it's the war party in 2004 no matter who's elected....

[mike_c]

<excerpted>

Surely, there is no doubt. Republicans and Democrats are into mass murder and theft.

In 1998 Senate Democrats passed Resolution 71, which gave Clinton the authority to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs," in other words the authority to attack the people of Iraq who were suffering under years of brutally imposed sanctions. On December 16, 1998, Clinton attacked Iraq. Prior to this he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. Clinton and the Democrats showed Bush and the Republicans how to go about violating the Constitution and international law.

<snip>

So, in November, you can vote for a Republican warmonger or a Democrat warmonger. Oh, you can vote for Ralph Nader on principle, or not vote at all, but the forgone conclusion is that the War Party will be in the White House -- either Republican or Democrat flavor, no difference -- for another four years. Meanwhile, the neoliberal war against Islam and the third world will continue. The Wall Street neolibs may get a new CEO, but the game plan will remain essentially unchanged. It's all about management style -- the charter remains rock solid.

<more>

http://counterpunch.org/nimmo06172004.html


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. All the disengenuous arguments about the differences between the Democratic party and the Repiglican party notwithstanding-- of course they're different, but is the difference really significant? Can the anti-war left look to the dems for representation of their interests?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I do feel for the anti-war left and their current choices

but perhaps if they had made better choices in 2000, they wouldn't be so disappointed today. Perhaps if Counterpunch hadn't used so much energy helping to spread anti-Gore propaganda, he just might have prevailed by a wide margin in Florida...wide enough to drive a truck through. What's that saying....insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

[mike_c]

3. we faced essentially the same choice in 2000....

Neither Gore nor any other prominant democrats repudiated the Clinton administration's actions in Iraq or Yugoslavia, but the Green Party did challenge them. I can't really argue from the moral high ground about 2000-- I voted for Gore-- but the fact remains that 2004 presents us with essentially the same choice. This war monger or that war monger? The contesxt is simply clearer this time. It's true that there are many other important issues, but it's also clear that the MIC comes out on top no matter who's elected.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. I'd beg to differ

Kerry's vote on spending was a vote AGAINST the MIC....Clinton literally armed the entire world and was quite friendly to their causes even during peacetime.

[mike_c]

10. but his statements in the current debate about Iraq...

...give no indication that he intends to curb the influence, profits, or future role of the MIC in the Middle East. On the contrary, he seems to favor foreign policy objectives that continue the occupation-- only the form of that continuence is debatable. His unqualified support for Sharon's murduous policies further undermines any hope for a rational U.S. role in the ME, IMO.

Remember, the Green Zone in Baghdad is planned to morph into PNAC central in the ME. Nothing from the Kerry campaign has suggested that he opposes this strategy-- quite the opposite, in fact.

[Cleita]

24. Wrong thread.

[mike_c]

30. this thread is not about Nader....

It's about the lack of choices anti-war voters-- and democrats in particular-- have in this election. Note that the article disparages voting for Nader as being equivalent to not voting at all.

As for the comment about both parties being the same-- as I said in the original post, of course they're different. But is that difference significant in this context? Are you sugggesting that Kerry is going to fundamentally change the U.S. ME strategy the Clinton pursued, that Bush escalated beyond all belief, and that he has heretofor supported? If so, please elaborate-- I REALLY want to hear that a democratic candidate is going to do a 180 at the helm!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. Democrats had 10 choices in the primaries

They chose

[MisterP]

32. oh, really?

and the DLCites' telling Gore that if he pressed the Gore v. Bush lawsuit for even a day--the period of time Souter said it'd take to convince Kennedy--there'd be a civil war in the U.S. had nothing to do with it?

[still_one]

2. There are more issues than just the war

It was because of Nader our country is being torn apart right now. Nader has no principle. He invests in multi-national companies that profit of the war machine.

I do not want more Scalias appointed to the Supreme Court.
I do not want a woman's right to choose to be taken away.
I want stem cell research.

Anyone who votes for someone other than the two major candidates in this election is a fool, because there is a difference

[mike_c]

5. let's keep Nader's personality out of this discussion...

...if at all possible. I endorse the Green Party's position on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If the GP endorses Nader, then I'll consider voting for him, but I personally think that's unlikely. And remember, the GP supports all the issues you've mentioned, and far more vigorously than the Democratic Party in many instances.

But I didn't start this thread to promote the GP. I started it to lament the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose the war against the people of Iraq, both now and in the past, and to highlight the lack of choice that anti-war voters have in this election. We can vote against Bush for having deceived America into a grinding ground war, but we can't vote for anyone in either of the two major parties who has a coherent policy vision for getting us out of Iraq, undoing as much of the damage as can be undone, and preventing future military misadventures.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. But you can't leave Nader out of it..the author of your article didn't

[mike_c]

11. true, but the point that I was making is that Nader is only...

...appealing because of his stance on the issues that are important to me, and in particular if the GP feels that he represents their platform, which agrees with my personal politics in nearly every respect. Likewise, my criticisms of Kerry are based upon his politics, not his personality, wealth, personal history, and etc.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Abortion is the only issue left

The Democrats aren't interested in campaign finance reform, national health insurance, fair trade, attacking media consolidation, unions or the poor.

They do suck, though I admit Nader isn't much of option.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. If Bush wins the war will probably be in the USA!

If you think the shit Bush has done so far is bad, just give him four more years!

[mike_c]

8. please don't change the subject.....

Let's accept for the moment that I'd rather open a vein than see dmubya in the oval office for another term. But where does that leave the large and growing segment of the liberal left that wants a candidate to represent their anti-war sentiments? It leaves them with Nader or the GP candidate (who might be one and the same, but that won't be decided for another week or so).

[Hubert Flottz]

13. A vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush!

Sorry, but that is the way it REALLY works here in the REAL World! There are MANY things about Kerry I do NOT like, but we have NO Chance at all if Bush is reinstalled! Exactly what is Ralph going to do to fix anything?

[mike_c]

18. see #16-- this is NOT a thread about Nader....

eom

[Hubert Flottz]

21. See Post #13!

Re: Reality!

[mike_c]

25. keeping your head in the sand and refusing to discuss...

...the issue this thread addresses serves little purpose. You've made your point, and I've heard it-- now, do you have any substantive opinion on the lack of real choices for anti-war voters?

[Hubert Flottz]

28. No person on this board is more against the war in Iraq than I!

Peace Dude!

[jpgray]

37. The anti-war left doesn't get major candidates since they can't elect any

I don't know what version of politics you have in your mind, but the one I am familiar with contains major and minor candidates who *mostly* don't give a shit about what is right or wrong, but are just playing games tpo get money or get elected. Minor candidates may or may not believe what they say, but it doesn't matter since they will never be elected--they can fellate any minority view in the country, while righteously railing against the establishment because they have nothing to lose and a herd of idealists with easily strokable pet issues and money to fleece. A few really do believe what they say and are fighting the good fight, but these seem increasingly to be in the minority--Nader is certainly not among them, profiting right now from Raytheon and Halliburton even as he gives anti-corporate speeches.

Major candidates have to pander to a majority to get elected, and that means providing glittering generalities and whoring themselves to the system/media to avoid the bad press that results from pissing off the power brokers. If they don't do either, they won't be elected--Congress is a possiblity, but the presidency? Are you kidding me?

In any case, the anti-war left had a candidate--my candidate in the MN caucus--Kucinich. Predictably, we came nowhere near to nominating him. The next-best anti-war candidate was Dean, and again, as soon as the votes started coming in he was down and out. The anti-war left is consistently unable to elect any candidate, and therefore they will be righteously ignored by all but those who are genuine believers in doing what is right and shysters who want to take their money. The latter are easy to identify because they never want to make any progress, and they never seem to do any work that has no attendant publicity--they want the 'one-party-corporatist-plutocracy' boogeyman to be eternal so they may sell books, take money, whatever.

