An Open Letter from Ralph Nader to Cindy Sheehan

[pbartch]

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0810-15.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 10, 2005
3:33 PM
CONTACT: Ralph Nader
202-387-8034


An Open Letter from Ralph Nader to Cindy Sheehan

WASHINGTON - August 10 -

Dear Ms. Sheehan,

From your grief over the loss of your son, Casey, in Iraq has come the courage to spotlight nationally the cowardly character trait of a President who refuses to meet with anyone or any group critical of his illegal, fabricated, deceptive war and occupation of that ravaged country. As a messianic militarist, Mr. Bush turned aside his own father's major advisers who warned him of the terroristic, political, and diplomatic perils to the United States from an invasion of Iraq. He refused to listen.

Thirteen organizations in early 2003 separately wrote their President requesting a meeting to have him hear them out as to why they opposed his drumbeating, on-the-road-to war policies. These groups represented millions of Americans. They included church leaders, veterans, business, labor, retired intelligence officials, students, women and others. They are among those Americans who are not allowed through the carefully screened public audiences that are bused to arenas around the country to hear his repetitive slogans for carrying on this draining, boomeranging war. They each wrote President Bush but he never bothered even to acknowledge their letters simply to say no to the requested meetings. Not even the courtesy of a reply came from their White House. Ever since then it has been the same-exclusion, denial, contempt and arrogance for views counter to that of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the tight circle around them that composes the inner tin ear of this Administration. Why, they even refuse to listen to objections by their own government's military lawyers (JAG) over repeated violations of due process of law. When will he realize that he is supposed to be the President of all the people, not just those misled into supporting his Iraq maneuvers?

Perhaps the breakthrough will begin this hot August in Crawford, Texas, with the devastating loss of a beloved child transformed into a mission for the soul of our country. This rogue regime, led by two draft-dodgers and officially counseled by similar pro-war evaders during the Vietnam War, is not "our country." Millions of Americans, including military and public servants in his Administration, and many in the retired military, diplomatic and intelligence services, opposed this war, still oppose it and do not equate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with the United States of America.

Our flag stands for "liberty and justice for all." Our flag must never be misused or defiled as a bandana for war crimes, as a gag against the people's freedom of speech and conscience or as a fig leaf to hide the shame of charlatans in high public office, who violate our Constitution, our laws and our founding fathers' framework for accountable, responsive government.

You will be goaded to cross the semantic line against a President who himself has crossed the much graver constitutional line that has cost so many lives on both sides and continues to cost and cost our country in so many ways domestically and before the world. Neglecting America for the Iraq war has become the widening downward path trod by the Bush government.

Authenticity, bereft of contrivances, is what must confront this White House Misleader. And authenticity is what you are and what drives you as you demand to see this resistant President. He is on an intermittent month long vacation, with spells for fundraisers and other insulated events. His schedule provides ample time for such a meeting. You reflect the hopes and prayers of millions of like-minded Americans. Should he relent and opens his doors, be sure to ask why he lowballs U.S. casualties in Iraq, deleting and disrespecting soldiers seriously hurt or sickened in the Iraq war theatre, but not in direct combat. Remind him of those soldiers back in military hospitals who, with their families, wonder why they are not being counted as they cope with their serious and permanent disabilities. (60 Minutes, CBS program). Ask him why, despite Pentagon audits and GAO investigations about corruption, waste and non-delivery of services in Iraq by profiteering large corporations totaling billions of dollars, this Commander of Chief accepted campaign contributions from their executives and proceeds to let this giant corporate robbery continue without the requisite law and order?

Consider bringing to him a copy of President Dwight Eisenhower's famous "Cross of Iron" speech, delivered in April 1953 before the nation's newspaper editors in Washington, D.C. And add statements by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), a Middle East specialist who strongly criticized the Bush-Cheney war policy before and after March 2003. May you and your associates succeed in galvanizing the public debate in this country over why a growing majority of Americans now think it was a costly mistake to invade Iraq and want our soldiers back, with the U.S. out of that country. He knows that his support for how he is handling this war-occupation is falling close to one third of respondents in recent polls-the lowest yet. Even with the mass-media at his disposal everyday, he now represents a minority of public opinion, which should give him pause before closing his oil marinated doors on majority views in this nation.

