Nader Calls for Bush Impeachment

[OnyxCougar]

Nader Calls for Impeachment of Bush Over the War in Iraq
By THOMAS J. LUECK

Published: May 25, 2004


alph Nader, the independent candidate for president, condemned President George W. Bush yesterday as a "messianic militarist" who should be impeached for pushing the nation into a war in Iraq "based on false pretenses."

Mr. Bush's actions "rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors," Mr. Nader said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan. He said Mr. Bush had exceeded his authority in the face of widespread opposition at home and abroad.

"The founding fathers did not want the declaration of war put in the hands of one man," he said, contending that United States foreign policy goals are being hindered because the president tends to "talk like an out-of-control West Texas sheriff."

Mr. Nader said the White House should set a specific date before the end of 2004 to withdraw American troops. At the same time, he said he would advocate internationally supervised elections in Iraq.

When pressed by the audience, Mr. Nader declined to provide more detail on what immediate steps could be taken to assure stability in the region if the United States withdraws by the end of the year. But he criticized a resolution introduced by the United States and Britain on Monday in the United Nations Security Council, which would support a sovereign interim Iraqi government to take office by June 30. The White House had little credibility in making the proposal, he said, because the administration plans to build military bases in Iraq.

"We are the sovereigns,'' he said, adding that the bases will assure a permanent or long-term occupation.

People in Iraq need "a light at the end of the tunnel," he said.

Mr. Nader, who in recent days has made conciliatory gestures toward the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, made no direct reference to Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq, but made clear that he held a different view. Mr. Kerry is sharply critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war, but has said the United States must retain and even increase its forces in Iraq while reaching out for more help from allies.

Mr. Nader also accused President Bush of exaggerating the threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of Al Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest," he said. But he said it was time to raise "the impertinent question" about whether the threat had been "exaggerated for a purpose."

Mr. Nader said he believed such a deception had taken place, and had been intended in part to draw popular support for more militaristic policies and to generate military contracts for companies with close ties to the Bush administration.

In other action on Monday, Mr. Nader's campaign submitted to the Texas secretary of state 80,000 signatures of registered voters, more than enough to qualify him for the state's presidential ballot in November should his lawsuit challenging the petition process succeed.

Mr. Nader failed to submit the necessary 64,000 signatures by May 10, as required by state law. Independent candidates in Texas must obtain signatures from registered voters who did not participate in either major party primary, and must do so within a 60-day period. Mr. Nader's lawsuit, in United States District Court, contends that the law is an unreasonable and unconstitutional obstacle to independent candidates. A hearing is scheduled for July.

[depmats]

mmm, Nader. Nuff said.

[smoothmoniker]

Go Nader, Go !!!

Run Nader, Run !!!

Only you can save the dems, Nader! You must run for President!

-sm

[rich2741]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Kaboooosh! goes the toilet.

Can I unbuckle my seatbelt now?

[elSicomoro]

If Bush gets elected for a second term, I wouldn't count out the possibility of an impeachment.

[Griff]

If the Dems weren't completely gutless, you could count on it.

[elSicomoro]

Wusses, yes. Completely gutless? Nah.

[Griff]

If you thought Gore was good insurance for Bill think about Dick...

[lookout123]

i haven't been able to get the full story yet, but i will post it when i find it.

summary: democrat officials in arizona challenged the signatures on nader petition and have successfully blocked him from the arizona presidential ballot.

sounds pretty crappy to me. i don't even like nader, but it just seems wrong.

This country needs Nader about as much as it needs Bush. Takes one ego centric to recognize another, I guess. Nader has no credibility with me. I see him as a self-obsessed spoiler who is just dying to hand the reins to Bush for a second term.

[Happy Monkey]

The Republicans send out petitions to put Nader on the ballot, the Democrats try to invalidate them. The whole thing is sordid.

[Griff]

Originally posted by marichiko
This country needs Nader about as much as it needs Bush. Takes one ego centric to recognize another, I guess. Nader has no credibility with me. I see him as a self-obsessed spoiler who is just dying to hand the reins to Bush for a second term.

I don't agree with Nader on a LOT of stuff, but he is the only guy left with any credibility on the important issue in this election, the war. I still haven't eliminated the possibility of voting for Kerry, so at least we stop antagonizing Western Europe, but the underlying issue is our constant meddling in third world politics. Both major parties are fascinated by power and embrace the use of American force as the answer to any conflict. I'm not that convinced that American consumer society is valuable enough to impose on other cultures. I know that's a funny thing for a libertarian to say, but I'm seeing a culture that is less about choice and more about manipulation and corporate control.

The basis of the sordidness is the control that the two old parties exert over the system as a whole. Ballot access is just the most in your face part of it and its something that goes unnoticed when it's just the majors using it as a weapon against the little guys rather than against each other. It is ugly, but it's kind of cool that a minor player can play the entrenched parties against each other. The Dems should be sending out Constitution and Libertarian Party petitions.

Originally posted by Griff


I still haven't eliminated the possibility of voting for Kerry, so at least we stop antagonizing Western Europe, but the underlying issue is our constant meddling in third world politics. Both major parties are fascinated by power and embrace the use of American force as the answer to any conflict. I'm not that convinced that American consumer society is valuable enough to impose on other cultures. I know that's a funny thing for a libertarian to say, but I'm seeing a culture that is less about choice and more about manipulation and corporate control.

I actually agree with a Libertarian on something. Will wonders never cease?I don't care much for the Republicans OR the Democrats. For a very long time now, I have simply voted for the candidate who appears to represent the lesser evil, a sad state of affairs.

At this point I feel Kerry represents the lesser evil, but I'm not especially thrilled with him. Unfortunately, the two major parties are so entrenched, I cannot visualize a third party candidate ever being successful on the national level. Like you said its becoming "less about choice and more about manipulation and corporate control."