry was a sellout corporate tool even BEFORE the concession speech?
Click to expand...

And this coming from someone who actually voted for Kerry. Ha ha.

I didn't rudely attack people for arguing for 3rd parties, I just defended Kerry and argued against voting for a 3rd party when we have a very destructive administration in power. Kerry would have been better for the environment, everyone knows that. I know you think you know everything and can predict "what would have been" based on some pointless and irrelevant interview....

Essentially no one voted 3rd party this election! You were not heard! Face it already.

You are so unbelievably bitter Ellis. Elections are meaningless, just live in the manner you believe in and don't worry about what Kerry is saying, it doesn't matter! Shortly after Nov. 2nd I moved on! I see you're having trouble doing that.

Log in or Sign up

Kerry essentially endorses the Bush policy on Iraq

EllisDTripp Green Secessionist

Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

trombonebleu Insider

RevoMystic Member

element7 Random fool

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Mui Senior Member

Sera Michele Senior Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Mui Senior Member

RevoMystic Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Rhythmdevil Member

RevoMystic Member

green_thumb kill your T.V.

EllisDTripp Green Secessionist

skip Founder Administrator

RevoMystic Member

green_thumb kill your T.V.

Log in or Sign up

Kerry essentially endorses the Bush policy on Iraq

EllisDTripp Green Secessionist

Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

trombonebleu Insider

RevoMystic Member

element7 Random fool

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Mui Senior Member

Sera Michele Senior Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Mui Senior Member

RevoMystic Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Rhythmdevil Member

RevoMystic Member

green_thumb kill your T.V.

EllisDTripp Green Secessionist

skip Founder Administrator

RevoMystic Member

green_thumb kill your T.V.

Useful Searches