May you prevail where others have failed to secure an audience with Mr. Bush.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

[hippiechick]

1. Ralph, I useta love ya ... but now ... yawn...

:(

[louis-t]

2. Already posted, but....

I do love the phrase:"messianic militarist".

[enough]

3. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4308029

[LittleClarkie]

4. Considering he campaigned more against Dems than Bush

and took their money, he's one of the last people I want to hear on this issue.

[DerekG]

16. Would you rather hear from militarist Democrats?

Clinton. Schumer. Kerry. Lieberman. Edwards. You know, the doughfaced warmongers who voted for the IWR?

Somehow, I think Nader has more credibility on this issue.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Or would have if he hadn't bent over for Smear Vet money

I'm not a "dime's worth a difference" person. That only happens when one is standing so far to the left that everything looks distorted and close together.

You're lumping people together who don't deserve to be lumped. Biden, Clinton, Lieberman, okay. Edwards doesn't deserve it. Kerry doesn't deserve it. We wouldn't be in Iraq now.

And the only doughfaced warmonger I see is Bush. That's where my anger goes.

[DerekG]

19. Why not include Kerry and Edwards?

1. Did they not vote for the IWR?

2. Have they called for immediate withdrawal?

When it comes to war, I am a "dime's worth of difference" kind of guy, since most of our 20th century imperialist ventures were waged by "progressives" like Wilson, Truman and Johnson. In this respect, at least, the New Democrats have stayed true to party tradition. Will this generation of politicos find it any easier to wash the blood from their hands? I imagine it wasn't easy for all those Fair Deal cold warriors and the Great Society liberals. But we'll see.

I'll concede this: Kerry isn't a doughfaced warmonger...he's more of a horse-faced one.

[Corey_Baker08]

28. " doughfaced warmonger he's more of a horse-faced one"

You are such an asshole. What other Democrat in the senate is fighting more for us than Kerry? No one is and all people like you hang on is the IWR. The point is we are in Iraq now and we need to get the hell out, if Kerry were President now we wouldnt be in there.

[DerekG]

41. "We wouldn't be in there" if Kerry was elected?

So the guy who called for an additional 40,000 troops would have ended the war within six months? A real peacenik, that one.

Don't take my word for it. Here's a few corkers, straight from the horse's mouth:


“What I want to do is to change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to the terrorists.” (This needs no explanation; but you might want to check out pictures of the Fallujah dead.)

“I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning.”

“I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are.” (How encouraging: bi-partisan support for perpetual war.)

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have." (When asked whether he'd vote for the IWR even if he knew there were no WMDs.)

"American presidents should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace. This president did not have a plan to win the peace and the evidence is still that they are scrambling and struggling to try to find a way to do it." (Goddamn, he sounds like Nixon; lamenting a poorly orchestrated rape.)

[pbartch]

51. GET OUTTA IRAQ. (Kerry never would have got us in there)

“If you fall on the side that is pro-George, and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.”

"But whatever side you fall on, quit being on the fence."

"The opposite of good is not evil, it’s apathy. And we have to get this country off their butts, and we have to get the choir singing."

[dad]

60. No, Kerry is the a-hole

For voting for the war. And a double asshole for saying he'd vote for it again even knowing there were no WMD.
Nader has been right on this issue from day one, so you and all the other haters can step off!

[wisteria]

29. All I have to say is you are clueless and as wrong as Bush is

on this and other issues,when you don't at least try to understand Kerry's Iraq war position and his plans for pull out and end.

[LittleClarkie]

30. No one on our side, including Kucinich, called for IMMEDIATE withdrawl

Great idea. A Saigon-style clusterfuck. Wonderful plan, firmly rooted in reality. :sarcasm:

And for the 40 millionth time, they were fucking lied to. They were told war was a last resort. Bush made it the first resort. Very few of them are cheering for this was as it is. I'll dig up Will Pitts interview with Kerry if you like, where he explains exactly what he was thinking.



His face looks just fine to me.

