Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony

[ShimokitaJer]

Few here would argue that one of the greatest threats of a Bush presidency is the PNAC operatives who fill his administration. Their actions are directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq and all the American lives and dollars, and the international goodwill, it has cost us. Why, then, do we support candidates who want to do more of the same, but with Democrats at the helm instead of Republicans. A kinder, gentler American imperialism is still imperialism. For those who ridicule the efforts of "outsiders" to take control of the process, here's a bit of what your insiders stand for.

The Progressive Policy Institute (http://www.ppionline.org/) is the central think tank of the DLC and the "New Democrats," a group which consists of a large majority of both houses, including Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman. They promote a "third way" in politics, a self-proclaimed "progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. " While many of their policies do seem to warrant the "progressive" tag, they also promote an agenda called "progressive internationalism," which is difficult to distinguish from the PNAC agenda:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

The PPI itself defines progressive internationalism's goals in this way:


"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. We therefore support the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values. 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. "


They go on to say:

"While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough. We need to do more, and do it smarter and better to protect our people and help shape a safer, freer world.

Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.

Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative. "

While claiming the moral high ground over the Republicans, they nevertheless praise the same strategy employed by the PNAC: peace and prosperity through American military intervention. Their message seems to be that, while the Republicans can not be trusted with this kind of power, the Democrats can. Just as Kerry voted for the IWR and "trusted" Bush not to "fuck it up so badly," the New Democrats are asking us to trust them to do the right thing with the power we have already seen blatantly abused.

But why single out Kerry? Because progressive internationalism is one of the cornerstones of his foreign policy. This is from John Kerry's own website (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/):

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

If we condemn this use of power by the neocons, why do we accept it from our Democratic frontrunner? John Kerry was also the only candidate to sign the "New Agenda for the New Decade" manifesto, which articulates these goals:

"Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

"A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the 'revolution in military affairs' that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare. "

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926

Finally, John Kerry's autobiography "A Call to Power" contains numerous references to this agenda, some of which are articulated on this website:

http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html

For those who challenge Kerry's detractors on the claim that Kerry will offer nothing but "more of the same" of Bush, THIS is what we are talking about. The use of American military force to further an American agenda abroad is a direct threat to the ideals of Democracy. Until the "outsider" candidates demanded that the IWR be brought to the table and it became clear that the majority of Democrats were now opposed to the war, Kerry seemed intent on defending his vote. However, that vote granted to the president the power to pursue the goals of "progressive internationalism" Kerry himself praises. Kerry may not have wanted to grant such powers to the current president, but creating the precedent will certainly pave the way for granting that power to Kerry himself, should he become president.

Like Bush, Kerry is asking us to trust him to do what's in our best interests. Will we do so merely because he calls himself a Democrat (albeit a "New" one) rather than a Republican? Is this really the best we can do?

-Edited to clarify quotes-

[Ninga]

1. This is no place for reasoned debate.

Don't you know it's over? It's a done deal. Liberalism is dead. Long live the DLC.

We have been had. Our drug of choice is "winning the WH at all cost."

[polpilot]

74. The absurdity of facts and history. Lock this thread!!!!...the truth corp

has arrived.

Dean '04...The Anti-Iraqi War...Anti-DLC establishment candidate

[BeFree]

2. End American Power!!!

Yep, let's just be rid of it once and for all. Let America become a third world nation. Let some other country take over as the world's superpower. Let's see....who could it be? ...Russia? China? Great Brittan again?

Ya know what? We are the American power. Quit trying to deny it. Instead, work to see that it is used wisely.

[ShimokitaJer]

4. And what kind of American power would you see used?

Would you prefer to use our economic power to create change? How about our social power as former driving force behind the UN and NATO?

No, that's too difficult. Let's just use American military power. We already know how to do that, and we're already paying most of our taxes to it. It would be a shame to waste all those bombs, wouldn't it?

[BeFree]

8. The power is:

Our economical power, coulped with our military might, sum up America's power structure.

Have those powers been misused? Duh...

Can they be used better? The articles you refer to seem to say yes. Yes, America's power can and should be used with the correct principles and morality.

It's either America, or some other country. I prefer that we take responsibility for who we are. America can do better. If we are to survive, we must.

As for the bombs? Bury the goddamn things. Using bombs are the worst way of using our power.

[ShimokitaJer]

9. It's either America or some other country?

Then you believe that the only way to create change in the international community is for a country to use military force? That economic and diplomatic pressure by itself can have no effect?

Or is it just the viable threat of military force that should be used? In that case the neocons pointing to the invasion of Iraq as an "object lesson" to force the middle east in line were entirely correct.

Bury the bombs? Then how would we use the military power you say we need in order to further the American agenda?

[BeFree]

11. I believe

That my message has not been clear to you. Read it again. And while you do, think about this:

Our power has many facets -- like a diamond, if you will. The biggest diamond ever. How to use that diamond? Marriage or division?

[ShimokitaJer]

12. I think I've got your message loud and clear

While our "power has many facets," you seem to agree with Kerry that the facet of military intervention is one which we must use, not merely in the defense of our country, but to advance the goals of our country abroad. This use of military force need not be sanctioned by international law, given our stated need to bypass the UN when it seems "ineffectual," nor need it be limited to action against threats which are "immediate and imminent," but must be used preemptively.

You are also suggesting that only the US has this right to proactive intervention. Indeed, we have the sole responsibility to do so, because we have the "biggest diamond." America is entitled (required by duty?) to use military power to enforce its will, while other countries are denied the right to do so.

This approach is neither "new" nor "Democratic." It is the strategy long championed by the PNAC, and calling it by a different name is not going to change that. Don't pretend that because I don't agree with you that I don't understand you.

[BeFree]

15. No. We agree. You just don't understand.

I said bury the goddamned bombs. That means don't use them. Got that?

Imagine a guy standing on a Manhattan street corner holding a wad of hundred dollar bills. He wouldn't last long. Unless he also had an M16 slung over his shoulder. That M16 gives him power. Right or wrong, it is power. As long as he doesn't shoot innocents he's doing nothing wrong, in my book.

Personally, what I think we need is our own type of PNAC. The one you have brought to our attention is a formulation of that idea. Am I in 100% favor of it? NO. But it's a start. Lets take it from there.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. You can't assume this power will be used responsibly

If the guy with the M16 does nothing but protect his hundred dollar bills, that's great. If he decides to shoot people who look at him funny just because they have the "desire" to take away his hundred dollar bills and might someday attempt to obtain the means, then we're in trouble. If he uses the M16 to shoot people who disagree with him and his friends, we get into a gray area. And if he wants to use the hundred dollar bills to buy something, and the seller knows he's willing to use the M16 to enforce his will, you can't pretend the transaction will ever be fair.

The key here is that we are not talking about defense. The manifesto is very explicit that we NEED NOT wait for an imminent threat, nor do we need to look to international organizations for support. Yes, it would be valuable if we did that, but the report is quite clear that we NEED NOT do so.

Make no mistake, we are talking about Pax Americana: world peace through American military intervention. And it may surprise you to know that there are some of us who don't view imperialism, even a supposedly benevolent imperialism, as a good thing. And there are some of us who know that empires are not conquered -- they collapse from their own arrogant efforts to expand too far.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. "Our economical power"

Our power is not in the least econonmical.

[BeFree]

16. Yer right Cheswick, thanks for pointing that out

It should have not had the 'al' on the end.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Our economic power comes at the expense of others

We use our might to maintain corrupt regimes in place so that we can rape and pillage the resources of those countries at bargain prices.

Our young men and women from working class families will continue to die in far away places to keep the oligarchs in power so that the children of the elite can drive their SUVs and fill their tanks with cheap gas.

[Sideways]

42. Great Brittan? Where The Fuck Is That?

Spell check and an atlas might be helpful. But what the shit is this comment "Ya know what? We are the American power. Quit trying to deny it."

Did anyone on this thread deny that America was the American power? Uh no that would be like saying Michael Jordan wasn't the Michael Jordan power. We know his power and recognize it's place. Hey that shit is fine here at home in America or in Jordan's sphere but this is an international (read WORLD) issue.

What if some other country took world class power away from America?
In a free market enterprise system that would be their right. Think Wal-Mart.

I don't have a fucking clue what you are trying to argue here. But rah rah rah for American power.....whatever the fuck that means.

[kiahzero]

3. That's not what's being said at all

"Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative. "

While claiming the moral high ground over the Republicans, they nevertheless praise the same strategy employed by the PNAC: peace and prosperity through American military intervention. Their message seems to be that, while the Republicans can not be trusted with this kind of power, the Democrats can. Just as Kerry voted for the IWR and "trusted" Bush not to "fuck it up so badly," the New Democrats are asking us to trust them to do the right thing with the power we have already seen blatantly abused.

The point of that paragraph is not "peace and prosperity through American military intervention," unless you and I interpret that phrase differently. That particular paragraph seems to be saying that:

A) Multilateralism is a good thing.
B) Multilateralism should be seen as a mean, rather than an end.
C) If we cannot agree with other nations on an issue, and the need is pressing, sometimes we have to act on our own, whether it be economically, diplomatically, or militarily.
D) Globalization is a good thing.

Of those four points, the only one I truly disagree with is D, and that's because I have mixed feelings on the issue.

[ShimokitaJer]

6. Regarding point C

Where do you see any mention of economically or diplomatically? This is a statement defending the use of military force to advance the agenda.

And since when does praising action "outside the bounds of a sometimes ineffectual United Nations" promote multilateralism? It sounds to me like the same justification Bush used to invade Iraq over the UN's objections.

[kiahzero]

13. Perhaps I read too quickly

I see it saying that sometimes we need to act, but I don't see where you pull that it is talking solely about military action.

As for action outside of the UN, it's stating it as a unfortunate neccessity. If we always acted in lockstep with the UN, about 1.5 million ethnic Albanians would be dead right now because of Slobodan Milosevich.

It's not saying "The UN is useless, and we should never work with them"... it's saying that we should work with the UN whenever possible, do our best, and if we can't come to an agreement, and the matter is urgent enough (especially in cases of genocide, as that's one of the things that's mentioned), then we act outside of the UN.

Yes, it is kind of like Bush's rhetoric, and that's because Bush stole moderate rhetoric to accomplish extremist goals.

[ShimokitaJer]

20. I don't consider this "moderate rhetoric"

And if you are suggesting that the neocons are merely co-opting on the foreign policy stance of the Democrats, then you don't understand the timeline. The PNAC have been promoting an agressive foreign policy based on American military strength for well over a decade. If anything, the "New Democrats" are attempting to adopt the most agressive elements of the Republican agenda in order to appear "strong on defense." Let's hope they don't succeed as thoroughly as Clinton did in adopting the free traders' rhetoric as his own.

The reference to the military is in the first line you quote: "Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong." How can you not see that they are merely confirming the rhetoric of the right wing talking heads that Democrats "blame America first" and don't want a strong military. They have given in to the other side, saying "yes, some Democrats are like that, but we aren't. We aren't afraid to use force to forward our agenda." They don't mention the use of economic or diplomatic methods because those are not under attack by the right, and they fear that promoting their use over military solutions will make them appear "weak."

And though they pay lip service to "multilateralism," why do you think they felt the need to say SPECIFICALLY that military action without the consent of the SOMETIMES INEFFECTUAL UN was warranted? Does that really sound like they are promoting international cooperation?

[bigtree]

21. It sounds like they are not willing to cede authority to the U.N.

over the deployment of U.S. troops. If our government decides that we are legitimately threatened and the U.N. Security Council collectively disagrees, where in our Constitution does it say that we should stand down? That authority should always originate with our own political system. Ultimate authority and responsibility still resides in the presidency, effective through loopholes in the War Powers Act that allows deployment of forces for up to 60 days without Congressional approval, subject to resolution and modification by Congress.

[ShimokitaJer]

29. cede authority to the UN???

Do you even hear what you're saying? That is exactly the argument used by the right wing talking heads for why we were justified in invading Iraq. And you are approving of the loopholes in the War Powers Act that helped Bush push this country into war? How can you possibly be so short-sighted as to not see the consequences of how those loopholes were used in Iraq.

I realize it's difficult to see beyond the current election cycle, but even if the Dems win in 2004, we can't assume there will always be a benevolent leader to deliberate long and hard before choosing to use these strategies you seem to think are perfectly fine and dandy.

Maybe if you stopped looking for loopholes in what the Constitution technically allows us to do and started looking at the results of this pre-emptive military policy, you'd understand that this is not about what a president WILL do -- it is about what we decide a president CAN do, and the potential for abuse that enables.

[bigtree]

33. Like it or not, the Constitution does not allow the government to cede

power or authority to any foreign power. The loopholes exist Iam merely pointing this up. If Congress wants to change the War Powers Act so that the president can't act until they do, well that will be their choice. I think it might create a situation where our right to defend ourselves would be mired in politics. We can't anticipate every possible political make-up of Congress or what motivations or justifications may arise in the future. All I know is that the Constitution has set up a system of checks and balances that doesn't put all of the power in any branch. The current formula still has checks and balances, however the president still has the authority to commit forces initially without approval. Kerry or the DLC or the PPI didn't invent that. It is the present state of our government.

The DLC argues that we don't have to abandon our goals of multilateralism because the freak in the White House is out of control. They argue that we should involve ourselves in world affairs as preeminent power. ((a.) Eminent above others; prominent among those who are eminent; superior in excellence; surpassing, or taking precedence of, others). They don't argue for anything like the military dominance (Predominance
(n.) The quality or state of being predominant; superiority; ascendency; prevalence; predomination.
(n.) The superior influence of a planet.)

of the PNAC kind.

[ShimokitaJer]

36. You're still talking in right wing talking point terms

The only ones who justify Iraq by talking about ceding authority to the UN are the dittoheads. Do you honestly believe that demanding that Bush gain international approval before invading another country amounts to ceding authority over US affairs to the UN? The Constitution was not intended to define our rights as a nation. It was designed to define the limits of the government's power over individual liberty. You need to stop trying to push those limits, looking at the Constitution as a contract to "get out of," and look at the intent. Bush's actions in Iraq may have been Constitutional, but they certainly were not in the interests of the American people. The New Democrats encourage that kind of abuse when they attempt to codify actions of the type pursued by Bush into their own agenda.

If you need a dictionary to parse the difference between preeminence and dominance, then the DLC have succeeded in clouding the issue for you. If they say they want to insure and take advantage of American "preeminence," and want to insure the option of backing that up with military force with or without UN sanction, then tell me what we're really dealing with. Leading by example? Encouraging cooperation? Sure sounds like dominance to me.

[bigtree]

45. I believe Bush has perverted reasonable notions of multilateralism

I don't believe the Democratic Leadership Councils's policy positions assert anything out of character. America is strong and it should remain so. With that strength comes responsibility as we reluctanty took responsibility in Europe in the past. That doesn't just mean military intervention. Multilateralism covers a wide range or responsibilities and responses, from economic aid to support for emerging democracies.

Preeminence is not necessarily domination. We are certainly tasked with protecting the soveriegnty of other nations and respect for their rights as well. I don't think that the DLC would disavow that.