That's my take anyway. Have a nice day. :hi:

edit: Took out 'fairy tale', didn't want to sound snarky--I just don't see a way out of the political situation we're mired in right now. Some think baby steps should be taken whenever possible (me), some think we should push for the leap and damn those who don't want to go there. I don't know which is right, and these are only my opinions, not some grand proclamations of 'what things are really like'. So sorry if it seemed that way--I'm frustrated too. :(

[mmonk]

9. It's time

to realize the war in Iraq for all practical purposes is over. We defeated Hussein's weakened armed forces and catured him. Other than that, the peace is harder. We could go on for years killing and killing over there with no stabilization. For the sake of our country both politically in the world and economically, it's better to come up with some other strategy now. For the sake of our people serving in the US armed forces, it's better to come up with something else now. Keeping this administration in office or keeping their foreign policy strategy alive (even under democrats) is prolonging the inevitable and will hurt us years to come. It's time to find a strategy to take us out of this isolation. It's time to develop a smart strategy in getting rid of or slowing down terrorism.

[Aidoneus]

15. That is incorrect

As far as those on the ground are concerned, it is still nearer to its beginning stages than its end. There will be consequences.

[mmonk]

20. defeating the Iraqi national government under Saddaam

is over. The "peace" (installing a puppet government or friendly one to enable a permanent US military base) is just beginning. It's just it isn't peace in the real term that the admin was thinking in their grand plan. It's why we need a new plan. It will only keep us looking ugly in the attempt to pacify the country.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Kerry is not going to be our ticket out of this mess

that is for sure. We still have other offices to win, not to mention the task of getting into power positions in the party. Aside from that Nader sure as hell is no answer because he won't recognize the spoiler effect and run strategically, like Arrianna did in California, amd because of this we end up voting for no reason. We don't have a chance to win so long as he won't run a strategic voting campign. We just end up voting to make ourselves feel better.

[mike_c]

16. and the Counterpunch article does not advocate Nader...

...so much as lament his being nearly the only alternative for anti-war voters. The article equates voting for Nader with not voting at all in terms of the effect an anti-war vote will have on the future of the administration. This is little better than complete disenfranchisement, IMO, and very frustrating.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. One hopeful sign is that the state conventions are passing

lots of resolutions in favor of pursuing two states in Israel, and against Sharon's annexation of the West Bank. They are also passing lots of resolutions for declaring a timetable for leaving Iraq. They are passing these over the vetoes of the party leadership which means the rank and file groundswell against this pro-war, and pro=likud hegemony is pretty strong. They can't keep us down forever. I just wish I could see a little light at the end of the tunnel. It is like living under some sort of oligarchy. I Democratic Republic is really fucked up right now, and it is all because of special interests.

[anchorsaweigh7903]

17. It'll be a mess non the less for the next admin

Heres the Iraq for dummies guide for policies.

1.Bush-Will stay in Iraq, dominate the Oil pipes,petroleum products, install westen businesses in turn try and install western ideals, which will cause a Muslim revolt and turn the middle east from a hillto a volcano spewing lava everywhere.

2.Kerry-Will stay in Iraq for a limited time, calling upon the UN to help out. UN will reluctantly (even though they will not support Bush's request) put blue hats in Iraq. Iraq will then spin out of control, thus the blame being placed on Kerry for not staying with the "plan".

3.Nader-Will disband the military and we'll all live happily ever after.


The war, of course is the pivotal issue in this election. From my stance, I don't know which will be worse, a world war or a large spreading holy war against the states. YOU DECIDE 2004

[mike_c]

22. yep, you're probably correct...

...unless Kerry pulls an LBJ in the ME. I just can't rule out that possibility except as a matter of faith-- and I learned a long time ago not to have faith in politicians.

[charlie]

34. It's the consequences

of never questioning the legitimacy of attacking Iraq, only the execution. Dems are in the box with the Repubs, they just have a slightly greater degree of latitude in seeking "solutions" for the monstrous fait accompli.

Circumstance and partisan pressure can both drive Kerry into "pulling an LBJ", unfortunately. Easily. If Iraq goes south and the tumult endangers stability in neighboring states, especially with Saudi Arabia's current precarious situation, watch out. Global oil gets choked and prices go over the moon, whooo... we'll have the bulk of our forces in the ME tout suite and be worrying about the imminence of a new world war.

[mike_c]

44. your first sentence...

...is one of the best responses in this thread, IMO. That is exactly the problem that prevents the democrats from distinguishing themselves from the republicans with regard to ME foreign policy, especially in Iraq.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. That's not a sure thing at all

Kerry has only promised to be out by the end of his term which sounds like a Nixon. Furthermore, unless Kerry pressures Sharon, there is absolutely no reason the UN will want to take over this mess. There is no upside for them or the quartet. Kerry has said explicitely that the one place he and Bush are peas in a pod is on Sharon and Israel. I am not putting down my protest sign when Kerry is elected, and I never claimed Nader was practical.

[LittleApple81]

19. We are not getting out of this mess into non-mess. Kerry is ONE STEP

out. We'll have to take it one step at a time. If Kerry does not win, we will sink into something I cannot even describe...

[Cleita]

27. For the record.

The Democrats and Republicans are not the same. Ralph Nader is a Republican who is trying to get Bush re-elected again. Whatever Nader says he does not practice.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. They aren't the same on abortion

That's about it. Last time there were two distinguishing issues, abortion and guns. They dropped guns. Nader is a nihilist, not a republican. Granted Nihilism is not one tad bit more appealing to me than the repukes, but it isn't the same either. He believes the only way to change the situation is complete meltdown of the system. Given the log jam on foreign policy, and all the other issues dems used to stand for, I can't say it is not true, even as I hunt desperately for ways to break the status quo, and avoid this horrid meltdown.

[jpgray]

29. CounterPunch descends further and further into mediocrity

:(

No matter how much some want it to appear so, voting for an authorization and using that authorization to start a bloody crusade on false pretenses are two different things. Both deserve blame, but one action is far worse than the other.

It's like the folks who claim voting for Ralph caused Bush and all his policies, so therefore those voters are as culpable as Bush--the argument is nonsense. Voting for the authorization or for Nader may have indirectly caused this quagmire or this presidency, but you can't equate either vote with the crimes of this administration--it's the laziest, most obfuscating kind of reasoning anyone could indulge in. Leftists hate it when it is levelled at their actions, yet they are all too happy to fire the same bullshit right back when they have the chance.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. It isn't just IWR

It is also his policies of Israel and Venezuela that have more or less cemented my position that Kerry and Bush are the same on foreign policy.

[DaveSZ]

39. I'm willing to give Kerry a chance

I'm not a pacifist though, and favor cracking down on those who attacked us.

Iraq doesn't equate into that at all however, and torture is obviously never acceptable.

I do think it's unfortunate that those of us who are left of center don't really have a choice in presidential elections.

If we could fill Congress with enough progressives, I think we could pass some electoral reform to allow third parties to form coalitions with one of the two major parties.




On domestic issues, with the possible exception of free trade, the difference between Bush and Kerry is night and day:

-Stem cell research

-women's reproductive rights (including the morning after pill)

-separation between church/state (Bush thinks God made him president, Kerry wishes to restore church/state separation)

-the environment (Kerry helped found Earth Day, Bush favors drilling in national parks and is already drilling on Padre Island).

http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/padre.asp


-media consolidation (Kerry said he'd roll it back in a recent c span interview)

-Corporate welfare (Kerry says he'd end it, and Bush is nothing but a corporate puppet)

-Supreme Court (Bush's favorite justice is Clarence Thomas)

[Classical_Liberal]

43. There is no choice but to give him a chance

I am not a pacifist either. I am glad he took a position on media consolidation. He said he wouldn't tax corporations, and he also bragged of voting for Scalia. Anyway, I acknowledge the difference on abortion.

[mmonk]

35. While much of what you say is correct,

the dems that back the policy of this administration and still do, that voted for the resolution, are responsible for where we are now just as much so as the republicans.

[jpgray]

38. Yes--I don't mean to minimize or justify their part in this mess

I just don't see how it is equivalent to the Bush administration's culpability.

[mmonk]

41. It's not

with the dems that voted out of a real concern and not for political reasons or support of the overall strategy of bases around the middle east by force. But those that still cling to that idea will make it harder for us to find a real solution such as getting some international help and/or trust.

[mike_c]

36. no, I'll happily concede your point....

But that begs the question of whether Kerry was really so gullible as to believe that Bush was going to act reasonably once he had the authorization in hand. I cannot imagine that he was that naive. Saddam Hussein was effectively contained, the sanctions were still brutally killing Iraqis every day, the no-fly zone patrols continued, the bombing continued, and the U.N. weapons inspection team and the IAEA were on the ground doing their jobs-- what possible purpose could the IWR serve rather than to escalate the hostilities to all out combat? Especially when coupled with Bush's constant talk of "regime change" and the elevation of the PNAC engineers to administrative power? Certainly it was clear to lots of folks here on DU at the time. Could Kerry really have been so easily deceived?

I think it's disengenuous to suggest that Kerry thought he might be voting for anything other than a lovely little war that would be over and forgotten long before the 2004 campaign.

[jpgray]

40. No, I don't buy the 'Kerry trusted Bush' line

Although it will sell well with voters, since they actually did trust Bush to do the right thing. I think of it this way--even if you accept that Congress should have known what Bush was capable of (and I think they did), there is a difference there. I don't recall the name of the offense, but knowingly creating an environment that is likely to result in a murder is a crime, but it is not as serious a crime as committing that murder yourself. I think the same distinction can be drawn here. If I had to see it as a choice between criminals, I'll take Long John Kerry over George 'Dubya' Bush any day of the week.

I think the frustration and the desire to equate the two comes from the sense that we expect Congress to know better, while we don't expect anything but the worst from Bush.

[mike_c]

42. which brings us back to the subject of this thread....

In terms of ME foreign policy, and the war in particular, there is little effective difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. That leaves anti-war Democrats with nowhere to turn but a third party candidate or not voting.

[jpgray]

48. Little effective difference would be made by voting Bush out?

I'm sorry, but this anti-war voter doesn't see it that way at all.

[MontecitoDem]

46. If you give a rat's ass about the environment

there is one and only one choice and you will gleefully fill in that little black oval!

Our system is definitely flawed. But there is a clear choice on this issue and if you stay away on Nov. 2nd you are helping to continue our planet's destruction, imo.

[bullimiami]

47. Hey Im from the anti-war left and I think.

That is a pile of crap. Anyone who starts out using Putin as a moral compass has got his north needle pointing south.

They gave Clinton as much authority to invade Iraq as they gave Bushco.
He bombed a little. I dont know if he hit anything or if his intelligence was any good. I would be willing to challenge him on his actions and expect him to defend them.

Bushco decided this was the opening they had been waiting for to make the big grab.
They lie, cheat, steal, defraud and torture and refuse to answer for it and the majority of congress is complicit either before or after the fact for not demanding accountability.

Kerry is not Bush and he is not Clinton. Noone knows what sort of President he will be but he will without a doubt be more balanced than the current fascists.
No he is not anti-war and he was not my first, second or third choice but he is the best we have to choose from in this election.

I think our system sucks: We shoulc be able to vote for whomever we want without having to worry about this winner-take-all crap: but for now we have to deal with it. For 2004 I have to vote for Kerry.

[TexasSissy]

49. Like it or not, we are now in a war. So we need someone

prepared to handle a war and wartime issues.

War is sometimes necessary (America would not exist, and ordinary people would have no civil rights, were it not for one war or another). But many think the Iraq War was unnecessary. But whether I agree or not with whether we should've gone into Iraq (and I disagree with going in), we are there now. And I agree that to just cut and run would possibly mean that Iraq would fall into Civil War or become overcome with Al Qaeda and other terrorists....we must do all we can to see that Iraq has every advantage to succeed. We bombed their country. We owe it to them to reconstruct it. Also, it would mean terrible consequences to the region and the world if Iraq stays unstable.

[leftyandproud]

50. You can't say that here. *NT*