[DerekG]

32. So you fancy Kerry to be a Jefferson Smith, eh?

The veritable babe in the woods, who was *lied* to by the Bush administration (gasp!). Who, besides the majority of DUers and rational Americans, would ever expect Bush to lie? Surely not the man who plumbed the depths of the BFEE vis-a-vis Iran-Contra, right? I mean, we the people may have access to the PNAC homepage, but our naive representatives wouldn't be privy to such conspiratorial doggerel?

Poor guy. Positively Capra-esque.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Okay, here's that Will Pitt quote

"JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, 'Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,' it is pretty compelling.

What's more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right.

They didn't do it right. They did it wrong. I was one of the first Senators to stand up and hold them accountable for it. In fact, I forewarned them each step of the way about what they needed to do to legitimately live up to their obligations"

There's another around somewhere about him not thinking Bush had been hyjacked yet by the neocons, thinking that Powell had more power. Hell, even Bush's dad knew better. But Bush wasn't listening to those voices. I'll go find that other quote.

[DerekG]

37. "A Saigon-style clusterf---k?"

So I assume that you, like many of the politicos of the time, thought the idea of "cutting and running" abhorrent? So America the Colossus is indeed the bulwark between order and chaos? Perhaps George Carlin was correct: "we left a few women and children alive and it's been bothering us ever since."

If we stay, there will certainly be more killing.

If we leave, there *may* be an escalation. Maybe not.

I opt for the uncertain.

[LittleClarkie]

44. Of course you do. It's not your ass on the line, is it?

With Bush in office, and the same motherfuckers (Rummy and Cheney) who were in there when Ford pulled out of Vietnam, not in a measured way, but as a messy retreat, we will indeed have a Saigon-style clusterfuck. Are you telling me that Rummy and Cheney suddenly know what the fuck their doing and will do it right this time?

With Kerry in there, it would have been a gradual withdrawl according to his plan. At least he would have been working toward that. Not "out now!!!!" mind you, but certainly not what we've got now with the cowboy from hell. No 14 bases. No permanent presence, and hopefully a stable country when he was done.

[DerekG]

49. Several points

1. There isn't anyone on this board (excepting the trolls) who think Rumsfeld and Cheney are anything but fascistic boobs. The neocons are disciples of Moloch, and they're gonna burn in Hell.

2. Be wary of "gradual withdrawal." After all, this term was elemental to the Nixon Doctrine (Vietnamization, if you prefer), whereupon mass numbers of U.S. troops were pulled out of Indochina (to stifle dissent at home), while air bombings became more frequent, and more barbarous (the culmination of this being the invasion of Cambodia). True, American casualities decreased, but another million peasants were thrown into the fires. Indeed, "gradual" can be code for "years."

3. The only way we could have had a more orderly withdrawal from Saigon was if the Ford administration granted U.S. ambassador Martin his request for 700 million. Would you have given him that sum, even with the knowledge that Saigon was all but doomed?


On edit: Spelling error

[LittleClarkie]

50. Maybe if it would have saved some lives

I thought it was Rummy and Cheney who talked Ford into the timing of the pullout, at least. I think I read that in the Rolling Stone.

One point: Do you really thing you have to explain to a Vietnam veteran and former anti-war protester, who railed against Nixon's "Vietnamization," not to do it in that way?

Much as there are parallels, Iraq is not Vietnam. Pulling our troops out to be substituted for European troops to get our face off the war and tone down the animosity, followed by a goal to put a good chunk of troops out in 6 months and have them all out by the end of four sounds like a better step in the right direction that what we're looking at right now.

No, I don't think Kerry would have pulled a Nixon.

[DerekG]

52. My response

1. I assumed from your moniker that you were relatively young. Had I known you were a veteran and demonstrator, I obviously would have pared down the body. My intention was not to be condescending.

2. You and I probably have very different ideas of what a Kerry administration would seek in Iraq. You have some degree of admiration for him, so I would venture to say you think a democratic Iraq would be a priority for him (please correct me if I'm wrong). I, on the other hand, fancy him to be an establishment figure, whose vision for Iraq diverges from the neocons only insofar that he wants America to have a popular image. In essence, Kerry wants a kinder, gentler American empire. But empire is what he wants, and I don't believe for a second that he would extricate the forces required for the elite to get a return on their investment. Consider this excerpt from one of his 2004 speeches, detailing his plan for conducting the war:

"First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone...He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."

This has all the air of a business venture, no? An enticing one, too: by inviting other parties to the table (spoils, spoils), America's image is at least partially salvaged, even as we reap substantial benefits.

Was it Kerry's priority to mold Iraq into a democracy, or into a client state? Why did he have nary a word to say about the 14 permanent military bases?

What is his view of self-determination? Well, consider his denouncement of populist leader Hugo Chavez:

"Chavez is fast on the road of becoming exactly that. He is breaking the rules of democracy. I think it is very important for him to allow that referendum to take place and for this administration and others to put more visibility on what is happening so we can hold him accountable to international standards of behavior. Democracy is at risk."

Yes, I have to wonder who Kerry answers to.

[LittleClarkie]

54. Took me a minute

No, not me. I'm not young, but I'm not that old. And I'm a girlie to boot, so I wouldn't have been in the 'Nam. The closest I come to military is that my entire family aside from me was in it.

Kerry. I meant Kerry.

And we do disagree about his intentions. I know he mentioned the 14 bases. I'm trying to remember if it was Letterman or one of the debates, but he did talk about it. And only just recently he made a statement about the need for no permanent presence in Iraq. I'll have to see the link on that as well.

I have also read his book on international crime, so I see his focus as being in that realm.

I am Little Clarkie because I started with Clark in the primaries, but only in a vague, superficial, just-woke-up capacity. I thought of Kerry as Mr. Styrofoam Personality, but forced myself to check him out as Bush revealed himself to me as more and more grotesque. I rather ended up liking the fellow (understatement).

[DerekG]

57. Incidentally, I did vote for Kerry

I was as desperate as anyone to end the reign of the neocons; but the war has embittered me, and my support is now given only to those who are stridently anti-war.

[fedupinBushcountry]

40. Horse-faced

I can't believe that posts like this are allowed to stay on a site that is called DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

Opinions are fine, but when it comes to name calling of people who have served this country and are proud DEMOCRATS, I shake my head and total disgust. :banghead:

[karynnj]

24. To my knowledge, Kerry is one of the few politicians

who has developed a detailed exit plan. I've heard that Rep McGovern (MA) and Clark have plans - although I've read none. Kerry was very clearly for war only as a last resort. That is what Bush and Powell PUBLICLY promised. They lied.

The way the resolution was written there were no good choices:
- the status quo, of onerous sanctions, would not hold. It was killing huge numbers of Iraqis. Other countries were on the verge of ending them. If Saddam was building weapons, removing the constraints - a major humanitarian step anyway - could be disastrous. There was consensus that inspectors were needed.

-Going to the UN, attempting to get inspectors in. If this FAILED, which it didn't, building an international coalition and sharing the burden with them. (This is basically what the resolution did - and Bush could have declared a huge victory if he would have had the sense to see that his warmongering had moved Saddam to do what we want.

-Not passing the IWR and having Bush, with troops already in the Gulf attack due to an "incident" or going back to claiming that the WOT resolution gave him a blank check.

What is clear - and even spelled out in the DSM - is that Bush and Blair WERE going to war.

Kerry over the course of his life has viewed war very seriously - he's made it clear that he understands what it does to people and to countries. Given 30 or so years, holding to these principles I trust him, when he said he would not have gone to war. (Also, Teresa - who seems among the most honest of people - said the same about him.)


Why take the blame away from those who deserve it to include others who are at most substantially less guilty.

[MH1]

27. Exactly - IWR succeeded in getting us to the UN and

getting inspectors back in. Which probably needed to happen, or certainly was a defensible goal given the information that was available to Congress at the time.

Problem is, that was not Bush's plan all - totally fucked with his day that Saddam let the inspectors back in - and so Bush made up a pretense (with help from the media) to boot the inspectors out and invade anyway.

So, karynnj, how come you can't see that it is all the fault of the Democrats that Bush lied and took us to war in Iraq?!? :sarcasm:

[DerekG]

55. Did you expect Bush to play by the rules?

Seriously, since you're an apologist for those poor, little, naive, gullible politicians who trusted Mr. President, I'd be interested to know:

Were you surprised to discover Bushco would use a war resolution as a pretext for setting the Middle East aflame? If you did, I wish you would have contacted me: I would have told you PNACers are generally not the nicest guys.

[MH1]

26. Nader has ZERO credibility. From someone who once

supported him, even with $, the worst money I ever spent.

And none of the people you mentioned took this country to war on a lie. And none of them would have. THAT WAS BUSH. Stop fucking blaming Democrats. Sheesh.

Oh yeah, you're a "dime's worth of difference guy". Sounds to me that you are saying "Democrats = Republicans", just like Nader did.

I'm fairly new here but I do think the name of this board is Democratic Underground.

[DerekG]

45. Citations, please

When did Nader ever say "there was no difference" between the parties? And remember, I want to see the word "no."

And never did I suggest that any of the aforementioned Vichy Democrats would foment this plan themselves; they're more like collaborators--Sadducees, if you will--in the mass murder of over 100,000 men, women and children.

[dad]

62. Good point! Thank you for bringing it up. Nader never said that.

That is the biggest myth on DU. The Democratic version of R's claiming Gore said he invented the internet.

[dsc]

63. The word no doesn't appear in that post either

Nader certainly did imply that there was at best a microscopic difference between the parties on a repeated basis.

[Skwmom]

42. At least Nader speaks the truth and fights for the common man.

That's a hell of a lot more than you can say for many of the Democrats.

[LittleClarkie]

46. He used to speak the truth

Do you think as many Republicans as donated to him supported him? He thought so and said so as he took their fucking money. The sham of a convention in Florida (Yeah, a pizza party and a conference call, that counts right?) was REAL truthful.

He can't cry about a man he helped to re-elect. Fuck that. He can take that "dime's worth of difference" and shove it up his ass.

[Skwmom]

47. You think this is the first time Republicans have donated to

the opposition? Give me a break. Do you really think the Bush backers donating to Edwards in 05 were doing so because they believed he would be the strongest Democratic nominee?

[LittleClarkie]

48. I don't care what the Republicans were doing.

Did Edwards turn around and say, "Gee, I bet they really like me. That's why they're giving me money." And it was the Smear vet money that really got my goat. Fuck that. And fuck him if he wanted it so bsdly he was willing to take tainted money.

on edit: found a source

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04057.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a right wing PAC, have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ralph Nader, United Progressives for Victory (UP for Victory) announced today. In addition to accepting contributions from donors of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Nader has also taken money from conservative PAC donors who have given to the Club for Growth, along with legal representation and ballot help from Republican consultants, lawyers, major donors, and state parties.

According to Federal Election Committee records, five major donors who have given $13,500 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to air its attack ads on John Kerry’s military service have also given Nader $7,500.

Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.

Nader has condemned the ads run by this PAC, saying, “It's pretty deplorable that Bush through his proxies is doing this smear,” Nader said. (8/27/2004, A.P., in speech at Tulane University)

Robert Brandon, a former Nader associate, public interest attorney and co-founder of UP for Victory said, “Now we learn that Bush, through his proxies, is funding Nader’s campaign. If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right wing money and finally acknowledge that his campaign is being used by the Bush/Cheney re-election team.”

more at link

[kikiek]

5. What a great letter. He remains true to his beliefs.

[NorCalDem]

6. It's a nice letter though

I wish it had come from Dean!

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Nice words...Too bad they are coming from someone whose motives

have of late come under such question. It seems that publicity is his only motivation recently.

Other politicians have shown intelligent restraint by refraining from creating another Schiavo debacle by capitalizing on Cindy Sheehan's tragedy.

Sorry Ralph. To me, you have become the boy who cried wolf.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Fuck you nader, would you be writing this if Gore was in the wh?

[DerekG]

17. He'd probably be writing Gore with the aim of ending the sanctions

You do recall that Clinton presided over eight years of economic sanctions, which resulted in the deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi children, right?

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. 500,000?

Oh fucking please. Did they turn off the incubators too? I saw lots of starving people on an exodus from Iraq in those days for sure.

I don't remember any outrage from Nader at the time.

[DerekG]

25. Here's your bedtime story

Take a gander at the third citation. According to UNICEF, 500,000 is the magic number (but then, what does the UN know?).

Oh, and pleasant dreams.



