Mar. 23rd, 2003

sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
in answer to the question (in reference to the latest Iraqi army atrocities, about "the man [anti-war people] support")

Who's breaking international law now?

We both are. Unfortunately, by putting US troops in the hands of the madmen who run Iraq with no meaningful international support, while other members of the UN we blew off when it wasn't convenient for us to convince them to help clean up the mess we made are helping Iraq, we've emboldened the Iraqis to think they can do this without making their situation worse.

The fact that we've blown off international law for those we claim to be enemy combatants doesn't help either.

See, this is among the reasons I don't support this war. I think it's rather scurrilous to suggest that it's because I support Saddam. I was in determined opposition to Saddam when practically everyone in the current administration was supplying him with one of the fullest armories in the world.

WADR, I'm getting a little tired of outrage-come-latelies suggesting otherwise.

sigh

Mar. 23rd, 2003 07:40 pm
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
via the Poor Man:

``For a cheap political advantage, the administration will destroy freedoms and civil rights, undermine our economy and destroy the position of the United States in the world,'' Nader said.

But it's not his fault, he said. In fact, people could just as easily blame David McReynolds, the Socialist Party candidate in 2000, for giving the key state of Florida to Bush, he noted. McReynolds polled 622 votes in the state, and Democratic Vice President Al Gore lost by 537 votes. Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate, got 97,488 votes.

``When people ask me this, I say, `What would you have me do?' '' Nader said. ``Everybody has a right to run for office.''




The race against Wellstone, in fact, is not an exception to Green strategy, but its quintessence. Already the Greens have tipped congressional races to the Republicans in Michigan and New Mexico, and there was that unfortunate outcome of the presidential race about 18 months ago. In fairness, Ralph Nader warned us then that even a Democrat who brilliantly advanced liberal causes would merit Green opposition. When asked at the June 2000 Green National Convention to name three things he liked about America, for instance, Nader listed Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of California as thing number two. But when David Moberg of In These Times interviewed Nader that October, the candidate said that come 2002, he'd unhesitatingly back a Green against Waxman. Nader added, however, that the Greens would focus chiefly on the close races. Where the Democrats "are winning 51 [percent]-to-49 percent," he said, "we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to lose people, whether they're good or bad."

Even Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold? Moberg asked. Even Paul Wellstone? "That's the burden they're going to have to pay for letting their party go astray," Nader answered. "It's too bad."



With all due respect to my Green friends, how many times does the cock have to crow here?

Profile

sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
sisyphusshrugged

November 2016

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789 101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 12:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios