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: muslimfornader@yahoo.com

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Empire of Insanity - Kerry's way!



Greg Bates writes in Dissident Voices (excerpts)

Some progressives cling to the hope that a vote for Kerry is a vote for peace. Such wishful thinking could lead many to breathe a mistaken sigh of relief in the event of a Kerry victory. We need an accurate picture of what Kerry's game plan means so that protests continue to grow. On October 13, 2004 The Wall Street Journal provided a sobering antidote to progressive hopes, by pegging Kerry right. It stated on the front page that, "On Iraq and the war on terror, George Bush and John Kerry differ mainly on tactics, assessments, and tone, while sharing the same broad goals."

Kerry's plan for reducing what we might call the empire man's burden is to build an international coalition so that we don't continue to "bear 90% of the costs and 90% of the casualties." Of course, we'll leave aside the fact that while our dead number 1,100 or so, Iraqi dead number over 30,000, making our burden of the dead 3 percent, not 90%.

Taking a brief break from this fantasy, recall that Kerry has criticized Bush's coalition as "the coerced and the bribed." Yet Kerry has also criticized Bush for not giving reconstruction contracts to countries that didn't participate in the invasion. Putting those two statements together, we can see more clearly what Kerry's beef really is: Bush's bribes weren't big enough!

You can see now why I pine for Nixon. Running for election in 1968, he was smart enough to claim he had a secret plan to end the war, which had to remain classified. Even though he later intensified the war, he knew what people wanted to hear. He gave it to them and they bought it. It's easy to see why Kerry, in contrast, is less popular than Nixon: Kerry's pledge to win the peace is a public plan to escalate the war.

Read more here

Iraqis don't care who "wins" "sham elections."

Several ABBites (anybody butt bush people) have claimed that they want Kerry to win because of the Iraqis, let's have a look at what Iraqis themselves are thinking:

Most Iraqis don't care who wins U.S. election, poll finds (excerpts)

By Nancy A. Youssef

Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While domestic polls find the U.S. presidential
election is too close to call, in Iraq few people are losing sleep
picking between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.

Overwhelmingly, they just don't care.

In a survey of 1,285 Iraqis, 58.6 percent said the American elections
didn't matter to them. Many said the election process was fixed and
that U.S. policy toward Iraq wouldn't change no matter who won.

...people weren't embracing Kerry: "In the end, they regard
the two American guys as people who don't want what's good for the
Iraqis."

...the prevailing feeling was that other than a major offensive in
Fallujah, nothing will change after the election. They dismissed the
American election process as a sham.

"Nothing will change," Hatam al-Bawi, 35, a grocery shop owner. "I
don't think Kerry will win. They have him there standing next to Bush
just to show they are a democracy."


Iraqis don't care who "wins" "sham elections."

Several ABBites (anybody butt bush people) have claimed that they want Kerry to win because of the Iraqis, let's have a look at what Iraqis themselves are thinking:

Most Iraqis don't care who wins U.S. election, poll finds (excerpts)

By Nancy A. Youssef

Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While domestic polls find the U.S. presidential
election is too close to call, in Iraq few people are losing sleep
picking between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.

Overwhelmingly, they just don't care.

In a survey of 1,285 Iraqis, 58.6 percent said the American elections
didn't matter to them. Many said the election process was fixed and
that U.S. policy toward Iraq wouldn't change no matter who won.

...people weren't embracing Kerry: "In the end, they regard
the two American guys as people who don't want what's good for the
Iraqis."

...the prevailing feeling was that other than a major offensive in
Fallujah, nothing will change after the election. They dismissed the
American election process as a sham.

"Nothing will change," Hatam al-Bawi, 35, a grocery shop owner. "I
don't think Kerry will win. They have him there standing next to Bush
just to show they are a democracy."


