portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

corporate dominance | government | imperialism & war selection 2004

The Bush nightmare will continue with Kerry

Kerry`s statement on Venezuela, Pres. Chavez and the referendum
US presidential candidate Kerry's love letter to the Florida Cuban Community

VHeadline.com commentarist Elio Cequea writes: John Kerry and his campaign managers has put at risk the good credibility he has built so far in this young US presidential campaign. The March 19 statement published on the John Kerry's official web site seems to have been written by George W. Bush instead.

The statement is either the result of a major case of misinformation or the unfortunate first sign of a crack in the character of a (former?) man of integrity.

It is mostly made up of unverified headlines from the Venezuelan media where the "baron" of the Venezuelan media is of Cuban origin. It's not an accident that some of the "headlines" are 100% in line with the obscure desires of extreme right-wing Cuban dissidents.

The statement totally ignores, or disregards, the Venezuelan Constitution ... which allows for a referendum if 20% of the electoral body signs a petition. At this point there are only 1.8 million signatures approved as valid towards the confirmation of a presidential referendum. The constitution requires 2.4 million signatures. Working to bring pressure on President Chavez Frias to allow a referendum will indeed take the Venezuelan democratic process to a critical juncture. The referendum does not depend on Chavez but on 20% of the electoral population ... that's the Venezuelan Constitution!

The statement indicates "throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power."
If John Kerry wants to play the role of international statesman, one thing he should do is get the all facts together before putting his reputation and his candidacy in jeopardy. The only institutions that have been "undermined" are the un-democratic and coup plotters CTV and Fedecamaras. People being arrested for burning tires on a main highway ARE NOT politically-motivated incarcerations.

"Chavez close relationship with Fidel Castro", the statement says, "has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government." Is Jimmy Carter also raising "serious" questions for his close ties with Castro? Has the closeness being developed by the US Government with Muammar al-Qadhafi raised any serious questions about Bush commitment to leading a truly democratic government?

Has Kerry sold out his integrity in exchange for Cuban support and money?

President Chavez policies might have been detrimental to the interests of capital power players in the US such as the Gustavo Cisneros' organization. But, it has NOT been detrimental to the interests of his neighbors. For instance, cheap oil is sold to the poor Central America countries as part of signed trade agreements. Another beneficiary of cheap oil is Cuba. Believe it or not, Cuba is also a neighbor!

The statement from John Kerry includes major and already proven old lies. Some "nice" journalists have lost their jobs for reporting that, for example, Chavez "has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists." Kerry forgot to mention the Al-Qaeda cells that somehow hide on the heavily populated 1,085 km square Margarita Island! And yes! Venezuela is supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia! It will give the US another reason to beef up the already heavy military aid Colombia receives. An unfriendly and militarily stronger pro-right neighbor is the dream come through of any "communist dictator"!

Half-truths and ambiguous assertions could not be excluded from this important declaration. "The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means."

This is true!
Only that 1.8 million people expressed their views according to the national electoral authority. In order to proceed with the referendum, the Venezuelan Constitution requires 2.4 million. As agreed with the OAS and the Carter Center, the referendum process was started. First, a formal petition to the CNE was made and accepted. Secondly, the petition was followed by the recollection of signatures. In order to proceed THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SIGNATURES AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION!

The headline "Kerry Demands World Pressure on Chavez to call for a Referendum" is a national headline in a country where, according to Kerry, the government DOES NOT RESPECT freedom of expression. What can be said about his demand for the release of "political prisoners"?

John Kerry ends his statement criticizing the current US administration for supporting the failed coup against President Chavez and for allowing the removal of the democratically-elected leader of Haiti. He finishes by asking the current US government to "make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

Is he confused, misinformed or simply kissing somebody's butt in exchange for votes and campaign money?

I had the impression he was different from President Bush.

Latin Americans, we better gear up for a long struggle ... it seems like Bush's alternative has also surrendered to Washington' special interests.

Elio Cequea
 Feico57@att.net
Overthrow Kerry 25.Mar.2004 09:59

yo

You have only begun to see just how much like Bush Kerry truly is. The american people deserve a choice, not more war, more free-for-all for corporations.

WE have an opportunity like never before, to elect a candidate who we truly believe in. Bush and Kerry are so easy to take down, and they are currently using their millions to do just that. It's only march folks....

Power of the people can OVERTHROW KERRY at the DNC- nope we will not vote for him, we will not accept him. This time we have a true man of the people, for the first time in my generation, and we will settle for nothing less. NO ONE BUT DENNIS KUCINICH period!

VOTE FOR BUSH!!! 25.Mar.2004 10:53

Informercial

Buy your piece of President Bush and you will receive:

+ a reinstated draft-- send your kids to Iraq!
+ outsourced employment -- send your job to China!
+ generouts tax cuts -- send your tax dollars to the wealthy!*
+ a warmer planet -- send your thermometer soaring!

BUT WAIT! -- Act now and you will receive as an Added BONUS not one, not two, not three, but a full suite of excuses for going to War!**

+ The dog ate my evidence!
+ The British made me do it!
+ Did I say Iraq? I meant to say Iran!
... and dozens more hilarious one-liners!

Join thousands of angry white folk today ... and let religion ring!!!***

EXCUSE ME?! 25.Mar.2004 11:32

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

I agree that John Kerry's statements about Chavez were reckless and he should support accusations like that with facts, but what is the big deal? Because of that he's no different than Bush? That's ridiculous! I don't know if John Kerry is the man we want for president, I'm still undecided. But he's clearly VERY different than Bush and much better, though that's not too hard, seeing as he's maybe the most right-wing extreme president we've had. It's ridiculous to say John Kerry is no different just because of a stupid statement he said.

A vote for Kuchinich is a vote for BUSH! WAKE-UP! 25.Mar.2004 11:38

dennis sagwitz dennis30@royaume.com

Isn't anybody ever happy with the President? Well, maybe not right now. Especially right now.
We obviously live in a period of extremist right-wing republican/conservative rule. Many "people"
have a right to express their unhappiness. After 8 prosperous years under the Clinton/Gore democratic rule, where most people had jobs and corporate corruption wasn't an issue, some factions of the "people" were still not happy. Enter the Green Party and Ralph Nader. Nader seemed like a viable candidate to offer a viable option to the "viable people". But, alas, in their complacency and our complacency after 8 prosperous years, the splintered "viable people" could not unite.

THAT SPLINTERING LED DIRECTLY TO THIS: ONE OF THE MOST RIGHTIST GOVERNMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. SINCE MCCARTHYISM AND THE ASSASSINATION OF KENNEDY!

The opportunity for the republican right/hard core conservatives to undermine the election of 2000 was taken because the "people" COULD NOT UNITE. I beg you of the green party to think with your heads this time. This country is still not ready for a third party candidate. Frankly, if you think the republican hard-line will go down without playing dirty again, you better wake-up or you will have 4 more years, and then some. (REAGAN-BUSH occupied the white house for 12 years, and look who is back: THE BUSH CLAN) Did we not learn some thinsg from that election!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Now is the time to unite against the hard-right, and if you vote for Kuchinich, you take away votes for Kerry. And stop thinking of Kerry as an ogre. Under the microscope, every man's bacteria is visible. But Kerry stands for Democracy,(with all that money, he doesn't need to) and there will be a whole cabinet underneath him. More Democrats. And perhaps even the Senate or the House will be Democrat. We should be grateful to have a viable, REALISTIC option to Bush. Kuchinich and Nader are not realistic options in this day and age. Think with your heads, vote with your heads, vote directly against Bush by endorsing the only candidate who can win. THEN, continue with your party ideals in a climate where they might be better received!

Dennis Sagwitz
UMASS Cum Laude Alumni 1992
Veteran, Operation Urgent Fury 83
82nd Airborne Division 83-86
Professional Photographer

don't resort to using a straw-man 25.Mar.2004 11:45

reader

"Because of that he's no different than Bush?"

You'll note that no one said "Kerry is no different from Bush" but rather pointed out the numerous similarities as in "You have only begun to see just how much like Bush Kerry truly is".

No one is arguing that they are exactly the same, how could they be any more than any 2 people be exactly the same. But the policies they are supporting are largely identical. Take Informercial's post, which I've seen several times. What this post neglects is that we will see all 4 "benefits of Bush" with Kerry as well. Kerry is not going to stop global warming, supports so-called "free trade" that is, the exporting of jobs so corporations can make more money, wants more troops in Iraq than does Bush, meaning a certain reinstatement of the draft, and is talking tax-cuts instead of tax-hikes for the wealthy, or the more important issue of financial burden.

In any case, if you hear anyone say there is no difference between Kerry and Bush you should attack them on it. If they point out how similar Kerry and Bush are in their policies and positions, well, discuss, but don't attack them for something they didn't say.

