Is Kerry really the lesser of two evils?

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
Here's an article examining John Kerry, and seeing whether or not he really is different than Bush. I've heard several people tell me they'll vote for Kerry, not because they like him, but because he's the "lesser of two evils." I hope that this article at least makes some of these people consider whether or not one evil really is lesser than the other:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger7.html

What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none....Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan....Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.

Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'état in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too.
Click to expand...

Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats' warmongering manifesto. "The time has come," he writes, "to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism" along with a "tradition" that honors "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt . . . and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war." Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats' manifesto:

As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars . . . [Truman's policies] eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty."
Click to expand...

Mark the historical lies in that statement: the "victory" of the US with its brief intervention in the First World War; the airbrushing of the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the Second World War; the American elite's nonexistent "triumph" over internally triggered events that brought down the Soviet Union; and John F Kennedy's famous devotion to "liberty" that oversaw the deaths of some three million people in Indo-China.
Click to expand...

John Kerry supported the removal of millions of poor Americans from welfare rolls and backed extending the death penalty. The "hero" of a war that is documented as an atrocity launched his presidential campaign in front of a moored aircraft carrier. He has attacked Bush for not providing sufficient funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, which, wrote the historian William Blum, "was set up by the CIA, literally, and for 20 years has been destabilizing governments, progressive movements, labour unions and anyone else on Washington's hit list." Like Bush – and all those who prepared the way for Bush, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton – Kerry promotes the mystical "values of American power" and what the writer Ariel Dorfman has called "the plague of victimhood . . . Nothing more dangerous: a giant who is afraid."

People who are aware of such danger, yet support its proponents in a form they find agreeable, think they can have it both ways. They can't. Michael Moore, the filmmaker, should know this better than anyone; yet he backed the NATO bomber Wesley Clark as Democratic candidate. The effect of this is to reinforce the danger to all of us, because it says it is OK to bomb and kill, then to speak of peace. Like the Bush regime, the New Democrats fear truly opposing voices and popular movements: that is, genuine democracy, at home and abroad. The colonial theft of Iraq is a case in point. "If you move too fast," says Noah Feldman, a former legal adviser to the US regime in Baghdad, "the wrong people could get elected." Tony Blair has said as much in his inimitable way: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war [in Iraq] was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."
Click to expand...

The article covers other Democrats, too, but Kerry is almost certain to win the nomination, so I think it's important to ask: as much as we might hate Bush, and his AG John Ashcroft, and other members of his administration who have sacrificed American lives as well as those of innocent foreigners, and who have decimated human rights here in our own country, as much as we might want Bush out of office, how will Kerry be any better? He's just as warmongering, and just as likely to act to curtail human rights.

No, neither of the two evils is lesser. A vote for the "lesser" evil this election will be a vote for ultimate evil, no matter which "lesser" evil you choose.
 
They have differences.

-Kerry is not a Jesus freak ( gooooooo Stem Cells)
-Everyone was cool wh invading Afganistan
-Everyone realizes we just cant up an leave Iraq. Horse is out of the barn and all.
- Kerry doesnt want to do all the spending on the Fed Credit Card.
 
A comparison between Bush and Kerry may not be a comparison between likes.

Although it is not as obvious as it was with Reagan, Bush is essentially an actor hired by the Republican Party to play the role of President. Though, ironically, his father was, whether you liked him or not, a real President.

So a fairer comparison would be Kerry vs. Cheney, or Kerry vs. Ashcroft.
 
They are all the same it doesn't make any difference who you vote for ect ect. Where have you been fro the last few years? You really think that Gore or Kerry would have gone into Iraq? You really think they would have done a good as job as bush has of p!ssing off most of the rest of the planet.

Maybe just maybe the reason they are so simular is that they are dealing with the same situtation and most people are not that different after all.
 
geni said:
You really think that Gore or Kerry would have gone into Iraq?
Click to expand...

Kerry DID go into Iraq. He voted to support the war.
 
Tony said:


Kerry DID go into Iraq. He voted to support the war.
Click to expand...

Well there was no vote to declare war.

Congress support was a punt to Bush to let him decide what to do. Plus that was all based on the WMD lies Bush swindled Congress with.
 
Tmy said:


Well there was no vote to declare war.

Congress support was a punt to Bush to let him decide what to do. Plus that was all based on the WMD lies Bush swindled Congress with.
Click to expand...

Careful...

Your bias is hindering the subtlety of your propaganda...
 
I do not yet know if Kerry is the "Lesser of two evils"

All I know is that, looking at the field of likely contenders, no matter who I vote for, I am going to feel a strong need to take a shower afterwards.
 
To Tony & Jon,

I believe you are looking for the "Arguments" department. You have stepped into "Abuse" instead.

:D
 
Kerry discriminates against minorities. He thinks a certain minority should be taxed at a 39 percent income tax rate which to me is frankly immoral.
 
corplinx said:
Kerry discriminates against minorities. He thinks a certain minority should be taxed at a 39 percent income tax rate which to me is frankly immoral.
Click to expand...
I would like to read up on this...can you provide me a link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom