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:

Saturday, October 02, 2004

The so-called "Debate"

Much is being made of the performance of the two corporate controlled candidates - but beyond the debate over "who won" there has been little of substance in the corporate presses.

Doug Ireland writes:

Neither candidate offered more than sympathetic noises about the desperate need to stop the criminal genocide in the Sudan. Neither Bush nor Kerry offered a single word of condemnation for the ongoing, ten-year Russian colonial war of extermination against Chechnya, in which 300,000 Chechens have already been killed while the U.S. turns a blind eye. And not a single word, either, about Israel-Palestine, let alone about the Wall of Shame.

Kerry reiterated his support for the war over and over. When Lehrer asked him (quoting Kerry’s now-famous Vietnam era testimony before Congress) if America’s sons and daughters are dying in Iraq for a mistake, Kerry’s answer was a resounding “No.” And Kerry’s macho nationalist pandering (evident in his attempt to overcome the Swifties’ TV-ad charges of wimpiness by asserting his policy would be to “kill terrorists”) was palpable when he once again supported the Bush doctrine of first-strike, pre-emptive war. Kerry simply fudged on the question of when he’d bring the troops home.

If Kerry loses this election, history will record that he lost it on the day he voted the Constitution-shredding blank check for war in Iraq. That vote hobbled him, on Thursday night as throughout this campaign, from crystallizing public unease about this iniquitous and illegal war. And that vote allowed Bush to brush away Kerry’s criticisms of the war in Miami as more position-switching.

Read complete article here

Friday, October 01, 2004

Barack Obama update: The hawk from Illinois

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Mushroom cloud over Nagasaki, Japan, August 9th, 1945

In a previous blog entry - it was pointed out how Barack Obama the guy many liberals are swooning over, is funded by big money corporations and their lawyers. Now we learn that this liberal favorite has called for attacks on Iran and Pakistan (if they should fail to bow towards US demands).

Tom Mackaman writes:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Obama’s statements underscore the Democratic Party’s acceptance in principle of the “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war—a doctrine that contravenes international law and provides a rationale for US military interventions against any country deemed an obstacle to US imperialist interests around the world.

Read more here
David Peterson, a Chicago area writer and researcher says in his blog:

...we find in the next U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois is a man who is very much a creature of American Power; who regards America’s threat or use of violence not to be inherently menacing or problematic, but rather potentially good and just and necessary for the advancement of God-only-knows what kind of world order;

From my point of view, someone who takes the positions that Barack Obama expressed to the Chicago Tribune during last Friday’s meeting with its editorial board is unfit to serve in any high office of a state as powerful, as dangerous, and as menacing to the rest of the world as the United States is today.

Come the first Tuesday in November, Obama will win one of Illinois’ two seats in the U.S. Senate by a landslide.

God help the world.

Read more here

Maybe the liberal hawks think this is a good idea: provoking a nuclear attack from Pakistan and/or Iran... people say Bush is going to lead us to the end of the world ... well, we got a lot more to worry about, in case the "anybody but bush" crowd has still not figured it out!

Barack Obama, however, is not alone in expressing these outrageous neo-conservative ideas: Kerry, that other Democrat said in a January debate:

"We should have taken the initiative long ago, recognizing the Islamic realities in Pakistan, to have worked with India to create a nuclear oversight capacity so that if there were an assassination or there were an overthrow, we know that the nuclear weapons can't fall in the hands of terrorists." (Democratic debate, January 6, 2004)

So, there you have it - hand over Pakistan's nuclear facilities to India! And why? Because of Pakistan's "Islamic realities" - apparently Kerry and Obama have no problem with India or other nuclear countries - the problem for them is Islam.

Fortunately for Muslims, and all those who seek peace and justice, we have an alternative this year:

I'm not talking about leaving (Iraq) - Kerry!

"I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning." -John Kerry

What is Kerry trying to win in Iraq? If the invasion was wrong in the first place, then what is there to win?

Kerry did give us some idea about what this “winning” might look like when he chastised Bush for not going all the way in Falluja!

