Dem frontrunner declares he will be stronger “war president” than Bush"

[DuctapeFatwa]

In a speech Friday in Los Angeles, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, attacked the Bush administration’s management of the “war on terror” and declared that he would be a more effective—and more aggressive—“war president.”

In language essentially identical to that of Bush, he declared that the capture of Osama bin Laden would not mean an end to the conflict. “We don’t just face one man or one terrorist group,” he said. “We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with different agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and open and free societies around the globe.”

Kerry thus embraced the Bush administration’s main pretext for its militarist foreign policy as well as its domestic attacks on democratic rights and social spending: the assertion that a state of war exists—of indefinite duration, and against largely unidentified or yet-to-be-named terrorist enemies—and that, as a “war president,” the commander in chief must be granted extraordinary powers.

In reality, there is neither a constitutional nor a legal basis for the “war on terror.”..Kerry has said little in his campaign about the massive assault on democratic rights that has accompanied the “war on terror.” He has included a sentence or two about the performance of Attorney General John Ashcroft, and criticized abuses of power in the implementation of the USA Patriot Act, but Kerry voted for the legislation and has continued to defend that vote and praise many of its provisions.

In his Los Angeles speech, Kerry outlined a foreign policy posture hardly distinguishable from the Bush “doctrine of unilateral preemption,” as the prospective Democratic nominee termed it. He said that he would, if necessary, “order direct military action” against terrorist groups, with or without international support. “...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/kerr-m02.shtml

[everythingsxen]

1. As I have said several times...

We will be trading one pawn for another...

[aquart]

2. Very depressing.

[LiberalEconomist]

24. Pawns are important

Since you choose to use an chess analogy, I ought to remind you that you can improve your position by exchanging one pawn for another. Yes, a quick checkmate is ideal, but when you become a stronger chess player subtle positional advantages taken into a winning endgame is the usual route. True, Kerry is no (fill in the blank lefty), but in order to win this game we exchange him for their pawn in order to push through our agenda in the future. Poco a poco. We were on the right track with Clinton, but some of us want it all and want it now (see Queen). And guess what? Now, we have nothing. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum are impatient and agenda greedy. Just look at what the Republicans did. The did their moderate thing and then hit us with their extremist agenda when were not looking. Damn good strategy. My hats off to them. We, on the other hand, don't play that way, which means that there is very little chance that we will be able to push through our progressive agenda one day. Sad, very sad.

[redqueen]

33. We were on the right track with Clinton?

Which track was that? The pro-death penalty (it was expanded under Clinton/Gore) track?

The cutting single mothers off of welfare track?

The expanded police powers and loss of freedoms track?

Could you please be more specific?

And yes, you're right, we don't play like the republicans. They say whatever they want in campaigning but when they rule they rule RIGHT. In contrast, Clinton pandered to liberals but when he ruled, he ruled not-as-RIGHT.

Which is why we've been losing votes every single year since the backstabber was elected.

[LiberalEconomist]

37. Right on cue

Yes, you damned right we were on the right track with Clinton! He took on the abortion issue, he took on the myth of supply-side economics, he even addressed the issue of gays in the military (sure the solution was crap but it was a first step). Yes, small steps were taken in the progressive direction, and some compromise had to be made in the the evil direction. Remember, he was handcuffed given that the Republicans had taken over the Congress. As for the death penalty, I am all for it especially for corporate crimes, especially for defrauding retired people. Cutting single mothers off of welfare? Yeah, heartless, but remember the times, the economy was booming with no end in sight. The loss of welfare benefits would not have been much of an issue had Bush and his band of ideologues not come it and bust the economy even more.

I must be honest here and say that I have not idea what you mean by "the expanded police powers and loss of freedoms track." To quote you "could you please be more specific."

The gist of my post is that it takes patience and little steps. You don't think that the Republicans were able to usurp power by just charging up the hill do you? They were methodical with their think tanks and conservative media. They took back the Congress and convinced the AMERCIAN PUBLIC that the Democrats were corrupt and self-serving.

As for Nader, his supporters, and the one percent outside of the confidence interval, I say go vote for whomever you want. Contrary to Democratic Party propaganda, YOUR VOTE IS NOT IMPORTANT TO US. You people are basically annoying pests. This election is not only about you, but about the preservation of the Republic.

