Staying the course
The London Telegraph July 29, 2004 Kerry 'will not change foreign policy' By David Rennie in Boston America's allies expecting a shift in United States foreign policy from a President John Kerry should think again, his top advisers said yesterday. Instead, members of Mr Kerry's inner circle could promise only stark contrasts of personality and style between President George W Bush and their candidate, who they vowed would be a hands-on, engaged, diplomat-in-chief. Rand Beers, the national security adviser to the Kerry campaign, opened a high-level briefing with a warning: In many ways, the goals of the two administrations are in fact not all that different. Mr Kerry has come under growing criticism from foreign policy commentators for failing to offer more than the blandest proposals that he would restore frayed alliances and behave more respectfully of allies and international bodies. But yesterday another top adviser, Richard Holbrooke, offered no details on policy questions ranging from Iraq to the Middle East or America's withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court. His silence was unsurprising. Although 95 per cent of rank and file delegates to this week's convention opposed the Iraq war, Mr Kerry voted for it, and has hinted that he might keep US troops there for several years. He has promised that he would win extra help from allies by burnishing America's image so that it is respected, not simply feared. Instead, Mr Holbrooke, a former United Nations ambassador who is spoken of as a possible secretary of state in a Kerry administration, offered what he clearly hoped was a reassuring psychological sketch of Mr Kerry as a cosmopolitan internationalist. Mr Holbrooke told a packed gathering of foreign political leaders and ambassadors to look past the Democrats' manifesto and focus on Mr Kerry's life story. John Kerry is a fundamental internationalist, he said. It is relevant that his father served as a foreign service officer. It is relevant that his father served in Berlin at the height of the Cold War. Mr Kerry was partly educated in Europe, spoke foreign languages and was married to the multi-lingual Teresa Heinz Kerry, of Portuguese heritage, he added. He likes to travel, he understands the issues. He's so interested in foreign cultures; one of the biggest things that he has been interested in recently has been the Tour de France, Mr Holbrooke told an audience that included the British ambassador, Sir David Manning, several Labour MPs including the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy. Mr Kennedy appeared underwhelmed by the assurances about building alliances. During his visit to the Democratic convention, he said he was encountering quite a lot of ambiguity about how foreign policy will be pursued, and how fundamentally different it would be, from our point of view. Mr Kennedy said there was a simplistic assumption in Britain that if Kerry is elected, all our problems will be over. With Kerry in the White House, allies in Europe might find themselves under heavy pressure to match multilateral rhetoric with money and troops, he said. Kerry people have indicated that if they become more multi-lateral, the quid pro quo would be that we can't sit on the sidelines and criticise. They're talking about military overstretch, they're going to be looking for contributions from us, and from France and Germany. His views were echoed by Labour MPs attending the convention. Mike Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford South, said: I don't believe there will be a massive change in foreign policy if there's a change in administration. But he predicted that a second Bush administration might prove a kindlier, gentler foreign partner than the current US government - although such predictions are not universally shared in Washington. On a visit to Washington earlier this month, Mr Gapes said he found the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, bullish that the State Department's more cautious approach to foreign policy was in the ascendant, with neo-conservative hawks at the Pentagon wounded by Iraq. In a final proof of how far Labour has changed, Mr Gapes expressed concern that a Kerry win might even trigger trade spats with the Americans as US trade unions flexed their muscles. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Staying the course
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/29/04 7:18 PM The London Telegraph July 29, 2004 Kerry 'will not change foreign policy' By David Rennie in Boston America's allies expecting a shift in United States foreign policy from a President John Kerry should think again, his top advisers said yesterday. surely above surprises no one, after all, last time the guy was prez he initiated massive military spending increase, introduced counterinsurgency operations throughout third world, invaded post-revo cuba, accelerated weapons of mass destruction race, expanded u.s. role in vietnam, oh wait, that was john f. kennedy, not john f. kerry, guess i got jfks mixed up, and here i've been wondering for sometime about that 22nd amendment term limits thing... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
George W. Kerry on Staying the Course in Iraq
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/kerr-a19.shtml Kerry on Meet the Press: Democratic candidate reiterates support for Iraq war By Patrick Martin 19 April 2004 In an hour-long appearance Sunday on the NBC News program Meet the Press, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, reiterated his support for the US war in Iraq, while suggesting that it would take the election of a new president for Washington to succeed in mobilizing additional foreign troops and resources to reinforce its grip on the conquered country. Kerry underscored his solidarity with the Bush administration's policy of crushing the mass uprising that has brought together Sunni Muslims in the west-central area of Iraq and Shiites in Baghdad and the south in a common struggle against the occupation forces. Saying the US should send in more troops if necessary to defeat the insurgency and prevent a failure of the Iraq occupation, the Democratic candidate declared, Number one, we cannot fail. Meet the Press interviewer Tim Russert asked Kerry about an op-ed column he wrote for the Washington Post last week, in which he stated: Our country has committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission. Kerry replied by repeating his unconditional endorsement of the American occupation, leading Russert to respond, That sounds exactly like George Bush. The program began with Russert asking Kerry, Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Kerry replied, I think the way the president went to war is a mistake. This set the tone for the entire interview, as Russert asked no further questions about the decision to go to war and focused entirely on Kerry's prescriptions for fighting the war more effectively. Kerry made repeated criticisms of Bush's conduct of the war. He said, This administration misled America, and declared that Bush broke faith with his own promises to the country. He added, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. But Russert did not ask how a war based on such lies could be legitimate, and Kerry did not volunteer an opinion. Instead, Kerry again voiced a theme first raised in a speech last week in New York City: that the criteria for a successful completion