EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Just War' Is Just Words
The criteria are in this words: "If it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence."
After 9/11, warmonger George W. Bush could have used the international law doctrine of hot pursuit with a multilateral force of commandoes, linguists and bribers to pursue the backers of the attackers. Instead, he blew the country of Afghanistan apart and started occupying it, joined forces with a rump regime and launched a divide-and-rule tribal strategy that set the stage for a low-tiered civil war.
Eight years later, Obama is expanding the war within a graft-ridden government in Kabul, fraudulent elections, an Afghan army of northern tribesmen loathed by the southern and south-eastern tribes of 40 million Pashtuns, an impoverished economy whose largest crop by far is a narcotic, and a devastated population embittered by foreign occupiers and non-existent government services.
President Obama's national security adviser, former Marine General James Jones, said two months ago: "The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."
Since Mr. Obama repeats George W. Bush's reason for going into Afghanistan-to destroy al-Qaeda-why is he sending 30,000 soldiers plus an even greater number of corporate contractors there in the near future at a cost stated by the White House of one million dollars per solider per year? Is this "proportional force"?
Always small in number, al-Qaeda has moved over the border into Pakistan and anywhere its supporters can in the world-east Africa, north Africa, Indonesia. The gang is a migrant traveler.
Is Obama pouring soldiers into Afghanistan so that they and our inaccurate, civilian-destroying drones can start fighting across the border in Pakistan, as indicated by The New York Times? Beyond the violations of international law and absence of constitutional authorization involved, this could so roil Pakistanis as to make the U.S. experience next door look like a modest struggle.
Obama has emphasized weakening the Taliban as the other objective of our military buildup with its horrible consequence in casualties and other costs. Who are the Taliban? They include people with different causes, such as protecting their valleys, drug trafficking to live on, fighters against foreign occupiers or, being mostly Pashtuns, protecting their tribal turf against the northern Tajiks and Uzbecks.
How many Taliban fighters are there? The Pentagon estimates around 25,000. Their methods make them unpopular with the villagers. They have no air force, navy, artillery, tanks, missiles, no bases, no central command. They have rifles, grenade launchers, bombs and suiciders. Unlike al-Qaeda, they have only domestic ambitions counteracted by their adversarial tribesmen who make up most of the Afghan army.
Robert Baer, former CIA officer with experience in that part of Asia, asserted: "The people that want their country liberated from the West have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They simply want us gone because we're foreigners, and they're rallying behind the Taliban because the Taliban are experienced, effective fighters."
To say as Obama inferred in his Oslo speech that the greater plunge into Afghanistan is self-defense, with proportional force and sparing civilians from violence is a scale of self-delusion or political cowardliness that is dejecting his liberal base.
For as President Eisenhower stated so eloquently in his 1953 "cross of iron" speech, every dollar spent on munitions and saber-rattling takes away from building schools, clinics, roads and other necessities of the American people.
The Afghan War and the Iraq war-occupation-already directly costing a trillion dollars-are costing the American people every time Washington says there is not enough money for neonatal care, occupational disease prevention, cleaner drinking water systems, safer hospitals, prosecution of corporate criminals, cleaner air or upgrading and repairing key public facilities.
Even the hardiest and earliest supporters of his presidential campaign in 2008 are speaking out. Senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus, such as John Conyers (D-MI) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) have recently criticized the President for not doing enough to help African-Americans weather the hard times.
In a stinging ironic rebuke to the first African-American President, Rep. Waters declared "We can no longer afford for our public policy to be defined by the worldview of Wall Street."
According to Congressman Conyers, an upset Barack Obama called to ask why the Michigan lawmaker was "demeaning" him. Conyers has been increasingly turned off by the President's policies-among them health care reform, the war in Afghanistan, slippage on Guantanamo and the extension of the Patriot Act's invasive provisions.
The 80-year old Congressman spent most weekends in 2007 and 2008 tirelessly on the campaign trail trying to get Obama elected.
White House aides are not troubled by the rumblings from the moderate Left. They said they have all of 2010 to bring them back into the fold by the November Congressional elections. Besides, where else are they going to go?
Well, they could stay home. Remember 1994 and the Gingrich takeover.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
138 Comments so far
Show AllWith the Obamenabelor's Dicktrain, it's just (in case) war.