Read more here

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.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

The Bush/Kerry Ticket: The Debate!

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Courtesy of Khalil Bendib, all rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The meaning of your vote

When you vote for Kerry (or Bush) you are voting for 40K more troops in Iraq, and stregnthening the Patriot Act.

Richard Moreno writes in Left Hook

So when you hear people argue for you to vote for Kerry, since it is ostensibly a vote for the lesser evil, you should realize that you are being asked to give Kerry your mandate--and that, if elected, whatever he does from the time you vote for him will be done in your name and with your consent. Hence, when Kerry puts 40 thousand more troops into Iraq as he has vowed, or when Kerry increases defense spending while eroding labor laws, or when Kerry implements draconian Patriot Act legislation that he himself helped enact, it will all be accomplished with your mandate. You should always bear this in mind when some former leftist personality urges you to vote Bush lite.

In synthesis, we all share the responsibility as citizens of the most powerful country on earth to ensure that this administration does not act recklessly in our names and with our approval, that is, with our mandate.

This November for your family, for your name, for your country,

A victory in Iraq?!!!

The so-called Democratic Party "opposition" to the Bush agenda is now talking about a "victory in Iraq" ! Exactly what kind of a victory do they want?!

Kerry's nattering on the campaign trail is getting increasingly incoherent. Just this week the Massachusetts senator was expounding "victory in Iraq" in his most pompous baritone.

Are we looking for a more skillful diplomat to prolong the killing, to subjugate the Iraqi people and to enshrine "unprovoked aggression" as the cornerstone of American foreign policy?

Are we willing to trade a bungler and a braggart for a stentorian, flannel-mouth who can disguise criminality as "humanitarian intervention"?

Read more here

The Nader/Camejo platform includes a comprehensive plan for withdrawl from Iraq that would include:

Development of an appropriate international peace-keeping force: Under the auspices of the United Nations an international peace keeping force, from neutral nations with such experience and from Islamic countries, should be assembled immediately to replace all US troops and civilian military contractors

Support Iraqi self rule and free and fair elections: Free and fair elections should be held as soon as possible under international supervision so democratic self-rule can be put in place in Iraq. This will allow Iraq to develop legitimate self-government that will be able to provide for its own security.

The US should provide humanitarian aid to Iraq to rebuild its infrastructure: The US invasion of Iraq and the long-term US-led economic sanctions against Iraqi civilians resulted in tremendous damage to people, their children and the Iraqi infrastructure.

Read more policy paper

There are no other options for the United States at this time - a continuation of occupation of Iraq will lead to more US soldiers getting killed, and many times more Iraqis. A vote for Nader/Camejo is a vote for a peace, and an end to this horrible occupation.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Kerry wants to lose?

Given Kerry's lackluster performance so far, it is about time progressives and the anybody but Bush crowd forgot about the guy, and got behind the only real candidate for President: Ralph Nader!

Alan Mass writes:

GEORGE W. BUSH should be struggling to explain the disastrous invasion of Iraq and an economy that's still sputtering three years after the end of a recession. But for the past month and a half, it's John Kerry who has been on the defensive. Now, even those liberals most devoted to rounding up votes for Kerry--such as Michael Moore and Rev. Jesse Jackson--are beginning to express their frustration with the Democrats' lame campaign.

Incredibly, even as the occupation of Iraq descends deeper into chaos, Bush is gaining support on this issue, according to opinion polls. For example, the percentage of Americans who said it was "a mistake" to send troops to fight in Iraq fell to 38 percent in an early September CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, down from 54 percent about only two months before.

Kerry and this bunch may not be "trying to lose." But they certainly don't want to win so badly that they are willing to upset the Washington status quo.

Read more here

A peaceful world is possible!

The Kerry/Bush campaign is all about moving the country further to the right, more corporate politics, and increased militarism around the world, that they euphemistiacally call "muscular.”

The Nader/Camejo campaign is about expanding people’s rights, and building on our collective American history of social struggles and movements

Read more here!