For example, both Bush and Kerry are opposed to gay marriage, so people should point out that similarity, but Bush is pushing a constitutional amendment (despite the fact that he can't get it) and Kerry won't do anything (often the benefit of having spineless democrats in office, the won't fight for you, but they won't fight against you as much or as hard).

Politics as usual in the U.S.A. and U.S. foreign policy (Venezuela) 25.Mar.2004 11:54

politics as possible

THE HEADLINE SHOULD BE: "The Bush nightmare MAY continue with Kerry, but it may also ameliorate. WITH BUSH THE NIGHTMARE WILL INTENSIFY." The American public generally has no desire to intensify or broaden conflict involving the U.S.A. either in the Middle East or in Latin America. The Republicans, the "neocons," have not only a desire, they have plans and have painted themselves into a corner where they have no choice but to keep going, that is, to broaden the conflicts. In particular, they must motivate and militarize the American public toward their radical agenda by bringing the conflict closer to home, that is, to our southern borders. If Bush wins, HAVANA WILL BE BOMBED.

The Republicans have come into dominance --- after years as the underdogs --- by attacking the old "middle-of-the-road" as "liberals" and complaining that the Democrats have too much power as a result of the "liberal" media and "liberal" Congress, and so forth. Thus, the Republican Party is currently striving for dominance and even hegemony. They are very close to total power --- they already control most of the corporate media, the Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, and, of course, the Republican Party Central Committee is practically integrated into the secret government apparatus that we know (thanks to Daniel Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii) exists and has existed for a long time. The Bush Administration has painted itself into a corner where it must continue to consolidate its power until we arrive at a one-party (fascist) system. That is the objective for 2004. Along with that, the Republican objectives for further corporate globalization, total destruction of the social safety-net and militarization of society require the subversion of what remains of our minimal guarantees of due-process and civil liberties. They have come too far toward total power to stop now.

WHERE KERRY FITS INTO THIS TWO-PARTY MESS: Polls show that most Americans are NOT divided along ideological lines. That impression is the result of right-wing talk-show thinking that has come to be accepted as "conventional wisdom", even or especially by self-styled radicals such as those posting here at pdx.indymedia. The polls show, however, that the vast majority of Americans, if asked to identify as "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate," will self-identify as "moderate." Here at pdx.indymedia many would like to think that if "radical" were offered as a fourth choice, that would be the popular selection of typical Americans --- but that is hardly the reality. What most Americans want now is to return to some safe middle-ground. Many Republicans and "apparatchiks" within even the secret government also want to return to something more like "normalcy." Bush is seen as too de-stabilizing. So Kerry is seen, and has been selected, as the man to do the job of returning to the "status quo ante." The Republicans --- having eliminated the middle-ground by their long-term strategy of destoying the center --- MUST PICTURE KERRY AS A LEFTIST RADICAL. True radicals, such as those posting here at pdx.indymedia, react to the media portrayal of Kerry as a radical with disgust and outrage because, of course, Kerry is a moderate --- despite his progressive biography, anti-Vietnam-war activism and his visit to Nicaragua to pow-wow with Daniel Ortega back in the Sandinista period. That pow-wow cost Kerry politically when Ortega followed up two weeks later with a visit to Moscow --- the Republicans in Massachusetts attacked on the basis of Ortega's visit to Moscow and are still running Kerry down over it. So Kerry remembers that. After all, with three purple hearts, he is a survivor. He lives and he learns. Thus, Kerry must counter the Republican strategy of portraying Kerry as a radical by denying any of the charges of radical activism and spouting the standard bull about Chavez and Castro. In that way, he denies the Republicans their main strategy in 2004 --- to make the election a referendum on Kerry. Almost automatically, any election for a second term for a president, is always a referendum on the sitting president. If the election goes that way --- a referendum on Bush --- the Republicans will be defeated. The Republican strategy --- making the election into a referendum on Kerry --- is out of desperation. The Bush neo-cons and the secret government probably have even more desperate options under consideration --- such as voting machine fraud, the possible "October surprise," or who-knows-what. But the election and what Kerry says cannot be adequately assessed without understanding the Republican campaign strategy in 2004. Does that mean that whatever Kerry says should be taken with a pound of salt as just campaign rhetoric? Yes, of course. You should no more accept Kerry at his word than you would suppose that Bush is capable of ever making an honest and straight-forward statement. Am I saying that we only have two choices: taking a chance on what Kerry will do after he is elected or preparing for total war if Bush is elected? Yes, that's what I am saying.