That said, I still would maintain that our government should not cede power or authority to any other country or entity. I believe that is what the DLC policy position is affirming.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Is this the Democratic version of the "white man's burden"?

We are the annointed one from GAWD, and we alone know what is best for the world, a world in which there is a McDonald's in every village, and were people consume burgers and fries.

[bigtree]

65. This is our Constitution

which is the primary defense of our soverignty.

The DLC advocates multilateralism. That is hardly dominance. Rather it is an acknowledgement of our responsibilities in world affairs as a preeminent force.

As opposed to China or Russia having ultimate influence over world affairs, to our detriment.

[IndianaGreen]

66. PATRIOT Act suspended the Bill of Rights

and who voted for PATRIOT?

[bigtree]

68. Divert.

Obfuscate.

Muddle.

Blur.

LOL.

[IndianaGreen]

71. You want to talk about the Constitution, but you failed to note that the

Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. I see nothing in the PPI agenda that assures me that their "compassionate" imperialism will not end the sort of militarism that we all condemned, whether we are talking of Reagan's invasion of Grenada, Poppy Bush's invasion of Panama, Clinton's attack on Serbia and his bombing of Iraq, Bush II's invasion of Iraq.

The framework of a militaristic imperial Amerika is already in place. There is no evidence to show that the Democratic front runner is committed to dismantling the powerful state apparatus that Bush has built. Instead, it appears that the front runner's intent is to preserve it, so that he can use it for his own purposes.

[Ninga]

7. I have no doubt in my mind that Dean or Kucinich

would do everything warrrented to keep this country safe and our military strong.

The issue for me, is how we make the nation strong for all people.
Our national economy is tied to jobs.

Which president has proactively dealt with that problem?

Much of Bill Bradley's 2000 campaign directly addressed the changing economy and manufacturing base facing loss.

That damn Bill Bradley, what a f**ing liberal.

And how about that DLC guy Clinton and NAFTA. A one way deal where American workers were asked to lay down on the railroad track and take one for their country.

War and Peace begins at home. While we are wasting lives in Iraq, Rome is fiddling in DC, and the next fiddle player is warming up for November.

[polpilot]

75. More truth!! Mods...Lock this thread now!!!!!!!!!

Dean '04

[Tinoire]

97. Jesus Polpilot. THANK YOU for making me laugh!

Today at DU is a blood-vessel-popping day.

I think the DLC & Kerry campaign are desperately orchestrating things right now.

It's so bad... I'm off for a hot bath and a relaxing movie (Fog of War- Hah! But it will be pure relaxation compared to GD2004 today).

Thanks!

[edzontar]

5. Thanks for the informative pust. This should help some of our

Colleagues who suoort candidates like Kerry et al undertsand why so many of us have reservations about these "new" Democrats and their PNAC-GOP-Lite, proto-Imperialist policies.

[revcarol]

10. Don't you just love it: the way we supposedly have a CHOICE....

between PPI and PNAC?

That's why I'm working so hard FOR my candidate, Kucinich, because he offers a REAL choice!!

[bigtree]

18. What I don't like is the slanderous morphing of Democrats with Pugs

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."

The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."

In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests.

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

‘Peace through strength’; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not to threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.

Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

So their plan is to attack whomever, whenever they feel our security is threatened, no matter if the nature and prevalence of the attack is uncertain. The U.N. should have studied this document before it wasted its time trying to reign President Bush in.

(mods, the above is from my book)


Kerry signed the DLC manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm

Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership

The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.

Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the “revolution in military affairs” that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.

Goals for 2010

A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC12 on Aug 1, 2000


____________________________________________________________________


"Progressive Internationalism" proposes a six-step national security agenda for the Democratic Party and for the United States:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252147&kaid=131&subid=207

Advance democracy abroad to make us safer at home: Arguing that America's power should serve our democratic ideals, the authors call for a new push for political and economic reforms in the greater Middle East, which has emerged as the world's most unstable and dangerous region. Their strategy for encouraging forces of reform and modernization in the region includes a new Middle East Trade Initiative to spur growth and development, new aid for governments that embrace openness and accountability, and a crash program to reduce America's dependence on oil.

Prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction: If during the Cold War we faced an arms race to build weapons, we are now in a race to keep them out of the wrong hands. Democrats would pursue a collective approach in dealing with the dangerous situation in North Korea by engaging the United Nations and North Korea's neighbors; and would focus on preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through expansion of the successful Nunn-Lugar program, rather than relying on military preemption of the use of WMD.

Plug gaps in homeland defense: Democrats would bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland by creating America's first-ever domestic intelligence organization; offering state and local leaders useful guidance based on genuine threat assessment; merging terrorist watch lists and ensuring information sharing among law enforcement agencies; and by investing in resources to equip police, fire fighters and public health officials with the tools needed to protect their communities.

Transform the U.S. military and use it more effectively: Democrats would make room for investments to modernize and sustain America's military superiority into the future by dismantling obsolete Cold War infrastructure, working toward assuring the "information dominance" clearly necessary in dealing with today's threats, and making smarter use of American military power. They would also press for an expanded NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and maintain a robust military presence in Iraq until security and stability have been achieved.

Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization.

Restore American global economic leadership: Democrats would revive U.S. leadership in the global economy by restoring the dynamism of the American economy through a rejection of the Bush administration's policies of fiscal recklessness; offering a fundamentally new approach to trade and economic relations with the Muslim world; renewing and expanding trade agreements and negotiations; and encouraging reform of multilateral lending institutions to tackle corruption and poverty more vigorously.

_____________________________________________________________________


I don't view the DLC's call for U.S. preeminence as anything akin to Bush's plan for world dominance. The Democratic policy is clearly a rejection of the unilateralism of the Bush regime. I don't think that just because they seek an assertive role in world affairs that they automatically represent the worse aspects of interventionism. I further believe that you have misrepresented the DLC's intentions by linking their proposals to the Progressive policy institute. You can't effectively judge foreign policy with half-quotes and tangential connections.

Where is your proof that PPI and the DLC are in any way related through personnel or policy? The quotes that you have provided do not show linkage.

These are the stated goals of the Democratic institute:

"Just over a year from now, the country will face a critical national election. But between now and then, Democrats must cross a threshold of credibility on national security issues before much of the public will listen to the rest of their powerful case for firing the incumbent.

Recent events in Iraq and the Middle East generally, compounded by the Bush administration's chronic failure to obtain international support for U.S. policies, have emboldened some Democrats to believe that the facts on the ground alone can erase the big advantage Republicans hold on national security issues.

That is wishful thinking. Simply exploiting administration policy failures without laying out a coherent critique of the GOP philosophy toward the rest of the world will take Democrats only so far in challenging Bush's claim that the country is more secure than it was when he took office. More importantly, Democrats must offer a clear, bold, and principled alternative strategy for advancing U.S. values and interests in a dangerous world if they are to refute Republican efforts to label them as untrustworthy on national security issues.

To that end, a distinguished group of 15 national security experts convened by the Progressive Policy Institute have drafted an important new document aimed at reconnecting Democrats with their proud tradition of muscular internationalism."


I am not open to broad claims of Kerry's intent as it relates to these DLC documents. I do feel that we can interpret his views on these issues in the context of his actual statements and actions. In that regard I don't think we can tie him to every word in the DLC manifesto. I fully expect John Kerry to form and promote his personal philosophy on these issues if he reaches a position of ultimate influence.

John Kerry Issues Page: Foreign Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy

John Kerry on Foreign Policy:
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm

Text of John Kerry Speech at GU on Foreign Policy
http://www.themoderntribune.com/john_kerry_-_presidential_candidate_-_...

