What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 10 May 2004 - 09:45 AM
I agree with DonQ terror makes the Lion stronger, Israel proves it and it is being used all over again in Iraq. How else could extremists rule Israel and the P.A. How else could the Zionists now have invaded Iraq, if Israelis and Palestinians had sane leaders and lived a normal life?
Terror has brought extremism (eg Patriot Act which emulates the Gestapo laws in the third reich) into power by Bush.
Woj: the Pope during WW2 wasnt German, he was Italian, Paceli
by name but his pre-pope years were spent in office in Germany
hence his pro-Nazi- ant--communist stance. The complicity between the Vatican and the fascist govts was profound. The fact that some priests suffered has been used to try and hide the
involvement of the hierarchy.
More From the author Edmond Paris:
"I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits", said Hitler..."Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchial organisation of the Catholic Church.
I transferred much of this organisation into my own party...I am going to let you in one a secret...I am founding an Order...In my
"Burgs" of the Order, we will raise up a youth which will make the world tremble...Hitler then stopped, saying that he couldnt say anymore."
"?nother highly placed hitlerian, Walter Schellenberg, former chief of the German counter-espionage, completed this confidence from the Fuhrer, after the war:
"The SS organisation had been constitued, by Himmler, according to the principles of the Jesuits Order. Their regulations and the Spiritual Excercises prescribed by Ignatius of loyala were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly...The "Reichfuhrer SS" - Himmlers title as supreme chief of the SS....was to be the equivalent of the Jesuits "General" and the whole structure of the direction was a close imitation of the Catholic Churchs hierachical order."
"....Michaele Schmaus, Jesuit theologian, presented to the public a series of studies on this subject:
"Empire and Church" is a series of writings which should help the building up of the third reich as it unites a national-socialist state to Catholic-christianity...The Natiuonal-socialist movement is the most vigorous and massive protest against the spirit of the 19th and 20th centries...A compromise between the Catholic faith and liberal thinking is impossible...Nothing is more contrary to catholicism than democracy...The national-socialist Commandments and those of the Catholic Church have the same aim."
Posted 10 May 2004 - 10:56 AM
1776 according to Encyclopaedia Britannica 1963 "On the 1 May 1776, Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit priest inaugurated this society in Bavaria..."'
It was talking about the Alluminati.
Further it said in the year 1778 a friend of weishaupt, Baron Von knigge, infiltrated masonry in the upper degrees and often managed to gain a commanding position.
In 1777, a year after founding his conspiratorial Illuminati group, Weishaupt was initiated into the masonic order- the Lodge of Theodore of good council, in Munich, Germany. His purpose in joining was not to become part of this benevolent order, but to infiltrate it and then to control it altogether.
Weishaupt wrote that he never thought he would become the founder of a new religion.
The above information comes from the book I Spy With My Little Eye, by Barry R Smith a New Zealand evangelist who has spoken on the NWO etc all around the world.
The Masons were allegedly instrumentally involved in the French Revolution
which in turn created a climate of counter-revolution against this liberalism that made the Jesuits necessary again for the Catholic Church. When Clement signed the banning edict he said he was cutting off his right hand. He also said the suppression would kill him. He was right, publically accepted, he died of poisoning 14 months later.
Pope Pius vii reestablished the Order in 1814.
So the desease has spread through various orders. The Yale Skull and Bones seems to have a German origin and link to the Thule Group Hess belonged to.
The third reich was perhaps the first experience at its advent on a national scale. The Soviet Union a counter-part based on athiesm, an anti-religion religion. The two like conservatist Catholicism and Masonic/Jesuit liberalism are examples of the Hegelian dialectic contructs as engines for dramatic even violent change. The end justifies the means.
While certain Jews have similarly made their own stakeout within the Mason fraternity, I expect that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is the product of one of the Orders of the hydra
and may not have any exclusive Jewish intention at all.