SO WHAT HAPPENS TO CUBA AND VENEZUELA: From the point of view of Castro or Chavez, who is better as U.S. president --- Bush or Kerry? You would have to ask Castro or Chavez, but the question should be, do Cuba and Venezuela want to be bombed in hopes that all of the Western Hemisphere will be plunged into a grand class-oriented war? Or would they prefer to continue to deal with the forces of global capital in the context of the on-going low-intensity conflict that is already the grand class-oriented war of the Western Hemisphere? Neither Bush nor Kerry nor Castro nor Chavez have the power to end the class-oriented "low-intensity" warfare manifested in such phenomena as the attempted CIA-coup against Chavez. Perhaps, however, Kerry could nix some of the worst of it at the presidential level. The question isn't whether we should end the class conflict that is an expression of the objective contradictions of the global hegemony of capital --- no one has the power to do that. The question is how we would like to mold the conditions and perimeters of the conflict. Same with the Middle East. Who has the power to solve the Israel/Palistine conflict? It has been suggested that a new force, "global public opinion," may come to bear. What we know about Bush and the neocons is that they have no respect whatsoever for global public opinion. Probably, Kerry has that respect. That won't make Kerry powerful enough to bring peace, but it may make that new force, "global public opinion," more powerful. What was it Hamlet said? Something to the effect of should we just do it and get it over with --- perchance to die, perchance to dream, or do we keep suffering "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"?

Excuse Me, 'Adammonte9000' - 25.Mar.2004 11:55

how "clearly VERY different" from / "much better" than Bush?

Kerry's votes.

Bush's tax cuts
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170
Kerry - Absent

Bush's tax cuts
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00044
Kerry - Yea
(This one did extend unemployment and gave tax cuts to businesses, though only temporarily, supposedly)

Patriot Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00302
Kerry - Yea

Homeland Security Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00249
Kerry - Yea

Help America Vote Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00238
Kerry - Yea

Terrorism Risk Protection Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00252
Kerry - Yea

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Kerry - Yea

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01050:@@@L&summ2=m&
Kerry - Yea

Amendment SA 715 - To strike the repeal of the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons.
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00186
Kerry - Absent

So what exactly is this progressive record of Kerry's...

--------

Dissecting the Electable Mr. Kerry  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282778.shtml

It is hard to pin down John Kerry. You can slice and dice all his positions. You can lay them down on the table and compare them (inch by inch) with the notorious and hated wartime president.

But that approach doesn't get to the heart of the matter--which is that people are told to think that only two things really (supposedly) matter:

First, John Kerry is not George W. Bush.

And, second, John Kerry is electable, meaning he can (potentially, conceivably) beat George W. Bush.

And for some people, those two points settle everything. They have convinced themselves that it doesn't really matter if Kerry even agrees with them on important matters. They want the policies of Bush gone, gone, gone--and believe this can only mean getting themselves (and everyone else) to want Kerry in, in, in.

Let's get into why this logic is so dangerous and what this John Kerry campaign really represents-- starting with why he is considered "electable."

--------

Kerry and Black America: Just Another Stupid White Man  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283773.shtml

John Kerry says he wants to be America's second "black president," but sadly, his record on issues of racial justice makes him look more yellow than black.

Apparently Kerry saw no irony in giving this [1992] speech on an elite college [Yale] campus before an audience which undoubtedly consisted of rich white kids for the most part. Yale's faculty is 2.8% black and 1.9% Hispanic. Fortunately, it seems Yale has not been corrupted by the wave of "reverse discrimination" that is sweeping the nation. Nor did Kerry seem to recognize any irony in the fact while he lectures poor black people about "self-reliance," Kerry has essentially never had to do anything for himself. Kerry was born into an obscenely rich family that would go on yachting trips with the Kennedys. Since he became a politician his bank accounts have been generously stocked by corporate lobbyists. He has also married some of the richest women in the world, including his current wife, Teresa Heinz. It's hard to imagine how such a person could even have a concept of "self-reliance." John Kerry preaching to poor people about self-reliance seems rather like a blind person trying to teach people about the colors of the rainbow.

