| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"disseminator" |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2004 07:08:46 PM |
| Object: |
Nader -- Where is the Exit Strategy |
From: Counterpunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10012004.html
October 1, 2004
Where's the Exit Strategy?
What We Didn't Hear at the Debate
By RALPH NADER
Neither President Bush or Senator Kerry have an exit strategy for
the war in Iraq and both of them say we're going to win the war in
Iraq-which means an endless occupation, which breeds resistance, and
which does not cut the bottom out of the insurgency, because
mainstream Iraqis are given no light at the end of the tunnel that
they're going to get their country back with a set schedule under
a US military and corporate (i.e. oil company) withdrawal from their
nation.
Eisenhower, when he was running for president in 1952, promised the
American people that he would get us out of the Korean War. It was a
harder war to get out of because behind North Korea was Communist
China and the Soviet Union, but he got us out of the Korean War.
These two gentlemen can't even get us out of this quagmire war that
we were plunged into, unconstitutionally, on a platform of
fabrications, lies, and deception-and, one might add, against the
better judgment of retired diplomatic, military, and intelligence
officials.
Other points on the debates, Bush said it was going to be an
all-volunteer army; he didn't quite say he was opposed to the
military draft, but he moved a little closer to that. Bush still
promotes this total boondoggle, un-workable missile defense system.
'Star Wars' has been condemned as unworkable by the leading
physicists in the United States, many of them consultants to the
Pentagon, but that doesn't stop Bush from spending ten billion
dollars a year on that boondoggle.
Kerry seems to be much stronger on the non-proliferation of nuclear
materials issue, especially from former countries of the Soviet
Union. Both of them were very weak on Darfur and the Southern
Sudan and the genocide that's going on there. They expressed
sympathy and mentioned something obliquely about the African Union,
but really indicated they had no plans to support the African Union
with the necessary means to preserve those people from further
slaughter.
All in all, I think the people got a longer look at John Kerry than
they ever have. They're used to George W. Bush. I would say that
within the narrow confines of the so-called debates there was the
edge to Kerry over Bush. However, having said that, Jim Lehrer
really narrowed the range of subjects to the debate. We didn't hear
anything about the Israel/Palestine conflict; we didn't hear
anything about global arms control in the broader sense; we didn't
hear anything about the global trade treaties-WTO and NAFTA-nor did
we hear anything about the need to do something about the military
budget of the Pentagon, which is so wasteful.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10012004.html
--
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