John Kerry on VoteMatch
Supports multilateral cooperative internationalism; Progressive Internationalism
http://issues2002.org/John_Kerry_VoteMatch.htm

[bigtree]

19. I boo-booed

I meant to say here:

Where is your proof that PPI and the DLC are in any way related to PNAC through personnel or policy? The quotes that you have provided do not show linkage.

[ShimokitaJer]

24. I meant to imply nothing of the sort

I certainly do not believe that the PPI is in any way connected to the PNAC. On the contrary, much as Clinton adopted the free trade mantra in championing NAFTA and the WTO, successfully co-opting one of the conservatives' key issues, the New Democrats are doing the same with foreign policy, creating the PPI as a supposed alternative to the PNAC which actually shares the majority of its strategy. When the two parties are attacked as two sides of the same coin, this is what fuels the fire. Where it really matters, they don't seem to offer a real alternative.

Case in point, from your own quotes:

PNAC: ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

PPI: "Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations."

Indeed, most of what you quoted in your attempt to refute this claim reveals the vast common ground between these two supposedly "opposing" groups. The only difference I can see between the "US preeminence" you approve of and the "world dominance" you do not is that Democrats are at the helm. There is some lip service paid to multilateralism, but the wording is specifically constructed to allow action outside the bounds of international law and preemptive action against other nations perceived by the US to be a threat. They may well employ better judgment than Bush about the criteria that must be met before this action is taken, but they intend to codify Bush's policy of pre-emptive military action as a mode of operation for both parties. Why is it to be condemned when undertaken by Bush but to be applauded when undertaken by the Democrats?

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats are trustworthy and will never choose to take advantage of the pre-emptive military action option they have embedded in their policy. Do you suppose that they will remain in power forever? Do you think there will never be another neocon to gain the ear of the president and take advantage of the policies THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES approved? We need to attack Bush's policy of pre-emptive military action not because Bush is a Republican, but because this policy is dangerous.

Although you perhaps didn't intend to say it this way, I too am disgusted by the morphing of Democrats into Republicans. But no matter what Ann Coulter might think, my statements are only slanderous if they are untrue.

[bigtree]

You can either dismiss the language of multilateralism or accept it

You have chosen to reject their call for internationalsm as token? Or do you reject internationalism out of hand? Because if you accept the premise of internationalism then you will be tasked with finding a successful method of achieving those goals.

This is more than "lip service paid to multilateralism":

"Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization."


As for "codifying Bush's policy of pre-emptive military action" the Democratic institute merely points up the obvious: They are not willing to cede authority to the U.N. over the deployment of U.S. troops. If our government decides that we are legitimately threatened and the U.N. Security Council collectively disagrees, where in our Constitution does it say that we should stand down? That authority should always originate with our own political system. Ultimate authority and responsibility still resides in the presidency, effective through loopholes in the War Powers Act that allows deployment of forces for up to 60 days without Congressional approval, subject to resolution and modification by Congress.

Also, the document that Kerry signed is a DLC document, notwithstanding the cooperation from the Progressive Policy Institute. He should not be held to the drift of tangential documents. There are reams of statements from Kerry on this.

[ShimokitaJer]

31. I welcome multilateralism but question their commitment to it

When they say they are committed to working in concert with other countries while simultaneously saying they reserve the right not to do so, it is difficult to take their commitment to multilateralism seriously.

By the same token, when you champion international cooperation by saying it is America's job not to accept input from and work with other countries, but to redirect the alliances in the direction the US sees fit, it is difficult to take your commitment to multilateralism seriously.

Kerry speaks of Bush's making "our job in Iraq" harder by failing to secure other countries' cooperation in the lead-up to war. He does not question the validity of the war itself, he merely faults Bush for acting so hastily and failing to browbeat other countries into supporting it.

As for the last paragraph, I addressed it elsewhere. Do you intend to cut and paste the entirety of your argument?

[bigtree]

35. Don't get snippy. I'm doing my best here.

I like the way you would hold accountable those who would assert themselves the way the DLC has. I would only ask that you don't replace their words with your cynicism. Whomever the nominee turns out to be will have to weigh policy through his stated intentions and through the facts on the ground. I see nothing in the DLC's or Kerry's statements to lead me to believe that he will act as a raving ideologue. But he may not be the nominee.

Whomever is tasked with the responsibility of our nation's safety and well-being will be forced to use all of the means at their disposal, including the threat of military force. I think that the DLC does not advocate any new shift of power to the executive. Rather they argue for a new focus on creating international partnerships that will serve to address our international responsibilities in an atmosphere of earnest cooperation.

[ShimokitaJer]

40. I apologize for the snippiness

And I also doubt that Kerry will be a raving ideologue on foreign policy.

But the thing we all need to realize is that the neocons believe they succeeded in Iraq. They believe that the loss of American life, money, and goodwill was worth the lesson we taught to hypothetical future dictators that America was willing to use force. And given the lack of WMDs, the lower than expected oil revenues, and the Bush's desire to abandon the mess in Iraq this summer, that may be ALL was accomplished there. And it scares me even more that the Democrats might believe it too. I see the same egotistical insistence on spreading US power through selective use of military action in the PPI that was championed by the PNAC and it scares me that our party has not flatly rejected the policy of pre-emptive action but instead embraced the opportunities they see it opening.

Please please please please please can't we try to do better?

[bigtree]

44. I've enjoyed this discussion

I have tears for you. I also hope and pray for a better future.

[IndianaGreen]

64. In practical terms, Kerry supports Plan Colombia

as Bush does, and Clinton did before him. Kerry may even try to topple Chavez in Venezuela, as Bush has tried to do. The interests of the Venezuelan elites are the same as our elites, the public be damned!

Kerry has already told the Washington Post that he will continue the Bush policy towards Cuba, and that he will make no changes to it without checking first with the Miami exile community.

Two sides of the same coin, a Caesar on each side.

[bigtree]

67. In practical terms

you have replaced his statements with your own biased view.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Here is Kerry's Cuba statement, as reported by Washington Post

The criminal Miami Mafia are the same people that supported the kidnapping of Elian Gonzales by his crazy Miami uncle.

Otto Reich is a Cuban-American!

This part of Kerry's answer is particularly obnoxious:

Sen. John Kerry: "I am not prepared to lay down conditions at this time for lifting the embargo, because I believe that we need a major review of U.S. policy toward Cuba. That review must be conducted with other countries in the region, with Cuban Americans, and, to the best of our abilities, those in Cuba who are fighting for greater political liberties."

Source:

Candidates on the issues: Cuba

The Associated Press

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/29/politics1416EST0638.DTL

[IndianaGreen]

81. Chrip, chirp, chirp

Still waiting for a response regarding Kerry's comments on Cuba and the Miami exiles.

[Zhade]

94. Well, it's funny you should mention this...

I certainly do not believe that the PPI is in any way connected to the PNAC.

However, PPI is connected - through its founder and President, Will Marshall, who has ties to PNAC.

Marshall is (or was) a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which boasts such hard-right members as:

Eliot Cohen
Newt Gingrich
Bruce P. Jackson (a director at PNAC)
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (AEI)
William Kristol (PNAC chairman)
Richard Perle
Danielle Pletka (AEI)
Randy Scheunemann (drafted the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998 while working for Trent Lott)
Gary Schmitt (PNAC Executive Director)
George P. Shultz (SoS under Reagan)
James Woolsey, Jr.

Marshall also signed the PNAC's "Statement on Post-War Iraq" and the follow-up, the imaginatively-titled "Second Statement on Post-War Iraq".

So you see, you are not far off the mark here. Not by a long shot.

