Muslims For Nader/Camejo

Ihsan

2004-12-15T23:32:00.000-08:00

Thought I might share this poem my 12 year old daughter wrote recently........peace

The meaning of War
By: Suhayla

When will this war end
Has it really even begun
Would there of been a finish
If there never was a start

Can you really tell me the explanation of this war
Was it because of saddam, bin laden, or neither nor
Could it just of been
Just because
Did Bush want to have it, just to have some fun

Was this the point of the war
To send troops over there
To torture people who had nothing to do with it and that weren’t treated fair
And the troops tortured them without a single care
But when you hear that one of them dies you kinda think it’s fair

It’s not their fault if one of our people die
What, you want us to fight them
And them not even touch a fly

If you really had common sense, then I think you should know
In a war, when it starts, you can’t just expect to go
And your opponents fighting against you
Not to put up an equal fight

What if you’d done nothing
And some people come bomb your home
Now you’re sitting outside, huddled all alone

Listening to people screaming, crying, and fighting
Listening to gun shots in the air
Now another one is firing

What would you do if it were your country and your national home
Now you must just sit there, watching it get destroyed

Do you still think that they really are the ones,
Who came over and killed everybody else
They didn’t wreck our whole country
And ruin the lives of all the little ones
I think we should be the very greatful ones

So they got saddam and ruined the whole country
So what are they still doing taking over families

I don’t know about you, but it makes me really sick
Seeing a soldier sleeping in a bed
Where a poor kid once did

Now the soldiers don’t seem as bad off to me,
As the kid that once lived
In the tiny little house that used to be called his

But now where has he gone
The soldiers have taken his house
Has he died or has he vanished,
And if he has, will the soldiers now also claim his house

Now that you have heard this
Is this really the meaning of war?

Ihsan

Rebuilding the anti-war movement!

2004-11-11T15:53:00.000-08:00

MEREDETH KOLODNER writes: (excerpts)

With Iraq under martial law and a full-scale assault on Fallujah under way, the anti-war movement is struggling to re-mobilize in response to this looming catastrophe. On a parallel track, the left continues to dissect and debate the meaning and reasons for Kerry's loss, but there are multiple lessons for the anti-war movement lurking within the election debacle. Two camps of explanation have emerged from the debris: one says that Kerry's loss shows just how conservative the church-going American heartland is, while the other argues that, even though they advocated a vote for him, Kerry's pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-NAFTA, pro-Patriot Act record alienated the "base" of the Democratic Party. The result, the second camp says, is that this Democratic Leadership Council controlled campaign resulted in mediocre turnout among young voters and people of color, as opposed to the enthusiastic rush to the polls of bigoted evangelical Christians.

The anti-war movement should not repeat this mistake. Rather than contorting ourselves for some imagined "Middle America," the anti-war movement needs to raise its demands with more force, vigor and confidence. Mobilizing our base is the first step in this process--even if you believe the lowest polls, over a third of US adults think the troops should come home now, and 70 million people is nothing to walk away from. From that base, we can make the case for immediate withdrawal, and win wider layers of people to that position. At the end of the day, we must convince people that it is the occupation itself which is making the country unsafe, unjust, and undemocratic. If we do not win this basic argument, the phased withdrawal will become an ever-receding goal in the future. What is to say the "security" situation will be different in 3 months? Won't the argument then be that the US needs to stay a little longer until things are stabilized? The lesson of the Kerry campaign is that if we don't fight for a position, we will never win it. And worse, by not fighting, we allow the political spectrum to slip further and further to the right (witness the disastrous passage of state gay marriage bans)

Read complete article here

Kerry's straight jacket

2004-11-08T23:40:00.000-08:00

Ahmed Amr writes: (excerpts)

John Kerry lost the White House because he played by the rules - The DLC rules. The Democratic Leadership Council appointed JFK as their standard bearer because they trusted him to contain the campaign within the red lines drawn by Joseph Lieberman and Haim Saban. As a starting point, Kerry willingly sold his soul to the DLC devils and set out to derail Howard Dean's insurgency. Beyond that, he was free to win or lose against Bush - so long as he accepted some basic DLC guidance on domestic and foreign policy.

In ignoring the anti-war movement, Kerry made a fatal choice. Because one of the unique characteristics of this generation of peace activists is that many of them are older, middle class and conservatives. This was the kind of peace movement where Pat Buchanan and George Soros were marching in solidarity with Alexander Cockburn and Michael Moore. Ex-CIA agents and ex-generals and state department veterans saw common cause with left coast peaceniks.

Kerry was fully aware that his sponsors at the DLC were heavily influenced by neo-con ideology. In fact, the DLC is an integral part of the war party. Whether out of conviction or opportunism, JFK willingly allowed them to have their way. He postured as Bush Heavy on the war and got licked fair and square on tangential domestic issues. The DLC convinced Kerry that he was 'Anybody' and that the election was just a referendum on Bush. Now that the results are in, it is clear that this election started out as a referendum against the war. When Kerry came out in favor of Bush's foreign policy - it became a beauty contest about who had 'leadership skills' and 'moral values'. Given Kerry's capitulation to the DLC, maybe the voters made a rational choice.

Read complete article here

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

2004-11-06T23:10:00.000-08:00

Alexander Cockburn writes: (excerpts)

November 2, 2004, marks a terrible defeat for the liberal elites, whether represented by Paul Krugman in the New York Times, by Michael Moore in his baseball cap, by the New York Review, by that vast complex of delusion and self-aggrandizement known as the Democratic Party. Its establishment is truly in crisis now, from the labor leaders who squandered millions in vehement efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot to the public interest groups have gave Kerry the green light to waffle on all the crucial issues, to the "strategists" who got their cut on the campaign ads and got it all wrong. I hadn't the heart to warn the weeping young thing that they'll be back in 2008, as wrong as ever and that mass movements have to build up momentum over years, not in the span of one election campaign and zeppelins of electronic hype.

A couple of days after the election I called Ralph Nader to see how he was doing. He was feisty.

"You will know within a week whether there'll be a turn around in the Democratic Party. There'd have to be a complete turnover of personnel; a clean out of the stables."

So you see, Mr Moore, you led a huge campaign, replete with disgusting vilification of Ralph Nader, which encouraged people to throw away their vote, on Kerry. What did the Kerry vote gain them? Nothing.

The same goes for the Labor movement, whose organizers spent untold hours and money challenging Nader's ballot efforts. Better that they had devoted more time to a far more troubling expression of disloyalty to the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket. For every three union members who voted for Kerry, there were two more who voted for Bush. That's the problem, not Ralph Nader, who defied every variant of hysterical abuse in the necessary effort of describing what the problem was, and is. That if course is the job that also lies ahead for us.

Read complete article here

The Struggle Continues!

2004-11-04T22:20:00.000-08:00

Salaam all - thank you for visiting this blog - over the past three months - tens of thousands of individuals visited us - and thousands more have returned day after day - as we exposed the corrupt Republican/Democrat duopoly. Inshallah, we will continue our struggle - a new blog/website is in the works - and will soon be announced on these pages.

Meanwhile, we will continue updating this blog - so don't go away - lots of exciting news is happening. The duopoly won't be around forever - and sooner than later - we will have a progressive leadership in the United States!

In today's news - check out Donna J. Volatile's great article on the Kerrycats, she writes (excerpts)

It is now the morning after, the morning after, and Kerry supporters should be moving from mourning into anger as the ice cold splash of reality begins to settle in.

Your guy lost, plain and simple but was he really your guy to begin with?

Most of the people who got behind Kerry were people vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq and the use of pre-emptive strikes. Most of you are caring, thoughtful and intelligent people who truly wanted to make a difference. Yet, in mass you got behind a man who didn't represent your ideas and values, a man who couldn't define himself or differentiate himself from his opponent, a man who supported the invasion of Iraq and continued to do so throughout his campaign. Was Kerry really your guy?

THE OLIVE BRANCH AND THE SWORD

We invite all of you back into the fold but understand, we're not among those who want to reinvent the Democratic party. Those days are through. They have proved they aren't worth another minute of our time. Were inviting you into a new world, a better world. This is a place were we the people decide what we want for our country and who should lead us there. We do not accept the lack of choice that has been imposed on our society. We will create our own choices. We have the power to do that. Out with the old worn out two party system: De! mocrats and Republicans, which now clearly resembles the one party, no alternative debacle.

Read more here!

The moral values of this election

2004-11-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

Anis Memon writes (excerpts)

What do the Kerry supporters who masqueraded as progressives, boldly proclaiming that they opposed Kerry on most issues, but were nevertheless going to vote for him and encourage others to do the same, what do these people think? The Noam Chomskys and Howard Zinns and the guy I keep bumping into who regularly reads CounterPunch? They supported someone they didn't like, simply because he was a little less bad (and maybe not even) than Bush; someone who has been trying to hedge right and take over the policies of his opponent. Since the summer, their candidate has had numerous and growing opportunities to decimate Bush on both domestic and foreign policy issues, and he's passed them up; in the last weeks of the campaign, Bush was reduced to repeating like a wind-up doll the only thing he could still claim about his presidency: "I will protect us from the terrorists; I will win the war in Iraq". And Kerry still managed to lose worse than Al Gore, who basically had nothing going for him.

I see the sad, hanging faces of the Kerry crowd around me today, as if a bright future had suddenly been extinguished. Kerry was not the Messiah, and he got what he deserved in taking for granted the progressive vote. Nader and the Greens who didn't sell out, and all of the local and regional progressive groups (real labor?) with their disparate concerns, must continue to campaign, not only, or even primarily, for the next presidential election, but for the establishment of a network outside the mainstream that makes running for public office with an articulate and sensible platform feasible. And they must work, as they are already doing, to make democracy mean something more than simply standing in line for 2 hours every four years: unions, strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, local elections, or simply knowing the facts and refusing to be told lies. Especially that last thing.

Click here to read complete article (this is a good one)

Raimondo's Nader vote not counted!!!

2004-11-03T11:14:00.001-08:00

Well, I tried to vote for Ralph Nader, but not without some difficulty. He's absent from the ballot in California due to the very effective efforts of Democratic infiltrators in the Green Party, but our Electoral Overlords thoughtfully provided a blank space where I was free to write in the name of my chosen candidate, and this I did with enthusiasm and conviction: that'll teach those undemocratic Democrats to try to cheat me out of my choice! Except that when it came time to put the paper ballot in the electronic counting device, my efforts came to naught: the machine, which had been functioning smoothly up until that point, let out with a cacophonous gurgle instead of the contented click it had given off previously, and the ballot popped out – rejected! Read on...

Nader's Raid!

2004-11-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Nader’s Raid
Todd Chretien
11-3-04

In 1859, John Brown intended to distribute the arsenal at Harpers Ferry to slaves and lead an armed abolitionist rebellion. Militarily, his raid was a failure and his band of activists were killed in battle or executed. Fredrick Douglass eulogized Brown saying,

“The true question is, Did John Brown draw his sword against slavery and thereby lose his life in vain? And to this I answer ten thousand times, No! No man fails, or can fail, who so grandly gives himself and all he has to a righteous cause. No man, who in his hour of extremest need, when on his way to meet an ignominious death, could so forget himself as to stop and kiss a little child, one of the hated race for whom he was about to die, could by any possibility fail.”

“Did John Brown fail? If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, he did at least begin the war that ended slavery. If we look over the dates, places and men for which this honor is claimed, we shall find that not Carolina, but Virginia, not Fort Sumter, but Harpers Ferry, and the arsenal, not Col. Anderson, but John Brown, began the war that ended American slavery and made this a free Republic. Until this blow was struck, the prospect for freedom was dim, shadowy and uncertain. The irrepressible conflict was one of words, votes and compromises.”

“When John Brown stretched forth his arm the sky was cleared. The time for compromises was gone – the armed hosts of freedom stood face to face over the chasm of a broken Union – and the clash of arms was at hand. “

Now, historical analogies should be treated skeptically, but Douglass’ words ought to frame our thinking about the results of this election and where we need to go from here.

Kerry threw the election to Bush by endorsing the occupation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, corporate tax breaks, the assault on abortion rights, bans on gay marriage and the death penalty. While Bush’s policies stoked anger against the administration, Kerry worked hard to defend those very actions. The ABB left’s theory was that Kerry was the thin blue line defending the world from Bush and therefore made no demands on him. Michael Moore led the way in slandering the Nader/Camejo campaign and did everything possible to quash the only well-known anti-war voice in the elections.