FIRST SOURCE

Dennis Halliday administered the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned due to his disgust with the "genocidal" policies fomented by the Bush adminstration and expanded under Clinton's. Also note that Halliday's successor quit for similar reasons.

In this interview, Halliday asserts that it was America and other world powers--not Hussein--who diverted the resources meant for the Iraqi people:

http://www.consistentlife.org/Denis%20Halliday%20Interv ...

--snip--

Q: Some people who are harshly critical of Saddam Hussein and who take a bellicose stand say that the Oil for Food program wasn’t working and that Saddam Hussein was siphoning off the revenues of the oil sales to feed the military, to feed himself, feather his nest. What’s the truth to that?

Halliday: Well, there’s absolutely no truth, whatsoever. Every penny from oil sales goes into the hands of the United Nations, into a United Nations bank account, and is released by the United Nations directly to the contractors - American, Russian, French, Chinese, whatever they may be - who provide the foodstuffs, medical equipment, medical supplies. There’s no possibility of funds being siphoned off whatsoever.

--snip--

http://www.consistentlife.org/Denis%20Halliday%20Interv ...





SECOND SOURCE

Here's a link to an interview on commondreams that reveals the true intentions behind the sanctions:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm

--snip--

When they launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, was it actually possible for the US and the UK to get rid of Hussein?

I think they deliberately decided to keep the government in Baghdad in power to sustain the instability of Iraq on the one hand, and the threat that Iraq posed for the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in the Gulf on the other.

This has been done to control the financial and oil resources of the Arab world in order to provide opportunities to sell American weapons and the American army. And they have done it very successfully.

Defense Secretary William Cohen travelled all over the Arab World selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of planes and guns. It is called business. They have got a market for military hardware from the US and Europe and they've got control over the oil resources. I mean, we know that Iraq probably has the world's biggest supply of oil in the world, not the second. But this has all been suppressed. In other words, the Americans have got what they wanted. Who cares about 6,000-7,000 people dying every month?

I think we must address the fact that the American policy vis-à-vis Iraq serves to diminish the entire Arab world. It has been gobbling up Arab financial resources that should be going to the people; to education and to the future, into oil production and petrochemicals. That money is going into military arms, which will never be used -- I hope.


Calls are now being made to have Western leaders who caused this genocide sit trial in the War Criminals Tribunal. Is this possible and do you support such calls?

I do. I think it has become known as the Pinochet tactic. Pinochet has done us all a favour by being vulnerable and being caught -- even though he was released. It was a signal to everybody from Bush, Albright to Hussein; men and women alike who make decisions that constitute crimes against humanity have got to watch out. They're not free to travel, they're not free to do these things. They will be -- and must be -- prosecuted.

So you think President Bill Clinton should be tried?

Absolutely. He is the commander-in-chief and he approved the bombing of Iraq, for example, in December 1998. There was no justification for this, no UN resolution. It is a breach of international law. It is outrageous and it is, of course, a crime against humanity.

--snip--

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm





THIRD SOURCE

This 1999 article details how Clinton countered the efforts of France, China and Russia to ease the barbaric sanctions.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtm ...

--snip--

After two weeks of intensive negotiations within the United Nations Security Council, the United States has blocked efforts by France, Russia and China to lift sanctions against Iraq. Washington has thereby ensured the continuation of a policy which must rank as one of the great crimes against humanity of the twentieth century.

Only last month the UN children's agency, UNICEF, released a study showing that nine years of economic embargo, compounded by the devastation from two air wars, have produced a “humanitarian emergency.” UNICEF reported that mortality rates among infants and children under five in the central and southern parts of the country which are controlled by Baghdad, where 85 percent of Iraqis live, have more than doubled since 1989. The study further concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi children under five suffer from stunted growth caused by malnutrition.

UNICEF estimated that 500,000 child deaths are attributable to the sanctions.

--snip--

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtm ...




FOURTH SOURCE

An excerpt from a report issued by Amnesty International:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1999/51400699.htm

--snip--

The report does not exempt the government of Iraq from responsibility for the ongoing humanitarian crisis. But it notes that, "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war.

