Is anybody else miffed about Kerry blowing off Chavez?

[yellowdawgdem]

For some reason, I can't shake that one. I really thought that our goal was to present a kinder voice in the international political environment. I'm a little concerned that he even is anti-Chavez. But, what bothers me the most is his lack of diplomacy. The Big Dog did not run around shooting off his mouth against foreign leaders, he was always gracious, and said the right thing. It seems possible that Kerry was in defensive mode because of his earlier remark about foreign leaders hoping he wins- and then Cheney attacking him. But no matter the reason, it really has been bothering me, and I wondered if others had any thoughts/ideas about the situation with Chavez.:shrug:

[hang a left]

1. Just more suspicious as time goes by.

Maybe it has something to do with this.

Introduction

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." Jimmy Carter placed the defense of human rights at the center of our foreign policy. And Bill Clinton led the way in building a post-Cold War Europe whole, free, and at peace in a new partnership with Russia. Around the world the names of these Democratic statesmen elicit admiration and respect.

Today America is threatened once again. Our country needs a new generation of Democratic leaders to step forward and provide the same caliber of leadership as their 20th century predecessors.

Two years ago, terrorists declared war on America by killing thousands of innocent civilians. But America was not the only target: The September 11 hijackers acted in the name of a hateful ideology inimical to the cause of liberty everywhere. Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years, but decades. Once again the United States must rally the forces of freedom and democracy around the world to defeat this new menace and build a better world.

The 21st century has brought a new set of threats whose origins are different but whose consequences are potentially as dangerous as the totalitarian challenges of the last century. We were fortunate that our terrorist enemies did not yet have the capacity to inflict catastrophic harm on us with weapons of mass destruction. Preventing a deadly fusion of terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and mass destruction weapons on the other is one of the paramount challenges of our time.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&k...


or this
PPI | Press Release | October 30, 2003
PPI Joins In Unveiling National Security Strategy
"Progressive Internationalism" Offers Alternative to Bush Administration's Failed Policies


For Immediate Release
Contact: Karin Kullman Freedman/John Bray: [phone]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A group of leading foreign affairs and defense specialists, including analysts from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), today unveiled a new agenda for national security that updates the Democratic Party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism.

In "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy," the group assesses the Bush administration's growing list of foreign policy failures as well the mounting political and economic costs of its unilateral diplomacy. "Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies, this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances buildup over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low," the document states.

Noting that criticism of the Bush administration alone will not allay public doubts about Democrats' willingness to pursue the tough security policies today's world demands, the authors also propose a progressive alternative for making Americans safer and restoring respect around the world for U.S. global leadership.

"We begin by reaffirming the Democratic Party's commitment to progressive internationalism -- the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy," the document states. "The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom." http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252146

[yardwork]

2. I read the actual statement that Kerry made

and I don't think that he "blew off" Chavez.

I read the statement as a very even-handed comment about the need to protect democratic freedoms.

[madrchsod]

3. yes i am

he didn`t need to say anything,esp when it may not be true about chavez. his statement was pure politics-speaking out both sides of his mouth.

[slor]

4. Yes, I am miffed...

and Yes I am still voting for him.

[htuttle]

5. Yes, I'm miffed

If Kerry wins, and he actually pulls the US out of the Middle East, I have a feeling that much of my time over the next 4 years will be spent on Latin American and Carribean anti-intervention issues.

One step at a time, is what I say to myself. Mostly because I appear to have little choice but to think that at the moment.

[rman]

6. there's a thread a mile long around here somewhere, mostly miffed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1292000&mesg_id=1292000

[lastknowngood]

7. Yes we don't need to encourage the reichwing jerks to overthrow

another democratically elected government just so American corps can make a bigger profit at the expense of the poor of the world. Kerry is a jackass for saying this and he also needs to be out front on the Haiti coup. If our country acts like gangsters we will be treated as criminals by the world's people.

[mouse7]

8. Another example of the left demanding purity from candidates...

...and threatening to destroy them if they don't get their way.

What's Kerry supposed to do, sacrifice his whole campaign? Chavez publically has supported Castro. Kerry can't publically endorse Chavez because of that. You know it's politically impossible for Kerry to publically endorse Chavez after that.

Chavez could have taken a neutral (Canadian) stance on Castro. He didn't. Castro still jails political opposition. Chavez has done a lot of good things, but publically supporting Castro was a huge error.

[htuttle]

11. Who's demanding purity?

Every post I see so far from 'miffed' people says they are still going to vote for him.

Expect us 'miffed' folks to really get on his ass about it after he's elected, however.

And I haven't heard a lot of people wanting Kerry to 'endorse' Chavez. The most common thing I've been reading is that we'd like Kerry to keep the US from fucking around in Venezuelan politics. I hardly think that's so politically dangerous OR 'leftist'.

[peacetalksforall]

12. I am steaming about his remarks....

they are obtuse as evidenced by all the interpretations DUers have come up with. They sound damning and anti-Chavez to me and bending to the right wing. They are offensive for someone like me who believes we can't go around the world taking over countries and exiling their leaders - for our profit and control, especially when their leaders have been legally elected. We are phoneys of the most horrendous kind on the world stage.

I'm not a happy future voter.

Every voter owes it to themselves to study the Venezuela and Haiti attempted takeovers by the U.S. - involving our intelligence, state department, military, media, and oil companies.

Troubled, very troubled.

[peacetalksforall]

14. Let Chavez support Castro - our policy towards Cuba is a sham. We're

going to kick Chavez out because of Castro - why don't we kick out leaders in Brazil, or Canada, or Mexico, or France, or Sweden, or Japan - and all the other countries whose leaders do business with Castro. We are hypocrites. I'll say it once more - our policy should have changed with the fall of the Berlin Wall. We cannot be held hostage by Cuban-Americans because they haven't made enough money off of their dictated stand-off that allows them to hold our entire country in their grip.

[Alenne]

9. I am not miffed

If Kerry was advocating a coup in Venezuela I would have a problem with that. I don't care if he doesn't like Chavez as long as he knows a coup would be wrong.

[9215]

10. I just don't think it is a biggy.

It is all politics and it would bother me if I thought Kerry was doing harm to Chavez during this crucial time period, but I think Kerry is just trying to defray the claims he is a commie, traitor, pinko,

[keithyboy]

13. YES!!! It kept me from mailing my second check to Kerry campaign.

I fear we are getting in Kerry the stuas quo of politics. God, how I wish Kucinich could be President with Dean as VP.

[lara]

15. Politicians only say what will piss off the least amount of people.

I totally agree.

What we are trying to do in the name of "democracy" infuriates me to no end. There's nothing more low down than to take the ideals that we stand for and manipulate them for greed and power...

The hypocrisy is infuriating.

Our administration isn't interested in freedom or democracy...

Kerry (who I'm gonna vote for) is placing himself as a moderate, like all democrats do to get the mid-west folks... what to do....

Politicians say what they think will piss off the least amount of people. Venezuela & Haiti are beyond most Americans knowledge base.

We must make AMERICANS aware. That's where true change will happen. We’re compassionate people who want to do good…We just are ignorant.

[robcon]

16. I am proud that Kerry recognized Chavez as anti-democratic.

Kerry's opinion was supported by the latest findings in Venezuela...

Chavez's government used torture, including "severe beatings, burnings, electric shocks and mock executions" against demonstrators.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3571383.stm

[belle]

17. I don't know yet. I'm not sure what the whole story is with Chavez.

I know he's been considered a hero to a lot of people, and that the "wrong" people are against him; but it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't also abuses going on. I would need to read up on more. So far, I get the impression that Kerry is conservative is the old fashioned sense: he moves slowly and cautiously, and doesn't throw in his lot with anyone or anything that would rock the boat too hard, for better or for worse. I don't know that that makes him a total cynic/hypocrite, though. I think he really does at least give most issues serious consideration. I liked his response about the Clarke business that he'd have to "read the book before making any comment," for instance. It was politic; but also, I believed he really *would* read the book. On the whole I've been fairly impressed with his public statements. We'll see.

[yellowdawgdem]

18. Glad to know I'm not the only miffed or steamed person

here. It does seem as though Kerry feels he has to lean toward the right a bit to get elected. Even if he does need to do that, and I'm not necessarily agreeing that he does- I still think the "Canadian" neutrality is far more appealing than being control freaks. Don't see why he couldn't hand Chavez a cordial platter of bullshit, Bill Clinton style, and stay out of their country. I don't think it's a big deal at all that Chavez supports Castro. And I doubt that has anything to do with Kerry's response. I'm beginning to think that John Kerry is simply a more aggressive sharp shooter than the Big Dog, and it's his style. Sometimes it works to counteract the bullying tactics of the bfee, but he needs to also show his diplomatic abilities. He has them, and will do fine, once he is elected. I am just worried that the repubs are going to put him constantly on the defensive, and he will show an aggressiveness that could put off swing voters who are leaning left or moderates.
Still, I am going to vote for Kerry, and will work to get democrats registered, etc etc. It is a lot harder to consider donating a second time, though I probably will. I guess this is just a reality check, and we have to trust that Kerry will be an improvement over Dubya no matter what. I'm sure he will not do pre emptive strikes, at least.