[bigtree]

96. "Statement on Post-War Iraq" and the "Second Statement on Post-War Iraq".

Second Statement on Post-War Iraq

We write in strong support of efforts by Prime Minister Tony Blair to "get America and Europe working again together as partners and not as rivals." While some seem determined to create an ever deeper divide between the United States and Europe, and others seem indifferent to the long-term survival of the transatlantic partnership, we believe it is essential, even in the midst of war, to begin building a new era of transatlantic cooperation.

The place to begin is post-war Iraq. There should be no question of our common determination to help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful, stable, united, prosperous, and democratic Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and fully committed to the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.

The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be fully involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Consistent with security requirements, our goal should be to progressively transfer authority as soon as possible to enable Iraqis to control their own destiny. Millions of Iraqis are untainted by service to the Ba'athist dictatorship and are committed to the establishment of democratic institutions. It is these Iraqis - not Americans, Europeans or international bureaucrats - who should make political and economic decisions on behalf of Iraq.

Building a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is an immense task. It must be a cooperative effort that involves international organizations - UN relief agencies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other appropriate bodies - that can contribute the talent and resources necessary for success. It is therefore essential that these organizations be involved in planning now to ensure timely allocation of resources.

Of particular concern, the effort to rebuild Iraq should strengthen, not weaken transatlantic ties. The most important transatlantic institution is NATO, and the Alliance should assume a prominent role in post-war Iraq. Given NATO's capabilities and expertise, it should become integrally involved as soon as possible in the post-war effort. In particular, NATO should actively support efforts to secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and production facilities (a task that should unite the United States, Canada and all European allies committed to peace and non-proliferation), ensure peace and stability are maintained in postwar Iraq, and assist in the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and the delivery of humanitarian relief. The Atlantic Alliance has pledged to confront the new threats of the 21st century. No current challenge is more important than that of building a peaceful, unified and democratic Iraq without weapons of mass destruction on NATO's own borders.

Administration of post-war Iraq should from the beginning include not only Americans but officials from those countries committed to our goals in Iraq. Bringing different nationalities into the administrative organization is important because it allows us to draw on the expertise others have acquired from their own previous peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It will also facilitate closer and more effective ties between the security forces in post-war Iraq and those charged with administrating the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq.

International support and participation in the post-Iraq effort would be much easier to achieve if the UN Security Council were to endorse such efforts. The United States should therefore seek passage of a Security Council resolution that endorses the establishment of a civilian administration in Iraq, authorizes the participation of UN relief and reconstruction agencies, welcomes the deployment of a security and stabilization force by NATO allies, and lifts all economic sanctions imposed following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.


_____________________________________________________________________

The second looks like a dupe of the first. While I am reeling from the fact that Marshall has his sig next to these creeps, I am less impressed by the bland rhetoric in the communique which affirms the need for a cooperative role in post-war Iraq.

Still, Marshall and PNACers. Yeesh! Thanks for the linkage. I would have blown it off otherwise.

[bigtree]

101. I strongly recommend this article debate between Marshall and Jeff Faux

Friend or Faux? By Will Marshall

vs.

Jeff Faux's "The Myth of the New Democrats" (TAP, Fall 1993)

Faux slams him good. Marshall makes his strident points, but he comes off like a liberal hater.

Check them out:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V5/16/marshall-w.html

[Zhade]

103. EXACTLY. Now do you see why this concerns us?

The founder of PPI is a fan and supporter of the neocons! THAT'S why we're so worried about this. The man is advising Kerry, and he's clearly unashamed to raise his voice in unison with the traitors at PNAC.

This is important.

[JackRiddler]

104. A couple of minor points missing in the "progressive internationalist" six

Stop the bombing tour of every country on the planet.

Stop subverting other countries' politics by way of covert operations.

Get the hell out of Iraq, Colombia... end the bogus "drug war"

Stop helping Israel colonize the territories.

Shift all those wasted resources to peaceful uses, like finding alternatives to the petroleum economy.

Restore national sovereignty and democratic control by terminating WTO, IMF, World Bank, and other unaccountable and obscure mechanisms of global corporate control.

Oh, sorry, how extreme!

[redqueen]

22. I can't believe this is even subject to debate.

Let me make it clear why this requires VERY serious, thorough and thoughtful consideration.

from John Kerry's own website (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy /):

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”


Is that clear enough? Remember why we were so upset at bush? Because there was no imminent threat?

Kerry just said above that imminent threat should not be a requirement.

Geez.

[bigtree]

23. This is what I mean by piecemeal attacks

He didn't at all infer that we should unilaterally invade or use preemptive military strikes or the like. He meant that we had a responsibility to involve ourselves through the international institutions that he also believes should be strengthened.

This is not dangerous interventionism. It is reasoned internationalism.

"principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics

[bigtree]

26. Kerry's statements on preemption

On one side is President Bush who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism and ideological preemption. On the other side are those in my own party who threaten to take us down a road of confusion and retreat.

Iraq has been ground zero in that ideological tug of war, with difficult decisions that had to be made, and complicated issues of national security that had to be discussed with Americans honestly and responsibly.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000025966&keyword=preemption&phrase=&contain=


But as we discovered in Vietnam, success on a battlefield, or even in a series of battles too often can be the beginning and not the end of conflict. The Bush Administration is so enthralled by the idea of preemption and American military might that it even offered a United Nations Resolution calling the United States an “occupying power” in Iraq. No wonder that is how we are viewed today.

By so quickly and cavalierly dismissing the concerns of the international community in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the Administration compromised American credibility and leadership, made our job in Iraq harder, and weakened the war on terrorism. For what nation, be it Germany, Russia, France or even Mexico, would quickly cooperate with us after having been publicly castigated and ridiculed for disagreeing with us over Iraq. President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to our war on terrorism. And he's right. Yet his administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range or issues - from climate control to the International Court of Justice to the role of the United Nations to trade to rebuilding Iraq. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the Administration has in effect invited other nations to invoke the same precedent to attack their adversaries - or to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to deter such an attack.

Intoxicated with the preeminence of American power, the Administration has abandoned the fundamental tenets that guided our foreign policy for more than half a century-belief in collective security and alliances, respect for international institutions and international law, multilateral engagement, and the use of force not as a first option but as a last resort.

Triumphalism may make the armchair warriors now in the seats of power feel good, but it does not serve America's interests. A foreign policy of triumphalism denies us the true victories we need; even more, it invites a new, wider and more fundamental war. It diminishes Islamic moderates and fuels the fire of jihadists, enabling them to attract more recruits to their cause. The battle against terrorism is not and must not be a modern crusade against Islam. But unless we as a nation change course, we could incite and invite a clash of civilizations with catastrophic consequences for the future.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000025549&keyword=preemption&phrase=&contain=


This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our military might.

It is time instead for the most determined, all-out effort ever initiated to secure the world's nuclear materials and weapons of mass des. We must offer our own blueprint for the mission of threat reduction. Comprehensively securing materials and keeping them from falling into the wrong hands demands a global perspective and international action. The only answer - the clear imperative - is a multilateral framework implementing a global consensus that weapons of mass destruction under the control of terrorists represent the most serious threat to international security today, and warrants an urgent and global response. We must marshal a great international effort to inventory and secure these materials wherever they may be and in whatever quantity. We must create mechanisms to help those that would be responsible stewards but lack the financial and technical means to succeed We must establish worldwide standards for the security and safekeeping of nuclear material and define a new standard of international legitimacy, linking the stewardship of nuclear materials under universally accepted protocols to acceptance in the community of nations.