Nader told the ABBers that their uncritical support for Kerry would allow him to move to right, demoralize his base and that he would lose, just as Gore had done in 2000. He also argued that there was a tremendous opening to build a mass electoral campaign uniting the whole anti-war left in a full-on fight against the bi-partisan war parties. Unfortunately, Nader could only prove the case in the negative. That is, it is now painfully obvious that the ABBers were dead wrong, and that Nader was right about Kerry. However, the ABB wave was so powerful that it left the Nader/Camejo campaign relatively isolated and weak so it was not possible to really test the waters and see how many millions of people we could have gotten to vote against the war if even half of the well-known Nader supporters from 2000 had not gone over to Kerry. A good estimate perhaps would be Nader’s polling numbers from the spring, when he was around 5% in most polls. The roughly 500,000 votes Nader/Camejo got yesterday undoubtedly would have been nearly twice as high but for the fact that Nader was barred from the ballot in 15 states. But even this total shows that there is a base to work from.

We should look at the Nader/Camejo campaign as an electoral Harper’s Ferry, a raid on the two-party system. With all its faults, it lit up the corruption and rot at the heart of American democracy and it should give the left a yard stick with which to measure our future progress. There are two paths from which to choose now. Either we hang our heads and drift further away from the idea that we can ever challenge the two war parties for power, and we see our social movements as merely moral protests against things we can’t really hope to change. Or we redouble our efforts to study the fault lines in American history, mobilize our forces in the streets, the campuses and the picket lines, and build political organizations and parties that follow in the footsteps of the revolutionary Abolitionists. The Nader/Camejo campaign did not end the war against the corporate duopoly, but (hopefully) it did at least begin the war that will end it, and the racism, militarism and poverty that it defends so uncompromisingly. The choice is ours.

Todd Chretien was the California Field Coordinator for the Nader/Camejo campaign and is a frequent contributor to the International Socialist Review. He can be reached at ToddChretien@comcast.net

No Surrender!

2004-11-03T10:45:00.000-08:00

Let’s look at some facts - although Nader/Camejo barely got 1% of the vote in the States they were on the ballot - (over a 100,000 in New York) - millions of people who voted for Kerry (and even many Bush voters) have sound progressive, and anti-war values. Unfortunately, the peace movement suspended the struggle while they campaigned for Kerry’s pro-war stand (with some distant hope that Kerry would be “better”).

We have a few tasks in front of us:

We must not mourn - we have millions and millions of Americans on our side - who recognize the importance of ending the war, and a strong progressive agenda for the US. Howard Zinn correctly pointed out this morning on Democracy Now! that we have four years to organize a serious political movement in the US.

Click here to read more

Vote!

2004-11-01T21:43:00.000-08:00

Vote For Peace

Vote For Justice

Vote For Planet Earth

Vote For Ralph Nader And Peter Camejo!!!!!

click here to read more!

A Principled Vote for Nader Will Prove Muslims’ Real Voting Power

2004-11-01T01:20:00.000-08:00

Souheila Al-Jadda writes: (excerpts)

American Muslim groups made a mistake by backing the Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry for President this election.

“What does it mean for Muslim Americans if President Bush is re-elected? It means more constricting laws and policies to curtail the civil liberties of the Muslim Americans, and harsher foreign policies toward Muslim countries - in the name of combating terrorism.”

John Kerry agrees. He says that four more years of President Bush will be “more of the same.” But four years of Kerry will also be “more of the same” for Muslims since both candidates’ positions are virtually identical on the major issues that concern this community—civil liberties, Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

By supporting John Kerry, the Muslim political community in the United States has once again proven its naiveté about American politics. Kerry has only reluctantly reached out to American Muslim voters. He has not said anything that even remotely addresses their concerns.

American Muslims should not adopt the “anyone-but-Bush” strategy because in four years they may end up saying, “anyone-but-Kerry.”

Muslims should vote for Nader or write him in the ballot based on his principles and positions.

Nader directly addresses the major issues that concern Muslims. He opposes the Patriot Act, describing it as unconstitutional and calling for its repeal. He consistently opposes the war in Iraq, saying he would begin pulling out our troops immediately and bring in United Nations peacekeepers. Finally, rather than completely ignoring the Palestinian-Israeli conflict altogether, Ralph Nader says he opposes the separation wall and the building of illegal settlements.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected President, American Muslims will have more of the same. But a strong show at the polls and a protest vote for Nader will show both parties that this segment of the voting population is significant and must not be sidelined.

Read complete artice here

Costner for Nader!

2004-10-31T21:57:00.000-08:00

"God bless Ralph Nader. I think he’s a true patriot."

The following remarks by Kevin Costner, in support of Ralph Nader, originally broadcast on Real Time with Bill Maher , Friday, October 29, HBO (please note that the points of ellipsis indicate not an omission but a pause or hesitation).

The panel members for the broadcast were as follows:

Richard Belzer

General Wesley Clark

Kevin Costner

Bill Maher

Costner: I would say this. The war is what it is. If John Kerry wants to separate himself from these two points that seemingly divide him on these imaginary polls that I think everybody is sick of—but there’s two points that somebody’s vying for. If he wants to leap past those two points he needs to talk to us just the same way that Ralph Nader talks to us. And God bless Ralph Nader. I think he’s a true patriot, and somehow he’s been rendered in a way that makes him seem foolish. He’s like Lincolnesque because he’s not the most handsome guy. I think this guy’s mesmerizing and I think he’s on target . . .

Belzer: Will you vote for him?

Costner: Would I vote for him? I might. If I have the balls I might vote for him, yeah.

Read Full...

The Muslim Predicament

2004-10-31T09:57:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Khalil Bendib, all rights reserved.

http://bendib.com/

Choose dignity and Vote For Nader!

2004-10-31T07:15:00.000-08:00

Choose dignity and vote for Nader

By Ahmed Amr

Editor

NileMedia.com

October 31, 2004

The corporate media has many voters believing this a contest between Bush and Kerry. But there is a third candidate in this race, a man who does not bow to special interests - domestic or foreign. A man who is not reluctant to take controversial stands against the Iraq war or to speak up for the Palestinians.

That man is Ralph Nader.

All Americans should give some serious consideration to Nader - if only to deflate the power of the media barons and vandalize their political machines. But Arab-Americans and other minorities must be the first to line up behind Nader.

If he had a chance to win, Nader would put together an administration that would provide a healthy political environment in which all Americans, no matter their heritage, are encouraged to participate.

Even though Nader will lose, his support will not go unnoticed. A new party will be born - one that will welcome Arab-Americans and other ethnic minorities with open arms as the equals of every other Americans.

Nader has served us all well as a consumer advocate and as a champion of the environment. He is an unimpeachable civil libertarian. He is the only candidate who has the courage to distinguish between American national interests and Israel's interest. He promises campaign finance laws that will take the government out of the hands of the corporate elite and restore it to the people.

Nader is about serious change. He will pay attention to the middle class, the homeless and the vast underclass of working people who are not making a living wage. If you are searching for the most decent man in this race, you will find no better value for your vote. A little exposure to Nader clears the mind. He leaves a distinct impression as a man who has genuine concern for our country and our planet. He inspires us to believe that we can take back our government any time we want.

Every American should pay attention to foreign policy. But Arab-Americans should be the first to understand that our foreign policy effects our domestic well being. What the government decides to do to foreigners over there eventually ends up influencing our life and liberty as ethnic Americans over here.

If you want to understand how American foreign policy is constructed, pay a little attention to this election - because this is where politicians cook the poison they force feed to the people of the Middle East. This is where they decide whether Palestinians are tormented or Iraqis are invaded.

To gain votes and finance their campaigns, both Bush and Kerry have pledged their loyalty to Israel, right or wrong. Both have given unequivocal support to Sharon’s incessant assaults against the Palestinians. Both support escalating the war in Iraq. And both have recruited their foreign policy teams from the ranks of the Likudnik neo-cons. Only Nader has been willing to pay the political price of taking on the Israeli lobby.

As a result of their lethal policies – both major parties end up making America a target for terror. The whole country suffers the consequences. But Arab Americans are twice victimized. Like our fellow citizens, we pay the price of living in a permanent state of insecurity. We pay our fair share of the blood and treasure that is wasted in the Mess on Potamia. But we also get the additional bonus of being labeled suspect nationals.

Isn’t it amazing that Americans of Arab heritage are rarely counted among the ranks of Middle East ‘experts’? What could we possibly know compared to Bush - who has spent less than a week of his entire life in that troubled region? As an ethnic group, we are rarely invited to contribute our talents to shaping foreign policy. Is it not the cruelest of ironies that we end up paying the stiffest price for the consequences of the colossal mistakes of the State Department and the Likudnik neo-cons?

Arab-Americans should be wary of any illusions that the Republicans and Democrats will stop shunning us anytime soon. They have cast us aside and made us feel like stepchildren in our own country. We have been defamed in public and labeled unworthy of full civil rights. Both Democrats and Republicans meet our concerns and our aspirations with disdain. Only Nader stands for clean and accountable government that will not pander to one ethnic group and shun another.

At times like these, when our community is under political quarantine, the American dream fades a bit. It’s easy to feel let down and left out. We are definitely worse off than we were four years ago. And it’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the erosion of the quality of our citizenship.

We have been collectively demoted to second class nationals. When we cast our votes, that should be our number one concern. As a group and as individuals, we didn’t do a damn thing to deserve any of this Patriot Act nonsense. So, maybe this is a good opportunity to let our political aristocracy know that we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

This election, we have been left with two choices. We can vote for Nader or not vote at all. We can let Bush and Kerry treat us as like outcasts or we can vote to cast them out. Tuesday is a great opportunity to snub both major parties and see how good it feels to be Americans again.

Wherever you are living in these United States of America, whatever your ethnicity, vote for a candidate who will make our country a better and stronger union - a union that does not have an ethnic underclass. A union in which all our children will be treated as equal and worthy citizens before the law and the lawmakers. We are all ethnic Americans, part of an unbelievable experience in the annals of human history. We Americans are children of every race and every culture. Let us vote for candidates who understand that Arab-Americans should not be treated as an orphan constituency.

This coming Tuesday, let our voices ring loud and clear for Nader. Let us join a movement that will revitalize this great democracy and make it truly inclusive. Let Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans join the millions of their fellow citizens who will vote for a political renaissance by laying the foundations of a sane third force on America’s political landscape.

Take a stand and honor America’s tradition of liberty. Be patriotic and vote for Nader and the dignity of your children. Now, more than ever, we need a government that answers to all and is accessible to all.

Vote early and vote often.

Ahmed Amr is the editor of NileMedia.com. This article can be published and distributed at will.

Chose your poison (or you can always vote for Nader/Camejo!)

2004-10-30T23:13:00.000-07:00

Ahmed Amr writes in Media Monitors (excerpts)

If the polls are anywhere near the mark, George Bush has an even chance of polluting the White House for four more years. Given his record, the only reason Dubya remains a viable candidate is John Kerry.

Kerry was nominated because he was not Howard Dean. To be more precise, Dean was pushed aside when he assaulted the Holy of Holies and described the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as the “Republican wing of the Democratic Party”.

The DLC promotes a philosophy they call ‘progressive internationalism’ – a slight variation of neo-con ideology. In the run up to Iraq war, the DLC launched a campaign to enlist Democrats in Bush’s march to war. Will Marshall, The President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC’s think tank, led the charge. In an article titled ‘Making the Case On Iraq’, he laid out the ‘progressive internationalist’ position on the war.

Here is what he wrote more recently in a Blueprint article published on January 8, 2004.

“What the United States needs now is not an exit strategy but a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. The key elements of such a strategy are more supple military tactics, more money, and more allies. But that requires more troops, not fewer, and it means deploying them in ways that could raise the risk of U.S. casualties. The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. ..."

As a Senator, Kerry never had the option to resist the DLC ‘guidance’ to vote for an invasion of Iraq. Now that he is the DLC anointed candidate, Kerry will is obliged to support escalating Bush’s ‘preemptive’ war.

The sad truth is that the Democratic Party’s foreign policy has been auctioned off to the Israeli Lobby. There is nothing Bush Lite about the DLC. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Haim Saban and the DLC. This coming Tuesday, you will be invited to choose your neo-con poison. In the next four years, we will all discover that diluted neo-con Kool Aid is just as toxic.

Read complete article here

Red States For Nader

2004-10-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

20 Reasons to Vote for Ralph Nader!

2004-10-30T19:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.votenader.com http://www.writeinnader.org

20 reasons to vote for Ralph Nader on November 2

Nader is not for sale.

If you believe that big business’ money is corrupting American politics, vote for the only Presidential candidate who practices campaign finance reform. Ralph Nader is accepting no PAC money, no corporate contributions and no soft money and no support from 527 groups. The other candidates just talk and look for the loophole of the moment. Nader walks the campaign finance reform walk while he advocates public funding and an end to political advantage for sale to the highest bidder.

Nader’s 40-year record of fighting for Americans is well known.

He’s brought us safer cars, a cleaner environment and more open and accountable government. Everyone knows that politics is broken for the average guy and works smoothly for the rich and powerful. The only candidate capable of reforming the system is Ralph Nader because he knows what is broken, why it is broken, and how to fix it.

Nader is the most effective candidate in the race.

In his 40 year career in Washington, he has been the driving forced behind such landmark pieces of legislation as the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Acts, The Clean Water Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Freedom of Information Act. Nader knows more about the workings of government than the other two candidates. He is also honest when he finds policies and agencies beyond reform without surgical removal of corporate controls.

Nader would never allow activist conservative judges onto federal benches.

Ralph Nader vigorously fought the confirmation of the Supreme Court justices Antonion Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The Democrats held the Senate during the confirmation votes for both justices: they voted 50-0 in favor of Scalia; later, 11 Democrats put Thomas over the top. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote to fight for impartial, fair Supreme Court justices.

A vote for Nader is a vote for the end of politics as usual.

With your vote, Ralph Nader will lay the foundation for a new American political movement that will begin taking political power back from the elites. It will shift the power away from the corporations, their K Street lobbyists, and their attorneys and back to the citizens—as the Constitution intended.

Nader is the only candidate demanding health care for all.

Forty-six million Americans have no health insurance-nearly a 30% increase since 1992. Ours is the only industrial democracy without healthcare for everyone. Our current system is also incredibly wasteful; we spend enough to provide universal coverage, but private administrative costs amount to a whopping one-quarter of all health care expenditures.

Nader fights to save America’s family farms.

Our small rural communities are the backbone of this country. The other candidates have accepted large contributions from huge agribusiness corporations’ intent on displacing small farmers.

Ralph Nader is against the death penalty.

John Kerry and George W. Bush are for it.

Nader stands against racial discrimination.

Ralph Nader has always been a strong supporter of affirmative action. He has fought bank red lining. He calls for an overhaul of the criminal justice system, decriminalization of drug offenses and community policing. Racial discrimination pervades America, from the workplace to the courtroom, from the banks to the police beats. To realize needed reforms, Nader argues we must redistribute power in this country without regard to race, creed, age, sex, or sexual preference.

Nader stands against Taft-Hartley

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who has called for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the “chokehold on American labor.” Only Nader has a record of fighting vigorously for working Americans—by first opposing the WTO and NAFTA and now calling for their repeal and reform, to uphold worker’s rights worldwide and to save jobs at home.

Nader stands against the bloated Defense budget.

Only Ralph Nader has the courage and resolve to rethink our military budget now that the Cold War is over. We must cut the egregious waste and pork barrel weapons projects and improve the conditions our fighting men and women live under. We must not throw money away on a clearly unworkable missile defense system. We must work to abolish nuclear weapons.

Nader stands against discrimination based on sexual preference.

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who supports equal rights for gays and lesbians—in the military, in civil unions, and on the job. As he says, “We will look back years from now at our current treatment of gays and lesbians as medieval.”

Nader opposes genetically modified foods.

Ralph Nader is the only candidate in the race who agrees with the ninety percent of Americans who want genetically engineered food to be labeled so they can decide whether or not to eat it. Kerry and Bush are against labeling.

Nader supports a living wage.

Ralph Nader is not content that only the top 15-20% of the people in this country is doing well financially. He pushes for reversing 24 years of wage stagnation for the majority of Americans. Nader calls for the raising the minimum wage to its 1960 buying power, or about $10/hr.

Nader supports a crackdown on corporate crime.

Ralph Nader thinks it’s high time the law be enforced against corporate crime and violence, which kills more people and causes more economic losses, by far, than street crime.

Nader opposes corporate welfare.

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who calls for an end to such corporate welfare and redistribution of the proceeds to rebuild the national infrastructure. Hundreds of billions of your tax dollars are spent annually on subsidies and giveaways to large corporations in the United States every year.

Ralph Nader will fight for the abolition of child poverty in America.

Nader supports fair taxation.

Ralph Nader believes taxes should apply first to behavior and conditions we least favor, such as the clearly addictive industries (alcohol and tobacco), pollution, stock speculation, gambling, extreme luxuries, instead of the 5% to 8.5% sales tax on food, furniture, clothing or books.

Nader Supports the Protection of our National Forests

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who would end all logging in our National Forests and use the 1.2 billion to restore those forests. The Federal Government subsidizes the logging of our National Forests to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars annually, yielding just 3% of the national timber harvest.

A vote for Nader is a vote of conscience.

If you agree that Ralph Nader is the only Presidential candidate in the race capable of reforming politics so that the power rests once more with the people of America, instead of with big business, will you vote for Ralph in November? Do you expect your members of Congress to vote their consciences? Then shouldn’t you?

Power Concedes Nothing Without A Demand!

2004-10-30T01:44:00.000-07:00

“Ours is a long-term struggle to restore the human future to human control of the corporate/government complex. The great lesson to be learned from Kerry's wobbly and fearful campaign to date is that we will not prevail in the historic struggle against imperial corporate power by yielding to it. Unconditional surrender to the "least worst" candidate is an intellectual dead-end, an endless retreat. One need look no further than Kerry's recent endorsement of Bush's plans to reconquer the southern cities and towns of Iraq to recognize that failure to resist is complicity. Remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionist: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."" -Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader’s quote of Frederick Douglass is no accident, he is recalling another critical struggle in American history - the one against slavery. It was the growth of a dissenting minority that finally saw the end of this institution in the US . What we face today is not only of concern internal to the US - but very importantly about how the US relates to other nations, and especially with regards to countries with Muslim majority populations.

Read more here

The Ralph Nader Index!

2004-10-29T11:45:00.000-07:00

Ralph’s Index

Number of Americans living in poverty: 35.9 million

Percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty: 12.5%

Number of Americans without health insurance: 45 million

Number of children uninsured in the United States: 27 million

Percentage of all children in the United States who lack insurance: 36.7%

Number of Americans who die annually because they do not have health insurance: 18,000

The only industrialized country that does not provide universal health care: United States of America U.S. ranking in overall quality of health care it provides: 37th

U.S. world ranking in national expenditures on health care: 1

Number of infants born poor in the United States: 1 in 3

Number of years Bush has presided over an increase in child poverty without sounding an alarm: 3 years in a row

Number of full-time workers earning less than $8.75 per hour before payroll taxes: 1 in every 4

Comparison of average CEO pay to average worker pay in America in 1965: 26 times more

Comparison of average CEO pay to average worker pay in America in 1982: 42 times more

Comparison of average CEO pay to average worker pay in America today: 300 to 500 times more

Median CEO pay at large companies in the U.S.: $6,600 per hour

Amount the minimum wage would be if it had increased in tandem with CEO pay since 1990: $15.71

Percentage of the federal budget going to the military: 50%

Number of U.S. soldiers who have died to date in the illegal war and occupation in Iraq: Over 1,000

Number of Iraqi civilians the U.S. has killed in the illegal war and occupation in Iraq: Over 15,000

Percentage of Americans an AP poll found would consider voting for Ralph Nader if they thought he had a chance to win: 33%

Number of presidential candidates standing up to corporate power: 1

Name of the presidential candidate standing up to corporate power: Ralph Nader

Your job on Nov. 2: Vote Nader!

Ralph Nader's open letter

2004-10-28T22:58:00.000-07:00

I was saddened to read your open letter urging people to vote for John Kerry in 2004. Saddened, not because of the impact on my vote but because it signals more of the same surrender of some liberal thinkers.

Senator Kerry made it clear in the three debates with President Bush that he has no intention of getting out of the illegal occupation of Iraq. He is going to fight the war to win it and will send more troops if needed. He also showed that rather than challenging the military industrial complex he intends to expand the military by 40,000 more troops. How can any peace activist support a candidate who holds those views? Even without the voice of the peace movement, about half the American public wants the U.S. out of Iraq. If the peace movement had stood for ending the Iraq occupation and demanding that their candidate do so then we would have had a very different debate in 2004. Now, no matter how the election turns out, we are likely to see a bloody offensive after the war and a quagmire that will become a civil war with the U.S. on the side of our puppet government against the Iraqi people.

Regrettably, the same is true for other popular progressive issues. Two-thirds of the public supports health care for all now, yet Senator Kerry has put forward a plan that leaves 20 million without health care. The American public believes that full-time workers should make a wage that they and their families can live on. Yet, John Kerry only advocates raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007 – this will keep wages at the equivalent of pre-1960 earnings – at a time when some CEO’s are now earning $7,000 per hour. And, even on the environment, in the debates John Kerry made it clear he did not support the Kyoto Treaty – despite the clear evidence of global climate change and its ruinous impact on the environment. The women’s movement has been told that Kerry will consider anti-choice judges and that he is proud of his vote for Justice Scalia. African Americans have been ignored, taken for granted and their issues not even discussed.

If the liberal leadership had not surrendered to the Anybody But Bush mentality and demanded John Kerry support these issues they would have accomplished two important things. First, they would have made John Kerry a better candidate – rather than allowed him to become an echo of George Bush’s policies. Second, they would have advanced the progressive agenda, rather than allowed this popular agenda to be ignored in a presidential election year.

Those of you who were asked to sign this petition by Robert Brandon, a Democratic Party operative, should know that he misled you with his false statement, claiming that Nader/Camejo are supported by “right-wing campaign donors.” The Center for Responsive Politics found that only 4% of Nader/Camejo donations came from Republican donors, many from classmates who I have worked on various social justice issues. Indeed, the Center found that the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has taken more than $10 million from Republican donors – 100 times more than Nader/Camejo has received. You should not confuse the conclusion of the letter with its deceptive predicates. You should have done your homework.

Finally, what have you said about the anti-democratic dirty tricks, political bigotry, harassment and intimidation by the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign? We would welcome hearing from you if you want to join us in condemning these gross violations of civil liberties and Nader/Camejo and the millions of voters who are denied the candidate of their choice.

I plan to continue to fight for justice – there should be no holiday from that struggle no matter how this election turns out. We hope the scared liberal leaders who abandoned their principles in 2004 will find a way to find the courage of their convictions in the future and rejoin this effort.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

The War and ABBites!

2004-10-28T22:52:00.000-07:00

Alexander Cockburn writes (excerpts)

From where we sit, here at mission control, CounterPunch hq, (currently a facility known as the Claremont Inn off Interstate 10 east of LA, where Jeffrey St Clair is watching three inches of rain sluicing down on the San Gabriel mountains) voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years. By all means vote for the guy if you think your ballot will really count in keeping Ralph Nader out of the White House, but don’t do so with the notion that all along John Kerry has been holding a secret withdrawal plan close to his chest and that his first three months in office will see the US Marines haul down the colors from the US embassy in Baghdad, scoop Ambassador Negroponte off the roof and head for home.

No deed or slur is too dirty for the Kerrycrats, in their frenzy to have a Democrat back in the White House. In years to come the list of liberals and leftists renouncing their support of Nader in 2000 and urging support this time for Kerry even in safe states will, I think, be correctly brandished as a shameful advertisement of political hysteria and even prostitution (often enforced by big foundations threatening to cut funding from any outfit not bending the knee to Kerry.) Until this year I don’t think I’d ever fully understood the inner psycho-political dynamic of the cold-war liberals, eagerly signing on to, and often leading, the witch-hunts of the late 1940s and 1950s.

Seeing the ABB-ers and Kerrycrats in action now, I am a wiser man.

Read complete article here

Not the final word!

2004-10-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

First, those of you voting in states that do not have Ralph Nader on the ballot due to the Democratic Party's undermining of democracy - visit Write In Nader for more info. on how you can vote for Nader/Camejo!

The Kerry/Bush people would like this election to be "the final word" and allow their respective candidates to get away with all kinds of half truths and lies. But the reality is that this election is only the beginning, and regardless of which of these duopolists gets into the white house - our struggle against wars, for civil rights, and justice for all - will continue.

The Kerrycats supporting Kerry don't bother to mention the Patriot Act in their list of issues - well, as we all know by now, Kerry "believes in the Patriot Act."

Back in 1998, when Clinton was intent on bombing Iraq - Kerry also believed in sending in ground troops. And, of-course, he voted for the war - and is on record stating:

Click here to read on

Write In Nader (WIN)

2004-10-27T11:25:00.000-07:00

Early voting has already begun - if you live in a state that does not have Ralph Nader on the ballot (because of the Democratic Party interfering with democracy) - you can Write In Nader!

Click here for instructions!

Does that mean ground troops?

2004-10-26T21:53:00.000-07:00

I got to say this and I’ve said this to everybody here who's been asking me about the war. One thing I do know about Kerry, he will not invade a country like George W. Bush did. (applause) "- Michael Moore, July 27th, 2004.

Not in the least. I think we have to be in
Iraq. What have I flipped on? I just think we ought
to do it right! - John Kerry, July 22nd 2004

John Kerry, interviewed on ABC's This week Febuary 22nd, 1998.

Kerry: I think that there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussen represents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing... (i.e. bombing Iraq).

we have to be prepared to go the full distance to do everythng possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy

Q: does that mean ground troops in iraq?

Click here to Read on

Demanding nothing off Kerry

2004-10-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

The Nader-Camejo campaign has concluded that support for Kerry – 

including those who actively support the orchestrated slander and 

anti-ballot attack against Nader by United Progressives – was 

unconditional except, perhaps, to be someone other than Bush – the

mantra being – Anybody But Bush, leave Kerry alone, do not make any

demands on him.



“The failure of progressives to demand something of Senator Kerry has 

made John Kerry a weaker candidate. Rather than being pulled in the

direction of issues supported by the American public – like a full-time

workers earning a wage they and their families can live on, health care

for all now, a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and making corporations

clean-up their environmental mess – the Kerry-Edwards campaign has only

been pulled in the direction of big business interests,” said Nader.

“Kerry has become a weaker candidate because of the unconditional 

surrender of progressives to pulling him away from corporate 

interests.”

The Boss goes ABB... (excerpts)

2004-10-26T13:26:00.000-07:00

Alexander Billet writes:

With the elections mere days away, John Kerry has been darting back and forth across the country like a rabbit on speed, proffering little in the way of a different future with his obscenely "I'm more like Bush than Bush" rhetoric (and policies to match). His anthem of choice? "No Surrender" by Bruce Springsteen.

Kerry, of course, is for the same war as Bush. He's for tax cuts for the rich, just like Bush. He's for the Patriot Act His voting record on health care is shoddy at best, as is his record of union support.

So my question is what will Bruce (who hasn't voted since 1976) say to his working class fan-base if and when Kerry gets in? What will he say to the young man in "Born in the USA"? The poor youth who has a rifle shoved into his hands (this time to go and kill the Arab man) the same way Bush is now. What will he say when the young man comes home and tries to get a job at the local refinery only to be met with a hiring man who says "son, if it were up to me"? What will he say when the kid goes to a VA hospital shut down by a budget hamstrung by Bush's (and now Kerry's) war?

The fact is that Kerry is cut from the same cloth as the rest of the American ruling class who are so good at perpetuating the cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement that the Boss articulates so well.

Read more here

Ralph Nader responds! (excerpts)

2004-10-26T01:19:00.000-07:00

Some seventy lights of the liberal intelligentsia--some my long-time friends and political associates--recently signed a petition calling upon voters in contested states to vote for John Kerry, despite their "strong disagreement with Kerry on Iraq and other issues." These distinguished academics, artists, and writers together are at the core of America's liberal intelligentsia. We share much the same political analysis. Together we have shared podiums, rallies, and dreams, though they deigned any mention of the Nader-Camejo candidacy even in the "safe states." Yet I must conclude that they have lost their nerve.

Their petition is simply the latest chapter in the operational and political collapse of an intellectual elite paralyzed by the specter of a second term for George Bush. This rush to unconditional surrender began in February of this year when the liberal flagship, The Nation, proclaimed in an editorial, "Ralph, Don't Run," meaning don't speak inside the electoral arena.

The American people know the truth about Iraq, that occupation creates resistance. The resistance will only end when we announce that an exit deadline with internationally supervised elections, after which we will leave Iraq to the Iraqis. On Iraq, as on so many issues, those who should be pressuring Kerry--especially the recent anti-war groups--choose instead to apologize for him.

Ours is a long-term struggle to restore the human future to human control of the corporate/government complex. The great lesson to be learned from Kerry's wobbly and fearful campaign to date is that we will not prevail in the historic struggle against imperial corporate power by yielding to it. Unconditional surrender to the "least worst" candidate is an intellectual dead-end, an endless retreat. One need look no further than Kerry's recent endorsement of Bush's plans to reconquer the southern cities and towns of Iraq to recognize that failure to resist is complicity. Remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionist: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

Read complete article here

John Kerry will make anti-war ABBites look like fools!

2004-10-24T23:00:00.000-07:00

There are many anybuddy butt bushites who think Kerry is their "anti-war" candidate - this , as most Nader/Camejo supporters are well aware, is a serious delusion:

Edward Luttwak writes in the Telegraph: (excerpts)

One of the more amusing spectacles of these less-than- amusing times is the emergence of a Kerry fan club among European anti-war enthusiasts. The letter-writing campaign of The Guardian to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, is especially silly, but is only one of many examples.

In the televised debates, when President Bush spoke of "defeating terrorism", Kerry invariably spoke of "killing the terrorists". This was not just an electoral pose: the words accurately reflect the character of the man. He is a fighter, a two-fisted brawler. In all his past electoral campaigns, successful or otherwise, he was always the more aggressive candidate, ready to make wild accusations he knew to be false in the hope that some voters would believe even the incredible.

As all the world knows by now, he won a Silver Star by beaching the boat he commanded, to jump off in pursuit of a Viet Cong guerrilla, whom he shot dead. He did not have to be in Vietnam, he could have been at home; he did not have to beach the boat - the standard tactic would have been to pull back from the shore all guns firing, not ram the prow into the mud. And as commander of the boat, he did not have to chase the guerrilla himself.

He did it all simply because he is a fighter, and a ferocious one. I am quite certain that if Kerry had been president on September 11 he would have reacted more violently than Bush, sending bombers into Afghanistan, not just Special Forces scouts, and demanding immediate co-operation - or else - from Saudi Arabia, not just Pakistan. European anti-militarists have really picked the wrong guy as their hero.

The only difference - and here is the greatest irony - is that Kerry would almost certainly disengage more slowly than Bush simply as a matter of political positioning: he is the one more vulnerable to accusations of abandoning Iraq to Islamic fanatics, warlord-priests and Saddam loyalists.

It is not just over Iraq that the hawkish Kerry will confound European liberals. He has harshly criticised Bush for not being tough enough with Iran - another irony, because it implies a preference for unilateral action rather than the multilateral diplomacy he supposedly espouses.

Unless Kerry really does ask Congress for the money to add two Army divisions, one will need a microscope to tell the difference in military policy if Kerry wins the election. Perhaps The Guardian and its readers should take a close look at those pictures of Kerry with his shotgun after last week's goose shoot: there goes a genuine American hawk, red in tooth and policy.

Read article here

Ralph Nader debates Bush/Kerry

2004-10-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

Click here for the Vote Nader store!

Empire of Insanity - Kerry's way!

2004-10-23T22:03:00.000-07:00

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."

2004-10-23T13:02:00.001-07:00

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."

2004-10-23T13:02:00.000-07:00

An Advanced State of Decay

2004-10-22T23:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Kerry and the Environment

2004-10-21T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

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

A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Peace!

2004-10-20T10:43:00.000-07:00

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

The Democratic Party's Neo-Cons

2004-10-19T23:43:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-10-19T10:25:00.000-07:00

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

How Kerry outguns Bush!

2004-10-18T19:17:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-10-18T17:59:00.000-07:00

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!

Criticizing Israel is not anti-semitism - Ralph Nader

2004-10-16T18:12:00.000-07:00

(excerpts)

Dear Mr. Foxman:

You started your last letter with the sentence: "We are not engaged in a dialogue about the issues you raised in your letter." That is precisely the point, is it not, Mr. Foxman. For many years you have eschewed engaging in a dialogue with those in Israel and the United States who disagree with your views. Your mode of operation for years has been to make charges of racism or insinuation of racism designed to slander and evade.

Your insensitivity here is legion. You fail to understand that your studied refusal to reflect the condemnations of Israeli military action and mayhem against civilians, by the great Israeli human rights organization B't selem and the major international human rights organizations, contributes to the stereotypic bigotry against Palestinian Arabs and the violent Gulag that imprisons them in the West Bank and Gaza.

In conclusion, Abraham Foxman has a problem. He is in a time warp and cannot adjust to the new age of total Israeli military domination of the Palestinian people. A majority of the Israeli and Palestinian people believe in a two state solution an independent, viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel. This is the way to settle this conflict and live in peace for future generations.

If you have not met frequently with the broad and deep Israeli peace movement, you might wish to change your routine so that you can play a part in the historic effort to establish a broad and deep peace between the two Semitic peoples. The exchanges should be videotaped and widely distributed to further the cause of peace and to witness Abraham Foxman dialoguing without his customary lines that evade the issues.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Click here to read complete article

Local Candidates, part I

2004-10-15T13:11:00.000-07:00

There are many local candidates who are running for office this year, and hold values similar to those of the Nader/Camejo 2004 campaign, here are a couple - if you live in the area, vote for these candidates.
If you know people who live in these districts - forward this info. to them!

Also, if you know of others deserving mention on this page, please write to muslimfornader@yahoo.com - Thanx!

Renee Saucedo is a Green Party member running for District 9 Supervisor in San Francisco. Ms. Saucedo spoke at two Nader rallies: July 16 at Mission High, San Francisco (almost 1,000 people attended) and on October 11 at San Francisco State University (where 800 people attended). She is a longtime immigrants rights activist.

Check out Renee Saucedo's web page here

And Pat Driscoll, Green Party member for 5th Congressional district (Sacramento area) spoke at Nader/Camejo event at Davis that drew over 800 people.

Check out Pat Driscoll's web page here

Ramadan Mubarakh!

2004-10-14T21:04:00.000-07:00

Salaam Ailaikum sisters and brothers

Ramadan Mubarakh - may this beautiful month help bring peace to all of our hearts.

Against Kerry

2004-10-14T10:20:00.000-07:00

Norman Madarasz, Ph.D., is a Canadian philosopher residing in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil writes:

As a Senator, John Kerry never distinguished himself by opposing what has been an essentially war-mongering Senate, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans. This is why the problem with the US government is as much the Senate as the Presidency.

There is nothing “vague” about the candidate’s positions. It’s just a matter of opening one’s eyes—and preventing them from being shut. In the best of worlds, Kerry would have proven his worth by engaging Bush only in indirect battle over Iraq. Instead, he suggested escalating the war on terror until some supposed victory is achieved.

America’s poor have no active voice by which to bolster their vote. In addition to losing political and purchasing power, most Americans have also lost the right to a representation-form that deals with the most basic necessity of their lives: their jobs. Today, trade union representation in the United States is not merely a dirty word; In many industry sectors it has all but become illegal. Why would the disenfranchised then want to participate in a process that strips them of their most basic rights?

As for the tiring question of Ralph Nader stealing votes from Kerry, it’s simply that Kerry has not catered to Nader’s voters. Judging by his campaign, it often seems as though Kerry’s task has been to avoid them outright. What’s most likely is that many Americans will simply skip the elections instead of voting for an impostor. This is the presidential election’s greatest failure.
Read complete article here

Ralph Nader event in Berkeley

2004-10-14T01:36:00.000-07:00

Luxomedia reports from the rally:

Dr. Jess Ghannam, president of American-Arab anti-discrimination league (San Francisco) at Nader/Camejo rally.

"Don't believe the hype about Anybody But Bush, especially when it comes to Iraq, and the Middle East and the greater Arab world."

In California, and a few other states WriteInNader

Click here to watch Jess speak!

On Optimism!

2004-10-14T01:05:00.000-07:00

Instead of dwelling over the latest charade known as "the debates" - I am posting an article by Howard Zinn on optimism that folks reading this blog might appreciate. Several of my progressive (and even the not so "progressive") friends have said that they found themselves feeling sick while watching these "debates" - perhaps others are also feeling the same way.

But first, a story: a few days after 9/11/01 a young boy was walking with his Native American grandfather - he asked grandpa about 9/11, and how he felt. Grandpa was silent for several minutes, and then said that he felt that there were two wolves inside of him competing against each other - one wanted revenge, to go on a rampage - enraged...

But there was another wolf who wanted to understand, to be compassionate, and grieve the loss. The boy asked which wolf is going to win? Grandpa said, the one I feed.

This conflict and contrast within grandpa is reflected in Howard Zinn's article:

Read on

Progressives being used against Nader!

2004-10-12T14:42:00.000-07:00

An excellent article detailing the forces behind Kerry's war against Nader, and how progressives are being duped by the military industrial complex, note that the group "Ballot Project, Inc." is anti-Nader group that has the led the fight against Nader/Camejo being on the ballot this November.

Stephen Conn writes in Counterpunch (excerpts)

The progressives and peace activists who are helping to stop Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo don't realize it but they are being used by people who represent the corporate interests, especially the military-industrial complex, of the two major parties.

The Ballot Project Inc. was funded initially by former Monsanto CEO and genetic farming proponent Robert Shapiro, with another $25,000, (an amount far in excess of legislated campaign finance limits), from West Coast Democratic moneyman, Max Palevsky.

Media spokesmen for both the Ballot Project and United Progressives for Victory are Brandon and Toby Moffett. Moffett is a former Monsanto official, now lobbyist for foreign countries

Moffett makes big money for his clients from the war and occupation of Iraq. One Moffett client is British firm, De La Rue. It secured contracts to print new Iraqi money and travel documents through Moffett's efforts. The Livingston group guided Turkey to its lucrative billion dollar plus foreign aid alliance with the Bush administration.

And what about the Any-butt-Bush's -progressives who support these efforts by signing on to anti-Nader letters drafted by Brandon and Associates for the United Progressives? Perhaps, for them, the end justifies the means. Perhaps they were fooled or just went along with people they trusted. Whether they were duped by the fear put out by the ABB campaign or they chose the direction on their own, they are clearly being used by corporate interests who they certainly disagree with.

Read full article here

Don't Call Me A Liberal!

2004-10-11T01:20:00.000-07:00

Flashback 1988

Bush The First: “please understand, the liberals do not like me talking about liberal. They don't like it when I say that he says he's a card carrying member (of the ACLU)”

Dukakis: ... the vice president is questioning my patriotism. I don't think there's any question about that, and I resent it. I resent it.

Bush The First was right, and it was only very late in the campaign that Dukakis finally declared himself as a liberal, and got a surge, but it was all too late and too little.

Flash forward 2004:

Bush The Second: First, the National Journal named Senator Kerry the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.

So, did Kerry do the right thing, and proudly talk about the wonderful American history of liberalism? Did he proudly claim Franklin Roosevelt as a liberal - remember the New Deal? Did he claim the GI Bill as a liberal accomplishment? Did he recall the fight against child labor, and sweatshops in the US? How about the civil rights struggle?

Click here to find out!

What If Nader Critics Get What They Demand?

2004-10-09T23:36:00.000-07:00

If you cut away the swipes at Nader, his progressive critics actually have some legitimate demands:

1. They don't want Nader voters to swing the election to Bush.

2. Progressives want to be building a movement and therefore don't see the point of Nader running as an independent. And they also prefer a party working on a mix of local and national runs, not just a celebrity running for president.

3. The Democratic Party claims they just want Nader to follow the rules and get on the ballot fairly. Others, while seeing the Democratic Party's self-interest in the matter, just don't see the point of running a campaign that seems little more than a slog against arcane ballot access laws. Ballot access is an important issue, but the resources Nader and company are being forced to expend on it, even if that is the fault of the Democrats, detracts from getting out the progressive political message.

Frankly, I don't think these demands are unreasonable. What if they are met? Read on...

Nader Challenges Michael Moore to a Debate

2004-10-09T23:23:00.000-07:00

Who Should the Anti-War Movement Vote for in 2004?

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader today challenged film-maker Michael Moore to debate the question of which Presidential candidate the anti-war movement should support in November.

Nader proposes that the debate with Moore take place in Tempe, AZ, prior to the final Presidential debate on Wednesday, Oct. 13. “Since Bush and Kerry will not debate a plan to end our involvement in this quagmire, Michael should join me in giving the American people a deep and thoughtful discussion of how to avoid the quagmire that looms before us.”

Michael Moore has stood by as the anti-war movement has morphed into a pro-Kerry movement. Secure in the knowledge that the anti-war movement has lost its integrity, Kerry has moved to leapfrog Bush, becoming the supreme war-hawk in this campaign. In the first debate, Kerry proclaimed that he would “win the war in Iraq,” pledged to send more American troops to do it, and criticized Bush for having pulled back from the assault on Falluja in the face of large civilian casualties already from American bombs.

The nation’s premier right-wing columnist, William Safire, wrote in the New York Times on Oct. 4th, that Kerry had become the “newest neo-conservative,” and was now “more hawkish than President Bush.”

“The Nader/Camejo campaign continues to stand against this war,” said Nader. “America should immediately declare a phased withdrawal of our military and corporate forces over the next 6 months, which will cause the bottom to drop out of the insurgency. Once mainstream Iraqis know they are getting their country back, they will have no reason to support the insurgency and the focus will immediately become how the Iraqis will work out their own affairs. The world should be prepared to assist with supervised elections, humanitarian aid, and with providing temporary peace-keeping forces from neutral nations to help the Iraqis settle their own affairs.”

Just before the Iraq war the New York Times called the anti-war movement the world’s second super-power. Now, all that the movement has predicted has come to pass in Iraq, yet rather than being empowered by its vindication, the movement has no pulse except one of unconditional surrender to Kerry. The time is short, the need is great. We must breathe a renewed dynamism into our movement. As Fredrick Douglass said in the pre-civil war years, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”

What say you, Michael? Don’t you want them to trust you again?

Nader on Chomsky, Zinn, Goodman Et. Al.

2004-10-09T10:27:00.000-07:00

Ralph Nader just cleared the political card table, decking our house of cards onto America’s filthy floor. All hands must now be shown.

I highly recommend that readers study the transcript available on www.democracynow.org, (or video) which has the full Amy Goodman interview with Ralph Nader. The exquisite personal comment that Ralph directs at Progressive’s Hostess With The Mostest—making her emblematic of the average/wanting citizen—is not the only gem. There’s the watershed talk about Chomsky and Zinn putting “a figurative ring in their nose.” And more.

I’m sure that most progressive outlets will not make much of a fuss about Ralph’s historically important characterization of The Left at this juncture...out of habit. But, nonetheless, he’s on the mark. A new mark has been made with our distinguished progressives agreeing to be led by the likes of Kerry. It’s over. There’s officially no more democracy. Read on...

Captain David Cobb Aids the Collapse of the Left

2004-10-09T10:25:00.000-07:00

By Joshua Frank

I officially changed my voter registration and left the Green Party this past week. Or, more aptly put, the Green Party left me. Actually, they abandoned many of us last summer when they decided not to run a candidate for president.

Oh, I know what you are thinking: “They are running a candidate. His name’s David Cobb. Give the guy some respect!” My rejoinder: If David Cobb is a presidential candidate, then why have an oppositional party that is supposed to challenge the Democrats and Republicans at all? What good is it? For me, it is not that the legitimacy of Cobb’s nomination is suspect—although it is. Rather, what I find bothersome is the way that Cobb has chosen to run his insipid campaign and the cultish drones within the Green Party who refuse to acknowledge that Cobb’s bid is actually hurting the Party—and the Left—while aiding George W. Bush’s re-election in the process. Ignorance must be bliss. Read on...

Bush the Lesser Evil? For Some Issues, It Is Worth Considering

2004-10-09T10:17:00.000-07:00

...Bush and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable on many other noteworthy issues as well. Palestine and Israel for starters. Some people argue that Bush has actually been tougher on Israel than Clinton was. Bush has even admitted that Palestine should be its own state, which drew jeers from Ariel Sharon himself. Although Bush’s concession remains a far cry from a unified territory, where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side as envisioned by the late Palestinian professor and activist Edward Said, it’s still a start. Will Bush aid Palestinians or halt funding to the Israelis? Definitely not. But Kerry certainly won’t either. And therein lies the harsh truth.

What about Iraq? That’s the last straw for most, who simply do not want to believe that a Democratic administration could have attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Never mind the fact that the Democrats authorized bombings throughout Clinton’s tenure and passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, giving the U.S. the right to whack the country for the slightest provocation—or no reason at all. It is also worth mentioning that the Democrats overwhelmingly supported Bush’s invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, it’s hard to imagine the Democrats doing things any differently if they won back the White House.

The Patriot Act? This of course, was a bipartisan nightmare based on the assumption that curtailing civil liberties would make the U.S. safe from terror. Given that Clinton had a version of his own following the Oklahoma City bombing called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, there is little reason to believe the Democrats would not have moved forward with a more egregious version following 9-11, with their mass support for John Ashcroft’s version as our conspicuous souvenir. Read on...

Complacency Is Not Democracy

2004-10-08T22:35:00.000-07:00

By Ralph Nader
Washington Post

I've been receiving lots of drearily similar advice from members of the liberal intelligentsia over the past year, so perhaps this is an appropriate time to graciously give some counsel in return.

Rather than addressing their demands for my withdrawal from exercising my right to speak and assemble -- that is, the core of running for elective office -- I offer these words to advance their more responsible engagement in recovering their beloved, corporate-indentured Democratic Party. I suggest the following steps toward recovery: Read on...

How Israel is winning the debate!

2004-10-08T13:13:00.000-07:00

During the supposed debate between Cheny and Edwards - the question about Israel-Palestine was answered by both candidates without one word of empathy on the suffering of the Palestinians. While Edwards recalls his experience of a bombing in Israel (and we should not be without empathy towards loss of Israeli lives, I agree) -but not a word about the Palestinian children who get killed by the Israelis.

Such a dis-honest form of brokerage is hardly a recipe for peace!

First some excerpts from the Edwards/Cheney "debate" on Palestine, - and then brief excerpts from a couple of recent articles on this issue:

Q: But what would your (Kerry) administration do to try to resolve that conflict?

Read more here

“Bush-Lite” or Marlboro-Lights?

2004-10-07T23:11:00.000-07:00

By Omar Barghouti

"...Palestinians like me are not betting their lives on the prospects for progress under Kerry. After all, he has already come out on record in unqualified support of Israel’s apartheid wall, colonies in the occupied territories and all the other grave violations of international law. Even under an analytical microscope, one would be hard pressed to identify the “lite” part when it comes to Israel. And this comes as no surprise. Israel has effectively secured a position of unparalleled influence over the US administration, especially as far as foreign policy towards the middle east is concerned. This is now a built-in feature of the system that will take far more than a mere change in the presidency to alter it. Moreover, Kerry, unlike Bush, may actually be able to win considerable European and international backing for essentially the same biased policy, and that would make him worse, in fact.

Lite is not always bright, it seems." Read on...

Nader Supporters Around the Nation!

2004-10-07T21:46:00.000-07:00

Miami...

"...A question and answer session was enlivened by a Ralph Nader supporter who held up a mock subpoena summoning Cheney to answer questions on Halliburton, the Houston-based energy and construction company he formerly headed. Democrats have said the Bush administration showed favoritism in giving Halliburton noncompetitive contracts in Iraq and elsewhere.

She was quickly drowned out by shouts of 'four more years' as the crowd rose and she was ushered from the room."

Maine...

"The Republi-crats don't get it. They're all liars," a Nader supporter shouted. He repeatedly bellowed out "creeps!"

Ohio...

"Albert, 78, a staunch Nader supporter... "They're both equally bad," Albert Prince said. "What they both should do, in my opinion, is admit the war was a mistake and bring the troops home tomorrow."

Florida...

"Two Ralph Nader supporters waved banners from the second level of the stands - stopping Moore mid-sentence as they yelled: A vote for Nader will get the United States out of the war in Iraq in six months.

Moore began to joke around about the disrupters as police gathered around the banner-wavers.

But when the Nader supporters did not stop screaming, Moore responded, “Would you shut the F--k up!”

New Jersey...

"I'm just going to vote for the best guy," said musician Brett Boye of Atlantic Highlands, who gave $225 to Nader in July.

Several Nader supporters said their stance is not just about backing someone who vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq and who has butted heads with corporate America. And it's not just because they see little difference in the policy positions of Bush and Kerry.

What motivates some of them is that they want to make it easier for third-party candidates such as Nader to be on the ballot and participate in the presidential debates.

"I don't care about George Bush and John Kerry. What I care about is the future of politics in America," said Kevin Gemmell, a director of a Philadelphia technology consulting firm who lives in Swedesboro. "I just don't feel as though the politicians really are looking at anything but the present election or putting their party in charge."

Kerry "will not pull troops out of Iraq. He will not give us a national health-care system," DeCarlo said. "If people are being lulled into thinking that he is a liberal and humanitarian, they're sadly mistaken."

Here he comes: The New Neo-Con!

2004-10-04T22:02:00.000-07:00

William Safire on Kerry:

WASHINGTON As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator John Kerry’s edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy saw a change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President George W. Bush.

....

‘What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,’’ Kerry volunteered. ‘‘And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists. You’ve got to show you’re serious.’’ Right on, John! Although he added his standard softener of ‘‘sharing the stakes’’ with ‘‘the rest of the world,’’ he issued his radically revised military policy: Wipe out resistance in terrorist strongholds like Falluja, which requires America to inflict and accept higher casualties.

........

in embracing his right to pre-empt — always derided in horror by the two-minutes-to-midnight crowd as impermissible ‘‘preventive war’’ — Kerry felt the need to interject: ‘‘That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.’’

Hold on. Nuclear pre-emption was never America’s ‘‘great doctrine’’ during confrontation with the Soviets. Washington’s strategic doctrine, which some of us remember, was at first ‘‘massive retaliation,’’ later ‘‘mutual assured destruction.’’ Maybe arms control negotiators listed pre-emption or preventive war as a dangerous notion of extremists, but only kooks portrayed by the likes of Peter Sellers called for a nuclear final solution to the Communist problem.

