Kerry is as wrong for America as Bush is
— and for the same reason
by Senhor San

Kerry calls for an increase of 40,000 troops and so the choice Democrats have afforded us this year is: 'War or war.'

"We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda." — John Kerry

"We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort ..." — John Kerry

"I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act." — John Kerry

"I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders." — John Kerry

Can't you see that organized-crime ruling-elites rule the top of monolithic bi-partisanship  — that they rob us of wealth and freedom and a future by  successive approximations to their final goal — the global plantation —    ratcheting us between  political parties with "anybody but"  and "who can beat" — WHEN CLINTON IS BUSH; DOLE, GORE, PEROT, NADER ARE BUSH TOO, AND SO IS KERRY AND EDWARDS, CLARK AND LIEBERMAN.

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GREATER ABDICATION OF POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE AND PRINCIPLE THAN "WHOEVER CAN BEAT?"  HAS THERE EVER BEEN A BETTER HANDLE FOR A CORRUPT ESTABLISHMENT KEEPING CONTROL THAN THAT DEVICE?

Kerry says: "For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort ..."

So tell us, John,

Should we teach them about when the USS New Jersey started hurling 16-inch shells into the mountains above Beirut, in World War II style, as if we were softening up the beaches on some Pacific atoll prior to an invasion? What we tend to overlook in such situations is that other people will react much as we would.

Should we teach them about the consequent terrorist attack against US Marine barracks in Lebanon on October 23, 1983 which took the lives of 241 American military personnel? The assault upon Beirut in 1983 and 1984 is but one of many examples of American violence against the Middle East and/or Muslims since the 1980s.

Should we teach them about the US shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981?

Should we teach them about the US furnishing of military aid and intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, including materials for chemical and biological warfare to Iraq, so as to maximize the damage each side would inflict upon the other?

Should we teach them about the bombing of Libya in 1986; the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987?

Should we teach them about the US shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988?

Should we teach them about the US shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989?

Should we teach them about the massive US bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991?

Should we teach them about the continuing US bombings and sanctions against Iraq for the next 12 years?

Should we teach them about US the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, the latter destroying a pharmaceutical plant which provided half that impoverished nation's medicines?

Should we teach them about the habitual US support of Israel despite the routine devastation and torture it inflicts upon the Palestinian people?

Should we teach them about the habitual US condemnation of Palestinian resistance to this; the abduction of "suspected terrorists" from Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania, who are then taken to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where they are tortured?

Should we teach them about the large military and hi-tech US presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region?

Should we teach them about US support of anti-democratic Middle East governments from the Shah of Iran to the Saudi royal family?


Don't you wonder what US bi-partisan "governance" is right now attempting to "re-educate" us to accept and to forget?  Where do you think Kerry got the idea of social conditioning of populations to fit the needs of global governance?

When thinking people point to the Bush administration's crime of 9-11 and the crimes against Islam an army of ADL Zionists jump on them, freeping them with terms like "wackos," "loons", "fuckwits,"  "America-haters", "terrorist sympathizers" — drowning them out, intimidating them, discouraging them so that people will continue to send their sons and daughters to murder Arabs for the pit-bullish chosen race.

Consider the term "terrorist sympathizers" thrown at them   — how ironic that they would try to saddle the well-informed and intelligent with that label when it is exactly those so accused who have already determined from the wealth of available photographic evidence that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THEMSELVES PERPETRATED 9-11 — THAT THEY KILLED AMERICANS SO THEY COULD USE OUR CHILDREN TO KILL ARABS, FREE UP AFGANISTAN OPIUM FLOW FEEDING THE HEROIN INDUSTRY, WITH THE BIG MONEY LAUNDERED INTO ANGLO-AMERICAN MERCHANT BANKS FOR INVESTMENT IN CHINA'S SUBSISTENCE-WAGE SUPER-FACTORIES.

WHO SAYS THAT NO ONE SHOULD VOTE GREEN, OR LIBERTARIAN OR POPULIST OR PALEOCONSERVATIVE (or try to unite these) BECAUSE TO BEAT BUSH "WE HAVE TO GET BEHIND KERRY" THE PRO-WAR THREE-WIFE SKULL-AND-BONESMAN WITH FRATERNAL SKULL AND BONES SOCIETY VOWS OF SECRECY BETWEEN HIM AND GEORGE BUSH THAT HE "CAN'T" TELL VOTERS ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS A SECRET?

DO ANY BUT A PITIFUL HANDFUL OF DEMOCRATS HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING BLOODY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?  OR ARE THE DOMINANT AMONG YOU ALL IN ON THE CONSPIRACY AND THE SUBMISSIVE ALL BEYOND THINKING OR ACTING FOR THE COMMON GOOD THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED TO PROMOTE?


