...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 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 New York, he seized on a question from > a vocal critic of the war to underscore his support of the US > occupation. Retired mathematics professor Walter Daum denounced the > war in Iraq as imperialist, and warned that a President Kerry would > quickly become as hated as Bush if he continued Bush's policies in > Iraq. > > Kerry did not try to interrupt his antagonist-evidently welcoming the > opportunity to distance himself from antiwar sentiment. He then > replied, "I have consistently been critical of how we got where we > are. But we are where we are, sir, and it would be unwise beyond > belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its > wake." > > Later he gave a speech to a fundraising event that netted nearly $3.5 > million from Wall Street fat cats and other corporate executives in > which he flatly declared his opposition to "redistribution of the > wealth," and pledged a Kerry administration to fiscal responsibility > and deficit reduction. > > On "Meet the Press," Kerry gave other assurances of the right-wing > foreign policy his administration would pursue. Asked about the > Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Abdel-aziz Rantisi, he > responded, "I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond > to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal > organization." He also gave uncritical support to Bush's decision last > week to reverse four decades of American foreign policy by officially > supporting Israeli retention of West Bank land illegally occupied by > Israeli settlers. > > Finally, Kerry made what amounts to a repudiation of the antiwar > stance which first brought him to public attention during the Vietnam > War. Russert played a tape of Kerry's first appearance on "Meet the > Press," in April 1971, when the Democratic candidate was a leader of > Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The young former Navy lieutenant > showed considerable personal courage by going on national television > to admit his own involvement in actions-search-and-destroy missions, > the burning of villages and other atrocities-which violated the Geneva > Conventions. > > More importantly, the antiwar veteran compared the leaders of the US > government to Lt. William Calley, who was tried and convicted of mass > murder in the My Lai massacre: "All of this is contrary to the Geneva > Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established > policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I > believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the > free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air > raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the > same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war > criminals." > > Thirty-three years later, as a senator who is auditioning for the > position of war-criminal-in-chief, Kerry was called upon to make a > public act of contrition. Under prompting from Russert, Kerry declared > that "atrocities" was "a bad word ... an inappropriate word." As for > calling presidents Johnson and Nixon and their top generals war > criminals, he told Russert: "It was, I think, a reflection of the kind > of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it > today." > > At the same time, Kerry tried to have it both ways. "There were > breaches of the Geneva Conventions," in Vietnam, he said. "There were > policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of > warfare, and everybody knows that." He concluded: "I'm proud that I > took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, > and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand > up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I > might not have phrased things more artfully at times." > > The issue, of course, is not artfulness, but truth. The young > Lieutenant Kerry of 1971 gained national attention because he provided > at least a glimpse of the brutal reality of imperialist war. The > Senator Kerry of 2004 seeks to trade on his antiwar reputation to > delude voters opposed to the current imperialist war in Iraq-a war, > which, as the events in Fallujah are making clear, rivals Vietnam in > its barbaric and wanton disregard for human life.
