Nader on Bush

[skunk]

http://www.counterpunch.org/
Bush's Divorce from Reality

Impeachment or Resignation: Pick Your Poison

By RALPH NADER

Attention please, good people! Adjust your routines and come to the aid of your country, and your children with your thoughtful patriotism. Don't just hope for impeachment, demand the resignation now of the mad hatters in the White House--George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.

Already, a large majority of you do not consider this shifty duo trustworthy. By more than two to one you disapprove of Bush's war in Iraq. Similar majorities believe this is also a President whose administrative incompetence--note the post-Katrina debacles compared to his promises last September in that devastated New Orleans--nearly matches his penchant for daily fabrications.

The precipitous drop in Bush's polls (Cheney's are even lower) is not coming from liberals who long ago registered negative in these national surveys. The drop is coming from millions of erstwhile Bush supporters, Bush voters, Bush-loving conservatives.

Why? Just look at or read the news every day. There goes Bush and Cheney insisting that conditions in Iraq are getting better and better, when they are getting worse and worse. And Americans also know this because hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other personnel are rotating from Iraq back into every state and community and telling millions of people the truth.

Repeated reports from diverse official, media and eyewitness accounts say that there is less electricity, more disease, less drinkable water, less housing, far less street security, less health care, less gasoline, fewer jobs and far more violence against civilians after the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion in March 2003 than before the sanctioned, tottering, besieged dictator, Saddam Hussein, was toppled.

With Bush's own ambassador to Iraq warning of a possible civil war and Bush's handpicked interim Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi saying "We are in a terrible civil conflict now," the serial delusionists, Bush and Cheney, having lied five ways into their war, go around daily as smarmy pollyannas spouting what Bush calls "a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq".

Why, didn't you know about all the progress in Iraq? If only the media would report it, they both say again and again. Really! What about all the corruption by the many contractors, all the brutal militias that now often do their work wearing Iraqi soldier or police uniforms, all the bogus reconstruction, paid with billions of American taxpayer money? What about the spreading chaos that Bush has no intention of confronting, as international law requires invading occupiers to remedy. Remember Colin Powell's tight phrase, "We broke it, we own it," that sums up the global law on this subject.

Massive separation from reality frequently involves ordinary personalities with psychotherapy. Read the words of the The Washington Post's respected columnist, Eugene Robinson:

The people running this country sound convinced that reality is whatever they say it is. And if they've actually strayed into the realm of genuine self-delusion--if they actually believe the fantasies they're spinning about the bloody mess they made in Iraq over the past three years--then things are even worse than I thought.

He described Bush as "divorced from reality".

Worse still is the delusion that claims the Bush-Cheney War is not generating more terrorists. Mr. Bush doesn't listen to intelligence, military and diplomatic officials, or even to his CIA Director Porter Goss. Mr. Goss has testified that the U.S. occupation is a magnet and a training ground for even more terrorists from outside and inside Iraq. Thereby, setting up a boomerang against our national security in the future.

One area, however, in Iraq is proceeding on schedule--the building of four massive, permanent super-bases, complete with American suburban amenities such as Pizza Hut, Burger King, miniature golf courses, theaters, swimming pools and even a football field. There is almost a news blackout about Balad Air Base, al-Asad Airbase and others, thought not quite the blockage that the two White House draft-dodgers have placed on reporters trying to cover the return of the fallen soldiers to Dover, Delaware.

Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) spoke about the growing opposition by both Republican and Democratic Senators, to what can deliberately be called disinformation coming out of the Bush administration. Not to mention the refusal to respond at all to serious inquiries by members of Congress.

Unlike the Presidential ordering of military invasions that violate our domestic laws, our Constitution and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory, massive delusion in the White House is not an impeachable offense. But it should be a cause for resignation driven by popular bipartisan demand. Bush and Cheney have arrayed their no-fault power, their political egos against the interests of our country. They are obsessively-compulsed.