[sangh0]

41. It took the Repukes 30 years to get where they are now

Rome wasn't built in a day, and it's not going to be taken down in one day (Election Day) either.

[Snivi Yllom]

55. more nations to invade

ahhhhh this makes me so giddy inside.

:(

[Dookus]

3. Good

Americans won't vote for someone who says he'll be weak on the war on terror.

Personally, i want a president who executes it right, instead of using distractions like Iraq. I wanna focus on those who mean who us harm. I want to find and prosecute those who harmed us in the past.

The vast majority of Americans agree with me.

[Doomsayer13]

4. I agree

Americans want a strong president who will make them feel safe. If we nominate a weak president on national security and foreign policy issues, we'll be marginalized for the next damn decade.

[Khephra]

5. "The vast majority of Americans agree with me."

Well, that makes me feel better. I remember when the vast majority of people agreed with Bush.

Or, as my mother would say, "If everyone thought it was a good idea to jump off of a bridge..."

[Dookus]

9. What's wrong

with finding and prosecuting the people who hurt us, and trying to prevent such attacks in the future?

[sangh0]

42. Would you prefer if the majority still agreed with Bush*?

.

[BL_Zebub]

21. There is no goddamn war on terror

Just like there is no goddamn war on drugs.

Both the drug trade and terrorism were inventions of the Bush Criminal Empire and any attempts to "fight" these problems has in reality made them worse. It's all complete and utter steaming dragonshit and Kerry is as much a willing participant in the lie as Junior himself. :grr:

[Forkboy]

30. The vast majority of Americans don't vote

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. The vast majority of investors do, though. That's what Democracy means!

[Kanary]

6. Then they'll wonder why

People don't vote, and the Dems go down.

Months ago, many columnists were talking about why it was so important for DEMS to have the COURAGE to get back to their liberal roots, and establish a clear difference between the DEMs and the reich wing.

The DEMS have ignored this excellent advice to their own peril.

Kanary, totally disgusted

[regnaD kciN]

16. I remember when...

Months ago, many columnists were talking about why it was so important for DEMS to have the COURAGE to get back to their liberal roots, and establish a clear difference between the DEMs and the reich wing.

The DEMS have ignored this excellent advice to their own peril.

...months ago, the overall sentiment here on DU was that "it was so important for DEMS to have the COURAGE to get back to their liberal roots, and establish a clear difference between the DEMs and the reich wing."

Then, of course, the "unelectable" mantra took over, and now the same people are applauding the choice left open to us...between one entrenched, Bush-enabling senator from the north and one somewhat-less-entrenched, even-more-Bush-enabling senator from the south.

The DU members who spoke so eloquently eighteen months ago have ignored their own excellent advice, to their own peril.

:-(

[oasis]

7. World Socialists Web Site? I wonder about their degree of accuracy

in reporting. Did Kerry actually use the term "war president"? I've not seen this quote from a mainstream source.

[RichM]

18. Do you wonder about "mainstream sources'" degree of accuracy?

Did you notice? The NY Times & Washington Post and ALL of US television basically supported the notion that the Iraq war was launched because of "WMD." Then, when it turned out there were no WMD, this was not felt to be too major a problem -- and if anything could be said to be wrong, it was only a matter of "flawed intelligence."

How would it be possible for ANY alternative media to do worse than that?

[BL_Zebub]

22. You forgot the source of the "flawed intelligence"

..A fugitive felon bank robber who wanted to overthrow the Hussein dictatorship only so he could become the dictator himself. Chalabi was PNAC's "intelligence source" and willing puppet for justifying the invasion, and regardless of what scenario they stage for an Iraqi election, that crooked bastard will emerge the "winner".

Sounds pretty much like the US "election" from where I'm sitting :grr:

[BigDaddyLove]

26. No, but if the 'mainstream media' is called to task for.........

essentially making shit up and calling it truth, then why shouldn't the 'alternative media' be held to the same standard?

[oasis]

27. Mainstream sources have a better track record of reporting the facts.

NYT and WP have reputations to uphold and are careful not to insult the intelligence of their readers. Top publications are staffed by people who excell in the field of journalism.

The mission of ultra left and ultra right publications is to customize news to the tastes of folks on the fringe.

But you already know that. :shrug:

[BL_Zebub]

32. Mainstream media USED to report the facts.

Now they ignore the facts and only print what their corporate neocon masters tell them to.