If certain Jews just as certain others wanted to aspire to the hights of power within the matrix, it is to be expected and deadly competition in that should reflect the nature of the beast.
One thing that amazed me was the power struggles that went on within the Third Reich yet seemingly not disturbings it central
power structure and its control. Is this part of what Hitler admired about the system he copied?
Posted 10 May 2004 - 11:07 PM
Arabia? Because, as we heard repeatedly from those muzzled inside the
agencies, Saudi money trails lead back to George H.W. Bush and his
very fortunate sons and retainers."
Michael sure knows where it tickles--and where it hurts...
"In fact, our
joke in the London newsroom is that if we can't get our story on to
American airwaves, we can just slip it to the fat guy in the chicken suit.
Moore could sneak it past the censors as 'entertainment.'"
Hands off the fat guy in the chicken suit, Mr. Mogul.
by Greg Palast, author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast is currently in LA to receive the ACLU's
Freedom of Expression award.
WHEN the fattened cats at Disney put the kibosh on Michael Moore's new
film, "Fahrenheit 9-11," they did more than censor an artist. Gagging
Moore is only the latest maneuver in suppressing some most
uncomfortable facts: the Bush Administration's killing off investigations of Saudi
Arabian funding of terror including evidence involving a few members of
the bin Laden family in the USA.
I know, because, with my investigative team at BBC television and The
Guardian of Britain, I wrote and filmed the original reports on which
Moore's new documentary are based.
On November 11, 2001, just two months after the attack, BBC
Television's Newsnight displayed documents indicating that FBI agents were held
back from investigating two members of the bin Laden family who were
fronting for a "suspected terrorist organization" out of Falls Church,
Virginia - that is, until September 13, 2001. By that time, these birds
We further reported that upper level agents in the US government
informed BBC that the Bush Administration had hobbled the investigation of
Pakistan's Khan Laboratories, which ran a flea market in atomic bomb
blueprints. Why were investigators stymied? Because the money trail led
back to the Saudis.
The next day, our Guardian team reported that agents were constrained
in following the money trail from an extraordinary meeting held in Paris
in 1996. There, in the Hotel Monceau Royale, Saudi billionaires
allegedly agreed to fund Al-Qaeda's "educational" endeavors.
Those stories ran at the top of the nightly news in Britain and
worldwide but not in the USA. Why?
Our news teams picked up several awards including one I particularly
hated getting: a Project Censored Award from California State
University's school of journalism. It's the prize you get for a very important
story that is simply locked out of the American press.
And that hurts. I'm an American, an L.A. kid sent into journalistic
exile in England.
What's going on here?
Why the heck can't agents follow the money, even when it takes them to
Arabia? Because, as we heard repeatedly from those muzzled inside the
agencies, Saudi money trails lead back to George H.W. Bush and his
very fortunate sons and retainers. We at BBC reported that too, at the
top of the nightly news, everywhere but America.
Why are Americas media barons afraid to tell this story in the USA?
The BBC and Guardian stories were the ugly little dots connected by a
single theme: oil contamination in American politics and money poisoning
in the blood of our most powerful political family. And that is news
that dare not speak its name.
This is not the first time that Michael Moore attempted to take our BBC
investigative reports past the US media border patrol. In fact, our
joke in the London newsroom is that if we can't get our story on to
American airwaves, we can just slip it to the fat guy in the chicken suit.
Moore could sneak it past the censors as 'entertainment.'
Here's an example of Moore's underground railroad operation to bring
hard news to America: In the Guardian and on BBC TV, I reported that
Florida's then Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, removed tens of
thousands of Black citizens from voter rolls just prior to the 2000
election. Her office used a list of supposed 'felons' - a roster her office
knew was baloney, filled almost exclusively with innocents.
I printed the first installment of that story in the Guardian papers
while Al Gore was still in the race. The Washington Post ran my story
seven months later. By then, it could be read with a chuckle from the
Bush White House.