I just sent William Blum information he hadn't seen about the Pentagon evidence.  But his point below is still valid AND IMPORTANT as far as it goes:


If Kerry's the Answer, What's the Question?
By WILLIAM BLUM

Of all the issues that the presidential campaign will revolve around, none is more important to me than foreign policy. I say this not because that is my area of specialty, but because the bombings, invasions, coups d'etat, depleted uranium, and other horrors that are built into United States foreign policy regularly bring to the people of the world much more suffering and despair than any American domestic policy does at home. I do not yearn for "anybody but Bush". I yearn for a president who will put an end to Washington's interminable indecent interventions against humanity. This is, moreover, the only way to end the decades-long hatred that has spawned so many anti-American terrorists.

So desperate am I to have the chance to vote for someone like that, that a few days ago I allowed myself to feel a bit buoyed when John Kerry, in response to a question about the situation in Haiti, said that the Bush administration "has a theological and ideological hatred for Aristide" which has led to the administration "empowering" the rebels.{1}

To me that remark revealed a significant nuance of understanding of the world of US foreign policy that rarely makes it to the lips of an American politician. Could it be, I wondered, that Kerry is actually a cut or two above prevailing wisdom and rhetoric on such matters? (I must point out that, holding little expectation, I seldom closely follow who's who amongst establishment politicians, so until very recently I  knew almost nothing specific about Kerry; in fact, I only just learned to distinguish him from Bob Kerrey, former senator from Nebraska.)

As it happens, the next day Kerry delivered a talk entirely about his views on foreign policy, particularly about the war on terrorism.{2} And my heart lost its buoyancy. He called for an increase of "40,000 active-duty Army troops" — not exactly the kind of relief our shell-shocked world hungers for.

"But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas," Kerry said. "We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas." — This is the stuff of public relations, improving "image", ignoring the reasons for anti-Americanism. The problem, however, ain't a misunderstanding and it ain't due to poverty. It's the interventions, stupid; it's the harm we do to those people.{3}

"We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda," Kerry added. — Again, no weight given to anything Israel has done to the Palestinians; it's all just a matter of propaganda; Palestinians are becoming suicide bombers because of something someone said, not because of the Israeli devastation of their lives. In fact, the US has done remarkably well in "the war of ideas". In June, 2003 the Pew Research Center released the results of polling in 20 Muslim countries and the Palestinian territories which revealed that while people interviewed had much more "confidence" in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush, "the survey suggested little correlation between support for bin Laden and hostility to American ideas and cultural products. People who expressed a favorable opinion of bin Laden were just as likely to appreciate American technology and cultural products as people opposed to bin Laden. Pro- and anti-bin Laden respondents also differed  little in their views on the workability of Western-style democracy in the Arab world."{4}

Kerry in fact refers to this poll in his talk, but he mentions only the support of bin Laden, not the apparent contradictions found in the rest of the results.

"I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act." — As if the United States was not already wiring, tapping, bugging and surveilling every institution in the known world and every creature that moves across the earth, and summarily imprisoning them by the thousands. It sounds like a remark Kerry threw in, as with many of his other remarks, hoping to demonstrate a nonexistent difference between his foreign-policy views and those of the Bush administration.

"I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders." — As The Washington Post stated, "Kerry appeared to outline his own preemptive doctrine in the speech."{5}

Kerry faulted Bush for providing insufficient funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. — He probably thought he was on safe ground; the word "democracy" always sells well.

But this is his most depressing comment of all. He's calling for more money for an organization that was set up to be a front for the CIA, literally, and that for 20 years has been destabilizing governments, progressive movements, labor unions, and anyone else on Washington's hit list.{6} Which would be a worse mark against Kerry, that he doesn't know this about NED, or that he does know it? It sounds like another throwaway to imply a divide between he and George W.

So, what do we have here? Not a single word about the tens of thousands killed by US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq; not a word about anything the United States has ever done anywhere in the world that could conceivably lead to anyone ever harboring justified resentment against the United States and seeking retaliation.

Not a word about ending, or even lessening, interventions.

It does not require total cynicism to point out that at most, at best, John Kerry's beef with the Bush administration over foreign policy — to the extent that he really has any — is a very minor difference of opinion between technocrats, Kerry offering a few tiny adjustments, a tweaking here or there. Most of his policy suggestions concerned things already being done by the Bush administration.

In sum total, nothing at all threatening, or even challenging, to business as usual for American foreign policy. What relief from the bully's outrages can the world expect from a John Kerry administration? What relief from the outrages done in our name can we Americans expect?

I think I can go back to ignoring establishment politicians.

NOTES

{1} Newsday (New York), February 27, 2004

{2} Talk at UCLA, February 27, 2004;

{3} For a discussion of this thesis, see the author's essay, "Myth and Denial in the War Against Terrorism" at: <http://members.aol.com/bblum6/myth.htm>

{4} Ibid.

{5} Washington Post, February 28, 2004

{6} See the author's essay on NED

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.  He can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com


The text above was sent by Senhor San to a mailing list on March 8, 2004.

William Blum's article originally appeared in Counterpunch
at http://www.counterpunch.org/blum03022004.html


See also:
 
As has been said before, but very aptly in this case, "Whoever wins ... the people lose."

Serendipity Home Page