John Edwards Iraq “policy”

“Make no mistake,” he added, “Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Our world will be safer when he is gone.” John Edwards, March 19, 2003

This statement is on Edwards’ website. It is achingly obvious there never were WMD in Iraq. So why does this appear on his website?

I’ve searched his campaign website for serious policy statements on Iraq. He doesn’t have any. And you have to hunt hard to find anything about foriegn policy.

His website has nearly nothing on Iraq, but there sure is a whole heap of alarmist stuff about strengthening Homeland Security and stopping terrorists. (How about we stop invading countries? Maybe then hordes of recruits wouldn’t be stampeding to those opposed to the US.)

I downloaded his 64 page PDF file of policy statements, and searched for “Iraq”. Here’s what I found. A whopping 4, count ‘em, 4 (four, IV) references. The following two paragraphs are the entirety of his statements on Iraq.

In Iraq, Edwards supported the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and he has been an outspoken proponent of a strong US commitment to help the Iraqi people rebuild their lives and develop rule of law and democracy.

Edwards believes that the United States cannot rebuild Iraq alone, and must bring other countries and institutions into this important effort.

Not a peep about how to get out of the mess the US in in there. In fact there’s no coherent policy statement at all - which should make people nervous.

Can you say ‘Slick Willie”? I knew you could.

No Comments »

A kinder, gentler iron fist?

It appears Kerry’s foreign policy isn’t much different from Dubya’s. Oh yes, the US should be less obviously drunken frat-boy obnoxious, but the goal of unquestioned American dominance remains the same. Which, of course, is precisely the attitude that gets the US into such messes in the first place.

Kerry tells anti-war movement to move on

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats’ radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called “progressive internationalism.” It’s a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the battle to control the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Partnership for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

Just so there’s no illusions Kerry is even remotely antiwar:

Kerry <says> it’s time we stop questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:

“As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it’s time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend.”

Ron Kovic would disagree with you, pal.

Read the whole article, it quotes directly from Kerry and is devastating.

No Comments »