I agree. It's just....war!
We should not confuse Harvard law degrees or eloquence of speech with intelligence. Obama has shown he is just as stupid as Bush or Blair.
Ralph, also a Harvard Law school graduate and occasional eloquent speaker, has just restated what we already know.
Maybe he needs to sell more novels to boost his multi-millionaire status.
Sue1403
What an incredibly inane and insipid statement. What you conveniently overlook is that Nader's allegedly "multi [sic]-millionaire status" has not prevented him from railing against those who are in power and who use that power to exploit the working, middle class and the poor in this country. What this country needs is more, not less, people like Ralph Nader who will not hesitate to criticize those who use their authority for their own nefarious ends.
Lets keep things in perspective!
During his first five years in the public arena during the 60s, Ralph Nader did more to help the American working class than all of the past seven presidents combined.
The past five presidents (which includes Obama) have systematically dismantled the working class, so its only Nixon (bad, but better than the past five) and Carter who increase the average to the point we can even compare recent presidents to Nader.
No Kidding!
Nader is not saying anything we don't already know.
I suspect he is just as self-serving here as he was in 2000.
I would rather hear from someone who didn't say that Bush and Gore were the same, then write a bunch of mundane articles about the mess caused by Bush.
Nader was self-serving in 2000, articles are mundane?
Explain; or are you just following the Democratic talking points that we hear over and over, that Nader just likes the attention for his ego. In other words, Democrats resort to trying to smear Nader with personal remarks rather than address the policy points that he brings up.
Nader provided voters a choice to the left in 2000 for those who weren't satisfied with the Gore/Lieberman ticket. Clinton just finished turning his back on the left with NAFTA, 1996 telecommunications reform that allowed media companies to consolidate and gain more power, and 8 years of failed policies in Palestine that produced nothing lasting. Gore has a couple of issues such as climate change that are positive; however, nothing indicated he would not serve corporate interests any less than Clinton, and now Obama. In fact, Gore's choice of Lieberman as a running mate was a signal that his foreign policies were the same as Republicans. Democrats could easily have stopped the Iraq war under Bush; but hawks such as Lieberman and Hillary Clinton were ranting the same war rhetoric as Bush. Bush's attack on the constitition was enabled by Democrats in Congress. Obama's stated presidential campaign rhetoric was far more promising to progressive voters than Gore's; and look at the results.
Stating that Gore has a couple of positive issues, is really diminishing the accomplishments and efforts of the world leader on environmental issues.
During the 2000 election, it would have been okay if Nader merely pointed out some issues where Gore fell short.
Instead he slanderously declared that Bush and Gore were the same.
He then refused to retract, reflect upon or apologize for the above statement despite 8 years of evidence of just how different Bush was. This makes him just like any other dishonest, self-serving politician.
Yes, Nader is correct about Afghanistan. So are most of the people who post here.
I would feel differently about Nader if he actually put some effort towards campaigning or ran for Congress.
Instead, he just throws his name into the Presidential race every 4 years.
He writes these articles that anybody could write and his fans gush.
The Obama Presidency has been a failure.
That doesn't mean that Gore would have been a failure or that Nader would be a success if he ever won.
jstevens states: "I suspect [Nader]is just as self-serving here as he was in 2000.'
I suspect your line is as old and discredited as it was back in 2000.
I suspect it was Gore (and Lieberman), Kerry, and Obama who are serving the people's interest. They must be the ones who are talking out against the war, supporting single payer health care, fighting corporate corruption etc. NOT!
When the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 they blamed Gingrich, rather than Clinton's great zeal in pushing NAFTA into law during his first year in office. When they lose control of Congress in the 2010 elections, they will blame Nader. If Obama loses the 2012 election they will blame Nader. Why should the Democrats blame themselves when they have others to blame?
True, but the difference is: Bush and Blair are WOLVES but Obomba is a WOLF in sheeps clothing!
I believe that the reason the United States of Global Domination cannot root out Al Qaeda and Osama is because the "government" refuses to search their main headquarters in Washington DC and on Wall Street.
This is an eloquent presentation by Ralph Nader of the truth which was concealed by Obama's flowery speech in Oslo.
