The Bombs Away Mentality Bush's Catastrophic Rhetoric RALPH NADER

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.counterpunch.com/nader10232007.html

Mired in the disastrous Iraq quagmire, opposed by a majority of Americans, George W. Bush has reached new depths of reckless, belligerent bellowing. At a recent news conference, he volunteered that he told our allies that if they're "interested in avoiding World War III," Iran must be prevented from both developing a nuclear weapon or having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

To what level of political insanity has this Washington Caesar descended? Only two countries can start World War III-Russia and the United States. Is Bush saying that if Russia, presently opposed to military action against Iran, persists with its position, Bush may risk World War III? If not, why is this law-breaking warmonger, looking for another war for American GIs to fight, while his military-age daughters bask in the celebrity lime light?

Why is he using such catastrophic language?

Surely he does not think Iran could start World War III. His own intelligence agencies say that, even assuming that the international inspectors are wrong and Iran is moving toward developing the "knowledge" of such weapons, it can't build its first such weapon before 3 to 5 years at the earliest.

Why would a regime ruling an impoverished country risk suicide, surrounded as it is by countries armed to the nuclear teeth, such as Israel and the United States? This nation of nearly 80 million people hardly needs to be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular premier in 1953, installing for the next 27 years the brutal regime of the Shah.

They recall that President Reagan and his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush urged, funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran-a nation that has not invaded any country in over 250 years-which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.

Moreover, the undeniable historical record shows that U.S. companies received licenses from the Department of Commerce, under Reagan, to ship Saddam the raw materials necessary to make chemical and biological weapons. Saddam used such lethal chemical weapons, with the tolerance of Reagan and Rumsfeld, on Iranians to devastating effect in terms of lives lost.

[bowens43]

1. if not for Nader , we wouldn't be going through this nightmare.

Nader should just sit down and shut up, he's done enough damage already.

[seemslikeadream]

2. That's just bullshit

[Rageneau]

3. No Nadar on Fla ballot -- no "win" for Smirk in Fla. Nadar deserves blame and disrespect.

The same people who believe that there was no difference between Bush and Gore are the people who believe that Nadar bears no responsibility for getting Bush 'elected."

[MH1]

4. Nader had the moment to be a hero. He failed miserably.

If instead of "not a dime's worth of difference" he had pointed out the reality of Gore vs Bush, and asked his followers to vote for the "less bad, and sometimes even decent" option, a whole lot of people would still be alive today, and the Constitution would be a whole lot less shredded.

Of course the link in the op is from Counterpuke, an anti-Democratic Party site that might as well be free republic.