[oasis]

36. We all know that the "alternative media" has no agenda. So take your pick

:shrug:

[BL_Zebub]

46. If you don't believe the corporate media has an agenda...

...you haven't been paying attention. Which could only lead to further questions........

[RichM]

38. So, the NYT/WP don't insult their readers' intelligence? What a joke.

Do you recall anything at all unusual about the 2000 election? The NYT and WP and all of TV seemed not to notice that the election was stolen. They missed this "little detail."

This is on top of their swallowing whole the bullsh*t about WMD, & their failing to find anything seriously wrong when there proved to be no WMD.

This is on top of their neglecting to focus unrelentingly on the fact that the whole Bush administration and Enron were all either the same exact individuals, or were "best buddies" with each other. The media accepted the White House line that Enron was a "business scandal, not a political scandal."

I don't know about YOUR intelligence, but MINE was insulted by those incredible failings, and dozens more just like them.

PS - the WSWS, which you are attempting to ridicule, was 100% correct in every one of the above-mentioned areas. Their record is a hell of a lot better than than of the Times, the Post, or any of the systematically dishonest corporate whores. And in the article posted at the top of this thread, they are once again spot-on in characterizing Kerry as having accommodated himself to most of the premises underlying Bush's militarism & Iraq policy. The fact that the WP praised Kerry's LA speech is a point against Kerry, not a point in his favor. It signifies that Kerry is campaigning hard enough to the right, to appease those the Post speaks for. Hardly something to be proud of.

I love your line lecturing me about the "mission of ultra left and ultra right publications." What do you suppose the mission of publications like the NYT/WP is? It's to create public acceptance for policies favored by the ruling elite. These policies include militarism, imperialism, consumerism - in every case, the interests of big business. Why should such a mission be given the slightest bit of respect? It's nothing but corporate brainwashing.

[RichM]

8. Yes, of course, this is the sad truth of the matter.

Democrats are such pathetic idiots. They are truly more dangerous than Republicans, because their insidious function in the system is less widely understood.

I'm looking forward to the first large-scale "Impeach Kerry" rally. It's time to start organizing for it. I hope we can get 100,000 demonstrators to the White House.

[jpgray]

10. If this article proves true, I will protest Kerry in his 'war presidency'

Right now I am going to bed. I will read the LA speech and return to this thread.

[Jim Sagle]

11. Ahh yess...the Trotsky Turkeys gobble out their "all Dems are corrupt"

line. Of course the Trotskyite movement at this point consists of a Brooklyn PS 162 janitor, a couple of Houston telemarketers, and three laid-off welders from Akron, Ohio. ;)

[Doomsayer13]

12. Spun so hard I can't even believe

Am I to believe that this "world socialist web" is suppose to be at all credible? At Kerry's UCLA visit, he simply expoused what he was already saying on the campaign trail - and that is that the United States must respond to terrorist threats multilaterally, becuase all nations agree that terrorism is a major world problem. There's nothing wrong with having a strong national defense and responding to terrorist attacks and threats in kind. This article has gone so far to superimpose a Hitlerish image on Kerry that it really leads me to ask whether the Democratic party should even bother courting these "socialists" who resort to back biting dirty politics that emphasize an "us vs. them " message (in this case, radical anti-war vs. everybody else) that would make Karl Rove proud. If I didn't know any better, by this article's reckoning, Kerry could be a simple Bush animatron, never mind the hundreds of other issues that have incredible importance in this country.

Frankly, this disgusts me, and that people buy this crap disgusts me even more. I for one am not content to cut off my nose to spite my face.

[corporatewhore]

13. I dont want another warpesident i have had enough to last a lifetime

thanks to bush

[AmyStrange]

14. You HAVE to love Kerry...

brought to you by the ABB and Nader whoopie cushion brigade... or something like that?


Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[RichM]

15. I agree. Dem warmonger-imperialists are so much nicer than Repug

warmonger-imperialists. After all, it's mainly the jersey that counts.

ABB Forever! - "The faces change, the policies stay the same."

Quick History Review: How much did Vietnam policy change, when Nixon took over from LBJ?

[IndianaGreen]

52. Vietnam was a Democratic war, until Nixon turned it into a GOP war

Iraq is a Republican war. Kucinich will bring the troops home. Kerry will keep there until some elusive pro-Western government is safely in place. Iraq will become a Democratic war.

[David__77]

17. I agree that "war on terror" is a political slogan for warmongering.

It's a front for aggression, not a legitimate entity. It's too bad that other words could not have been chosen. I know that Kerry will not challenge certain precepts that I would prefer to challenge, but I will support him wholeheartedly in the campaign. If he wins, I will then criticize negative tendencies in any administration.

[Evil_Dewers]

19. Socialist Website? n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. kick

[TheDonkey]

23. Keep bush on the defensive with his ONLY issue

as weak as it is.

Very smart move on Kerry's part. He needs a strong front on foreign and domestic issues something every other canidate in this 10 person field lacked.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. Quoting a friend "We are not having an election in Nov. so much as .......

an asshole transplant".

[no name no slogan]

34. LOL!

Hmmm, maybe I better set aside a little extra toilet paper for inauguration?

:hurts:

[redqueen]

35. I love it

Thanks for sharing that. :)

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. Now THAT's a bumper sticker! Long, but worth it!

[BL_Zebub]

47. "Same Shit, Different Asshole" would work as well.

Actually, Kerry will be worse.

Republicans are expected to be ignorant braindead shitheads. Demoncrats should know better.

[WI_DEM]

28. what we need is a "peace president"

so vote DK.

[Forkboy]

29. I feel warm all over

maybe I just pissed myself :shrug:

[no name no slogan]

31. Reagan declared a "war on terror" in 1985....

...and did we ever "win" that one?

You NEVER win a "war on terror". All you do is expand the military, trample human rights, and antagonize more of the world.

Before we engage in yet another "war", maybe we should ask if any of our actions are responsible for the "war". Instead of seeing war as the first option, maybe we should make it the last possible resort.

I'm all for stopping terrorism, but I don't see how waging a "war" against third world peoples will do that.

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. It will be good for US business interests and investors

And that's what it's all about!

[ShaneGR]

40. Would you prefer "Weak wannabee pacifist?"

It might help your ideology but it's not gonna get rid of Bush. Some of you people need to realize that 70% of the population thinks we are in a war. Hence, wartime president.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. I DON'T see a problem with any of this

But I guess this is coming from a person who saw no moral issue with the Iraq war just that it was a waste of money and human life. Terror does exist and I want a president who will fight it, unlike chimpy who pretends to fight it to serve his own purposes. And again, 98 Senators voted for the Patriot Act. If Russ Feingold were Kerry's opponent for President, his vote on the Patriot Act may be a legitimate issue but Russ isn't running. I guarantee you that Kerry's attorney general will be nothing like John Asscroft, hell it could even be John Edwards, and that we will not see the massive violations of our civil liberties that we have seen before. Americans don't want a pacifist in the white house, they want somebody who will EFFECTIVELY use our military to defend our country.

[BigDaddyLove]

45. At the risk of breaking the DU code of posting ethics..........

I say, "Right On!!!!!!!"

[DuctapeFatwa]

49. Most US voters support the crusade, here and everywhere

The unslakable thirst for Muslim blood is remarkably bi-partisan.

[adadem]

48. Me neither

We must have a candidate who is strong on defense...common sense defense. Ditto on your statment.

[IndianaGreen]

53. It doesn't matter who Kerry appoints as Attorney General

The AG has to enforce the law and if that law is the PATRIOT Act, the new AG will squash civil liberties just as Ashcroft did.

The solution is to repeal PATRIOT, not hire another cop to enforce it!

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. kick

[bread_and_roses]

54. Kerry my 2nd choice and WSWS is right

and Ductape is on target, and RichM and BS_Zbub (and some others whose nicks I can't remember). I will support Kerry 100% in the General; in fact, I'll be working very hard locally to register new voters and get out the vote for him. Removing the evil cabal now in office is paramound first step. After that, it is equally critical that we bring every ounce of pressure we can to change the Imperialist war-mongering, the blatant power/resource grabbing that mark US adventures abroad. I have a faint hope that whatever he is saying, Kerry's experience in Vietnam taught him that you cannot bomb guerilla resistance into submission, and that "war" on world poverty and oppression would have far more positive consequences than the mythic "war on terror."

We must do everything we can to change the mindset that Ductape notes in another post today:

"When the majority of voters in any country would rather spend a dollar to kill someone elses's child than spend a dime to buy medical treatment for their own, whether the policy is articulated in pretty words by a telegenic ectomorph or stuttered out by a mental defective is the least of your problems."