It's abundantly clear that Obama is siding with the MIC and the moneyed interests in the USA in pursuing ENDLESS war in the middle east.
It is my fondest hope that others who also put all their trust in this man have come to see the truth behind his empty words.
We must ensure that he is ONLY A ONE TERM PRESIDENT and we must begin working immediately on a comprehensive and definitive plan to save America from the money-mongering special interests who won't hesitate to destroy our country for their own ends!
Let's get behind Ralph Nader en masse and aks him to help us, as our next President, to ensure America's continuation as the "land of the free."
While I often appreciate Ralph's take on events, let's not forget that his self-indulgent 2000 campaign was one of several key factors allowing Bush to seize power with the aid of his Daddy's friends on the Supreme Court.
It seems that you have forgotten that your claim (that Nader caused Gore to lose) has been disproved many times over.
A person may claim that that they don't like Nader (and I won't argue that because everyone is entitled to their own opinion), but if they claim that he caused Bush to win, then I have to remind them (again) that this was simply never the case, just as Saddam never has weapons of mass destruction.
You can't distort the truth just to make your argument seem stronger. You have no argument based on facts. The reason Nader ran, and the reason I voted for Nader, was that Gore (and Lieberman, his VP choice) did not represent my values.
In fact, none of the last 3 democratic candidates met the minimum necessary qualifications for me to support them, no matter who they were running against.
The republicans hold your head 1 foot under the water, the democrats only 6 inches. That isn't better. Your dead either way, and if you think it is better to have your head held 6 inches under water, so ahead and think that.
The differences between Nader and Obama are not incremental, they are fundamental differences.
www.NotOneMore.US
Very well stated.
BULL, we the cowardly people who swallow the two party[really one] system are responsible for not electing Nadar. Your's is a defeatist attitude. The "vote for nader is a vote for bush or whomever" is exactly what the dems. and repubs. are hoping we will accept. " If i thought they could win [third party candidates] i would vote for them" , is the mantra of cowards. If everybody who thought that way would just vote third party, we would have a third party president this very moment. We the people have given our power away, because we are to lazy to wield it ourselves.
Gush and Bore's campaigns were self indulgent, not Ralph's.
Nanoo
The backers of the attackers and who might they be? The history I've read pretty much sums it up to be the CIA and US military who founded and supported these angry people to help ward off the Soviet invasion. Robert Fisk says it plainly, that the middle east wants to be free, free of the US military.
Sioux Rose
Maybe Conyers will go down with the 21st century equivalent of a "Viking's Funeral." If he's 80 and doesn't have much time left on his biological clock, what would hold him back from having a very public Howard Beall moment? (The analogy is taken from the film "Network," which is as relevant today as it was when written 30 years ago, if not more so.)
Just as this president thinks he can slip slide war into peace talk, it would seem that massive disillusionment somehow now ='s hope. Bad drug and it's wearing off as lots of psyches thus infused are awakening to the realization that the same puppet masters that ran the Bush show are running this one.
Last night I had a major breakthrough in making this patently clear to a loved one. It's quite fascinating to watch the inner mental workings of those who are wired to authoritarian protocols. Although they certainly prefer get-tough republican types, their respect for authority in general, blinds them to too much that takes place just under the conventional radar. He was defending Obama (this conservative republican!) to me! Hilarious...
I used to have tremendous respect for John Conyers but I was a complete fool to think that his writing the HR 676 bill made him a hero. After all, he could have used his powers in Congress to bring that bill to the floor. Putting single payer for all and his powers on judiciary together would have made him true working class fighter for justice. Ironically, it was Dennis Kucinich who consistently tried to bring up HR 676 to the floor despite his limited powers in Congress. I cannot forgive Conyers for shamelessly voting for HR 3962 in the end even as the public outrage against this fraud was clear never mind the fact that 3962 makes 676 unattainable. I wonder how many of his constituents tried to pressure him to bring up HR 676 to the floor only to have their efforts to pressure him wasted. This is another thing that upsets me. We get told to shut up and pressure Congress to do the right thing but no matter how much calling, emailing, and letter writing we do, it is as if our efforts get wasted. It is bad enough that most of the working class people who are employed are put through longer working hours and tougher labor hell that they will be unable to gather the strength and momentum to give their pols a piece of their mind. Conyers can give his too late outrage on Obama but for all I care, he can be dressed as a clown and I wouldn't be laughing.
I hear you on trying to get the authoritarian wired folks to get past "fixed" thinking. Sometimes, it can feel futile similar to Thelma Harper of Mama's Family trying to knock some sense into her son, Vinton.
Sioux Rose
JB: Conyers still carries the soul of a man who matured during a phase where overt racism was somewhat toned down so that he could assume a major office. He has been forced to do the political equivalent of eating shit for so long that maybe he will decide to leave the earth plane with a legacy. Unless his family members have been threatened (and I don't think we can rule that out these days), he'd pay a small price in blowing the horn now, becoming another Daniel Ellsberg letting inconvenient truths out before their "official publishing date." He must know plenty and has been forced to keep quiet, but with not much time left on his clock, maybe he'll exit with his own version of a political big bang. THAT was my point. I am well aware of him previously serving as chief bait and switch operator, appearing sympathetic to progressive causes and then pulling the rug out from under any promising initiatives. Maybe he has had enough, sold enough of his soul to substantiate a status quo that is itself guilty of depraved indifference, homocide on a grand scale. Every (still) human being has a break point. And (not to insult Jack Nicholson here) "Something's gotta give..."
Sioux, I think that my jealousy in Conyers having the kind of political powers that Kucinich lacks never mind us and yet Conyers not using them to put single payer on the table was what had me upset about him. I will be glad to look more into Conyer's bio and shall take what you said into account. I apologize if I sounded a bit too harsh on him. Thank you for shedding some more light on Conyers.
Mr. Nader, These are the words I just want to hear from you: I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY INTENTION TO RUN FOR CONGRESS...
I think he is considering a try at Senate in Connecticut against Lie-burr-man.
Now is the time, while public opinion is at an all time low for both corporate controlled parties, to start campaigning for a third party. We should start now because It will take that long to really get a candidate known through word of mouth and internet. We also need to nullify the corporate media as a reliable source through word of mouth and internet which is easier than we think. Let's use the same propaganda techniques against them. They have money power but if we channel the public outrage then we will have people power on our side. We can turn the tide.
Self defense: right. If you look carefully you can see just thousands of blood maddened Afghanis in landing craft about to come ashore on Virginia Beach.
If the Press and the electronic media had done their job and published the facts, Nader would be president now. And, if the voters were capable of critical thinking they would have recognized the truth without it being manipulated by the Press.
DRAFT NADER !!! Do it now. The world cannot wait. Many lives depend on it.
I have a strong feeling that Nader will give it a strong go in 2012 unless Kucinich primaries Obama out or the Green Party stops conceding to the Democrats. I suppose a Draft Nader movement can't hurt. I wished the system weren't so messed up but the way it is, the sooner he runs the better prepared he will be. With the way this administration is out-neoconing Dubya's, the world indeed cannot wait.
The media has to not only present the facts but they also have to tear down the lies and propaganda coming from both parties so that Nader, Mckinney, Kucinich, etc... can make the case better.
By the way, I hear Ralph Nader plans to run for Senator of CT against Dodd and whoever the GOP nominee is in 2010. What do you think of that prospect?
Jennifer, I wish I shared your optimism about Nader's chances in either the presidential election or the senatorial election. According to opensecrets.org Nader raised about $4 million. Obama raised $750 million and McCain raised $370 million. Until the elections are publicly financed things will only get worse as the corporations gather more and more control.
I hope you can show me that I have missed something.
I'd rather see Nader in the Senate than the Executive in any case.
And I think if you look closer at the situation in Connecticut, you'll see that Nader really does have quite a good chance there. If he'd renounce his truth-telling about the Dems and join them so he could participate in their primary, he'd be a lock. Of course he won't, he has too much integrity.
As for campaign financing, those stark dollar differences can be overcome even without convincing the folks who depend on non-public financing to kill non-public financing.
If 1,000,000 Citizens (in other words, less than 1% of those that voted for Prez in 2008 and only 90,600 more than voted either Nader or McKinney in that election) would commit to save/raise $1-a-day for the 2012 Prez Campaign and begin doing so in May 2010, then by May 2012 they would have raised $730,000,000!
That's 97% of Obama's total fund for 2008 by the real beginning of the 2012 campaign.
Obviously, there would be some issues with how this money could actually be donated and to whom, but I believe those could be resolved. For instance, I believe that many small donations can be made to the general fund of political parties and that they can then use that for elections. Also, some sort of orginization may be possible to assist folks in splitting these funds between different uses that would all help the same candidate.
If the Nader people, the Greens, other progressive/leftists, and something like 1% of Obama 2008 voters that are now disaffected with him could come together to form a Left Coalition Party in the next 6 months, then only about half of these would need to commit to such fund-raising in order to achieve such numbers. Or 2,000,000 could raise $.50-a-day, or only several hundred mil. could be put toward Prez 2012 and the rest could go toward Congressional and State campaigns in '10, '12, and between.
In any case, my point is that the stark $ differences between the Dems and what's left of the true Left DO NOT require the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot with public financing, they can be overcome within the status quo by proper organization and unity.
What's missing is not the WAY, but the WILL.
-matti.
I am aware of the uneven and unfair advantage on the money that makes almost every election so depressing and costly. All I can say is don't give up and try to convince people to vote with their hearts and minds instead of getting taken over by which candidate is raising the most money. The trick is to get more people to think on the issues and not allow politics to poison their judgments. No, you haven't missed anything but I have yet to find the antidote that will work. :(
It's a pity that true progressives like Nader can never win a presidential election in the US. The duopoly has rigged the deck to prohibit any third party candidate from succeeding.
Unless the left wing in the US becomes as radicalized as the right wing is, fascism will only grow stronger. What passes for the left wing in Congress is really only moderatetly less reactionary than the Republican Party.
Please see my above post for a general outline of how a Coalition Left Party consisting of little more than Nader2008/Mckinney 2008 and about %1 of dissaffected Obama 2008 voters could very well succeed -and certainly realistically compete- in Prez Election 2012 despite the "rigged deck" that is the current Electoral System.
Broad-based, well-structured, and properly-organized action within the context of reform should at least be really ATTEMPTED, before it is abandoned and the dangerous path of radicalism is tried, I think.
-matti.
Everyone smells revolution in the air, from the AKA toting truckdriver, to the progressive talk show host, to the FBI, to the Neocon talk show host, to the Banksters.
Its coming !
What to do ?
It needs to be funneled and managed into a positive direction because as we all know it could end up a total dictatorship.
To do this we need to coopt all the teabaggers and their energy and audacity into our cause of peace,equality and humanhood.
We need to join with the teabags and make peace in order to struggle against the workers enemy, the people destroying the world and the people of the world.
Open your minds to different viewpoints, compromise for the greater good, communicate and empathize, your and your progenies lives depend on a united populist militant( militant does NOT demand violence) working class movement.
I suggest the USA Constitution as the core for all populists to Rally Round.
- We need to join with the teabags and make peace -
America's problem is so deep that only a multi-partisan strategy to garner general public support can succeed in bringing America back from the edge of the abyss. Any such strategy must be non-partisan and non-personal.
The teabaggers must be won over, not yelled at nor mocked.
I suggest again that the system be blamed. The target is Public Law 107-40, the root of our current difficulties.
This country reviews football plays but not declarations of war.
Not even when the war is against enemies to be named later.
I continue, as always, to point out that such a war is DAFT.
The teabaggers must be won over
This is not possible. They won't be happy until the United States is a fascist Christian theocracy. Some form of banana republic/dictatorial state is the future of this nation which will lease itself out as the world's mercenaries for the most powerful. You say to yourself: Americans won't fight and die as low paid mercenaries for the Chinese or whatever future block of nations temporarily comes to rule the world. Yes, they will, if those turn out to be the best paying jobs there are.
I think they would be satisfied with a Constitutional democracy.
They are very populist and Constitutionally oriented.
The lunatics are not to be reasoned with but the vast majority are reasonable and educationable.
I agree with your take on the "teabaggers"
But I also think that to form a "multi-partisan" approach to take on the Corporatists/Imperialists we FIRST need to form actual "parties" outside of the Dem/Repub duopoly.
I'm thinking some sort of Constitutionalist party forming from the "Tea Party" base, and a Left Coalition party forming from the Naderite/Green/Dem Progressive-wing/ and further Left small party base.