Bush recently traveled to West Virginia and did not speak to the poverty among some of the hardest workers in America. He went to Ohio on Air Force One and ignored the huge loss of manufacturing jobs there to Mexico, China and other authoritarian nations. No, instead, he brings his gigantic sign, "Plan for Victory", stands in front of it and, as befits the Mayor of Baghdad, talks about his delusions in that oil-rich, devastated country.

Reality, good citizens, can fairly describe the dictatorial Bush and Cheney as psychiatrically challenged. Send them to the unemployment lines, where Halliburton and Exxon will certainly pick them up.Nicely put, I think.

[thedude110]

Thank god for Ralph Nader.

Now how do we get people to read this?

[iPhil]

nice find skunk , Nader has hit the head on the nail on describing the bush clan I thought GOP were Savers on fed. money .. I guess the GOP are spenders:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Sedulous]

nice find skunk , Nader has hit the head on the nail on describing the bush clan I thought GOP were Savers on fed. money .. I guess the GOP are spenders:mad: :mad: :mad:

Well, they certainly know how to spend political capital.

[scem0]

I think that was well said too, I'll be forwarding this to my family.

e

[Sayhey]

Funny, did I miss it or did Ralph forget to say he was sorry for the ill-advised equation of "Bush=Gore" in the 2000 campaign?

The article is fine, but Nader is a flawed messenger.

[Sedulous]

Funny, did I miss it or did Ralph forget to say he was sorry for the ill-advised equation of "Bush=Gore" in the 2000 campaign?

The article is fine, but Nader is a flawed messenger.

But Nader ran because he felt, among other things, a two party system is nearly as bad as a one party system.

[StarbucksSam]

This could honestly be the first thing that Ralph Nader has ever said that I have found to be logical and well-thought-out. I'm impressed. :eek:

I hope that the mid-term congressionals go well and there are enough votes to oust the President. I have heard the word "impeachment" a LOT lately. More than before - where it was scarcely mentioned. I wonder...

[Sayhey]

But Nader ran because he felt, among other things, a two party system is nearly as bad as a one party system.

I'm all for expanding the system to allow for more parties to realistically have a chance, but that doesn't mean third parties or independents get a pass on their rhetoric. Nader's statements that there was no difference between Bush and Gore are obviously wrong with hindsight and he should have been more careful when he said it. Part of being taken seriously should be admitting when you are wrong, but I've never heard Nader say one word of self-criticism about his role in the 2000 election.

[StarbucksSam]

I'm all for expanding the system to allow for more parties to realistically have a chance, but that doesn't mean third parties or independents get a pass on their rhetoric. Nader's statements that there was no difference between Bush and Gore are obviously wrong with hindsight and he should have been more careful when he said it. Part of being taken seriously should be admitting when you are wrong, but I've never heard Nader say one word of self-criticism about his role in the 2000 election.

Yeah, we wouldn't have to impeach Bush if he hadn't stolen much-needed Gore votes. I use the term "stolen" loosely.

[leekohler]

This could honestly be the first thing that Ralph Nader has ever said that I have found to be logical and well-thought-out. I'm impressed. :eek:

I hope that the mid-term congressionals go well and there are enough votes to oust the President. I have heard the word "impeachment" a LOT lately. More than before - where it was scarcely mentioned. I wonder...

We can only hope.

[leekohler]

But Nader ran because he felt, among other things, a two party system is nearly as bad as a one party system.

However, his candidacy was a luxury we obviously could not afford. There's this funny thing called timing- it's everything. :)

[Thomas Veil]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with those who feel that Nader's message, while spot-on, is tainted by his previous ridiculous statements such as Bush = Gore. While I'm not blind to the corruption in my own Democratic party, Bush ≠ Gore.

[zimv20]

But Nader ran because he felt, among other things, a two party system is nearly as bad as a one party system.
i'm all for moving towards a multiple-party system, but i don't think the way nader went about it was the right way (and that's not just hindsight).

rather, the green party and others need to concentrate on local politics and build up. imo, anyway.