of the US intervention in Iraq would be the creation of a stable regime, not the establishment of a democracy. Following Kerry's pronouncement that we cannot fail in Iraq, the following exchange took place: Russert: How do you define failure? Kerry: Well, I think failure is the lack of a stable Iraq. I think a failed state in Iraq is failure. Russert: An Islamic regime similar to Iran would be acceptable? Kerry: You could even go further than what I just said and suggest that if we are stuck for a long period of time in a quagmire where young Americans are dying without a sense of that being able to be achieved, I think most Americans will decide that's failure. Russert: Could you accept a Shiite theocracy running Iraq similar to what we have in Iran? Kerry: I think that what is important is to have a pluralistic representation. It doesn't have to be, at least in the early days, the kind of democracy this administration has talked about, though that's our goal and we should remain there. But what is critical is a stable Iraq. In other words, a President Kerry would scrap the messianic and increasingly ludicrous rhetoric of the Bush administration about democratizing Iraq and the entire Middle East, and get down to business: creating the stable conditions required for American capitalism to extract super profits from Iraq's oil resources, under some form of clerical/military dictatorship propped up by American troops. In the course of the interview, Kerry also declared that if he is elected, there could well be 100,000 or more American troops in Iraq a year from now. Kerry went on to say, Tim, let me be very clear to you: We are united around our troops. We support our troops. They're extraordinarily courageous. We have the best military we've ever had in the history of our country, and they deserve a strategy that's going to minimize the risk to them. But I am united, along with everybody else, in knowing that we have to have a success in not having a failed Iraq. That we are united in. This declaration of unity is Kerry's assurance to the American ruling elite that whatever criticisms he may make of the Bush administration's tactics in the war-particularly its dismissal of the views of nominal allies like France and Germany, and its contempt for institutions like the United Nations-he is committed to maintaining US control of Iraq. With its strategic position in the center of the Middle East, and its vast oil reserves, a US-dominated Iraq has become a vital interest of American imperialism, and will not be given up lightly. Reassuring the ruling class has been Kerry's main focus all week. At a public forum at City College in
Re: George W. Kerry on Staying the Course in Iraq
...then why to change? President Bush already has experience in this subject. Democratic candidate reiterates support for Iraq war - Original Message - From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:33 PM Subject: George W. Kerry on Staying the Course in Iraq http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/kerr-a19.shtml Kerry on Meet the Press: Democratic candidate reiterates support for Iraq war By Patrick Martin 19 April 2004 In an hour-long appearance Sunday on the NBC News program Meet the Press, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, reiterated his support for the US war in Iraq, while suggesting that it would take the election of a new president for Washington to succeed in mobilizing additional foreign troops and resources to reinforce its grip on the conquered country. Kerry underscored his solidarity with the Bush administration's policy of crushing the mass uprising that has brought together Sunni Muslims in the west-central area of Iraq and Shiites in Baghdad and the south in a common struggle against the occupation forces. Saying the US should send in more troops if necessary to defeat the insurgency and prevent a failure of the Iraq occupation, the Democratic candidate declared, Number one, we cannot fail. Meet the Press interviewer Tim Russert asked Kerry about an op-ed column he wrote for the Washington Post last week, in which he stated: Our country has committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission. Kerry replied by repeating his unconditional endorsement of the American occupation, leading Russert to respond, That sounds exactly like George Bush. The program began with Russert asking Kerry, Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Kerry replied, I think the way the president went to war is a mistake. This set the tone for the entire interview, as Russert asked no further questions about the decision to go to war and focused entirely on Kerry's prescriptions for fighting the war more effectively. Kerry made repeated criticisms of Bush's conduct of the war. He said, This administration misled America, and declared that Bush broke faith with his own promises to the country. He added, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. But Russert did not ask how a war based on such lies could be legitimate, and Kerry did not volunteer an opinion. Instead, Kerry again voiced a theme first raised in a speech last week in New York City: that the criteria for a successful completion of the US intervention in Iraq would be the creation of a stable regime, not the establishment of a democracy. Following Kerry's pronouncement that we cannot fail in Iraq, the following exchange took place: Russert: How do you define failure? Kerry: Well, I think failure is the lack of a stable Iraq. I think a failed state in Iraq is failure. Russert: An Islamic regime similar to Iran would be acceptable? Kerry: You could even go further than what I just said and suggest that if we are stuck for a long period of time in a quagmire where young Americans are dying without a sense of that being able to be achieved, I think most Americans will decide that's failure. Russert: Could you accept a Shiite theocracy running Iraq similar to what we have in Iran? Kerry: I think that what is important is to have a pluralistic representation. It doesn't have to be, at least in the early days, the kind of democracy this administration has talked about, though that's our goal and we should remain there. But what is critical is a stable Iraq. In other words, a President Kerry would scrap the messianic and increasingly ludicrous rhetoric of the Bush administration about democratizing Iraq and the entire Middle East, and get down to business: creating the stable conditions required for American capitalism to extract super profits from Iraq's oil resources, under some form of clerical/military dictatorship propped up by American troops. In the course of the interview, Kerry also declared that if he is elected, there could well be 100,000 or more American troops in Iraq a year from now. Kerry went on to say, Tim, let me be very clear to you: We are united around our troops. We support our troops. They're extraordinarily courageous. We have the best military we've ever had in the history of our country, and they deserve a strategy that's going to minimize the risk to them. But I am united, along with everybody else, in knowing that we have to have a success in not having a failed Iraq. That we are united in. This declaration of unity is Kerry's assurance to the American ruling elite that whatever criticisms he may make of the Bush administration's tactics in the war-particularly its dismissal of the views of nominal allies like France and Germany, and its
