July 29, 2004 - For those of you who mistakenly believe a Kerry administration will be kinder, gentler, and less irrational, consider the following quote by Rand Beers, the national security adviser to the Kerry campaign and former Bushite: "In many ways, the goals of the two administrations are in fact not all that different."
I’d say identical. From Iraq to the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, Kerry will follow the neoliberal-neocon Master Plan. If there is a difference it is that Kerry will attempt to get the Europeans to help pay for US foreign policy adventures and follow Kerry’s lead, whereas Bush alienated the Europeans. "We’re going to be far, far smarter and far, far wiser in getting the allies around the world to isolate the terrorists," said James Rubin, the Clinton administration’s State Department spokesman who is heading up Kerry’s foreign policy team. In other words, there’s nothing wrong with invading other countries, the US simply has to be "smarter" about it and make sure it arm twists its "allies" into cooperation, or at least the appearance of cooperation, and get them to write more checks.
Like the Bushites, the Kerryites believe there is nothing wrong with US foreign policy. In fact, it is resentment that drives those who criticize and oppose US foreign policy. "Negative feelings (about US behavior abroad) result in part from a natural resentment of US military, economic and cultural might… for which we need not apologize," Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser from 1997 to2001 and until recently a Kerry adviser, wrote in Foreign Affairs.
Kerry is even more pro-Israel than Bush. Jay Footlik is Kerry’s campaign adviser on the Middle East and "Jewish affairs" who spent four years living in Israel. "As long as it is good for the security of Israel
and helps bring down the level of violence, then Kerry is for it," says Footlik. "In what concerns the safety of Israel and its well-being, the U.S. is united, and even in an election year, this is not a partisan issue." So keen is Kerry on buddying up with the crazed Likudites, he sent his brother, Cameron, a Jewish convert, to Israel. "Mr Kerry delivered an unequivocal message from his brother: that he will take a firm pro-Israel line on all main issues, including the controversial construction of the security wall in the West Bank," writes Inigo Gilmore. "It is very distressing when you have issues of conflict, occupation, and violation of human rights, that the liberals seem worse than the Republicans in their support for the most extreme Israeli line," Jeff Halper, a leading Israeli peace activist, told Gilmore.
In short, there is no difference between Bush and Kerry on supporting the far right Likudites and their war against Palestinian children—in fact, Kerry appears to be more pro-Israel than Bush. "Arab Americans and American Muslims are left with a Hobson’s choice," writes Linda S. Heard. "Vote Bush and it is more of the same. Vote Kerry and there is a possibility it could get even worse."
Kerry has adopted the neocon line against Saudi Arabia, that it is the font of all terrorism woes. Bush "has been timid about challenging Saudi Arabia," Kerry told the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli newspaper run by the neocon Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle. "If we are serious about energy independence, then we can finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological support for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups," said Kerry on May 27 in Seattle. No mention here of the fact the US encouraged Saudi financing of the CIA-ISI created Islamic Terror Network when it served the interests of the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere (notably in Bosnia, as an FBI document indicates). But that was then and this is now. Now the neoliberal-neocon Master Plan calls for a state of perpetual war against Islam and the Arab Middle East—at the behest of Big Oil and the crazed Greater Israel Zionists—and Saudi Arabia is on the to-do list.
So, if you’re looking for an antiwar candidate, one that actually has a chance at winning the election, forget about it. Our future is written and it is a future of war and insanity. It is a future of military confrontation and increasing numbers of dead people. It is a future that will likely demand you donate your life or the lives of your children—in the form of indentured servitude (a polite phrase for slavery), otherwise known as conscription or a military draft—under either a Bush or Kerry administration. US foreign policy objectives cannot be realized with a 500,000 person military, so the call-up will start after the election, be the president Bush or Kerry.
Of course, in a perverse way, military conscription may be the best hope for the antiwar movement and those opposed to the neoliberal-neocon Master Plan and forever war. If people refuse to be drafted and used as cannon fodder, the neolibs will not be able to realize their vicious dream of world domination, regardless of what faction of the Business and Property Party occupies the White House. Conscription may very well result in a vibrant and effective antiwar movement, as it did during the Vietnam War. Of course, the neolib-cons long ago anticipated this and that’s at least in part the reason for the Patriot Act and the current effort to demonize perfectly legal and constitutional protest as terrorism.
Kerry or Bush, it will be a dangerous four years ahead.