--snip--

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1999/51400699.htm

[DerekG]

31. Oh, and here's one example of Nader's outrage

http://www.jsonline.com/news/intl/ap/aug00/ap-iraq-sanctions080600.asp

--snip--

In Washington, more than 300 people, including Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and folk singer Pete Seeger ended a day of marches and rallies with a protest in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House.

``This policy represents a massive injustice against Iraqi civilians,'' said Nader. ``And it must be ended - not after Mr. Clinton leaves office, but now.''

--snip--

[Pirate Smile]

34. Well, thank God we got Bush and the NeoCons instead of those

nasty Democrats.


I'm sure Gore would have invaded Iraq too.







:sarcasm: :eyes:

[DerekG]

38. What a world, eh?

A neo-liberal gets in, ya die of starvation; a neo-con, and it's death by cluster bomb.

[katsy]

9. He's a good man.

So sue me... I'm a closet Naderite.

There's something refreshing about him.

I've never voted 3rd party. But I always have respected Ralph Nader. I respect him more today.

[rainy]

11. agreed, nader is a great man

[LittleClarkie]

12. I tend to think he was a good man

but something is happening to him in his old age.

[katsy]

21. Yeah.

I'm sure something has happened. But isn't that the way with many politicians? It could be anything (betrayal, payoffs, sheer frustration, stupid mistakes).

But I do not subscribe to the notion that 3rd parties are bad for our country, nor do I like the fact that they are closed out of presidential debates.

I don't blame Nader for 2001 or 2004. If the democratic party can't win elections without the 1 or 2 % Nader pulls in... there's something wrong and blaming Nader just doesn't cut it. Elections being stolen or fixed... yes, maybe, who knows.

For all I know the dlc has disenfranchised as many if not more voters who would typically vote Democrat. So why should I blame Nader. Just look at the number of votes vs. potential voters. How can anyone believe Nader makes them stay home. In many respects, I think pro-corporate, labor/populist-neutral Dems lost 2004. How many times have you heard there's no difference between Dems & the gop? Nader can't take credit for that. He doesn't have the numbers or power to destroy the Democratic Party.

I don't hold Nader responsible for Democratic losses. I hold the dlc and anti-populist politicians responsible.

[quaoar]

33. Nader is an egotistical ass

He took republican money in 2004. He has blood on his hands.

[onehandle]

10. Stay hidden, Ralph.

Back into the vault of tragic history.

[Robeson]

13. I can't disagree with a thing in that letter.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

14. An open letter to Ralph Nader:

Didja spend the money you got from the "rogue regime" during the 2004 campaign yet?
Sincerely,
Karl Rove

[nevergiveup]

15. If Nader could have come up with the resources

he would have made Chimpy's victory last Nov even larger. At one time I had the greatest respect for him ....no more. I hope Cindy sends him a scathing reply.

[MaggieSwanson]

20. Well put, Ralph.

"Perhaps the breakthrough will begin this hot August in Crawford, Texas, with the devastating loss of a beloved child transformed into a mission for the soul of our country."

While he may not be of our party, and he may or may not have been of assistance to the dirty republicans, can we not at least acknowledge the truth and honesty in the words of this letter?

[Vickers]

23. That's fantastic, Ralph. Way to go, man. A+ and all that.

Now, get the fuck back to your RW-funded hole.

[LandOLincoln]

35. Fuck Ralph Nader. There's as much blood on his hands

as there is on Bush's.

[against all enemies]

39. It's about time you said something Ralph.

How about working to get this asshole out of the White House instead of yourself into it.

[hayu_lol]

43. Cindy Sheehan is on a country road in Crawford...

because Ralph Nader helped put Bush in the white house.

[Swamp Rat]

53. I like the letter, but hate the ending.

I prefer:

Sincerely,

Anonymous



I think this was my very first pic:

[opihimoimoi]

56. Nader you Attention Whore...STFU and go back to your fuckin Rock...

[d_b]

58. Nader tells it how it is yet again.

[NightOwwl]

59. Didn't use to be the case...

but now I have nothing but contempt for this man.

[fujiyama]

61. It's hard to take him seriously any longer

even in those cases where he's saying the right thing and not attacking democrats.

It's just hard to believe he's sincere after all the damage he's done. He seems like LaRouche or some other nutcase. After running three times, getting a total of less than 5%, you've earned LaRouche status.