--------

Kerry attacks Chavez  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283826.shtml

--------

John Kerry's inner Nixon  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283692.shtml

John Kerry recently chided the incoming Spanish government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero for promising to fulfill a campaign promise to bring back to Spain its troops and support personnel deployed in Iraq. Agence France Press reported that Kerry's view was that if Spain did bring its soldiers home at this point in the US occupation, "it would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists." With this statement, he seems to have some Richard Nixon in him. On the John Kerry for President website, a section outlines Kerry's plan for "Winning the Peace in Post-Saddam Iraq" which is eerily similar to phrasing used in Nixon's Cambodia Incursion Address delivered in 1970 to the American people. Nixon indicated that his plans to expand the war while ostensibly bringing US troops home would result in "winning the just peace we all desire". Winning the Peace would be a constant refrain of Nixon's as would Peace with Honor. The longer the US stays on Iraq the closer its leaders will come to uttering those phrases.

Why would John Kerry want to prolong the misery of US troops in Iraq and their families here in the USA with such a strangely Nixonesqe policy?

--------

Kerry's men: the same group of oil and military industrial bastards  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280835.shtml

--------

Kerry's Foreign Policy Record Suggests Few Differences with Bush  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282263.shtml

A look at John Kerry's record shows that his overall foreign policy agenda has been a lot closer to the Republicans than to the rank-and-file Democrats he claims to represent.

This is not too surprising, given that his top foreign policy advisors include: Rand Beers, the chief defender of the deadly airborne crop-fumigation program in Colombia who has justified U.S. support for that country's repressive right-wing government by falsely claiming that Al-Qaeda was training Colombian rebels; Richard Morningstar, a supporter of the dictatorial regime in Azerbaijan and a major backer of the controversial Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline, which placed the profits of Chevron, Halliburton and Unocal above human rights and environmental concerns; and, William Perry, former Secretary of Defense, member of the Carlyle Group, and advocate for major military contractors.

Kerry's October 2002 vote to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq was no fluke. His contempt for human rights, international law, arms control, and the United Nations has been rather consistent.

--------

Kerry and Me  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282780.shtml

Simply put, Senator Kerry can't have it both ways. He can't, on the one hand, tout his foreign policy expertise, political savvy and experience, and on the other hand be so callow as to claim to have been deceived by the Bush gang into voting for the war. He's either alarmingly, unforgivably naïve after so many years in Washington, or, more likely, he voted for the war in a crass political calculation that it would help him look tough as he prepared his presidential bid. Either answer is extremely troubling for those looking for a savior from Bush's reign of error.

--------

Kerry Should Explain War-Making Stand  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281928.shtml

The subject came up Thursday night, when Kerry debated his Democratic opponents in a debate in Los Angeles. What Kerry had to say was troubling.

After explaining that "no, I do not regret my vote" for the resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq, Kerry said, "Let me make it very clear: We did not give the president any authority that the president of the United States didn't have.

"Did we ratify what he was doing? Yes. But Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress. Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress. And the fact is, the president was determined to go, evidently. But we changed the dynamics by getting him to agree to go to the United Nations and to make a set of promises to the nation."

Apart from the question of whether Congress actually "changed the dynamics" of Bush's march toward war, Kerry again appeared to embrace the view that presidents can go to war without congressional approval. The comments Thursday night echoed statements Kerry made in a Feb. 15 debate in Milwaukee.

Amazingly, no one - not even Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich or the Rev. Al Sharpton, let alone the media questioners - challenged Kerry to explain his views regarding the advice and consent that the Constitution says Congress is required to provide before presidents start wars.

--------

If Kerry's the Answer, What's the Question?  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281932.shtml

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

--------

Wall Street likes Kerry  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281898.shtml

Over the last fifteen years, Kerry has received more money from lobbyists than any other serving senator. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during this election cycle, Kerry raked in $531,251 from the health care industry. Kerry was also among the top ten recipients of money from the airline and automotive industries, with donations totaling $87,925. By the way, Kerry is a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which influences laws governing these industries.

--------

Nader threatens corporate rule  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281916.shtml

Now, the call goes out to silence Nader. He is told to fall in line behind John Kerry, a smart and serious man who nonetheless voted for the Iraq war, the USA Patriot Act, NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and the Bush tax cuts, and against Kyoto (contrast:  http://www.votenader.org).

An Enemy Of The People  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281838.shtml

Putting up Kerry to replace Bush is like putting up Rutherford B. Hayes to replace Calvin Coolidge.

