|
duckdaotsu supports, applauds, and endorses the following position statement:
From AxisofLogic.com The 2004 Elections Axis of Logic Statement on the Presidential Candidacy of John Kerry By Les Blough Jul 22, 2004, 18:26 Let there be no misunderstanding. We are of course, in full agreement with many people around the world regarding the criminal behavior of the George Walker Bush regime committed both, here in the United States and internationally. If justice were served he and Vice President Dick Cheney would be tried for high crimes and imprisoned. Likewise, some members of his family and the neoconconservatives behind him would be tried under the RICO Act (America’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and imprisoned. Evidence of that simple assessment is so rich and such common knowledge that it barely needs to be repeated. I am at a loss to understand how anyone who can condone the cowardly bludgeoning of children, women and men in other countries and turn away from the needs of the citizens of this country. Under the Republicans during the last 4 years, the beast of empire has fully raised its head above ground for the first time in my 61 years. Empire has used Bush and Cheney as a ramrod to bludgeon the world into "shock and awe". They have rammed immoral wars, killing with impunity and an all-out war on civil liberties through the doors of honesty, fairness, decency and all universal human values. Through Bush, they have numbed out and dumbed down the American people. Bush has been their bull in the china shop and has left people everywhere staring at the mess with feelings of impotence and futility. Now they expect us to stand by and watch a new Kerry regime sweep the broken glass out the door and bring an even more powerful order to the continuing wars and occupation in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the world. But this editorial is not written to rehearse the infamy of the Bush Regime. Rather it is directed at a new regime scheduled to provide a new face for corporate power under the banner of the Democratic Party in the United States. Many U.S. citizens believe the Democratic Party, John Kerry and John Edwards will save us and the world from the Neocon/Bush regime. Because of the atrocities of the current regime, others have adopted a less enthusiastic view of Kerry with the "Any Body But Bush" doctrine. Our mission is to find "clarity", regardless of where that takes us. We have studied at length, John Kerry, his voting record and the positions he has taken throughout his political career. In this article, I will spend considerable time and space to defend the conclusions we have reached. Our view of the United States role in the world community is radically different from the positions articulated by John Kerry. Perhaps more to the point - at bottom, we do not identify the problems of this nation with any one man or either political party. Rather, we see the United States government reduced to an economic system and at the head of a corporate global empire; one committed to world domination for a long time. Some Americans see no problem with a world dominated by and for U.S. corporate interests. Our disagreement with that view is based at once upon morality and pragmatism. We view support for hegemony and empire as non-democratic, oppressive and deadly. By its nature, the empire is not interested in the people, but rather, in the profits of multinational corporations. Theft, greed, competition, colonization, injustice and oppression are the pillars of the religion of capitalism. These have been most visible in the corporate scandals that have rocked the economy in the last few years. However, this also is not the subject of our discussion. We view John Kerry to be the next choice of empire to continue the wars on the innocent, occupation of their land and theft of their resources - but to be done in a more palatable way for citizens who disagree with the current regime. There is a lot of evidence for this view. Kerry’s Plans for the U.S. Military Rather than addressing the gluttonous "defense" budget in the U.S., John Kerry supports an even bigger U.S. military than the massive war department under George Bush. The Center for Defense Information reported on March 19, 2004 that the U.S. Military budget has reached $399 billion. The country with the second highest military budget is Russa at $66 billion. The first plank in Kerry’s platform for "Responsible Leadership and Stewardship of the American Military" is this statement: Increase The Size Of The Military: The American military was designed to fight with coalition partners. Lacking those partners due to a failed policy of unilateralism, our Army is stressed to the breaking-point. John Kerry will temporarily increase the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops so that we have the force structure for the challenges we face." Kerry’s Plans for Iraq Kerry calls for 40,000 additional troops; supports continued occupation of Iraq and urged President Zapatero to keep his Spanish