Prepare for a continuation of pro-war policies if Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is elected in November. Please recall that candidate Kerry—a renowned liberal even by Massachusetts’ standards—voted nevertheless in favor of Bush’s pre-emptive war on Iraq. In addition, Kerry’s recent critiques of the Bush administration’s war policies focus primarily on strategic failures and human rights fiascoes that haunt Team Bush. So what does the Democratic presidential hopeful have to say about there being no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any demonstrable connection between Saddam Hussein and either 911 or Al Queda? Virtually nothing.
Further, Kerry expresses no interest in fundamentally reassessing the policies that have brought America to this precipice in the first place; additionally, he’s offered absolutely no commitment to end the discredited, multi-billion dollar invasion and occupation of Iraq. Kerry is a Company Man, willing to do it the Company Way. Like Bush, he’s committed to imposing upon the world an American Empire. In Iraq, the Democratic hopeful intends to “internationalize” the occupation, boost troop numbers (and benefits), and “destroy the terrorists”.
Even more loathsome, in a recent policy paper Candidate Kerry supported Ariel Sharon’s policies of Jewish colonization in the West Bank, de facto ethnic cleansing there, and the internationally reviled Israeli method of territorial expansion through conquest and subjugation. The Kerry candidacy therefore represents an insidious political merger. Seldom before have two candidates’ ‘stark similarities’ been so pronounced. On the question of U.S. aggression in the Middle East, the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to provide America with a ‘one party’ doctrine.
...Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s unnecessary war are cautious and narrowly focused. Recent statements reveal that Kerry’s commitment to Israeli “security” may exceed even The President’s. Following the revelations of U.S. misconduct at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, Candidate Kerry called for the largely symbolic resignation of one U.S. official, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld. Fundamental American war policies however get an unhesitant Thumbs Up from Kerry, who now supports Israel’s “separation fence” (called the Apartheid Wall by many) without condition.
...That America’s “liberation” of Iraq is now opposed overwhelming by the very people we were recently claiming to “liberate” is barely considered news. The Big Picture, we are told, concerns stopping the irrational, fundamentalist, terrorist bogeyman, bringing ‘democracy’ to the Arab world, or freeing Muslim women from the chains of religious fundamentalism. But when the bombs drop, who really benefits? Once again it’s our ‘plucky, democratic ally’ who has managed to drag the world’s only superpower into its perpetual, ethnic-based war against its besieged regional enemies.
While the implications of this phenomenon are increasingly understood, they are still only whispered about, since a candid critique of Zionist power in America remains our greatest taboo.
...Another telling example of America’s acquiescence towards Israeli resolve can be seen in the question of how and when the Zionist state acquired nuclear capabilities, today estimated to be between 200 to 400 warheads. How do Israel’s weapons of mass destruction affect Arab security, or global security? Or is nobody interested? One thing is clear: the very rumor that an Arab country intends to seek strategic parity with the Jewish state is enough to launch a dozen U.S. battleships.
Al-Jazeerah article
Further, Kerry expresses no interest in fundamentally reassessing the policies that have brought America to this precipice in the first place; additionally, he’s offered absolutely no commitment to end the discredited, multi-billion dollar invasion and occupation of Iraq. Kerry is a Company Man, willing to do it the Company Way. Like Bush, he’s committed to imposing upon the world an American Empire. In Iraq, the Democratic hopeful intends to “internationalize” the occupation, boost troop numbers (and benefits), and “destroy the terrorists”.
Even more loathsome, in a recent policy paper Candidate Kerry supported Ariel Sharon’s policies of Jewish colonization in the West Bank, de facto ethnic cleansing there, and the internationally reviled Israeli method of territorial expansion through conquest and subjugation. The Kerry candidacy therefore represents an insidious political merger. Seldom before have two candidates’ ‘stark similarities’ been so pronounced. On the question of U.S. aggression in the Middle East, the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to provide America with a ‘one party’ doctrine.
...Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s unnecessary war are cautious and narrowly focused. Recent statements reveal that Kerry’s commitment to Israeli “security” may exceed even The President’s. Following the revelations of U.S. misconduct at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, Candidate Kerry called for the largely symbolic resignation of one U.S. official, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld. Fundamental American war policies however get an unhesitant Thumbs Up from Kerry, who now supports Israel’s “separation fence” (called the Apartheid Wall by many) without condition.
...That America’s “liberation” of Iraq is now opposed overwhelming by the very people we were recently claiming to “liberate” is barely considered news. The Big Picture, we are told, concerns stopping the irrational, fundamentalist, terrorist bogeyman, bringing ‘democracy’ to the Arab world, or freeing Muslim women from the chains of religious fundamentalism. But when the bombs drop, who really benefits? Once again it’s our ‘plucky, democratic ally’ who has managed to drag the world’s only superpower into its perpetual, ethnic-based war against its besieged regional enemies.
While the implications of this phenomenon are increasingly understood, they are still only whispered about, since a candid critique of Zionist power in America remains our greatest taboo.
...Another telling example of America’s acquiescence towards Israeli resolve can be seen in the question of how and when the Zionist state acquired nuclear capabilities, today estimated to be between 200 to 400 warheads. How do Israel’s weapons of mass destruction affect Arab security, or global security? Or is nobody interested? One thing is clear: the very rumor that an Arab country intends to seek strategic parity with the Jewish state is enough to launch a dozen U.S. battleships.
Did you know that our ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, aside from being involved in the Iran-Contra activity and death squads in Honduras, is Jewish?
If America is being targeted because terrorists are “jealous of our freedoms” as Bush and his speechwriters claim, why then don’t terrorists attack other Western democracies like Canada, New Zealand, Sweden or Japan?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!