Go %$#@ Yourself Ralph Nader

[vermicious knid]

He says he is going to run for president again. This man tried to convince everybody that "there is not a dime's worth of difference" between the Democrats and the Republicans. I guess the war-mongering, global warming-dismissing Al Gore would have put us in the same place we are now. Less that "dime's worth of difference" of course. Few people on Earth have been more harmful to the environment than he, the nominee of the Green party, has.

If he felt a shred of remorse for sharing responsibility in EVERY DETRIMENTAL THING GEORGE BUSH HAS EVER DONE, and slunk away, I could forgive him. He couldn't have predicted the 4,000 dead soldiers and the million dead Iraqis. But now he does know, and he still is playing this game? He can take a scenic ride off the edge of the Grand Canyon in an exploding Ford Pinto.

[strandinthewind]

Well, to a degree, Nader is correct.

Here is the vote to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq. See http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ ("The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.")

Moreover, the D's were all about the WMD in Clinton's 8 years and many people were killed in the name of them. True, a country was not invaded, but that hardly excuses killing in the name of them by anyone and no matter how little? Here is Pres. Clinton's speech, which I suggest W could have used almost verbatim in 92:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html ("")

There are other examples, but I think the foregoing illustrates the point.

In the end, I agree the D's are mostly better than the R's. But, the differences are hardly that significant in the big picture and both have killed in the name of the same thing though to varying degrees.

I regret Nader's entrance because now the D's have IMO less of a chance of winning. Though I do not really like the D's, they are IMO the lesser of two evils in this situation.

[JWS]

If Nader is masking a serious run, he'll pull votes away from the Democrats. Nader made his name in 1962 with "The Corvair, unsafe at any speed"... and this guy is still lurking around.

[BombaySapphire3]

I was sickened by the number of Democrats that voted to endorse the Iraq disaster...of course Hillary was among them ..that is why it will be more difficult for Nader to siphon votes off of Obama ..who at this point thank the gods...appears to be the likely nominee.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I was sickened by the number of Democrats that voted to endorse the Iraq disaster...of course Hillary was among them ..that is why it will be more difficult for Nader to siphon votes off of Obama ..who at this point thank the gods...appears to be the likely nominee.

I agree that many D's and likely others who normally would vote for Nader will perhaps believe Obama's platform of change. After all, Nader in the anti-establishment candidate and Obama is running on that platform. Personally, I actually believe Nader would try to implement changes. I do not believe that of Obama. But, Obama likely will be the nominee and he can beat McCain. So, I suppose time will tell and I certainly have been wrong before

Also, Obama needs to stop making seemingly silly mistakes. Not wearing an American flag on his lapel is one of them. His wife's recent comments are another one. I am not a politician and even I know that you do not fukc with the American flag and/or say in any way or context that you are "finally proud" of being an American. I get the context of both and basically agree. But, the points of both could have been made with much more tact, without giving the Swift Boat a$$e$ of the world a platform, and without the risk of alienating any voters, which Obama is going to need

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, to a degree, Nader is correct.

Here is the vote to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq. See http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ ("The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.")

Moreover, the D's were all about the WMD in Clinton's 8 years and many people were killed in the name of them. True, a country was not invaded, but that hardly excuses killing in the name of them by anyone and no matter how little? Here is Pres. Clinton's speech, which I suggest W could have used almost verbatim in 92:

...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html ("")

There are other examples, but I think the foregoing illustrates the point.

In the end, I agree the D's are mostly better than the R's. But, the differences are hardly that significant in the big picture and both have killed in the name of the same thing though to varying degrees.

I regret Nader's entrance because now the D's have IMO less of a chance of winning. Though I do not really like the D's, they are IMO the lesser of two evils in this situation.

Except wasn't Saddam still cooperating when Bush went in?

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree that many D's and likely others who normally would vote for Nader will perhaps believe Obama's platform of change. After all, Nader in the anti-establishment candidate and Obama is running on that platform. Personally, I actually believe Nader would try to implement changes. I do not believe that of Obama. But, Obama likely will be the nominee and he can beat McCain. So, I suppose time will tell and I certainly have been wrong before

Also, Obama needs to stop making seemingly silly mistakes. Not wearing an American flag on his lapel is one of them. His wife's recent comments are another one. I am not a politician and even I know that you do not fukc with the American flag and/or say in any way or context that you are "finally proud" of being an American. I get the context of both and basically agree. But, the points of both could have been made with much more tact, without giving the Swift Boat a$$e$ of the world a platform, and without the risk of alienating any voters, which Obama is going to need

Obama rubs me the wrong way for some reason. The things you mentioned above might be contributing to that. I think there's a difference between being a good motivational speaker (that Obama is) and being a good leader. Ah, but what the hell do i know.

[gldstwmn]

Paper tiger.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Except wasn't Saddam still cooperating when Bush went in?

Well, at first, he submitted the same docs that he always submitted and then when pushed, I think he did something else. Then, he wanted his "palaces" and "residences" off limits to inspectors, which I seem to remember took awhile to resolve. Then, while the inspectors were there, there were reports that he was not cooperating in that he demanded advance notice of places to be inspected. But, in the very end, I think he was cooperating, at least according Hans Blix, who had warned SH against such cat and mouse games.

Here is a pretty good cite that goes into it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

In the end, I was all for the continued inspections promulgated by the Bush administration via the UN. I think that after 9/11, the US could not afford to let any rouge nation have access to any WMD regardless of their involvement in 9/11. I think the vast majority of people think this was a sound policy.

The problem for me, and perhaps many others, is twofold:

1. W did not wait for the UN inspections to conclude and jumped the gun in an apparent way to get around the obvious conclusion of no WMD that the UN was going to reach.