Nowhere is the need more clear or urgent than in North Korea. There the Bush Administration has offered only a merry go-round policy. They got up on their high horse, whooped and hollered, rode around in circles, and ended right back where they'd started. By suspending talks initiated by the Clinton Administration, then asking for talks but with new conditions, then refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear blackmail, and then reversing that refusal as North Korea's master of brinkmanship upped the ante, the Administration created confusion and put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver's seat. By publicly taking military force, negotiations, and sanctions all off the table, the Administration tied its own hands behind its back. Now, finally, the Administration is rightly working with allies in the region - acting multilaterally—to put pressure on Pyongyang. They've gotten off the merry go round - the question is why you'd ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you'd get on it in the first place.

So too has the Administration missed major opportunities to address the downside of globalization by creating its upside - relief for nations around the globe struggling against environmental degradation, global health crises, debt relief in exchange for better development policies and improved trade relationships. We need to show the face of enlightened-not robber barren capitalism-something I will expand on in the months ahead.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003082&keyword=preemption&phrase=&contain=

[redqueen]

32. Thanks for going to the trouble

But you shouldn't have bothered. Here's why:

There was no reason to believe Iraq was a threat. There was no reason to believe they had rebuilt the infrastructure required to manufacture WMD's. This is a fact. Colin Powell himself said as much in 2001 - that they did not have the ability to manufacture WMD's.

Despite this fact, and despite the obvious Niger forgery which was the only evidence used to make the case that Iraq was trying to get WMD's from another country, Kerry voted for the IWR - supposedly to increase the pressure on Saddam to allow more intrusive inspections. As I said above, there was no reason for this. He did it anyway.

After that, I cannot trust him to wait for the 'right' reasons for pre-emptive war in the future.

[bigtree]

38. Yet, he has never advocated preemptive war.

He has denounced it.

"Intoxicated with the preeminence of American power, the Administration has abandoned the fundamental tenets that guided our foreign policy for more than half a century-belief in collective security and alliances, respect for international institutions and international law, multilateral engagement, and the use of force not as a first option but as a last resort."

There are more . . .

[redqueen]

39. Um

What was the IWR for again?

[bigtree]

41. Ah, but we have had this conversation before

Your response to that is what, Senator?

KERRY:

. . . with respect to this, nobody voted precisely for a war. They voted for a process. They voted to go to the U.N. They voted to build an international coalition that was legitimate, voted to have inspections exhausted, and voted to go to war as a last resort, which is what the president promised us. The president broke every single one of those promises, not to mention misled America with respect to the intelligence, which we now all know.

I stood up for the security and the common sense with respect to the soldiers who fight wars. I've been one of those soldiers. I know what it means when you lose the consent and legitimacy of the American people in a war. And as a president, I think there is a special test as to when you send young American men and women off to fight and die. I know that test, and as president, I will live up to the highest standard with respect to that.

CNN American Morning Transcript
Location: Manchester, NH
Date: 01/27/2004
CNN American Morning Transcript
January 27, 2004 Tuesday 7:07 AM Eastern Time
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027573&keywo...

[redqueen]

47. So after bush lied his way through his campaign in 2000

what... Kerry thought that bush had an epiphany and was now trustworthy?

Sorry, still not buying.

[Snivi Yllom]

49. cmon, we are all big boys and girls

We know that if you vote to authorize the use of force even if it is part of a process, its still a vote to use that force.

You can't have it both ways. It's intellectually dishonest.

[bigtree]

51. Congress is the lever.

The hold the purse strings. But the president has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for committing forces. If Bush can disregard Congress's mandate with impunity then what good is there in holding Congress accountable when the president ignores the law? Did the president even read the resolution?

Nothing in there says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

The resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table.

That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to reenter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

Why did Congress trust the president? What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law?

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.

Thus, as the resolution states:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.

1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

Why aren't the nay voters calling for a new resolution like Dennis Kucinich in his call to repeal the authorization. Where is that push in Congress now from all of the dissenters?

I'll tell you where. They had a chance to modify the war in two separate funding bills. I know that my candidate voted against that $87 billion. That's as close to post-war opposition as any of the others in the Senate have managed. This is in the wake of evidence of no WMD's; hind views; and evidence mounting of the president inflating the threat.

2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or on the facts at hand, to claim that John Kerry advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It stinks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. I believe that the only way to effectively direct him is through some sort of resolution passed by Congress.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

Sen. Kerry and other Democrats didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote. They sought to influence his behavior through the resolution.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

[redqueen]

53. Do you think Kerry was ignorant of bush's clear record of lying

or do you think he was complicit in helping bush in the rush to war (by voting for IWR, echoing fearmongering 'WMD' lies, etc.)?

[bigtree]

54. You cannot read his statements, before and after Bush pushed past Congress

And conclude that he supported anything Bush did. Also, we still don't know the nature or the quantity of bogus evidence that was presented. But we saw Powell at the U.N. pointing to buildings that he said held chemical weapons, nuclear capabilities, and on an on. John Kerry didn't feel that he could, with certainty, rule out that Saddam held these weapons. And from his knowledge of Saddam's past behavior where Saddam undisputably used those weapons on Iranians and Kurds, he felt that Saddam should be held to account through the U.N., backed up by the threat of U.S. force through the reintroduction of U.N. inspectors. Hans Blix was allowed back in and was well on the way to resolving this thing when Bush jumped. He pushed past the restraint implied in the resolution and invaded.

[ozone_man]

43. Seems like we get to choose coke or pepsi.

I would hope that Kucinich, Dean and their supporters would join in refuting this "progressive internationalism" foreign policy. Kerry and possibly Edwards are going to provide a pepsi or coke choice. I would choose 3rd party myself.

[quaker bill]

25. Thanks for the informative post

Howard Dean is right. There is very little difference between Buah and Kerry. Kerry wants to do the same stuff, just with a few more allies. Now his comments on Bush make sense. He seemed most upset that Bush did not take the time to get more countries on board.

[redqueen]

52. Well put

*sigh*

[corporatewhore]

27. Like Fuckin for Virginity..

"they nevertheless praise the same strategy employed by the PNAC: peace and prosperity through American military intervention"

[bigtree]

28. Simplistic blather without foundation, substance, or proof.

But don't let that stop you.

[corporatewhore]

56. yeah military intervention in iraq resulted in peace

:eyes:

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Power corrupts...

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity."

Pax Americana, anyone? After all, we know what's best for the world.

Look at all of our accomplishments:

Highest murder rate in the industrialized world.

Highest level of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world.

No universal health care for citizens.

Been involved in more wars than any other country in the 20th century.

Uses more of the world's resources than any other country.

Has the world's largest stockpile of WMD and has used them to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Is the world's greatest polluter.

And, the list goes sadly on.

Our government, whether Democratic or Republican, treats foreign policy as if it were a football game with the goal being that we should be Number One.

We should replace the Eagle as the symbol of our country with the hyena. We prey on the weak of the world and then tell them that they should love us because someday they too can have a Walmart in their village. We tell our own citizens that we are spreading "democracy" when we are really spreading predatory capitalism.

Why do they hate us?

[bigtree]

37. I can take any quote and draw broad inferences from it

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity."

This is a perfectly resonable assertion coupled with the rest of their policy positions. Taking this one quote and adding all of the ills of society and complaining that this quote doesn't address them, rather asserting that it represents the worst of instincts and motivations, doesn't give a fair reading of the DLC's positions.

Or, by extention, John Kerry's.

[Snivi Yllom]

46. Looks like more of the same to me

But all these protesters don't mean squat to those who facilitated the war.

[redqueen]

48. An insult to anyone and everyone who protested the war

By voting YES on the IWR, these people were saying that they trusted bush to keep his word more than they believed in giving serious consideration to the concerns of the people who tried so hard to stop the war.

