Muslims For Nader/Camejo

A blog on the Nader/Camejo 2004 Presidential campaigen - exposing the racket of the two corporate parties - with a special focus on issues of concerns for Muslims. This blog is UNOFFICIAL and is NOT endorsed by the official Nader for 2004 presidential campaigen. Blog update daily and several times a day - come back often! Contact:

Friday, October 01, 2004

Ralph Nader on the "debate"

Like most of you, I've just finished watching the parallel interviews called the Presidential debates between Bush and Kerry. And I'd like to share a few comments briefly with you. First of all, neither have an exit strategy for the war in Iraq and both of them say we're going to win the war in Iraq—which means an endless occupation, which breeds resistance, and which does not cut the bottom out of the insurgency, because mainstream Iraqis are given no light at the end of the tunnel that they're going to get their country back with a set schedule under a US military and corporate (i.e. oil company) withdrawal from their nation.

Eisenhower, when he was running for president in 1952, promised the American people that he would get us out of the Korean War. It was a harder war to get out of because behind North Korea was Communist China and the Soviet Union, but he got us out of the Korean War. These two gentlemen can't even get us out of this quagmire war that we were plunged into, unconstitutionally, on a platform of fabrications, lies, and deception—and, one might add, against the better judgment of retired diplomatic, military, and intelligence officials.

Other points on the debates, Bush said it was going to be an all-volunteer army; he didn't quite say he was opposed to the military draft, but he moved a little closer to that. Bush still promotes this total boondoggle, un-workable missile defense system. 'Star Wars' has been condemned as unworkable by the leading physicists in the United States, many of them consultants to the Pentagon, but that doesn't stop Bush from spending ten billion dollars a year on that boondoggle.

Kerry seems to be much stronger on the non-proliferation of nuclear materials issue, especially from former countries of the Soviet Union.

Both of them were very weak on Darfur and the Southern Sudan and the genocide that's going on there. They expressed sympathy and mentioned something obliquely about the African Union, but really indicated they had no plans to support the African Union with the necessary means to preserve those people from further slaughter.

All in all, I think the people got a longer look at John Kerry than they ever have. They're used to George W. Bush. I would say that within the narrow confines of the so-called debates there was the edge to Kerry over Bush. However, having said that, Jim Lehrer really narrowed the range of subjects to the debate. We didn't hear anything about the Israel/Palestine conflict; we didn't hear anything about global arms control in the broader sense; we didn't hear anything about the global trade treaties—WTO and NAFTA—nor did we hear anything about the need to do something about the military budget of the Pentagon, which is so wasteful.

So, the Nader/Camejo ticket remains the only one that was against the war—before it started, during, and after—and wants to bring the troops back home, stop the endless occupation and proliferation of violence in that area, and indeed reflects the growing majority of American people who want us out of there and who now think that sending troops there was a mistake.

So we want to continue spreading this effort of waging peace, muscularly, robustly to avert conflict and of putting the best foot forward in the United States, so it can become a humanitarian super power.

We again welcome your volunteer support, your signing up on our email list, your generous contributions.

Thank you, again.

Please, share this email with friends and family interested in making real debates a priority in our Presidential elections.