Read complete article here

Click here to read more on nuclear proliferation and preemption
..........

This is the candidate of the "Anybody But Bush" crowd! Why in the world would any thinking, intelligent person with half a conscience vote for this guy?

There is only candidate who deserves your vote: Votenader.com

Ralph Nader on Democracy Now!

2004-10-04T10:16:00.000-07:00

Nader Charges DNC Chair McAuliffe Told Him "We're Going To Try To Get You Off The Ballot In All Of The Close States"

Listen to An extensive conversation with independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader about why he has chosen to stay in the presidential race and about the allegations that he is taking support from GOP operatives.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said last week that he will continue his campaigning in many of the key states being canvassed by Bush and Kerry. This week, he is traveling around the swing states of Maine and New Hampshire. Since he announced his bid for the White House, Nader has been attacked by the Democrats as a spoiler whose candidacy will aid Bush in his reelection effort. Nader has spent most of his campaigns time and resources fighting legal battles to get on the ballot. As it stands, Nader is on the ballot in 33 states with legal battles in 3 more.

Nader recently held a press conference in Washington at the National Press Club in which he accused the Democratic Party of orchestrating a campaign of dirty tricks against him. This past weekend, I had a chance to sit down with Ralph Nader in Washington DC for an extensive conversation about why he has chosen to stay in the race and about the allegations that he is taking support from GOP operatives.

Click
here to listen

The so-called "Debate"

2004-10-02T21:01:00.000-07:00

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

Barack Obama update: The hawk from Illinois

2004-10-01T23:37:00.000-07:00

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:

votenader.com

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

2004-10-01T02:00:00.000-07:00

"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!

Ralph Nader on the "debate"

2004-10-01T01:48:00.000-07:00

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.

The Bush/Kerry Ticket: The Debate!

2004-09-30T01:11:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Khalil Bendib, all rights reserved.

http://www.bendib.com

The meaning of your vote

2004-09-28T23:14:00.000-07:00

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, Votenader.com

A victory in Iraq?!!!

2004-09-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Kerry wants to lose?

2004-09-27T20:35:00.000-07:00

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.

A peaceful world is possible!

2004-09-27T09:36:00.000-07:00

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!

Listen to Ralph

2004-09-25T13:25:00.000-07:00

The Vote Nader website has placed a number of excellent short talks by Ralph Nader - pick a few and listen to Ralph in his own words.

A refreshing change from the duopolistic drabble you usually hear from the Kerry/Bush ticket!

Freedom from Fear
Shift the Power
Solution Revolution
On the verge of another Vietnam
Messianic militarist
Why should the people trust Bush with the presidency?
What to do now in Iraq
We entrenched Saddam, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people
Call for impeachment
Chicken hawks, the prejudged easy win and the quagmire afterward

Kerry/Bush listen to returning Iraq vets.!

2004-09-24T10:42:00.000-07:00

The Nader/Camejo campaign has called for a US withdrawl from Iraq - unfortunately the Kerry/Bush ticket are still gung ho for a "victory."

A new statement calls on the Kerry/Bush team to listen to the returning Iraq war vets, and their families:

The campaign said that military families, veterans, recently returned veterans, and even active duty personnel have been speaking out against the war and occupation of Iraq. Their voices are among the strongest forces calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. They can save the United States from the quagmire of Iraq. Nader/Camejo urges the president, Senator Kerry, and the media to pay attention to these voices for a more sensible Iraqi policy.
Read full statement here

some progressives abandon cause

2004-09-24T10:29:00.000-07:00

The "anybody but bush, or nobody but kerry" candidate is in trouble, the polls are showing he is behind Bush (in more ways than one :-)) - some progressives are abandoing their own cause to get behind the guy who is behind Bush.

Joshua Frank writes in Counterpunch:

As the left sinks deeper in its own self-created muck, don't look for the stalwarts of progressive action, like Benjamin and Solomon, to pull us out. Indeed they are working hard to keep us down by campaigning for Kerry in the only states that can force the Democrats to deal with progressive issues. It is sad indeed when members of your own team forfeit the game at crunch time. Nevertheless, it is not entirely their faults -- they unfortunately have fallen victim to the very fear they are now spreading. It's contagious. Watch out.

Those of us who are involved in this movement understand that Bush is part of the problem, but to assume that he is the Great Evil - is to mirror the fear mongering that both the Demos. and Repubs. are creating to keep progressives under their control. It is unfortuante that some progressives have fallen for this kind of faulty reasoning, and are now campaigning for a guy who even Michael Moore has called a "lousy candidate."

Electing Ralph Nader

2004-09-23T20:29:00.000-07:00

The Elect Ralph Nader blog has a very interesting essay about experiences of a Nader/Camejo campign worker:

Electing Ralph Nader
By Michael Butler

It is safe to say I've spoken personally to around 15,000 people from all walks of life about the subject of Ralph Nader's candidacy, and my first impressions recorded in this essay have remained true everywhere I've traveled. When you get out on the streets and talk to people, there is an astonishingly widespread appreciation for and adherence to Ralph Nader's viewpoints. I honestly believe that if all the people who support Nader's positions were willing to cast their vote for the candidate of their true choice, Ralph Nader would be our next President!
During a conference call with Ralph on Monday, May 10th, volunteers and coordinators working in Texas agreed that his support among "people of color" is very strong.

Those whose history is informed by oppression, or who have other reasons to recognize their rights as American citizens as something tangible and precious, have tremendous openness to hear Ralph's message, and absolute agreement with his right to express it.

A must read on...

Let Ralph Nader Debate - Urgent Action

2004-09-23T14:16:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, the Commission on Presidential Debates decides whether to allow Ralph in the debate on September 30th in Miami.

The bipartisan CPD is controlled by the two major parties and masquerades as non-partisan hosts of exclusionary parallel interviews;
Two polls have come out this week showing that a majority of Americans want to see third parties and Independent candidates in the debates;
Nader and Camejo are constitutionally eligible, with ballot access in enough states to receive at least 270 electoral votes, as are other third party candidates who should be included.

Take action!

Tell the CPD that America wants real debates and wants them to LET RALPH DEBATE!
Call the CPD at (202) 872-1020
Sincerely,

Theresa Amato

Campaign Manager

Peter Camejo Welcomes Muslims

2004-09-22T19:30:00.000-07:00

In 2000, the American Muslim Association contributed $50,000 to Hillary Clinton. She was pressured by her constituents and the money was returned. Next, the AMA donated it to Bush... again, it was returned...

...2004 - The AMA is hesitant to endorse Kerry because he supports unjust war, the USA Patriot Act, (Kerry's proud he & Edwards drafted part of it) and Israel, no matter what they do. Kerry never states the Iraq war war illegal as Kofi Annan has -- he insists he would have out-done Bush, delivering the nations oil to his handlers at a speedier rate...

Nader/Camejo is a perfect fit for Muslims... We couldn't have dreamed up better candidates.

...The one and only thing keeping the AMA from formally endorsing Nader/Camejo is "electability."

What's not the reason?

Not treating Muslims like social pariahs, as the Demos and GOP have done -- returning their contributions while keeping those from AIPAC. (even as they spy) Not for speaking at AMA & CAIR on many occasions. (Including Sep. 25th with Camejo in Orlando, FL) Not for standing up for Palestine like no other candidate. Not for openly rejecting the USA Patriot Act, stating Muslims deserve their full-rights. Not for openly declaring an end to unjust war! Not for openly attacking the 'War on Terror' as a hoax to instill politics of fear.

Nader/Camejo's principled stand trump "Electability" because Kerry is as un-electable as Bush.

If the AMA backs Kerry, they're defeating Bush, but not the 'handlers' of Bush who will remain. Many Muslims preferred the friendly face of Bill Clinton, even as his sanctions on Iraq killed over 1 million children.

Peter Camjeo has very different thoughts about Muslim support. From his interview with the Boston Phoenix:

Q: What about accusations that Republicans are funding the campaign?

Peter Camejo: Democrats have decided that’s their theme now. That’s what they’re going to say about Nader. We have gotten four percent of our money from registered Republicans. What’s amazing about that is we expect our vote to be 25 percent — as it was in the year 2000 — from Republicans. You know why that’s so large? Because in the Muslim community, that’s a complete shift. They endorsed Bush last time. And now Bush is at two percent in the Muslim community. Nader’s at 26. So there’s going to be a mass of registered Republicans who no longer will vote for Bush, but will not vote for Kerry. And when these articles come out about Republicans sending us money, it’s almost always Arab names.

Full Interview...

I for one am glad Camejo and Nader will stand up for us. Now it's time we stand up for ourselves...

You have to start working for change now

2004-09-22T19:12:00.000-07:00

"A VOTE for Kerry is not just a vote against George Bush. It is a vote for the survival of the system which made Bush happen..."

--George Monbiot--

"...Normally, a party’s candidate simply does what is politically convenient, and what he is effectively forced to do by his party structure. Nader has the advantage that he doesn’t have a party structure. He isn’t under anyone’s thumb, and he can determine where he stands for himself.

He has stuck to what he believes. You can question his methods, and I can question some of his positions--I don’t agree with everything that he stands for, though I think a lot of what he stands for has a good deal of sense in it. But you can’t question his political courage. He’s a man of conviction, who’s stuck to those convictions.

Here’s a man who’s even taken on the Anti-Defamation League. I don’t know U.S. politics as well as I should, but I can’t think of a single other prominent U.S. political figure who’s been brave enough to take on the Anti-Defamation League--and say that it’s wrong for everyone who criticizes Israeli policy to be branded as an anti-Semite. " Read Full...

Let Nader Debate

2004-09-22T16:50:00.000-07:00

Zogby Poll Finds: 57% of Voters Want Nader in Debates

Washington, DC: A poll released today finds that Ralph Nader is the only non-major party candidate that voters want included in the debates. Zogby found that 57% want Nader included in the debates. This is consistent with a previsous poll by Citizens United Indpendent Parties that found 59% wanted Nader in the debates.

Visit the Citizen's Debate Commission to read on...

Kerry's big Lie...

2004-09-22T13:24:00.000-07:00

Kerry's got 2 choices with Iraq:

-- Exit Iraq responsibly as per Nader/Camejo's insistence.
-- Inherit Bush's mess and make it work.

He's chosen the lesser of two like his supporters...

Thus far he's pledged: international support from allies that matter.

Toronto Post:

"Kerry contends he would do better than Bush in getting "the world's major powers" to help the U.S. rebuild Iraq, and in making sure democratic elections can be held next year. That may be overly optimistic. Few allies are anxious to wade in, and the place is growing ever more violent."

And allies that have waded in? Accepted the call to arms from the US--

The Australian:

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Let me get this straight. Kerry's sister is telling Australians they are and will be subjected to increased terrorism due to their involvement with US hegemony. Hmmm... that's a pretty tempting to France, German, China, Canada, and Russia. Join the US in this quagmire, welcome new terrorism on your soil, share in the bloodshed of your citizens. After all, what are friends for?

Tempting financial incentives you say? Iraq is a pie cut between the US and UK. Even Iraqis are barred from reconstruction contracts on their own soil. To date a mere $500,000 has been given to Iraqi contractors. How can Kerry persuade Exxon to cozy up with the French and Germans after firms like Exxon control the DNC.

It's clear the Nader/Camejo position is truly the best for the people of Iraq, US and the world.

14 permanent US airbases, utter control of oil, and a puppet government. It sounds like what it is... foreign occupation without end.

Revolutionary Americans, declared terrorists/insurgents by the UK, fought for autonomy. It's hypocrisy to wonder why Iraqis are doing the same... Are we not fighting for our own autonomy, freeing ourselves of corporations and special interest groups dominating our democracy? Many of whom got us in Iraq!!!

The only vote not wasted is one for Nader/Camejo -- Nov. 2, 2004...

Kerry's Final Straw

2004-09-22T11:45:00.000-07:00

Confessions of a Despairing Voter
By TARIF ABBOUSHI
counterpunch.org
(read full...)

My Democrat friends didn't know what to tell me because their party hadn't told them. They were rudderless, certain only of turbulence on the right, but unnerved by wind shifts on the left. I'm thinking: if you can't dazzle them, baffle them.

It all ended on Monday, when John Kerry articulated his grand strategy du jour for Iraq: Convince other nations to get more involved, do a better job of training Iraqi security forces, provide benefits to the Iraqi people and ensure democratic elections will be held next year. Sounds to me he wants to do what Bush wants to do, only better.

Facing a decaying forest, our two candidates focus on reviving a select few trees; they only differ on how much water to use. They both appear to realize we cannot re-invent Iraq in our image without first winning the battle for hearts and minds. But neither seems to understand that the hearts and minds do not divorce our behavior in Iraq from our policy in the region as a whole. Bush and Kerry have yet to grasp that in the Middle East, selective democratization by American force is a doomed enterprise for a simple reason: the widespread universal belief that a person who is nice to you but rude to the waiter is not a nice person. Set aside the question of just how 'nice' America has been to Iraq. As long as we defer to Israel, as long as we sanction Syria for not withdrawing its troops from Lebanon even as we bankroll Israeli troops occupying Syrian land, as long as we befriend authoritarian Arab dictators who bow to our will, our peals for democracy in Iraq ring hollow. It would be hard enough selling democracy to our friends, let alone imposing it on our enemies. Imagine trying to convince the Israelis and Saudis to abolish their state-sanctioned laws and practices that discriminate on the basis of religion or sex!

We can waste thousands more American and Iraqi lives and untold additional hundreds of billions of dollars, but given the track record, how many of us really believe Iraq will be a stable pro-American democracy by, say, the election of 2008?

Of more immediate concern is the race of 2004. The strategic Middle East policy tilt of the Republican party will continue to cater to its base of fundamentalist right-wing Christian Zionists (no small irony that the word 'Qaeda' means 'base'), its tactics charted under the corrosive influence of pro-Likud neoconservative ideologues. As for the Democrats, I might have been tempted by a paradigm shift toward an American-centric foreign policy in the Middle East.

Given what is at stake for our nation, it is not Iraq per se, but our Mid-East foreign policy that is the central issue of this election. Until last Monday, I was an undecided voter. Now I'm a despairing one.

Tarif Abboushi lives in Houston. He can be reached at: TAbboushi@aol.com

Greg Bates - Part II

2004-09-22T11:20:00.000-07:00

Ralph’s Right Stuff: The Politics of Nader’s Republican Support
Greg Bates - Second in a series.

What a zoo. Republicans who oppose Nader’s principles and platform have sued to get Nader on the ballot in the key swing state of Michigan. And Nader’s Republican support is a national phenomenon concentrated in swing states. Their goal is to split liberal voters from Kerry and, so the logic goes, swing the election to Bush. Meanwhile, progressives who agree with Nader’s principles and platform, and who think he would make a wonderful president, have denounced him for not rejecting his Republican support strongly enough.

I argue that the best stance is to welcome the Republican support with open arms.

Read On...

Homeland In-Security

2004-09-21T20:40:00.000-07:00

America Saved - Former Pop Singer Denied!!!

2004-09-21T20:17:00.000-07:00

Homeland Security is certainly working on a hat-trick of peace-hungry Muslims.

First Tariq Ramadan, preaching dangerously peaceful ideologies and today, Yusuf Islam, creator of those Golden WMD's -- 'Peace Train' and 'Wild World.'

Next... we can only hope to get terrorist mastermind Malcolm X, who has eluded Homeland Security officials, last seen with director Spike Lee.

I met Yusuf Islam at my university after he opened his 'Behind the Music' segment. The audience grew to at least a thousand and his entire fan club flew in for the meeting. One excited hippie fan held up his acoustic guitar during the speech yelling: 'CAT - SIGN MY FENDER DUDE-MAN!"

Well... we've got him. An ambassador of peace, a man who has lived on both sides of the fence, feeling at home on either side. A man that is living proof of the East and West to come together. Prince Charles certainly thought so, as he appropriated government funding for one of Islam's many schools in UK.

From CNN:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A plane bound for Washington from London was diverted to Maine on Tuesday after passenger Yusuf Islam -- formerly known as pop singer Cat Stevens -- showed up on a U.S. watch list, federal officials said.
...
United Airlines Flight 919 had already taken off from London en route to Dulles International Airport when the match was made between the passenger and the watch list, said Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration...
...
He was interviewed and denied admission to the United States on national security grounds," said Homeland Security spokesman Dennis Murphy. He said the man would be put on the first available flight out of the country Wednesday.
...
Islam recently condemned the school seizure by militants in Beslan, Russia, earlier this month that left more than 300 dead, nearly half of them children.

In a statement on his Web site, he wrote, "Crimes against innocent bystanders taken hostage in any circumstance have no foundation whatsoever in the life of Islam and the model example of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him."

The Truth About Democratic Operatives

2004-09-21T10:56:00.000-07:00

The Institute for Public Accuracy issued the statement: "Ballot Access Obstruction by Democratic Operatives," part of a four-volume work on third-parties by Darcy Richardson.

Richardson said today: "While pro-Bush forces helping independent candidate Ralph Nader get on the ballot have garnered headlines -- most recently with lawyers in Florida representing Nader and the Reform Party who argued on behalf of Bush during the 2000 election fiasco -- another important story is how pro-Kerry forces are blocking Nader from getting on the ballot across the country.

These efforts are unparalleled in U.S. history and should gravely concern anyone who cares about the future of open politics in this country. The methods employed by the Democrats this year are far worse than any tactics used against the Progressive Party's Henry A. Wallace in 1948 or against Eugene J. McCarthy, who waged a forlorn independent bid for the White House in 1976. "

Democrats have hit an all time low. Republicans have mastered the art of not getting your vote to count and Democrats have become Zen masters at not allowing you to cast your vote at all.

...Never has a 1-2 punch hurt so much...

A great deal of progressives have been unable to uphold the 'good fight' as they've contracted a mysterious illness known as ABB syndrome. It's insidious, entering the hearts and conscience of progressives -- shutting down the brain to abstract thought. As anti-democratic operatives destroy civil liberties like falling dominoes, ABB infected flock 'Move On' conveyor belts into a slaughterhouse once reserved for mad cows.

Even Nixon play-book pledge Toby Moffett is shocked at the ease in stifling dissent:

"Many of the legal challenges filed by the Democrats this summer have been simply frivolous in nature, deliberately designed to harass the consumer activist and drain his campaign's dwindling resources. Former Democratic congressman Toby Moffett, a corporate lobbyist in D.C. and co-founder of something called Ballot Project, Inc. was quoted in the Washington Post : 'We wanted to neutralize [Nader's] campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things. But much to our astonishment we've actually been more successful than we thought we'd be in stopping him from getting on at all.' [See: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26933-2004Aug23.html?nav=rss_politics ]

"The Post reported that 'Moffett says his group has raised about $100,000 to fight Nader and is relying on pro bono work from lawyers across the country who have contributed up to $2 million worth of labor.' Nader's campaign, on the other hand, has barely raised $1.5 million for the entire campaign -- compared to $239.8 million raised for Bush and $210.7 million for Kerry -- and, understandably, hasn't had the resources to effectively counter all of the legal challenges confronting them during the past few months."

Moffett must be quite proud. Out spending the entire Nader/Camejo campaign with an ice-burg tip of DNC dirty money - the intent - keeping Nader/Camejo from spending resources on getting the issues that really matter to the public. Issues that are more important than a few swing-state voters. Issues that encompass the entire world - a world subjugated to US unilateralism...

"While pro-Bush groups can be legitimately criticized for trying to assist Nader's ballot access drives in Oregon, Michigan, Florida and elsewhere, the efforts of the pro-Kerry forces potentially disenfranchise millions of voters this autumn by denying them a viable alternative to the two major parties and are a far cry from the 'count every vote' mantra echoed by these same Democrats four years ago in the wake of the Florida voting debacle."

"Democratic efforts to knock Nader off the ballot this year are unprecedented, but major party interference in third-party presidential campaigns is hardly a new phenomenon..." (full)

Nader/Camejo are picking up steam... embarrassing the dirty DNC in Florida, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Mexico (pending)... Where are the real issues? Nader has declared this week's focus on the corporate crime wave within big business... stay tuned...

How to Win Enemies and Influence People

2004-09-21T09:50:00.000-07:00

Ralph Nader’s Campaign Victories — A Mid-Campaign Assessment
By Greg Bates

On September 14, 2004, nearly 80 leaders out of 113 who backed Nader in 2000 signed a petition urging people to vote for John Kerry. Many are luminaries of the left—Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Susan Sarandon, Studs Terkel and many others. But contrary to initial appearances, I believe this signals a major coup for Nader. His efforts may be losing him some friends, but a close analysis of this petition shows how he is nonetheless altering the political landscape for the better. The petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of his 113-person national ‘Nader 2000 Citizens Committee.’ This year, we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while we strongly disagree with Kerry’s policies on Iraq and other issues. For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal.”

Calling this a Nader victory reminds me of that joke about the Marxist facing the firing squad. As the marksmen took aim, his last words were “This is just a momentary setback for the revo—”.

How could such a devastating abandonment of Nader’s efforts be seen as his victory? Read on....

"We Are Not Secure"

2004-09-21T08:27:00.000-07:00

Article outlines Kerry's position on Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran & Syria...

Kerry's "Unwavering Commitment" to Securing a Middle East Realm
GARY LEUPP

Kofi Annan, who replaced Egypt's Boutros Boutros-Ghali as UN Secretary-General in 1996 (due solely to a U.S. veto of a second Boutros-Ghali term, probably resulting from the secretary-general's support for Palestine) has for the last eight years avoided antagonizing the sole remaining superpower. But even the soft-spoken, controversy-shy, aristocratic Ghanaian recently told the BBC that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "illegal." Read On...

Moore on Kerry:

2004-09-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore in his own words:

"If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!

read on...

Democrats Unite Against.... Nader?!?

2004-09-20T17:11:00.000-07:00

Victories

2004-09-19T11:45:00.000-07:00

Abolitionist Sojurner Truth

While much of the Anybody but Bush crowd continue their Nader/Camejo bashing - the campaign keeps on going with a perseverance (Muslims might consider the Quranic word sabr) - that is exemplary.

Greg Bates lists just a few of the important victories so far:

1. Had a string of small victories from debating Dean, to pushing for electoral reform, to pressuring Kerry and ratcheting up the attack on Bush. Then Nader helped to fundamentally alter the political landscape by accomplishing the following:

2. Created a widely accepted distinction between voting in swing and safe states;

3. Shown the importance of running in swing states, a fact separate from what voters in those states choose to do;

4. By example egged on the Green Party to get in the harness and run;

5. Exposed John Kerry for who he is and helped make criticism of his policies a pervasive part of political discourse;

6. Exposed Democratic leaders' opposition to democracy by showing they want to limit voter choice-and in the process revealed how little faith Democrats have in their candidate's ability to win an election by appealing to the voters;

7. By showing that the Democrats are losing constituents as the party moves right, Nader is helping to ignite reform efforts inside the Democratic Party that are taking place after the primaries;

8. And has stood his ground until some of his critics shifted focus to pursuing goals he shared.

Read complete article here

To the above we also add that Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo have brought to the forefront the important issues of Palestine, the war, and civil rights for all, but especially Arab and Muslim Americans.

These issues would have not been raised because of the failed strategy of "anybody but bush" that chose silence and support of a war candidate over a peace candidate.

Thank you Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, and all those participating in this important campaign for peace and justice!

In their own words:

2004-09-19T11:41:00.000-07:00

"Growing the Greens" by David Cobb 7/20/2004:

Green Pres. Candidate David Cobb: "In the battleground states that will decide the election, we understand if you won't vote for our ticket this time. That's OK."

Ralph Nader: "The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference."

Interview with Michael Albert at Z-Net:

David Cobb: "I am not very concerned with my vote total."

WisPolitics - 9/18/2004:

“I’m in it to win it,” Cobb said. “Do not vote for John Kerry. Vote for David Cobb. And with the greatest of respect, do not vote for Ralph Nader. The Nader candidacy will be over on November 3rd. But the Green Party will still be here.”

Green VP Candidate Pat LaMarche : "If the race is tight, I'll vote for Kerry," LaMarche said. "I love my country. But we should ask them that, because if Dick Cheney loved his country, he wouldn't be voting for himself."

Jeffrey St. Clair on LaMarche/Cobb voting Kerry: "This is the sound a political party makes as it commits suicide."

LaMarche: "I want to reassure all members of the Green Party that, on November 2nd, I will be voting Cobb/LaMarche."

Interview with Brad Carlton of the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel:

David Cobb: "And the way that I think we can accomplish both my primary goal and as well as the secondary is to target the very finite resources of candidate time and money into those states which I call the 'safe' states, or the states that are not in play."

Jeffrey St Clair on 'safe' voting: "Safe? Safe for whom? Not for Afghan or Iraqi citizens. Not for US troops. Not for the detainees at Gitmo, Bagram or Abu Ghraib. Not for migrant farm laborers or steelworkers. Not for the welfare mother or the 2 million souls rotting in American prisons. Not for the spotted owl, the streams of Appalachia or the rainforests of Alaska. Not for the residents of Cancer Alley or the peasants of Colombia or teen age girls slaving away in Nike's toxic Indonesia sneaker mills. Not for the Palestinians."

Ralph Nader: "If you're trying to build a political movement, you don't turn your backs on people who happen to live in so-called close states," Nader said. "Our plan is to get as many votes nationally as possible.

Ralph Nader: "We're campaigning all-out."