Friday, October 22, 2004

An Advanced State of Decay

Again several great articles from Counterpunch:

Alexander Cockburn writes:

We are now witnessing the Democratic Party in very advanced decay. After the Clinton/DLC years, its street cred is conclusively shot. In formal political function the party is nothing much more than an ATM machine, spewing out torrents of cash, supplied by the unions and by corporations seeking favors, to the armies of consultants and operators who have lived off it for decades. Its right wing comprises people who could as easily be in the Republican Party, its center people incapable of standing on any principle. Its left, this season, is made up of the Anybody But Bush crowd, who last spring made the decision to let Kerry be Kerry, without a word of criticism, when he pledged a better war on Iraq and even a march on Tehran.


And if, against most current indications, Kerry wins? He has proffered almost nothing to look forward to, aside from a pledge, which can easily be aborted by a "crisis," to leave Social Security alone. With the Congress against him, he'll be mostly hogtied domestically. On the foreign front he's eagerly hogtied himself. No more compliant serf to the imperatives of Empire and to the government of Israel than Kerry has been visible this season.
A November 3 movement, to pressure Kerry if he wins, rebuild if he loses? Many on the left have argued that. But how will they know which way to march, when they started this year with all the wrong maps?

Read more here


Sharon Smith writes:

Those on the U.S. left who continue to refuse to support Kerry do so not because we cling to "abstract" political purity, but precisely because--like Ali back in February--we understand that both the Democratic and Republican Parties share a common goal in promoting the interests of American "empire" and its "ability to control other parts of the world."

Both candidates stand for more war. Why pretend otherwise? Kerry doesn't. He has repeatedly stated about Iraq, "I want victory. I want to win. And I have a better plan to win than George Bush does." These cannot be interpreted as the words of a peace candidate, despite the tremendous efforts of Kerry's left apologists to imply otherwise.

Kerry is perhaps more virulent than Bush in supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine, calling Israel "the only true democracy in the Middle East"--despite its ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, and apartheid oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. As Kerry wrote in February, "In this difficult time, we must again reaffirm we are enlisted for the duration--and reaffirm our belief that the cause of Israel must be the cause of America."

Kerry also stated during the recent presidential debates, "I support the PATRIOT Act," noting that his running mate, John Edwards, had helped draft it in the Senate. Casting aside Bush's efforts to label him a "liberal," Kerry went on to denounce the Bush administration for allowing "Middle Eastern people" to enter the U.S. without scrutiny.

Read more here

Only one choice this November:

Vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo


Thursday, October 21, 2004

Kerry and the Environment

Joshua Frank writes:

For example, Kerry, who voted against the Kyoto Protocol, told Grist Magazine in an interview last year: "[The Kyoto agreement] doesn't ask enough of developing nations, the nations that are going to be producing much greater emissions and which we need to get on the right course now through technology transfer." Perhaps someone should clue Senator Kerry into the awful truth-that although the US accounts for only 4% of the world's population, we still emit over a quarter of the globe's CO2. Shouldn't we, then, be setting an example?

This -- combined with Kerry's support for Fast Track legislation, NAFTA, WTO, bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan, along with his refusal to oppose hilltop strip mining (mountain top removal), his intervention with National Marine Fisheries Service when they attempted to restrict Cob fishing off the Outer Banks of North Carolina, and chemical fumigation in Colombia to counter coca and opium production -- provides us with a clear indication that not only is Kerry not an environmentalist, he's also not that good at pretending to be. Reverting back to the Clinton era, as Kerry promises to do, provides no remedies for the enviro problems that ail us.

This is not to say that Bush hasn't devastated the environment. But the belief that John Kerry is an environmental crusader is a pure fabrication, put forth by Beltway Greens to convince voters that Kerry and Bush stand in stark contrast to one another when it comes to cleaning up and protecting our environment. Instead, they should be telling voters and environmentalists that our struggles for environmental justices must continue -- regardless of who wins November's electoral contest.

Read more here

Democracy is coming to the U.S.A

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

While the Kerry/Bush people continue their rightward march into oblivion - the movement for more democracy, peace, and justice is strong, healthy and growing! We are not only independent of the right wing "new Kerry Democrats" who have abandoned their base - we are also not beholden to edicts and fatwas coming from progressives quarters. Because, for a movement to mature - we must think for ourselves, especially as we move into uncharted waters of electoral reform - that forms the very basis of American democracy.

Click here to read more

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Peace!

A couple of great articles in today's counterpunch:

David Vest writes: If Bush wins, blame me (excerpts)

A lot of things have been proving his (Ralph Nader's) point lately. Like the fact that most of what he warned about in 2000 has come true. I went to his web site and watched his commercials. You have to watch them online; he doesn't have enough money to put them on TV. They're very basic, he just looks into thecamera and tells the truth. I found them very powerful. If they showed themevery 30 minutes on TV, or as often as they show Bush and Kerry ads, I'm not sure Ralph would finish third.

Kerry has done to Nader precisely what Bush tried to do to Kerry, suggesting that it is somehow unpatriotic of Ralph that he would even consider runningfor president when Kerry is running. He is "helping the Republicans," who are doing everything in their power to help Ralph run. He is on an "egotrip," he is "damaging his legacy," and he perversely fails to see that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

The character attacks on Nader launched by the Kerry camp have been, if anything, even harsher than the Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry. It's almost as though Kerry sees Nader, not Bush, as the more dangerous opponent.

Click here
to read more


And Christopher Dols writes about Michael Moore: (excerpts)

As Moore said at a Nader rally in 2000, "We are at the place we are at now because we have settled for so less, for so long. If we keep settling it is only going to get worse. [With] the lesser of two evils, you still wind up with evil. We are being asked to choose the second worst candidate." Yet Moore, like dozens of former Nader supporters, changed his mind this year, setting back his own progressive platform.

John Kerry on the Iraq occupation: "I'm not talking about leaving; I'm talking about winning." Saturday night, instead of opposing Kerry's position, Moore offered excuses for what will be Kerry's continuation of Bush's occupation of Iraq: "It's going to ugly; it's going to messy; human lives are going to be lost as a result of the irresponsibility of Bush, and Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld and Cheney." So Moore has preemptively apologized away the tens of thousands of deaths Kerry will inflict by trying to "win" in Iraq.

Moore should know that Democrats, like Republicans, are incapable of helping Iraqis ­ even when they're 'fixing' a mess left by a Bush before them. Moore's newfound alliance with the Democratic Party, and his call to 'go after them in Afghanistan' gets at the most disastrous consequence of the 'Anybody But Bush' dilemma: Moore and his followers have accommodated their positions towards Bush's, in the name of opposing Bush.

Moore dared to call Nader supporters selfish for our inconsiderate conscience-soothing vote. This was the sickest twist of the evening for surely the charge should be reversed. As Martin Luther King said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Many forget that King wasn't trying to convince racists. King's audience was the 'realistic' liberals resisting his radical platform.

In the 1990s Moore understood all of this as he held his brilliant, contemptuous tongue for no one. He chastised liberals supporting Clinton's bombing of Kosovo, "It is amazing to watch all these "liberal" congress members line up behind the President. In a way, I'm glad it's happening, if only to show the American people there is little difference between the Democrats and the usually war-loving Republicans." Yes, Michael Moore. It really is amazing, isn't it?
Click here to read more

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

The Democratic Party's Neo-Cons

It appears that there are still a few people hanging on to Kerry in the hope that he is really not as bad as he says he is --- that he is really "better than Bush." An argument often used is that Bush is part of neo-con group intent on taking over the world. Well, it should not come as any surprise, that the Democratic Party has it's own neo-con designs on the planet, read on:

Roy Rollin writes:

Many of those on the liberal "left" who have jumped on board the "Anybody But Bush" bandwagon cite the current administration's non-stop saber-rattling and war-mongering as a justification for their doing so - as if such behavior was the private preserve of the Republican right. In particular, they point to the "neo-cons", who serve as Bush's brain trust, and whose "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) for "maintaining global US pre-eminence and shaping the international security order in line with American principals and interests" has served as Bush's blue-print for further imperial expansion.