troops in Iraq against the wishes of the Spanish people. After John Kerry voted to give George Bush free rein to carry out his attacks on innocent people in Iraq, he claimed that he was misled by Bush. If we, with our minimal resources were not misled, how can he, with his massive wealth and resources have been misled? When Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Gate confronted Kerry with this ridiculous claim, Kerry threw another layer on, saying that he knew he "didn’t believe that Bush meant what Bush said"! Kerry’s Commitment to Continued Occupation in Iraq Kerry is committed to continued occupation through the new regime in Iraq, installed by the U.S. government. Here are Kerry’s words taken from his own website about Bush’s "transfer of sovereignty". "We have transferred sovereignty, but Iraq still lacks the capacity to provide security and essential services. To give democracy, pluralism and regional peace a chance, we need a policy that is effective—a policy that finally includes a heavy dose of realism. We note that Kerry and his minions have crafted these words carefully, appealing to us with the words, "democracy, pluralism, regional peace, realism, practicality, freedom and values. They also create a linkage to NATO and the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan and Iraq To understand Kerry’s reference to the Marshall Plan we are behooved to review the Marshall Plan that both, Bush and Kerry use as their model for "rebuilding Iraq". Praising the Marshall Plan, Diane B. Kunz wrote this shimmering conclusion for The Council Foreign Relations in her lengthy article The Marshall Plan Reconsidered: A Complex of Motives "The Marshall Plan was a limited investment that paid incalculable dividends. A situation favorable to American interests was established in Europe. The aid program raised Western Europe from its knees, launched the American challenge to the Soviet Union, and bolstered the American economy. This last point runs counter to the conventional economic wisdom: how could massive government expenditures be a net plus to the domestic economy? The experience of the Marshall Plan shows the answer. Investing to protect prosperity at home generated peace and prosperity abroad, which in turn led to still greater prosperity for the donor. When the vital interests of the United States seem to be at stake, the expenditure of American dollars for foreign aid can be amply justified. That was true at the time of the Marshall Plan, and it is still true today." It is interesting that she subtitled her paper A World Made Safe for Capitalism and stated, "The Marshall Plan served as the economic and political foundation for the Western alliance that waged the Cold War". In Slaves to the Marshall Myth, D.W. MacKenzie wrote on 11/17/03: "Of all the myths that persist concerning economic history, the myth that the United States rebuilt Europe and Japan following the Second World War is among the most popular. While there is considerable disagreement concerning other myths, like the notion that FDR saved us all during the Great Depression, the myth of the Marshall Plan enjoys wide support." Mackenzie points out that of the $87 billion in aid Bush pushed through congress for rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, only $21 billion will be spent on supplying "public goods" to these nations. He cites two quotations from Bush who refers to the Marshall Plan as a basis for his plan to "rebuild" Afghanistan and Iraq: "America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit—for their sake, and our own." And again, Bush’s words at the United Nations: "we are rebuilding more than a thousand schools . . . we have helped to supply and reopen hospitals across Iraq . . . we are rehabilitating power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges and airports. I proposed to Congress that the United States provide additional funding for our work in Iraq, the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan." MacKenzie argues that Hong Kong and Japan rebuilt themselves via their own resourcefulness, skill and low taxation, despite the foreign intervention of the Marshall Plan. He argues that West Germany, where Marshall Plan aid consisted of only a tiny percentage of German GDP, rebuilt itself in a similar fashion. He is far too kind when he wrote, "President Bush surely means well in his efforts to build a new Iraqi government and in supplying billions in aid to it, but he will likely empower a new political elite with this policy. This new elite need not be as tyrannical as the Hussein regime, but it may not be much better, and will hardly be capable of promoting economic efficiency." Mackenzie cites the deposed Saddam Hussein and Shah regime of Iran as examples of this type of U.S. support for corrupt, dictatorial regimes. On the other hand, who can argue that the U.S. government should not be held accountable for the devastation it has visited upon Iraq? But as the people who pay for that devastation, we must ensure that our funds reach the people and not the foreign corporations now occupying this country we have destroyed. John Kerry’s enthusiastic support of the Marshall Plan as a model for "rebuilding Iraq" shows him to be simply in complicity with the plan that the Bush Regime already has in place. Iyad Allawi, the man John Kerry supports as Iraq’s new interim president We could easily document the fact that the new interim government in Iraq is a power-puppet installed and controlled by the U.S.-led empire. Rather, we will focus recent allegations of murder by empire’s chosen leader in Iraq. The point is not so much to prove his guilt or innocence. Instead we will show how these allegations have been neutralized by the U.S. and its corporate media. On the Kerry-Edwards website, a simple search shows only one reference to Iyad Allayi in which John Kerry states: "... the Administration should invite Iraq’s new interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, to attend the NATO Summit to discuss the role NATO can and should play in Iraq." James Conachy of World Socialist Web Site reports on recent murders allegedly committed by Allawi in Iraq: "On July 17, two of Australia’s leading daily newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, published the testimony of two unnamed Iraqi men who claim to have witnessed the interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, shoot and kill at least six prisoners at the Al-Amariyah security center in Baghdad. The murder of the suspected anti-US insurgents was reportedly carried out in mid-June, in the presence of Iraq’s interior minister and American military personnel, among others.Conachy argues, "By any journalistic standard, this report merits the most prominent and comprehensive news coverage, especially in the US. Allawi, after all, has been presented to the world by the Bush administration, which hand-picked him for the post of interim prime minister, as the political agent of democratic transformation in the occupied country .... One might think, therefore, that the American media would feel obliged to at least inform the US public that credible charges have been made that Washington’s man in Baghdad is a mass murderer—especially since the US invasion and occupation have been justified on the grounds that the toppled president, Saddam Hussein, was a killer." U.S. Media Coverage of the Allawi’s Alleged Murders I include this portion of Conachy’s report on the murder allegations against Allawi to show how the corporate U.S. media backs the Bush/Kerry choice of the new interim president. Conachy points out that "Only three pieces have appeared in the American press that directly refer to the eyewitness accounts: an article in the latest edition of Newsweek magazine, an article in the July 20 Chicago Tribune, and an article in the July 21 Los Angeles Times." He shows how these U.S. media that do make reference to the alleged killings - explain them away. The LA Times refers to them as "apparent urban myths" and the New York Times and Washington Post only cite an AP report which: makes no direct mention of McGeough’s report or his citation of eyewitness accounts; does not mention the calls for an investigation and reports Allawi’s denial at a press conference held last week. Conachi notes that these media chose to confront Allawi directly and apparently accept his denials without further investigation. He reveals how the Chicago Tribune: "declares that ‘ordinary Iraqis say the story suggests Allawi is tough and for that they hail him’ and adds that ‘many Iraqis... think swift justice might be a good idea again'." Finally, he quotes Newsweek’s article entitled, "Iraq’s new SOB," which states that Allawi’s crimes show that "Iraqis are desperate for someone who will impose order." Conachy describes the U.S. media as having no reservations "in April and May about reporting unsubstantiated charges made by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was responsible for the murder of a rival cleric a year earlier. In that case, the murder allegation assisted the Bush administration in demonizing the uprising of Iraqi Shiites led by Sadr as the work of ‘thugs’ and ‘terrorists’. Conachy concludes: "The incident described by McGeough is fully consistent with the brutality that has characterized life in Iraq since the US invasion. In the attempt to force the Iraqi people to submit to American rule, thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US military in cities like Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf and Karbala, thousands more have been detained without charges, and prisoners have been murdered and tortured by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities.What is Kerry's plan for Iraq? He summed it up on July 4, 2004 in this transparency: "We should also give them [the Iraqis] a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region." These will be the policies of the John Kerry Administration if he is elected President of the United States in November, 2004. These are the policies for which we would