Ralph Nader: As for the Green Party, he said, "I wish them well."

Interview with Judy Woodruff - CNN - 6/29/2004:

David Cobb: "[My campaign] is a nuanced strategy."

David Cobb: “[Voters] are not voting for John Kerry,” Cobb said. “They’re voting against George Bush.”

Ralph Nader: "I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers."

David Cobb: “What other people call spoiling,” he said, “I call participating and advocating an aggressive agenda.”

Ralph Nader: "Turn on to politics... or politics will turn on you."

$10,000 raised in event at UW

2004-09-18T22:33:00.000-07:00

Nader whips up frenzy of admirers - Raises $10,000 from UW Students:

....Muhammad Umar Memon, a UW-Madison professor in the Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia, was one of many people who donated to Nader's campaign during the evening. He left the event inspired.

"If you wake him up when he's fast asleep he will give you a list of issues off the top of his head," Memon said.

"It's a scintillating mind with a breathtaking clarity," he said. "They look like pygmies to me, these bozos, Kerry and Bush. They cannot speak a sentence."

And the young man who was the first to stand and donate $1,000?

It was Alex Correll, 22, a biology and French student at Edgewood College.

"I have a small amount of money laying around that my grandparents gave me to invest in the stock market," Correll said after the event. "Hopefully, I am investing in the future in a different way by contributing to Nader."

Correll didn't vote for Nader in 2000. Instead, he was "conned into voting for (Al) Gore." Correll says he is not going to do the same this year.

This time, Correll says, he's not buying the line that he is throwing his vote away by voting for Nader. He doesn't want to hear that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader," he said.

Read Full...

A vote for Nader is a vote for democracy

2004-09-18T22:22:00.000-07:00

Glenn Foltin
September 18, 2004
Star Tribune:

With Election Day still nearly two months away, I have made up my mind to waste my vote. Despite warnings against the folly of supporting a third-party candidate and admonitions that such support may help to elect someone I oppose, I intend to vote for Ralph Nader.

The reason for my decision could not be any simpler, or in my mind any more relevant: As a progressive, Nader is the candidate whose views are closest to my own. This reasoning may be criticized as impractical, but I am convinced that democracy functions best when voters choose candidates out of hope and principle rather than fear and resignation.

Although John Kerry's opponents have vociferously attacked him as a liberal, his record and rhetoric belie that label. Kerry voted to authorize military action in Iraq and has repeatedly reiterated his support for the war. He has even said that he would have supported military intervention if he had known that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Other notably antiprogressive Kerry votes include those he cast in favor of the USA Patriot Act and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

His stated plan for the future is no more encouraging. Even at his most optimistic Kerry speaks of continuing the occupation of Iraq for four more years. He has also suggested that, like President Bush, he would consider using military force preemptively.

Domestically, Kerry makes no mention of living-wage legislation and fails to support universal health care, but emphasizes his determination to lower corporate tax rates.

In contrast, Nader has steadfastly opposed the war and calls for a swift end to our military and corporate occupation of Iraq. He advocates the establishment of a living wage and a single-payer health care system that would insure all Americans. Nader also champions a repeal of the Patriot Act and is a proponent of meaningful campaign finance reform. These are vital issues for liberals, yet many on the left continue to believe that they must support any candidate the Democratic Party offers in order to defeat George W. Bush.

More and more as Election Day approaches, we will hear, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Democrats will insist that now is not the time to stand on principle, that the stakes are too high to be distracted by idealism. They will call for unified opposition to the current president without regard for the policies of their candidate. But supporting Kerry simply because he is deemed electable and less odious than Bush only encourages the Democrats' abandonment of progressive principles.

Like smokers waiting for an easier time to quit, we may avoid short-term pain at the peril of encouraging a growing cancer. There is no easy time to stand up for one's beliefs, but there is no inappropriate time either. If we abandon hope and allow ourselves to be motivated by fear, then we are resigned to casting truly wasted votes: those surrendered to candidates we don't believe in.

Mr. Kerry blind-sided by Kirkpatrick...

2004-09-18T14:14:00.000-07:00

Washington Times:

At one point during yesterday's town hall meeting, Mr. Kerry seemed to be blind-sided when audience member Bob Kirkpatrick asked him about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

As Mr. Kirkpatrick said the U.S. must change "our shameful treatment of the Palestinians," Mr. Kerry nodded his head. But Mr. Kerry took issue with the man's statement that Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy.

"We're going to support Israel because Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, has a special relationship with the United States, is struggling for survival, is under attack," Mr. Kerry said.

After the event, Mr. Kirkpatrick said he agrees with Mr. Kerry on just about every other issue, but he still doesn't know if he will support Mr. Kerry in November because of the Palestinian question.

"It's going to be four more years as usual," he said, adding that he had expected Mr. Kerry to answer as he did, and asking the question was a way to get Mr. Kerry on the record.

"I wanted to have him say it in public," Mr. Kirkpatrick said, who during a follow-up question said Israel "has too much control over Congress," which is subservient to that nation's interests.

Mr. Kerry responded: "I disagree with you then. I don't believe we are subservient, I'm not subservient, and I'm not going to be subservient to anybody."

Also read:

"The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"
By John Kerry

"An Unwavering Commitment To Reforming the Middle East"
By John Kerry

Nader Continues to Urge Peace in the Middle East

The two headed animal

2004-09-17T20:32:00.000-07:00

Kerry should be clear: We are not defending our country by our war in Iraq, and we should get out.

2004-09-16T22:40:00.000-07:00

Noted historian, and author of A People's History of United States, Howard Zinn has said that Kerry must have the courage to call for an end to the occupation of Iraq.

If John Kerry wants to win, he must recognize that our military intervention in Iraq is a disaster -- for Americans, for Iraqis, for the world. He must stop boasting about his courage in Vietnam and instead start talking about his moral courage in opposing that war.

He was not defending this country when he fought in Vietnam. He was defending this country when he said that we were wrong to be in Vietnam and we should get out.

He should not be saying that he will wage the Iraq War better, that he will replace U.S. troops with soldiers from other countries. If it is immoral for our soldiers to be occupying Iraq and killing Iraqis every day, then it is immoral for foreign soldiers to do the same.

He should be clear: We are not defending our country by our war in Iraq, and we should get out.

Read more here

But Kerry, same as Bush - will not listen, that is obvious from the way he has run away from the peace movement.

This November, vote for peace, vote against the war, vote against occupations, Vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo. Read their call for withdrawl from Iraq. End the occupation!

A vote for Kerry is a vote for war

2004-09-16T01:19:00.000-07:00

IF JOHN Kerry loses the presidential election, future historians may point to one moment when his fate was sealed. And no, it wasn’t when Ralph Nader announced he was running for president. The moment was Kerry’s answer to a question that Bush posed right before the Republican National Convention.

Knowing what he knows now, Bush asked, would Kerry have voted in favor of the congressional resolution giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq? And John Kerry--the hope of so many opponents of Bush’s war--stepped right up and declared: Yes. Read on...

Why vote for Nader if he won’t win?

2004-09-16T01:12:00.000-07:00

"FOR MANY people who agree with Ralph Nader on the issues, there’s still a nagging doubt about whether a vote for his independent presidential campaign is wasted. After all, Nader can’t win the 2004 election. And if he can’t win right now, goes the argument, why vote for him? More to the point, why not vote for John Kerry, as a short-term measure that would at least get George Bush off our necks for the next four years?

John Kerry may support the occupation of Iraq and Israel’s occupation of Palestine. He may have voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. But since Nader won’t beat Bush or Kerry, doesn’t it make sense to vote for the "lesser evil" Democrat and then start protesting the day after the elections?

Our answer is no--whether the question is looked at in the short term or the long term. To begin with, progressive support for John Kerry--and the complicity of many leading left voices in the Democrats’ all-out war on Nader--is doing damage right now to the left. Read on...

Oppose the war - not just Bush

2004-09-15T21:41:00.000-07:00

While important strides have been made against the war in Iraq - the "anybody but bush" illness is taking a rapid toll on the anti-war movement. Our movement was never meant to be against personalities - it was always about being against a war policy. A change in personalities is not going to end war - we must create a movement that is for justice and peace. And we must move away from the silliness of "anybody but bush."

Ron Jacobs writes in Counterpunch:

Why is the antiwar movement in disarray? The most obvious answer is the Anybody But Bush phenomenon. The personalization of the war around George Bush has created a misguided belief among many people who oppose the war and the imperial drive it represents that this war will somehow end if Bush and his cohorts are given their walking papers.

The Republicans have their Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The Democrats have their own take on how to maintain and expand the Empire. It is a plan that they call Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

the Democrats' document places the war on the world in terms that are not much different than the GOP's Project for a New American Century. This one quote from the forward says it all: "Democrats will maintain the world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."

The politicians are unable to think in terms that transcend their paymasters, no matter how much they would like to. If we allow the agenda to be set by their politics and elections, we will fail. It is up to us to create a popular momentum that those in power cannot ignore. Only then will they feel secure enough to look beyond their corporate masters and actually do what the people want them to.

Read Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo's call for withdrawl from Iraq. End the occupation!

Why The West is Losing the War on Terror

2004-09-15T14:55:00.000-07:00

As Bush/Kerry call for more troops and eye Iran - a senior terrorism analyst at the CIA has very different thoughts. Senior officials at the CIA normally wait until retirement to write books, but maybe he felt an urgency in the times...

Toronto Sun:

Three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America's politicians and media continue to gravely deceive the public about the so-called war on terrorism.

Now the definitive book on terrorism has appeared that should be mandatory reading for every thinking person. It's called Imperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror.

The cover simply identifies the author as "Anonymous," but he's already been widely identified in the American media as Michael Scheuer, a senior terrorism analyst for the CIA.

It is unprecedented that a serving CIA officer was allowed to publish a book, one that is clearly a dramatic rebuke to the neoconservatives who drove the U.S. into two wars.

Scheuer's work is a goldmine of information and brilliant analysis. It breaks taboos and sweeps away the clouds of lies about al-Qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan. He says U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious -- "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism."

The U.S. has made only "a modest dent in enemy forces."

None of bin Laden's reasons for waging war on the U.S., writes Scheuer, "have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy (as President George Bush claims), but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world," notably unlimited support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians and the destruction of Iraq.

"For cheap, easily accessible oil, Washington and the West have supported Muslim tyrannies (Osama) bin Laden and other Islamists seek to destroy," Scheuer writes. "The war has the potential to last beyond our children's lifetimes and be fought mostly on U.S. soil." Read on...

Republicans and Democrats both use 9/11 to justify war

2004-09-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

The tragic events of 9/11/01 have no doubt changed many of our lives. However, this tragedy is not something that should be used to justify attacking and killing innocent people worldwide, not in our name.

The duopoly of Republicans and Democrats have once again used the day to justify their wars - specifically their wars on the Iraqi and Afghani people.

Stephen Zunes writes:

On the eve of the third anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. House of Representatives – by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 406-16 – passed a resolution linking Iraq to the Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This comes despite conclusions reached by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the consensus of independent strategic analysis familiar with the region that no such links ever existed

The single most misleading clause in the House resolution claims that “the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies.” This charge was originally raised by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech before the United Nations and has long since been discredited.

In short, it appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any qualms about taking advantage of the anniversary of one of the greatest disasters ever inflicted upon our soil in order to justify the ongoing violence inflicted upon the people of Iraq and upon American soldiers forced to fight there. That these two parties are the only realistic choices we have on a national level this election year is not just a tragedy for the people of Iraq, but a sad testament to the state of American democracy.

The 16 who voted against this resolution included Dennis Kucinich, and Barbara Lee. Thank You! While Dennis's run did not result in any change in the Democratic Party's platform - it is good to see that he continues to stand his ground. And the wonderful Barbara Lee - I am lucky and happy to live in her district.

Read Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo's call for withdrawl from Iraq. End the occupation!

New Account of Abu Ghraib...

2004-09-14T13:55:00.000-07:00

Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh joins us in our firehouse studio to talk about his new book, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. The book takes a look behind the public story of President Bush's "war on terror" and into the lies and obsessions that led America into Iraq. Hersh provides a new account of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal that he exposed last spring and of where, he believes, responsibility for the scandal ultimately lies.

Watch 256k Stream

John Kerry Dodges the Press

2004-09-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

Joshua Frank...

"When Israel ended a six-month lull in violence by striking a suspected Hamas training camp in Gaza and killing 14 with a U.S.-built Apache helicopter in response to the September 2 suicide bombings, Kerry did not take one question. Nor did he speak with the press corps when Israeli occupation forces destroyed two large apartment buildings south of Gaza in Khan Younis, leaving nearly 100 Palestinians homeless. But perhaps Kerry’s most appalling act of silence came on September 7 when the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq reached 1,000 and Kerry declined to chat with the media." Read on...