The already infamous Democratic Leadership Council, which master-minded the Democrats right ward lurch during the Clinton-Gore years, has its own think tank, the "Progressive Policy Institute" (PPI), which calls for virtually all of the same things the PNAC does, and in language that is almost identical to that used by their Republican "rivals." This is hardly shocking. Many of the PNAC "neo-cons" started their careers as Democrats, working for "Cold War" stalwart Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson in the 1970s before they jumped ship to join forces with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Thus a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats" calls for "the bold exercise of American power" as the central point in "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism that would keep Americans safer than the Republican's go-it-alone policy." "Muscular internationalism" is nothing more than a polite parlor term for what used to be known as "gunboat diplomacy," i.e., aggressive imperialism.


Read complete article here

Vote for Nader everywhere!

Jeff Taylor writes in counterpunch (excerpts)

3. If Nader wasn't running, would you vote for Kerry?
Explain.


No. I would not vote for Kerry under any circumstances. I've been familiar with John Forbes Kerry since he was elected to the Senate in the 1980s as an inspiration for all self-satisfied yuppies. Like Bush, Kerry was born into wealth and tapped for Skull & Bones while at Yale. I think Kerry has always been an ambitious and opportunistic politician with a commitment to plutocracy, militarism, and imperialism (despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary). I disagree with Kerry on every major issue of the day. There's no rational reason to vote for a man I neither respect nor agree with. If Nader wasn't on the Minnesota ballot, I would either write-in his name, vote for a different third-party candidate, or not vote at all.

4. Assuming you plan to vote Nader, do you think your vote could help tip the election to Bush by taking a vote from Kerry?

No. I'm not taking a vote from Kerry because voting for Kerry was never a possibility for me. Kerry never had my vote--or the vote of anyone else--in his back pocket. The votes are cast on Election Day. Until that time, they belong to individual voters, not politicians or parties. My one vote is not going to reelect Bush. I'm not going to vote for Bush. If I voted for Bush, I would be morally complicit in his past and future misdeeds. In my case, I'm voting FOR Ralph Nader because he's the best man and I generally agree with him...and AGAINST Bush because he deserves to lose. Kerry also deserves to lose.

...

It should go without saying that Senator Kerry has supported President Bush in every major policy area during the past few years, including the Iraqi war resolution, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, coddling of the Chinese government, and oppression of the Palestinians. Looking to the future, Kerry has promised to "try to" withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of his first term (if circumstances permit). That's quite a promise to those of us who oppose the war!

Read complete article here


Monday, October 18, 2004

How Kerry outguns Bush!

Joshua Frank writes (excerpts)

It may seem inconceivable to some, but John Kerry is indeed out-hawking George W. Bush this election season. No doubt we should have seen it coming as the Democratic National Convention was nothing more than a glorified war parade, where Kerry floated on by and reprehensibly announced that he was “reporting for duty.”

William Safire, the conservative columnist for the New York Times on October 4 opined that Kerry is the “newest neo-conservative” and went as far as to say that Kerry is even “more hawkish than President Bush.”

Kerry wants to show voters that he will be tough on terror, I assume, and he is doing so by defending Bush’s pre-emptive doctrine. “The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.”

So much for options. Now lefty voters are being told that we have to vote for a pro-war candidate. There is no choice. Period. That makes me wonder: What ever happened to the anti-war movement anyway? You’d think they’d raise some hell over Kerry’s hawkish pose on Iraq. Maybe these seasoned activists are on a nice vacation, or out campaigning for Kerry. Talk about hypocrites.

Save his short burst of anti-war heroism upon his return. The guy has always been a hawk.

Click here to read complete article


Take the Bush/Kerry Quiz!

There are those who continue to insist that there are these huge big difference between Kerry/Bush - well, take this quiz, and see how you do in figuring out who said what!

Click here to take The Most Important Election quiz!