Kerry is identical to Bush on the Iraq military occupation, Pentagon budget, national health care, NAFTA, WTO, drug war  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/281640.shtml

--------

Kerry's Support for the Invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine Still Unexplained  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281808.shtml

Back in October 2002, when Senator Kerry voted to grant President Bush a blank check to make war, he tried to scare the American public into thinking that such an invasion was essential to the defense of the United States. Despite a lack of credible evidence, Kerry categorically declared that "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons" and even claimed that most elements of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs were "larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." Furthermore, Kerry asserted that Iraq was "attempting to develop nuclear weapons," backing up this accusation by claiming that "all U.S. intelligence experts agree" with such an assessment. He also alleged that "Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf."

Every single one of these claims, no less than similar claims by President Bush, was false. Despite this, however, Senator Kerry and his supporters somehow want the American public to trust him enough to elect him as the next president of the United States.

--------

Democratic frontrunner declares he will be stronger "war president" than Bush  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281799.shtml

In a speech Friday in Los Angeles, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, attacked the Bush administration's management of the "war on terror" and declared that he would be a more effective—and more aggressive—"war president."

The bulk of Kerry's criticism of the Bush administration's foreign and military policy was from the right, not the left, a clear indication of the type of campaign the Democratic Party will wage for the November election.

--------

'It's Time to Get Over It'
John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280610.shtml  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280265.shtml

John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Partnership for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

--------

John Kerry's Multimillionaire Wild Wife  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279913.shtml

Stormy and eccentric, multi-millionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry is not obvious First Lady material. But with her stepdaughters she is helping her husband scoop the Democratic presidential candidacy.

The supporting role seems slightly strange for her - at least compared to the reputation that has followed her in the US media. She is seen as tempestuous, eccentric, wilful and rich. Much of the evidence for those charges is drawn from a disastrous interview the Kerrys granted to the Washington Post two years ago at home in Washington, DC.

To the reporter's delight, Heinz Kerry had a framed photograph of herself with the late John Heinz in the hall, and did not bother to correct the slip when she referred to him as "my husband". Then she had a blazing row with her living husband Kerry over a Republican from Pennsylvania who insulted the memory of her first spouse.

To Kerry's mortification, she went on to mimic him having a nightmare flashback to his days in Vietnam - beating her head and shouting "down, down, down". She also revealed that he had been in therapy seconds after Kerry tried to deny it.

Since then, Heinz Kerry has enlivened American political debate by revealing that she signed a prenuptial agreement to protect her fortune, threatened to maim her first husband if he was unfaithful, and resorts regularly to Botox.

--------

Disaster of Convenience - John Heinz' Widow Marries John Kerry
 http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar26.html

President Ronald Reagan . . . was implicated in the Iran-Contra situation. . . . funds secretly given to the Iranians were skimmed off to finance the counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua, to evade the Boland Amendment, prohibiting the U.S. from financing the Contras as they were called.

At the time Daddy Bush, as Vice President, denied he knew anything about this. He said he was "out of the loop" and thus not told what was going on. Later facts brought out by the Independent Counsel showed otherwise. In later years, some Congressmen an d other insiders admitted that they thought about impeaching President Reagan but thought it would be a bad thing for the nation. Working on a report on the Iran-Contra mess was a commission headed by Senator John Tower (R. Texas). For short, it was cal led the Tower Commission. In 1991, when he was unfairly defamed in being rejected by the Daddy Bush Administration for Secretary of Defense, Tower began grumbling he was going to bring out some dirty secrets of the elder Bush then President. Convenient ly, Tower perished with his daughter in an apparent sabotaged plane crash in April, 1991. About the same time, Senator John Heinz (R., Penn.), heir to the Heinz Ketchup fortune was himself snuffed out when his airplane was hit fro! m below by a helicopter. Although some believed it was foul play, others contended the helicopter pilot, examining whether the Heinz plane could not lower the landing wheels, slammed into the plane. Others raised the sinister version that the whirlybir d pilot wanted somehow to commit "suicide". Heinz' widow married Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.), long connected to the American CIA. Senator Kerry in investigating the dope traffic through his subcommittee, conveniently covered up the role of the espion age agency money laundry, Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI, that also financed the campaigns of a group of senators including Kerry.

NEW CHIEF OF SECRET POLITICAL POLICE
 http://www.skolnicksreport.com/spoliticalp.html

Please note. Senator Kerry is no sweet angel. He is an expert reputed blackmailer and cover up artist. He is married to the widow of the late U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, heir to the ketchup and canned beans fortune. Heinz died in a sabotaged plane crash in 1991, just as he was planning to expose U.S. government complicity in several domestic and foreign political assassinations.