[solvs]

Gore = what Bush said he was. He was far worse than most of us even could imagine, and in retrospect Gore wasn't really that bad. I dare say I actually started liking him awhile after the election when we started to see where Bush was going. Were he more like that, more people may have voted for him, and certainly fewer people would have voted for Bush had they known what he'd be like. I still don't like Kerry. I've always liked Nader, despite his obvious faults, and almost voted for him in 2000. He is good at stating things like this, which should be obvious to everyone.

But yeah, can't help but be a little mad about the 2000 thing. Especially since he tried to do it again in 2004. Gore should have picked him for VP, couldn't be worse than it is now.

[leekohler]

But yeah, can't help but be a little mad about the 2000 thing. Especially since he tried to do it again in 2004. Gore should have picked him for VP, couldn't be worse than it is now.

Like I said, timing is everything. And Nader has no sense of that.

[maxterpiece]

Nader makes some typical Nader points in there. He's a smart guy. Not a very good public speaker though (I've saw him several times in 2000 (no I didn't vote for him)).

Reasons why Nader didn't pull out:

In polls not too long before the 2000 election, the Green Party was showing almost the required 5% of the popular vote that would have given them a huge windfall of public money for future elections. This would have exponentially increased the stature of the green party in the US. It would have, by many definitions, made it a 3 party system.

Gore was pretty sucky... Better than Kerry, and certainly better than Bush, but his popularity was more based on the fear of Bush than any quality he had. He was boring and he shot himself in the foot several times.

Hindsight is 20/20 - no one could have predicted at the time just how dangerous Bush was. In fact, until 9/11, it looked like Bush wasn't going to get the kind of support he needed to get anything done. His approval ratings sucked. he was spending most of his time on the ranch. He wasn't doing good, but he didn't have the power to do too much harm. There was no way that Nader or anyone else could have predicted 9/11.

The simple fact that that many people voted for Nader was a sign that the democratic party was losing touch with it's roots.

Why was the election even that close. It was already clear that Bush was a buffoon, so why did people vote for him? Because the Democrats (Gore) were not only not captivating, but were also both arrogantly offensive and out of touch with the way a lot of people live in the US.

Also, let's not forget that no matter how much people hate Bush and Co, there really is no democrat here that's gonna jump in and be mr. perfect.

[solvs]

That's a good point. We can blame Nader all we want, but it's just as much the fault of Gore and most of the rest of the Democratic party. If not more. Had they been better, Nader would have been irrelevant, thus proving his point.

He still should have known better in 2004.

[zimv20]

no one could have predicted at the time just how dangerous Bush was.
i did. others did. the onion did.

bush still hasn't done all the bad things i've imagined. he's still got 1) a nuke to drop, and 2) and end-of-term to ignore.

edit: i forget 3) disband congress. though in fairness, that one didn't occur to me until more recently.

[mactastic]

Hindsight is 20/20 - no one could have predicted at the time just how dangerous Bush was.
I beg to differ.

BTW, did you buy the line that "No one could have predicted the failure of the levies"?

[pseudobrit]

I beg to differ.

BTW, did you buy the line that "No one could have predicted the failure of the levies"?

"No one could have predicted a terrorist attack using airplanes."

"No one could have predicted the budget surplus would disappear."

"No one could have predicted Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction."

"No one could have predicted such a high level of domestic violence [ed: note it's never called an insurgency by the WH] in Iraq."

[Sayhey]

I don't expect Nader to be able to forecast the future. Yes, many of us did warn of some of these dangers with a Bush presidency, but the the real point is that it was painfully obvious that the differences of a Bush or Gore presidency were not as minor or as insignificant as Nader would have had us believe. I understand the reasons he ran and I understand the need for new voices, but those new voices need to be accountable for what they say. Nader was dead wrong about "Bush equals Gore" and, unfortunately, enough people believed him to swing a very close election. A little humility on Ralph's part wouldn't hurt.

[skunk]

Nader was dead wrong about "Bush equals Gore" and, unfortunately, enough people believed him to swing a very close election.That's what third parties always say. It's their USP.

[tristan]

Don't blame Nader for the Bush victory - blame the people that voted for him.

[skunk]

What Bush victory?

[mactastic]

Don't blame Nader for the Bush victory - blame the people that voted for him.
But only those Nader voters in Florida should really catch blame, right? I mean did it matter if I voted for Nader or Gore in California? Bush wasn't even close.

[Sayhey]

That's what third parties always say. It's their USP.

No, in 2004 the Green Party candidate, David Cobb, was very specific about who the greater evil was - Bush. I don't know why some people want to give Nader a pass on the things he says. Ralph has done many great things, but when he is wrong he should be called on it just like another politician.

[Sedulous]

I'm all for expanding the system to allow for more parties to realistically have a chance, but that doesn't mean third parties or independents get a pass on their rhetoric. Nader's statements that there was no difference between Bush and Gore are obviously wrong with hindsight and he should have been more careful when he said it. Part of being taken seriously should be admitting when you are wrong, but I've never heard Nader say one word of self-criticism about his role in the 2000 election.

Sure. Then again, that was Gore's election to lose... and the supreme court's to give away.

[IJ Reilly]

Sure. Then again, that was Gore's election to lose... and the supreme court's to give away.

I don't see why you think so, really. Vice Presidents don't historically make successful presidential candidates. In Gore's case, he spent the entire campaign running away from the Clinton legacy (which just happened to be eight years of peace and prosperity), and in the end, couldn't even carry his home state, or Clinton's home state. IMO, Gore doesn't even get the nomination if he isn't seen by his party as the person who's next in line.

[leekohler]

I don't see why you think so, really. Vice Presidents don't historically make successful presidential candidates. In Gore's case, he spent the entire campaign running away from the Clinton legacy (which just happened to be eight years of peace and prosperity), and in the end, couldn't even carry his home state, or Clinton's home state. IMO, Gore doesn't even get the nomination if he isn't seen by his party as the person who's next in line.

Just have to correct you on the "peace" part. What about Somalia? Waco? The Balkans? And didn't we also conduct some air raids over Iraq during Clinton? Prosperity yes- peace, no. Better than Bush? Well who isn't these days?

[IJ Reilly]

Just have to correct you on the "peace" part. What about Somalia? Waco? The Balkans? And didn't we also conduct some air raids over Iraq during Clinton? Prosperity yes- peace, no. Better than Bush? Well who isn't these days?

If you're going to mention Somalia, then I suppose I'll need to remind that it wasn't supposed to be a war, and the U.S. involvement there was inherited from the Bush administration anyway. As for Waco and the Balkans, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, especially in the former case.

[jelloshotsrule]

how about bombing medicine factories in sudan? or bombing iraq frequently?

i can accept those who have problems with nader's tactics. but to blame him (or those who voted for him) is a joke. i mean, seriously, how could someone lose to our idiot president?

i have loved what gore has had to say in the last couple years. his passion and vision have come back to what they were in his environmentalist days before he became a puppet for the democrats' special interests.

ralph isn't a great public speaker in the sense that he's not super energetic, etc.. but the content is extremely powerful.

do i think bush and gore would have done all the same things? no. but i do think that there will never be a "good" time to try to shake up the system that is so messed up. the time is now, always, in my opinion.

i can't wait to see in 2008 which centrist democrat fails again... :rolleyes: i hope i'm wrong.

[Sayhey]

how about bombing medicine factories in sudan? or bombing iraq frequently?

i can accept those who have problems with nader's tactics. but to blame him (or those who voted for him) is a joke. i mean, seriously, how could someone lose to our idiot president?

i have loved what gore has had to say in the last couple years. his passion and vision have come back to what they were in his environmentalist days before he became a puppet for the democrats' special interests.

ralph isn't a great public speaker in the sense that he's not super energetic, etc.. but the content is extremely powerful.

do i think bush and gore would have done all the same things? no. but i do think that there will never be a "good" time to try to shake up the system that is so messed up. the time is now, always, in my opinion.

i can't wait to see in 2008 which centrist democrat fails again... :rolleyes: i hope i'm wrong.

