But at the present juncture both Kerry and Bush take a multilateralist
stand. Bush is not multilateralist just in terms of a coalition of the
billing but also wants the UN to participate and bless US control of
security through a UN force with the US in command. Bush also seems to have
accepted the State department line rather than the Pentagon and is not
complaining that the UN will sideline Chalabi and many of the present IGC.
For his part Chalabi and others are no doubt trying to use the UN oil
for food scandal as a means to discredit the UN and advance their own
agenda. Obviously the hiring of some former Baath generals will not sit well
wtih the INC which always pushed for a wholesale de_Baathification. Chalabi
spouts off that allowing Baathists element back in is like allowing Nazis to
govern post-war Germany. Well heck Heisenberg was OK for US rocket
programmes
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush, the lesser evil?
>
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Does this mean that you don't think it mattered
>
> In my opinion the difference between Kerry and Bush is not of this
> magnitude. It is a policy difference not a class difference. They are
> both imperialists and both hegemonic imperialists. But Bush's policy
> has been to use the massive preponderance of US military might
> unilaterally to impose its hegemony. Kerry would obviously use this,
> but appears by his background, his utterances, and his position on
> Iraq to favour a more multi-lateralist hegemonic position. This may
> matter more outside the US than within it. Even outside it is a matter
> of judgement whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for the
> progressive forces of the world versus international finance capital
> headed by US capital, to have Empire consolidated under the more
> complex hegemonic leadership of a Kerry type figure rather than
> fragmented and dramatised by a Bush type figure.
>
> Chris Burford