:puke:

[polpilot]

80. A pro-war candidate promoted by the pro-war DLC as a demo alternative

to Bush??

Dean '04...Anti-Iraqi War, Anti-DLC, Anti-Establishment

[kenny blankenship]

102. yeah it sucks

this time -THIS TIME- i thought we were going to vote to change the country's direction, not just the asshole in the whitehouse. And Bushler screwed the pooch so bad, any of our guys could have taken him down.

Too bad the DLC power brokers care more about their ability to fix things for corporate America and providing "continuity" with the Repo administrations than they do about putting Democrats in office.

[Capn Sunshine]

50. kick

:kick:

[stickdog]

55. Meet the new boss. (nt)

[corporatewhore]

57. but but but he has a d after his name

[Iverson]

58. like, duh, dude,

See? (point, point)
D is so totally not like an R.
Like, what-ever! LOL. ROTFLMAOWCUB.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[RetroLounge]

59. kickety kick

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[ShimokitaJer]

60. Thankety thanks

...and of course, the gratuitous self kickety kick

[IndianaGreen]

61. A big kick against imperialism in all of its forms

There is not difference between PNAC imperialism and PPI imperialism. To the subjugated peoples of the world, it doesn't matter that the jackboots on their heads have an "R" or a "D" engraved on the sides.

[bigtree]

69. And what do you propose outside of throwing stones at Kerry?

I will listen if you present a platform that doesn't rely on tearing someone else down.

[IndianaGreen]

73. Dennis Kucinich

He is the only remaining alternative to more of the same.

[JackRiddler]

105. argument by diversion to emotionalized irrelevancy

[quaker bill]

70. the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative

Note how the above dismisses the tradition of the politics of non-violence in less than one sentence.

It says all I need to hear about Kerry. He voted for IWR becuse he though it was good policy. He just wanted Bush* to line up more allies before the invasion.

He so much as said it in the debates, and here is the philosphical support that makes sense of his position on Iraq. It was always clear to me that Kerry was being consistent in his approach. This text just describes it clearly. It is consistent with his comments in the Senate over the last 10 years.

I just profoundly disagree with it. We have no divine right to mold the world in our image, regardless of how benevolent we believe our intentions. Our efforts to do so are the cause of wars. It is this sort of policy that armed Saddam in the first place.

Kerry is no liberal, so stop saying that!

Kerry as President? No thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

76. In the meantime, our civil liberties are being trampled

Liberty in the balance: More scrutiny of peace groups

Public safety justifies surveillance since 9/11, authorities say.

By Sam Stanton and Emily Bazar -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Sunday, November 9, 2003

The first hint that their group had been infiltrated came when they saw the dead man's picture in the newspaper.

The story about his demise in a motorcycle accident said his name was Aaron Kilner and that he had been a detective with the Fresno County Sheriff's Department.

But members of Peace Fresno, an anti-war group formed soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had known the nice young man as Aaron Stokes, "the guy with the short hair and the goatee who sat in the corner," as one member described him.

"He participated in demonstrations, he took fliers with him that he said he was going to distribute, and when he was asked about his occupation he said he had some kind of trust fund or inheritance that made it possible for him to not work," said Catherine Campbell, an attorney for the peace group that now is debating whether to sue the Sheriff's Department for invasion of privacy.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7755585p-8694773c.html

[bigtree]

77. But the Security Council was against the invasion as was Kerry

They advocated the reintroduction of inspectors and prodded Saddam, backed up by the threat of force, to allow Hans Blix in. That was the intention of the resolution. To send Bush Back to the U.N. That was the most reasonable approach. The Security Council signaled that it opposed Bush's plan to invade and Bush refused to approve of the Council's plan to convene and vote him down. He then pushed past and forced the inspectors out before he invaded. Multilateralism works if you have a president who respects their role and actually worlks with them to resolve these issues.

This needn't be a zero sum enterprise. There are many things short of war that can be accomplished with a credible excercise of our military as a deterrent. Multilateral diplomacy with the use our military as a last resort.

The truthfulness or lack of this administration in the relating of the threat posed has undone the efficacy of these important relationships between nations. And it has created misgivings about an American military power that was to be guiless in its unassailable defenses.

[IndianaGreen]

78. What did Kerry say when the invasion began?

Did he rail against Bush? Did he call for Bush's impeachment? Did he join peace marchers?

[bigtree]

82. Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003

"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo ...

[snoochie]

83. Am I missing something?

It seems to me he's saying Saddam brought military action upon himself, and that Kerry favored invading, but only after building a coalition.

"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush."

[IndianaGreen]

84. You are right, Kerry is endorsing preemptive war and toppling Saddam

but not before some self-serving words to describe himself as being "angered, saddened and dismayed."

Kerry then proceeds with his endorsement of preemptive war and toppling Saddam by saying that Saddam's threat was "immediate":

no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo

[bigtree]

85. The U.N. never indicated that they thought invasion was a good idea

If Bush had followed the restraint mandated in the resolution then he would have gone back to the U.N., and continued their mandate for continued inspections. They never advocated invasion. Hans Blix was well on the way to resolving the stand off. He was allowed back in partly because of the threat of force implied in the resolution. He was forced out when Bush disregarded the resolution and pushed forward to war.

[BeFree]

86. Hey, bigtree

Ya think we are making any headway here? I think we might be. I hope so. I gotta say, you have handled yourself well in this discussion. You have stuck to the facts and kept from going after the adversaries in a personal way. Good job!

[bigtree]

88. Thanks Free!

Honestly, the DLC isn't my thing but I don't see them as some threat. Frankly, I think it helps to have their clear coherent policy guidelines to refer to.

And I am impressed with John Kerry's interpretation of progressive internationalism which I find consistent with his IWR vote, in the sense that he argued strenuously for an international solution to Iraq that he believed could provide an accounting of the alleged weaponry and avert war.

I'm looking foward to hearing Dennis t'night and tomorrow in the debate, even though he'll be gunning for my guy. :hi:

[snoochie]

87. They didn't indicate that over Kosovo, either

It seems to me the bushies were trying to use the Clinton model for non-UN-sanctioned war. Give the world 30 more days (how insignificant is that?!), get the NATO boys together, and there you go, legitimized pre-emptive war.

Kerry himself stated that Saddam brought military action on himself. There was no WMD threat. This was not just a guess that Kucinich made, it was based on evidence provided.

Kerry decided based on the same evidence that there was enough of a threat to justify pre-emptive war (Saddam brought this on himself). What the hell makes sense about Kerry's position in light of the fact that there was no imminent threat from the mythical WMD stockpiles?

Did Kerry say that immiment threat shouldn't even be a prerequisite for pre-emptive war? I can't remember if I saw that attributed to PPI or Kerry directly. Any idea if he's said that?

[IndianaGreen]

89. Kerry also said that Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy

Here is the actual quote:

"(Saddam) conspired to assassinate the former President of the United States"

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo

[bigtree]

90. We still don't know the true nature or amount of evidence presented

But we do know that Powell presented detailed photographs pointing to buildings that he claimed absolutely held chemical weapons. But we didn't know for sure. The resolution was designed to steer Bush back to the U.N. and force Saddam to allow the inspectors in. It worked (Hans Blix) until Bush's bluster past everyone pushed them out.

Kerry's statements on preemption:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#327374

[IndianaGreen]

79. Kerry should have endorsed what Pax Christi said when the war began

I marched alongside members of Pax Christi when Bush came to Notre Dame to give a commencement speech.