be voting, if we were to vote for John Kerry. Kerry’s Policies on Palestine John Kerry continues to fully support Israel’s war on the people of Palestine and the massive amounts of money U.S. taxpayers contribute every year to this welfare state. After the International Court of Justice condemned the obscene and deadly wall Israel has built in Palestine, Kerry had this to say on July 9, 2004: "I am deeply disappointed by today’s International Court of Justice ruling related to Israel’s security fence. Israel’s fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israel’s fight against terrorism." Jeff Goldstein writes in The Fallacy in the 'Anybody But Bush' Movement: "Kerry is a staunch supporter of Israel--and for the same reason that he is a supporter of the "mission" in Iraq. That "mission" is to seize the second-largest oil reserves in the world, set up strategic bases in the center of the Arab world, and guard the oil-rich Persian Gulf for the oil companies, U.S. capitalist industry and the Pentagon." In his speech to the ADL on May 3, 2004, Kerry stated that he would be "Building a stronger Israel and a stronger America means working together to combat the terror that threaten us all". He added his support for the current movement afoot against Saudi Arabia - a long time dream of the neocons in the U.S.: "With Saudi-funded hate speech littering the textbooks of children and the Saudi interior minister claiming that 'the Jews' were responsible for 9/11, our current Administration thinks that our current relationship with this regime is acceptable. I do not – and I intend to be a President who holds Saudi Arabia accountable for its conduct. In the same speech to the powerful Jewish lobby, Kerry referred to the war on Arabs with this: "I will never attempt to win this war on the cheap, and I will finally provide the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces what they have not had in Iraq: all of the weapons, the armor, and the equipment they need to do the job we’ve asked them to do." John Kerry’s Policies on Civil Rights Kerry says he wants to "improve" Bush’s Patriot Act in the U.S., complaining of its ineffectiveness. The only argument on his website for protecting civil liberties is to "Stop indefinitely detaining American citizens and give basic rights to those detained". We note that he is careful to use the terms "indefinitely" and "American citizens", saying nothing about the thousands who are living legally in the United States but not yet citizens. In his "Plan to Protect Individual Liberties" he panders to Americans' fears by stating that he will : "Strengthen terrorism laws that work, including sharing information with local law enforcement" - while complaining about John Ashcroft’s use of wiretaps and practices of illegal search and seizure. Read duplicity. Kerry promotes himself as an anti-war activist of the early 1970's but has backed away from his famous 1971 speech to the Senate in which he accused the U.S. government of atrocities in Vietnam. On his website he pays lip service to: "Assuring that terrorism laws are used to combat terrorism and not in ordinary criminal cases, such as to send the FBI to churches or anti-war demonstrations or to help a political cause." Are anti-war demonstrations in his view, "ordinary criminal cases"? In our last planning meeting for the July 25 DNC protests in Boston a woman asked, "If the massive homeland security apparatus is in place to protect us from Al Queda, why are their resources in Boston directed at us who protest the war? We have to understand that we are not only fighting against war abroad. We are fighting for our civil liberties here at home". Kerry’s Position on Bush’s "War on Terrorism" John Kerry has fully adopted the Bush doctrine of an endless "war on terrorism". On March 4, 2004 in Orlando, Florida, Kerry stated: "I do not believe George Bush has done too much in the war on terror. I believe he's done too little". On March 17, 2004 Kerry stated: "I will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the War on Terror." A very pleasant Axis of Logic reader recently wrote me, "Kerry said that he would only agree to go to war for one reason, to rid Saddam of WMDs." She attempted to defend Kerry, saying that he was fooled by the Bush regime. With due respect for this reader's opinion, we replied that it is hypocritical and arrogant for the U.S. government to attempt to rid Iraq of WMD while it holds the biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the world and has used them against innocent people with impunity. We also believe that Kerry's support of ridding a sovereign foreign nation of WMD is hypocritical when he promises to continue funding of Israel's massive nuclear arsenal and conventional weaponry. Moreover, we believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the United States to assume the right to violate the sovereignty of any other nation-state by forcing "regime change" whether it be through CIA supported rebels for a military coup in Venezuela or with an