2. I could stomach the invasion of Iraq on a solely civil rights idea if W/Cheney had actually listened to any military advisors who all pretty much unanimously called for a far greater number of troops in Iraq after the invasion, much less a coherent plan to rebuild Iraq.

The latter IMO is unforgiveable and makes W's policies differ greatly from the D's policies in the 90's.

But and to the point of this thread, the D's were after blood in Iraq in the 90's, IMO lead by Clinton in an effort to take public opinion away from the sex scandal, not to mention the starving of Iraq, while the rich got richer via the Oil for Food program.

In the end, both the D's and the R's have IMO abused Iraq for the last 18 years and it was easy to do because the public and mostly the world hated SH. Sadly, the citizens of Iraq, who are mostly innocent, had paid for it.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Paper tiger.

who? Nader? Obama? The US?

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, Obama likely will be the nominee and he can beat McCain.

Yes he can ..I don't believe Hillary can however ..with or without the Nader factor .So everyone in Ohio and Texas unlesss you want another 4 years of a Republican in the White House please vote Obama!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

who? Nader? Obama? The US?

Nader. If Nader was really interested in walking the walk, he would have done something to rectify all of those things that he says are wrong with politics. Instead, after the '00 and '04 elections he faded into the background again only to be seen like Punxsutawney Phil on Groundhog day. I don't know what his deal is but it has nothing to do with altruism. I think most people are done with him. I mean really, can anyone argue that Al Gore would have been a worse president than Bush?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Nader. If Nader was really interested in walking the walk, he would have done something to rectify all of those things that he says are wrong with politics. Instead, after the '00 and '04 elections he faded into the background again only to be seen like Punxsutawney Phil on Groundhog day. I don't know what his deal is but it has nothing to do with altruism. I think most people are done with him. I mean really, can anyone argue that Al Gore would have been a worse president than Bush?

I agree in that Nader did great things in the latter part of the 20th century, particularly in the area of automobile safety. But, he has done nothing but talk about things IMO since then.

In the end, even if he runs, the candidate is the reason he or she wins or loses. In other words, I think blaming Nader for a loss is incorrect. It just means the platform was not appealing enough to the masses.

[estranged4life]

Who cares...Nader just wants to have his ego stroked some more.

If Clinton's name is on the ballot I will stay home that day in November.

Uck-fay Clinton...Uck-fay McCain...Just another 4 years of lying and war.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local...ell_Nader.html

Not so fast, Democrats tell Nader
Pa.'s party wants him to settle legal debts before getting on the ballot. He likens the court fees to a "poll tax."
By Amy Worden

Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG - Ralph Nader has jumped into the presidential race, contending that he wants to energize third-party politics.
But angry Pennsylvania Democrats say Nader should first settle his legal bills from his last presidential campaign.

And until he does, lawyers from Pittsburgh have persuaded a Washington judge to freeze $61,000 in Nader's personal bank accounts.

Nevertheless, a defiant Nader said that this year he would once again seek a place on the Pennsylvania ballot, and in an interview he delivered a sharp dig at the state.

"Pennsylvania is the poster child for obstructing small-party and independent candidates to get on the ballot," Nader said. "They should give voters choice."

Since 2004, Nader has been locked in a tangled series of court battles with Democrats, stemming from his failed attempt to get on the state ballot in 2004.

Democratic anger at Nader dates back to his 2000 run, when many in the party became convinced that the votes he received in Florida cost Al Gore the election.

So when Nader tried to get on the ballot in 2004, the law firm of Reed Smith, representing a group of Democratic voters, filed suit, alleging that many of the required petition signatures Nader had submitted in Pennsylvania were fraudulent. Commonwealth Court agreed and, in a decision upheld by the state Supreme Court, found that only 37 percent of the 51,273 signatures were valid.

Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins, elected as a Democrat, called the petition "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated on this court."

In January 2005, Commonwealth Court ordered Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, to pay the Reed Smith firm $81,102 in costs for copying and expert witnesses. Camejo settled with the firm for $20,000.

The firm last summer placed a freeze on Nader's personal bank accounts in Washington, where Nader lives, seeking to obtain the remaining $61,000 in court costs.

Reed Smith says it wants to recover what's owed by the losing party: the costs for transcripts and fees for experts in handwriting analysis.

Nader maintains that the imposition of court fees in a case such as his are akin to a "poll tax" and constitute a civil rights violation.

"Candidates' rights are a lot like voters' rights 50 years ago," Nader said.

Nader alleges that his case represented the first time in U.S. history that a court assessed a post-election penalty against a candidate defending his right to be on the ballot.

Pennsylvania Democratic Party officials say Nader is trying to apply his own standard to the law.

"The bottom line is he fraudulently tried to obtain access to the Pennsylvania ballot," said Democratic Party chairman T.J. Rooney. "He should satisfy his outstanding obligations before trying to do it again."

Gregory Harvey, a lawyer with Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, which also represented the plaintiffs, said candidates should not be exempt from paying court costs if they lose.

"It has been the rule that the losing side in such a case pay the costs of transcribing," he said. Harvey said that because the Nader campaign had presented so many invalid signatures, it cost $25,000 for handwriting analysis fees.

Rooney said the party was not trying to keep third-party or independent candidates off the ballot.

"This is not an attempt to squash third-party candidates, but to hold Ralph Nader accountable," Rooney said.

It will be easier for Nader to get on the ballot this year, however.

Under state law, the minimum number of signatures required is based on a percentage of the number of ballots cast in the last statewide election.

Because 2007 was an off year, and turnout was low, Nader has to come up with only half as many signatures as in 2004.

This time, according to a spokesman for the Department of State, that figure is 2 percent of the votes cast in the Supreme Court election held last November, or 24,666 signatures.

The deadline for third-party candidates to submit their petitions is Aug. 1.