As to the infamous BCCI, Sen Kerry himself had a conflict of interest in that he headed a group of U.S. Senators who accepted campaign funds from the worldwide spy-money laundry-murder machine BCCI. Kerry's subcommittee refused to delve into the highly pertinent Chicago branch office of BCCI and their Chicago twin, a branch of Italy's largest bank, owned in part by the Vatican, Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, BNL. [Suppressed BNL records as to the secret private partnership of the Elder Bush and Saddam Hussein were the subject of my exclusive story, in Spotlight, August 19, 1991, referred to earlier.]

--------

Skeleton key to the White House
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/281367.shtml

John Kerry and George Bushs junior and senior were members of the secretive Skull and Bones society at Yale university. The final words of the initiation ceremony, according to the intrepid New York Observer journalist Ron Rosenbaum, who has secretly recorded the secret incantations, centre around the command, "Run neophyte!"

Well, in maturity, both men are certainly running, and it's impossible [????] to know how much their membership of the exclusive Skull and Bones Society has helped them reach the positions of eminence they now occupy: President of the United States, and senatorial lead-contender for president.


we are awake, you are the one who is trapped in the nightmare 25.Mar.2004 11:58

ex-democrat voter

"After 8 prosperous years under the Clinton/Gore democratic rule"

Yeah, tell that to the people kicked off of welfare; or the 1.5 million Iraqi's that were killed under Clinton/Gore.

"THAT SPLINTERING LED DIRECTLY TO THIS"

No, the decision by the SCOTUS and the decision of the democrats not to make a fuss over the loss of our democracy led directly to this administration.

"The opportunity for the republican right/hard core conservatives to undermine the election of 2000 was taken because the "people" COULD NOT UNITE"

No, it was taken because the people were too passive to stop a coup.

What you have to realize is that anyone running against Bush will win. The DLC and DNC made damn sure to get the most right-wing, pro-business, pro-war candidate that they could positioned for the nomination. They expect to win on the evils of Bush, and the truth is, they probably will get more votes (though those votes may not be counted, which doesn't seem to bother enough of the democrats to change that fact). But telling people whom they should vote for or who can run in an election is not democratic. You cannot redeem democracy by crushing democracy for your own purposes. I am not afraid of Bush, and I am not afraid of Kerry, and neither of them is going to get my vote because I DO NOT AGREE WITH EITHER OF THEM. I DO NOT WANT WAR! You cannot be opposed to the Iraq war and vote for its supporters. I also believe in gay marriage, universal health care, protecting the forests, fair trade, and many other issues that both Bush and Kerry are opposed to. If someone else feels that Kerry will slow down the destruction they are free to vote on that point, but I may not agree anymore than I agree that voting for Bush will hasten our destruction. Vote for who you want, express why you think and feel the way you do, but if you believe in democracy, don't tell others who to vote for.

Here we go again 25.Mar.2004 20:33

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

I'm aware of those Kerry votes, and those articles. I've been a harsh critic of Kerry, and I haven't endorsed him. But first off, those are just a few votes out of God knows how many he's cast in all his years in office. He does have a record of standing up for the environment, women's rights, health care, against wasteful defense spending during the Reagan years, etc. You can nit pick at his record all you want. But on where he stands on the issues, there's clear differences between him and Bush, from economics to civil liberties to the "war on terror" to capital punishment to the environment to civil rights and on and on, and if you don't think so then you haven't been paying attention. But once again, this isn't an endorsement and John Kerry does have the same problems that most politicians have......he's a politician. And problems with his credibility, no doubt. I just wanna see where things go from here to determine what I'll do come election time.

and AGAIN "Adammonte9000" 25.Mar.2004 20:41

tired of this

"You can nit pick at his record all you want."

yeah,

the 'nit picking' of his bashing Chavez and Zapatero, votes on NAFTA, tax cuts, Iraq/Afghanistan illegal wars, USA Patriot, Homeland Security, electronic voting machines . . .


Kerry wants more troops abroad than Bush does 25.Mar.2004 23:25

GRINGO STARS

Bush wants troops to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. So does Kerry, but...

Kerry wants an additional 40,000 troops in Iraq.

Feel that draft?

According to his campaign's website, Kerry will "increase the size of the U.S. Army in order to meet the needs of a new century and the new global war on terror."

"I don't support gay marriage. I never have. That's my position." Kerry told reporters in February.

