The fact of the matter is, "values" and "international principles of
decency" are just two mechanisms selectively used as excuses for
interventions aimed at gloabl dominantion. The Cl*ntionites use these
in a more sophisticated global hegemony planning style, wheras the
neocons use WMD fear and terrorism in a more crude and brusque global
hegemony plan. But both will result in disaster. Kerry's policies will
backfire leading to more ethnic unrest in places like the Balkans, and
will possibly lead us into a conflict with Russia in the Caucasus.
The neocons policies will be self defeating, leading us into more
quagmires, imperial overstretch, and scaring more countries into
seeking WMD programs.
It will be interesting to see what Kerry will do about Darfur. Is he
sincere?
If he is, more power to him, but I hope it won't tie down troops
needed to deal with Bush's quagmires.
Oh yeah, Mr. Foreman, I forgot to mention that a more cuatious
containment policy in the face of NK nuclearization in the face of
Bush threats will only encourage other countries to nuclearize and go
down the "preventative measure road" the NK's used, thus further
encouraging WMD proliferation.
I am not advocating or disadvocating direct attack against NK, though
you will say I am. I am just saying things as they are. Tell you the
truth, I am not sure if we should attack NK, and I think it is too
late to do so anyway since so many countries are now pursuing their
own WMD programs.
Read Kerry's lips
Terence Jeffrey (archive)
August 4, 2004 | Print | Send
One of the most dramatic segments in John Kerry's speech at the
Democratic National Convention seemed at first listening to be a
ringing re-affirmation of a traditional American principle.
But listen carefully to how Kerry answered the question of when
America ought to go to war and you will discover he wasn't echoing
George Washington so much as doing a Clintonesque takeoff on Woodrow
Wilson.
Said Kerry: "And as president, I will bring back this nation's
time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war
because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."
Thus far, he resembled Washington, who studiously kept America out of
a conflict between England and France, and who counseled
non-intervention and deterrent military strength. But a moment later,
Kerry resembled Woodrow Wilson, who converted World War I into an
un-winnable crusade "for a universal dominion of right."
While expressing a Wilsonian view, however, Kerry used carefully
parsed Clintonian language.
According to the text of his speech posted on his campaign Web site,
Kerry said: "Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a
parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'I tried everything possible to
avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no
choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American
values from a threat that was real and imminent.' So lesson one, this
is the only justification for going to war."
Now look at these 18 words again: "We had to protect the American
people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and
imminent."
Is Kerry giving "only" one justification for war, or two?
He appears to be offering Washington's and Wilson's at the same time:
He would send your son or daughter to war 1) to protect "the American
people" (Washingtonian realism), or 2) to protect "American values"
(Wilsonian ideology).
Is this too picky a textual analysis? An alternative interpretation
is that on the most significant issue, in his most important speech,
Kerry was inadvertently imprecise in his choice of words.
There's undeniable power -- and jeopardy -- in a campaign promise
unambiguously stated. President Bush's father coined a classic: "Read
my lips: No new taxes." Kerry might have said 18 words that went like
this: "Read my lips: No wars unless they are necessary to protect
Americans from a real and imminent threat." But he didn't. He said
those other 18 words.
Kerry has been called a flip-flopper. But give him credit here for a
veiled consistency. He has indeed alternately supported wars he deemed
necessary to protect "American people" and "values."
Mirroring President Bush's argument that it was necessary to protect
Americans, Kerry voted for war in Iraq. "Iraq has some lethal and
incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing
(sic) of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on
a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and
covert operatives which could bring them to the United States itself,"
Kerry said in the Senate before the war vote.
Arguing it was necessary to protect "international principles of
decency," Kerry supported Clinton's intervention in Serbia's civil
war. Appearing on CNN in 1999, Kerry said of the Kosovo war: "I
believe in the stand we're taking here. This is not on the side of one
combatant or another, this is on the side of international principles
of decency and of the appropriate behavior that civilized nations
should live by at the end of this century and the beginning of the
next."
Kerry insisted the U.S. must be ready to risk ground troops for this
cause. "I don't think it necessarily requires troops," he said,
"though I have been very clear that they should not be taken off the
table."
On CNBC that year, Newsweek's Howard Fineman pressed Kerry to explain
why his argument for intervening in Serbia did not also apply to
war-torn Rwanda. Kerry's 130-word answer started by conceding, "That's
a very fair question . . ." and included, "maybe that's something that
needs to be thought about in the future."
No, it's not.
If America fought foreign wars to protect "values" or "international
standards of decency" even when the freedom and security of Americans
were not threatened, there would be no end to the places presidents
could send American sons and daughters into harm's way -- and in none
would it be necessary for Americans to die.
To be sure, Bush has voiced Wilsonianisms, too, albeit without
Kerry's Clintonesque obfuscation. But if there is one American
tradition Republicans and Democrats ought to agree to restore now, it
is the one given us by our first president: We will fight no war
unless it is necessary to defend the American people.
.
|