Pax Christi USA Statement on Commencement of War in Iraq

Statement on Commencement of War with Iraq - March 21, 2003

Pax Christi USA mourns the failure of U.S. policy and unequivocally condemns the illegal and immoral war on Iraq. No nation, regardless of its power or privilege, has the right to disregard the United Nations’ charter. The policy of “preemptive war” has been condemned by the Vatican, rejected by the United Nations Security Council and opposed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Pax Christi USA rejects war, preparations for war, and every form of violence and domination.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Iraq as they endure the violence, chaos and uncertainty of war. We are inspired by the commitment of our bothers and sisters on the Iraq Peace Team who have remained with the people of Iraq to share in their suffering and we pray for their safety and serenity as war unfolds around them.

We continue to stand in solidarity with the peoples of Palestine and Israel, of Pakistan, Jordan and all those places that will be impacted by violence and strife as a result of this war, and we specifically call upon the Sharon Government in Israel not to escalate its violence against Palestinian civilians while the world’s attention is focused on Iraq.

Even as this war begins, the news media have failed to offer any reporting on the use of depleted uranium munitions. Moreover, Pax Christi USA challenges the media to report on the war’s immediate and widespread effects on the civilian population of Iraq: those killed by “precision” bombs; those without access to food and water; those without access to medical support.

Here at home, Pax Christi USA condemns the ongoing racial and ethnic profiling and violations of civil liberties of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals living in the U.S. which are today facing interrogation and ongoing confinement by federal law enforcement offices.

Finally, Pax Christi USA rejects the cynical manipulation of the US public’s heartfelt concern for our troops’ lives. Opposition to this war does not amount to opposition to the troops and any such accusations must be unmasked for what they are: propaganda intended to stifle dissent. Pax Christi USA deeply believes that the best way to truly support our troops is to bring them home rather than place them in the physical and moral jeopardy involved in carrying out an illegal and immoral military action on behalf of powerful but narrow interests.

True peace is the fruit of just relationships and is never achieved though violence. True security will come only when our nation is able to fulfill its role as the most powerful nation on earth with humility, compassion, reciprocity and solidarity with the community of nations. As disciples of the Nonviolent Christ, we recommit ourselves to the pursuit of justice and development of lasting peace.

http://www.paxchristiusa.org/news_statements_more.asp?id=502

[Zhade]

91. Kick

:dem:

[Nicholas_J]

92. Kerry's Progressive Internationalism

In fact Kerry is the author of the concept, states that the U.S. must only use the force it has available with the concensus of the international community, and must subject itself to international law regarding all international situations, save those in which the U.S. is under direct threat from a foreign power.

The Tough Dove's Moment
Why John Kerry is the Democratic presidential candidate most likely to succeed

By Harold Meyerson
Issue Date: 3.1.03

And Kerry takes them right back to 1968. The ship bringing him home from Vietnam is docking off the California coast. It is June 5, "the radio is crackling" and he hears Robert Kennedy's victory speech -- and a few minutes later, the news of Kennedy's shooting. Kerry evokes the idealism of the 1960s and contrasts it with a squalid present where every basic challenge -- global warming, universal health care, equal education -- goes unmet. It's standard liberal fare, but he serves it with just enough of the Kennedys' mythic overtones, in a speech at once wistful and biting, that the audience is rapt. "Not since the Romans," Kerry notes, "has any nation been so economically and militarily dominant." But with that power come responsibilities that the United States, under Bush, is utterly shirking.

Kerry makes the same case later that evening but in a more contested terrain, in a packed hall in Marion, Iowa, where Linn County Democrats have gathered to hear all three visiting candidates. Dean is the most flat-out anti-war, a position -- along with his previous 18 visits -- that has already endeared him to many Iowans. "I'm the only candidate who didn't support the president's resolution on Iraq," he says to boisterous cheering. But Dean chugs through his war opposition as just another of his exemplary stances, and then he's off to a list of other worthy causes. Gephardt is flat and unable to stir a crowd that plainly expects better. The former House Democratic leader comes with baggage -- he's the oldest face in the field, he failed to retake the House in four successive contests -- but the heaviest load of all is his embrace of the president's position on the war. The best he can muster is a dispassionate analysis of the need for multilateralism: We cannot abandon the United Nations, we could set a bad precedent by waging preemptive war, we need the help of other nations, we need the moral high ground. He conveys no urgency save that of his ambition. The crowd is silent.

Kerry is the mystery here: He voted for the resolution yet has spoken consistently against the preemptive and unilateral war that Bush is threatening. Now, Kerry turns to the war, as he did that morning, by talking of America's vast power and what is still our need for interdependence above all in meeting the threat of nuclear proliferation. He marvels at the president's proclivity for estranging allies, and concludes his catalog of Bush's folly with the simplest possible declaration of an alternative policy. "We need to win some friends on this planet," he says. And the room goes wild.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/meyerson-h.html


. John Kerry
Foreign Policy Speech
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
January 23, 2003

For us today, the past truly is prologue. The same principles and strength of purpose must guide our way. Our task now is to update that tradition, to forge a bold progressive internationalism for the global age.
As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests.

Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security...

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition...

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html



Thursday 23 January 2003

"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"



Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism. Meanwhile, NATO is searching for a new mission. What better way to revitalize the most successful and enduring alliance in history, then to reorient it around a common threat to the global system that we have built over more than a half-century of struggle and sacrifice? The Administration has tried to focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point. We can do better. With creative leadership, the U.S. can enlist our allies in a sustained multilateral campaign to build bridges between the community of democracies and the greater Middle East - not just for them, but for us. Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.


http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm

and from even earlier, September 2002:

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

Senator John Kerry, D-MA
New York Times
September 6, 2002



For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.


http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5596/kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php

In all cases, and in all of his speeches, Kerry has defined Progressive Internationalism as being completely dependent on multilateralism, requiring an internationalist approach to all international problems and not a one sided approach, in which the U.S. order tells other nations what it expects, and then cuts off support to nations that do not agree with the United States at all times, as happened with the Bush Administration and Turkey prior to the current conflict in Iraq.

In all cases, Kerry leaves the use of miltary force as an option, but only a last option, and then only when all efforts to obtain a peaceful, diploamtic resolution have failed.

[bigtree]

93. Ah, some reason

Folks can certainly disagree, but this seems like a thoughtful balanced approach.

[snoochie]

95. I absolutely do not trust Kerry

"As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests.

"Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security..."


Those of us to whom the Rambouillet (sp?) Agreement was a farce designed to fail recognize this for what we will know it as. Those that think otherwise apparently look forward to more wars to protect our 'vital interests'.

[bigtree]

99. Yeah, you can scare some with half-quotes, leaving out qualifiers

like the words that proceeded your excerpts:

I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world.

We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world.

That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions -- to the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War.

These leaders recognized that America's safety depends on energetic leadership to rally the forces of freedom And they understood that to make the world safe for democracy and individual liberty, we needed to build international institutions dedicated to establishing the rule of law over the law of the jungle.

That's why Roosevelt pushed hard for the United Nations and the World Bank and IMF. It's why Truman insisted not only on creating NATO, but also on a Marshall Plan to speed Europe's recovery. It's why Kennedy not only faced down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and launched the Peace Corps to put American idealism to work in developing countries. He spoke out for an America strong because of its ideals as well as its weapons.

For us today, the past truly is prologue. The same principles and strength of purpose must guide our way. Our task now is to update that tradition, to forge a bold progressive internationalism for the global age.

[Tinoire]

98. Book-marking this to read in depth when I log back on but wanted

to say thank you for this thread. I can tell by your initial post and the names of the people posting in it that it's full of good information.

So much to learn and so little time.

Thanks

[eyeswideopened]

100. Thanks for this post... It confirms all my fears of Kerry winning.