unprovoked attack under any pretext. Many sincere, voting Americans cannot face what we view to be overwhelming evidence against John Kerry as a presidential candidate. Why? Because it is extremely difficult to give up the illusion that we have a real choice in our political elections. The illusion of democracy and honest elections offer comfort in a time of fear. Letting go of such long-held illusions is always painful and frightening but at the same time, liberating and richly rewarding. Many who consider themselves to be "anti-war" will vote for John Kerry in the 2004 elections. I can understand the good intentions of those who would vote for Kerry if for no other reason than to get the Bush regime out of Washington. However, after doing our best to objectively study the positions Kerry has taken, we cannot escape the conclusion that he too is in full service to the American-led, Global Corporate Empire and it’s wars for colonization and profit. There are those who argue that Kerry has only compromised on these positions in order to get elected; that if he were to take a strong stand against the war and occupation, Americans would see him as being "soft on terrorism" and would not elect him as their next president. We reject these arguments. We reject them because we believe that it is wrong for a presidential candidate to lie to the people in order to gain their vote. Conversely, we do give John Kerry credit for telling the truth about where he stands. Despite his nuanced phrasing, parsing of words and constantly changing positions, the mission he has been given by his corporate masters is clear. He plans to continue U.S. government aggression around the world and against our civil liberties here at home. How Can We Change Government? Question: How does one gain control of a true democracy? Answer: With the sophisticated tools of a powerful, corporate media to gain influence and control over the hearts and minds of the people; by promoting divisions among the people on the basis of religion, ideology, greed and materialism, breaking down our solidarity; by installing and enforcing an economic system that gives power to the few and weakens the many. Force Government to Listen: We believe that we-the-people have the resources, will, intelligence and the ability to force the government to listen to us ... to do what we tell them to do. We do not believe they will listen to us if we continue to play a game of "democracy", validating a corrupt system. How can we accomplish what for many seems to be an impossible achievement? We must meet them. Where can we meet and confront them? Where do we have access to them? Two places we will have access to confront them this summer will be in our streets at the Democratic National Convention in Boston and the Republican National Convention in New York City. They fear this or they would not be on the defensive to keep us off their streets. This week the ANSWER Coalition has filed suit in Federal Court to gain access to the Fleet Center where the DNC will hold it’s $95 million party in Boston. They had already backed down on their refusals to our demands for access to other Boston’s streets. Today we have learned that the Federal Judge hearing the case has granted us access to march to the Fleet Center and confront the beast. Prior to the decision, we let them know with no uncertainty that would take our fight to the Fleet Center - with or without a favorable decision by the court. There is power in numbers and we hope you will join us on Sunday, July 25 at 11:00 a.m. in the Boston Common. If you cannot be there, we hope you will support the real anti-war movement in other ways and on the streets in other times and places. We will not stop. We will not ... cannot give in or give up. We are here to stay. Our numbers are large and we have power. Join The People, not The Machine: When those who control the electoral process in America offer only George W. Bush and John Kerry as presidential candidates in the 2004 elections, we are offered no real choice at all. The decisions on foreign and domestic policy have already been made for us. We reject the myth of democracy in America and we reject corrupt, corporate-funded elections. We believe that the only way out of our dilemma as U.S. citizens is for Americans to reject the system we have had forced upon us. We refuse to participate in that process and we support the movement to boycott the vote, registering a positive "no-confidence" vote against the existing government. Some would argue, "But then only a few would choose our president!". We say that the people do not choose presidents - corporations do. The people only comply with the wishes of the ruling class in American-style elections. "There are two superpowers in the world today: The U.S. Government ... and The People!" Join us on Sunday, July 25th on the Boston Common where we will host an impressive list of speakers and take our protest to John Kerry and the Democratic Party at the Fleet Center. © Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|