What I'm interested in, jello, is how one makes fundamental changes in the political/electoral system. I think it will take an outsider, running in the Democratic ranks, who is committed to basic structural reforms of our system. Right now, I only see Gore and Feingold as possible bearers of that message. If we want change it means things like run-offs in Presidential races, elimination of the Electoral College, public funding of elections, mandated free TV time for meaningful debates, strict control over lobbying, reasonable ballot access to third party candidates, etc. On these things, I think you and I can agree. Hopefully we can get a few other people to go along as well.

[jelloshotsrule]

sayhey- the thing is, you and i probably agree on nearly 100% of the issues. and i actually agree with you on what need to be the first things changed (run offs, public funded elections, paper ballots, etc)... but which democrat advocates any of these things? i'm sure there are a few. dean talked along some of those lines before he left the primaries and became an empty mouthpiece. i love kucinich, although he's clearly a bit too "weird" for mainstream america.

anyways, i just haven't seen a candidate that represents these things. and i think what is a real concern is the mindset that even in smaller, local elections people will think "i can't afford to vote green/independent/etc because then the democrat" might not win. of course the other problem is that district races are usually foregone conclusions, so while it's "safe" to vote for whomever you want, there's little chance of them winning. thus, a cycle.

ok, sorry for rambling.

[Thanatoast]

You can't blame Nader for Gore's loss. Gore did that all on his own. I don't know what his strategy was supposed to be, but it didn't match his style as a person or a politician.

You can't even blame Nader for the last five years of unimaginable (except by The Onion, of course) BS. Blame the Congress for that. Democrats and Republicans in the Congress could have stood up at any point and told the President he wasn't a king, but they chose not to. That's not Nader's fault.

As for reform, I think it will have to come from within the parties. Why don't some Green people run as Democrats? Why don't some Libertarians run as Republicans? Join the primaries and get voted in on a local level and work your way up. If you wanna run as a Green, join the Democrats and make it known that on the environmental front your votes will be in line with the Green philosophy. Single-issue parties can't win in our system. You gotta work the system. And if you deal with the leadership of your local major parties, make it known that you'll vote fairly reliably with them on most issues, they'd probably love to have a dedicated and passionate candidate to run. It's called politics. Play the game.

[leekohler]

If you're going to mention Somalia, then I suppose I'll need to remind that it wasn't supposed to be a war, and the U.S. involvement there was inherited from the Bush administration anyway. As for Waco and the Balkans, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, especially in the former case.

My point is- the Clinton administration was hardly peaceful. They weren't war-mongers like Bush, but they had there fair share of violent episodes.

[solvs]

My point is- the Clinton administration was hardly peaceful. They weren't war-mongers like Bush, but they had there fair share of violent episodes.
Maybe. I had reservations about Bosnia when I heard about it, but how many soldiers were killed? In retrospect, it was actually handled pretty well. Of course, compared to Georgieboys half-asses WOT, you could say that about almost anything. Especially since we should have gotten Bin Laden and Al Qaida after the first WTC bombing, but someone had to make it more difficult. Then the Clinton administration did the stupidest thing ever, and handed it over to the Bush administration to take care of. Not that people would have like Clinton to bomb Afghanistan as a lame duck, but again, hindsight.

I still think Waco was handled poorly, as was the Elian thing, but I wouldn't really call that a break in the relatively peaceful time for us.

[tristan]

Yeah, there's no comparison. Clinton had Madeline Albright, who is basically a genius. They both put together a just about perfect strategy in Bosnia that took out Miloslovic with hardly any loss of life and even prevented the Russians from taking over (which was a real possibility at the time). The Bosnia campaign also was under the NATO banner, which was ingenious - not this ridiculous "coalition of the bribed - I mean willing".

The Clinton presidency was basically firing on all cylinders. Economic prosperity and a damn good foreign policy in retrospect - Blackhawk down being the only black eye. Gore would have had access to the Clinton/Abright/Rubin expertise, which would likely have made him a hell of a President.

[solvs]

Gore would have had access to the Clinton/Abright/Rubin expertise, which would likely have made him a hell of a President.
That's the difference. Even mediocre with a good team makes a good run. Sub-mediocre with a team of crooks, liars, and yes-men... well, you see where I'm going with this.