Kerry voted in favor of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that is responsible for massive media consolidation (and huge cable television fee increases), and hence an even more dumbed-down citizenry.

Kerry voted for the anti-privacy police-statist PATRIOT act.

Kerry also supported Clinton's welfare "reform," which tossed millions of poor people off the welfare rolls or forced them into low-wage jobs.

I can not, with a clear conscious, vote for Bush or Kerry, as both are imperialist warmongers.

Might as well vote for a goat 26.Mar.2004 09:05

Not the goat in bush's 9-11 story

"Kuchinich and Nader are not realistic options in this day and age."

Of course not. They belong to some bygone era before normalcy, decency and common sense came to be called radical extremism. They're dinosaurs from a far-away time before right was left, wrong was right, and up was down.

Ah, what are my other choices again? Hope Kerry is a more typical politician? There you go, why should I worry about where Kerry stands or what he promises, for better or worse? What makes me or anyone else think he will keep a single one of these promises? Since when was big politics about saying what you mean or delivering what you promised?

I think there's a big spectre out there in the form of the notion that there is a huge contingent of people who actually believe Bush, and approve of him- although his popularity is "always declining" without his numbers ever getting lower than c.a. 50%. It could scare Kerry into thinking he has to appease those Bush-minded voters by promising more war while he appeases the other half by criticising Bush from the standpoint of being a vet, and likely he'll just end up somewhere in the middle attacking Bush for being too soft, on terror, and in Iraq, in what looks like a big cloud of sheer hypocrisy. And why not? I think it's that spectre, that has painted honest, forward speaking people like Kucinich or Nader as unelectable. But... will Kerry mean any of it if he gets in the Oval Office?

And aren't there real differences between Bush and Kerry? When Kerry says that unlike Bush he wouldn't have just gone charging into Iraq without exhausting every other possibility, isn't that believable? Isn't that what any person with a shred of sanity left would have done is not go crusading ala Bush?

And the better solution than letting an election decide Bush's fate? Let's see, I think Kucinich himself suggested that route rather than impeachment... Why? Because that impeachment thing ain't going too good, is it? I do doubt Bush will ever account for the crimes of his administration while he holds office. I do doubt there will be any investigation into the crimes of his adminstration that isn't an utter farce while he holds office. Maybe under President Kerry, the questions for Bush & pals will get just a little tougher all of the sudden.

Yeah, okay. I will agonize 'round and 'round over this for as long as I can stand between now and November, while I laugh at people telling me a vote for Kucinich is a vote for Bush (and not in the primaries, duh!), and we'll see what happens. It may well be that I decide that if Kerry is asking me to read between all of his lines, he is also asking me to gamble the fate of the world on it all just being politics, including his use of the words "new" and "century" (cf. PNAC) in the same sentence as quoted above, and I may just resent being asked to do that. We'll see. But if Kerry doesn't get my vote, blame Kerry himself and no one else.

Wrong Gringo 26.Mar.2004 12:14

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

Kerry doesn't want to add 40,000 troops to Iraq. He wants to add 40,000 troops to the military! and he's made it clear that those soldiers aren't going to Iraq. And he's made it clear that he's not gonna have a draft.

Kerry and the Draft 26.Mar.2004 13:25

reader

"He also proposed temporarily increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops. That step, which his aides said would cost up to $8 billion a year, would be intended to ease the burden on those deployed for longer than their usual term."

www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0318b.html

How exactly do you think those troops are going to "ease the burden on those deployed for longer than their usual term" without actually going to Iraq?

And do you have a source for saying that John Kerry has been "clearly" against a draft? Because I found this:

Kerry said he wouldn't bring back the draft to deal with the situation in Iraq and would consider it only in a situation where there was a much larger war.

He said if the draft were reinstituted, he would want to see it administered "without politics and favoritism," noting that "there are some people in high office today who pulled strings to get into the National Guard."

www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1016b.html

Kerry also said he doesn't believe there is a need to reinstate the draft, a source of conflict during the Vietnam War.

www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1203a.html

So, he doesn't think there is a need to reinstate the draft, but there is a need for 40,000 more "active-duty troops". What an interesting contradiction.

Nader 26.Mar.2004 22:38

George Bender

The next task is to get Nader on the Oregon ballot. To do that we need to get 1,000 registered voters together in one place at the same time. Join us on April 5, 6 p.m., Roseland Theater, 8 NW 6th Ave. It's free. If you're not already registered to vote you can register there.

 http://naderoregon.org/