-matti.
Most of the teabaggers I've run into wouldn't know the Constitution if it came up and bit them on the ass. They're racist, intolerant and woefully ignorant of anything but that day's talking points. Are they educable? I don't know, but that would be the only way we could ever "make peace" with them.
A lot of different people bag those teas.
One nice stereotype is the Christian-Right-Fascists, but there's a wide swing to the various libertarian flavors as well. A lot of these people are reachable. A lot vote Republican to try to stop the Democrats --- and it's hard to argue that they're wrong these days, with the Democrats outdoing the Republicans in corporocratic violence.
I have known a few fascists change over as well.
Teabagers believe they deserve more,
with a clear conscience all strive to
take all they can take to even the score.
Be realistic.
realism is that only a united population can defeat the ruling oilarchy.
to remain divided is to remain defeated, just as the oilarchy wishes.
Our similiarities are greater than our differences.
ALL POWER TO ALL PEOPLE !!!
>>>glenn ford wrote: Our similiarities are greater than our differences.
That's so true - a fact recognized by true leaders in the past while fighting to remove colonial rule in some parts of the world. It's easier when the enemy is an outsider. A bit more challenging in today's context - but not impossible. We need leaders who can go deep within to find common ground with others. And communicate effectively and truthfully. Communication is a two-way process - you talk and you listen. Your point is very important - "to remain divided is to remain defeated".
- 'Just War' Is Just Words -
Once again the words that Progressives need to hear are ignored, and other words used in their place, words that have failed continually.
I suggest a new strategy.
Let's review, again:
9/18/01 - Congress declared war upon enemies to be named later by a President. I speak, as always, of the DAFT law (aka AUMF, aka Public Law 107-40).
The last President announced that al-Qaeda was our enemy.
He also announced that the Taliban would be treated the same way.
The current President announced that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are the enemy.
Nobody has changed this paradigm. Nobody has ended this war.
'Withdrawing' from Afghanistan will not change this. Writing to Santa Obama will not change this. Expecting troops to actually come home from Iraq will not change this.
Every country deals with future terrorism but only America declared war against it.
America is stuck in an unwinnable war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Taliban and whatever future enemies are added.
The military goal for this war is to prevent future terrorism. I say again that this is DAFT. There is no end to it, unless we're all in cages.
Whatever you believe is the REAL reason for 'Afghanistan' (pipelines, etc.) the DAFT war is the justification and sanctification for endless fighting against future terrorists.
Troops are staying in Iraq to prevent terrorism by 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' and doesn't that sound familiar?
I suggest again that the way to end the madness is end the DAFT war. Repeal Public Law 107-40, just as Prohibition was repealed when it obviously failed. Then perhaps America can sanely deal with the real problem of terrorism.
"Well, they could stay home. Remember 1994 and the Gingrich takeover."
Better yet, they could make the truly bold move of voting for brave heart progressive independents who share your vision for a better America. I for one have been voting for independent pols on local, state, and federal levels who share most of what you have to offer and aren't afraid to run for office win or lose. I loved your courageous spirit Mr. Nader even when the Democrat Party went out of its way to shamelessly force you off the ballot in 2004 and 2008. There couldn't be a better year than 2010 to start making Election Day the New INDEPENDENTS Day. If we want to really pull the USA out of Afghanistan with all our hearts and minds, it's time to throw out the bums in both parties of Congress in 2010 followed by more to come in 2012 and the White House as an added bonus. If we can do that and keep it up, then we can avenge for the losses that you did not deserve. And the sooner we do this, the sooner we can have a better chance of repairing our broken relationship with Afghanistan as it is already becoming clear that the Afghans are HATING the US for sending in troops and mercenaries against the will of the Afghan sweethearts.
Your naive and superficial understanding of free-market politics,
we are embarrassed to read.
Surely a self-absorbed majority rules Empire USA,
please come out of darkness and see the clear light of day.
Why are you embarrassed to read a call for action? If so, what are you even doing here on a Saturday?
Thank you. Voting makes a lot of difference and is the foundation of what society's destination is to be. A bad foundation will always require more costly maintenance, something those Obama apologists don't want us to know every time they try to bully us with their "make them do it" lame brain talk.