The Black voter purge story would have never seen the light of day in
the USA, despite its front-page play over the globe, were it not for
Moore opening his book, "Stupid White Men," with it.
So go ahead, Mr. Mickey Mouse mogul, censor the guy in the baseball
cap, let the movie screens go dark, spread the blindness that is killing
us. Instead, show us fake fly-boys giving the "Mission Accomplished"
thumbs up. It's so much easier, with the lights off, for the sheiks,
who lend their credit cards to killers, to jack up the price of oil while
our politicians prepare the heist of the next election, this time by
Let's not kid ourselves. Tube news in the USA is now thoroughly
Fox-ified and print, with few exceptions, still kow-tows to the prevaricating
pronouncements of our commander in chief.
Maybe I'm getting too worked up. After all, it's just a movie.
But choking off distribution of Moore's film looks suspiciously like a
hunt and destroy mission on unwanted news, even when that news is
hidden in a comic documentary. Why should the media moguls stop there?
How about an extra large orange suit for Michael for the new Hollywood
wing in Guantanamo?
Posted 11 May 2004 - 02:16 AM
First; Censorship in US is daily bread.
Second; There is insignificant different between Bush and Kerry in their election game. Donq, your life or others will be not altered regardless who wins.
In addition Americans are indifferent to the fate of Iraqi , or any people in this world as long it doesn
Posted 11 May 2004 - 02:33 AM
True. Just that now is even clearer.
<Second; There is insignificant different between Bush and Kerry in their election game. Donq, your life or others will be not altered regardless who wins.>
True. But I've argued the same thing before in this very debate. I've compared Republicans to the Lion, and Democrats to the Fox...
< In addition Americans are indifferent to the fate of Iraqi , or any people in this world as long it doesn-t influent their bank account.>
True. But that would usually describe Americans at the top of the food chain, not the ones doing the actual fight or footing the bill...
Posted 11 May 2004 - 03:15 AM
Going back to the article on terror making the lion stronger, we can clearly see how the violent monkey becomes a lion as bad as the old lion. It doesn't help the little animals; they now see two lions fighting each other, using up whatever little resources they had before, and worst, using them in their fight...
There's a positive *unintended* side effect of this though: the very survival of the little people depends, not on doing nothing, but on doing something...
Through one of those ironic twist of history, Osama Bin Laden and Taliban are preparing the incorporation of Afghanistan into the "American fold." If a further tens of thousands of Afghanis do not die in the process, it is through no merit of theirs. Nor should we thank them if September 11 does not produce an inflation of death, carried further to other countries and continents as massacres, civil wars, pogroms and famine, nationalist and religious hysteria, foreign military intervention and terror. Whether or not the verdict of history will show al-Qaeda was directly responsible for the World Trade Center graveyard is not the question here, but that this expression of Islamism have been disseminating a Culture of Death, Terror, Oppression, Self-oppression and Stupidity, which nutures such acts. All with the complicity of global financial institutions, the governments of "the West," as well as of of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the military regime of Algeria, Iraq, and others. In implicating all these other actors, I am not promoting some weird conspiracy theory, but an understanding of how social forces de facto tend to reinforce each other, knowingly or unknowingly. The extremely central role Saudi Arabian petroleum money has played, and very likely will continue to do, is almost comical but also very telling.
The World Trade Center massacre must be comprehended within an agenda of nuturing xenophobic hysteria. As a means for ends that geographically lie elsewhere. That the airborne suicidal guiders of the will of God were human beings with crushed dreams, and victims of capitalist alienation as much as everyone else whose lives exploded, like the numerous children who suffer a far less spectacular death in Iraq under the rule of Washington, D.C. and Baghdad, does not change this.
Within such an agenda, US might and wealth and the settler colonialism of Israel, become the best of allies, but can only function as such by being portrayed as the incarnation of "Satan" within an endless rhetorical monologue, where the distinction between rulers and ruled, and every class perspective, is wholly blurred. Just as the US propaganda apparatus never can make any real critique of Islamism, the Islamist leaders, as the Panarabic before them, cannot put forth any real critique of the global social order that the United States is a manifestation of. This would have undermined their own power basis and ends. Instead their "anti-imperialism" and Jihads serve as a means to enslave their "own" working classes: to reproduce "Satan," as the rule of fascist terror within an Islamic or nationalist ideological framework, even more oppressive in many aspects than "Satan himself." Only to soon be fully reintegrated into the capitalist world order they always were a particular expression of. And in the meantime, all social struggles pointing beyond the present order, all efforts of bringing into life a confederation of globalised wokers-to-workers solidarity, is undermined.
[And this "globalised wokers-to-workers solidarity" is exactly what we need.]
Posted 11 May 2004 - 03:36 AM
I propose planet B-612... The "Little Prince" came from there. We can establish cooperative society. Capitalist earthlings should be banned though...
Posted 11 May 2004 - 11:50 AM
You can only go there through death as little prince. And no people there but red rose and sheep.
THE PILOT ( Antoine Saint de Exupery)
crashes in the Sahara desert. The crash badly damages his airplane and leaves the narrator with very little food or water. As he is worrying over his predicament, he is approached by the little prince, a very serious little blond boy who asks the narrator to draw him a sheep. The narrator obliges, and the two become friends. The pilot learns that the little prince comes from a small planet that the little prince calls Asteroid 325 but that people on Earth call Asteroid B-612. The little prince took great care of this planet, preventing any bad seeds from growing and making sure it was never overrun by baobab trees. One day, a mysterious rose sprouted on the planet and the little prince fell in love with it. But when he caught the rose in a lie one day, he decided that he could not trust her anymore. He grew lonely and decided to leave. Despite a last-minute reconciliation with the rose, the prince set out to explore other planets and cure his loneliness.
While journeyingthe little prince passes by neighboring asteroids and encounters for the first time the strange, narrow-minded world of grown-ups. On the first six planets the little prince visits, he meets a king, a vain man, a drunkard, a businessman, a lamplighter, and a geographer, all of whom live alone and are overly consumed by their chosen occupations. Such strange behavior both amuses and perturbs the little prince. He does not understand their need to order people around, to be admired, and to own everything. With the exception of the lamplighter, whose dogged faithfulness he admires, the little prince does not think much of the adults he visits, and he does not learn anything useful. However, he learns from the geographer that flowers do not last forever, and he begins to miss the rose he has left behind.
At the geographer
Posted 11 May 2004 - 11:59 AM
Pilot, Poet, Man
[The Quotable Saint-Exupery
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
As for the future, your task is not to forsee it, but to enable it.
The Wisdom of the Sands
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
Flight to Arras
La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien ? ajouter, mais quand il ne reste rien ? enlever.
(You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.)
Love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction.
Voici mon secret. Il est tr?s simple : on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
(It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye.)
The Little Prince
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.
Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together.
Wind, Sand, and Stars
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
The machine does not isolate us from the great problems of nature but plunges us more deeply into them
There is no hope of joy except in human relations.
Posted 11 May 2004 - 01:18 PM
<What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.>
Thanks Woj, that was nice.
I particularly liked the two quotes above. The first one, for personal reasons; the second, perhaps politically. Our thirst for a change is so desperate that we are pressed to find the well...
Posted 11 May 2004 - 01:48 PM
The capitalist world order is an order that rules by being everywhere, and increasingly so, and not only in a restricted economical sense. If all its force was concentrated in the Pentagon it would have been easy to overcome. Instead it rules as much through small and large Ayatollahs, small and large Saddam Huseyns and Assads, Milosovics and Tudjmans, Sharons and Arafats and, as well as through the "humantarian" rulers of the Scandinavian countries. The latter is true as well. But terror is still among the phenomenoms that most effectively reproduces the monster, state-sponsored or not. Afghanistan has been one of this centres of capitalist world disorder in the last decades. There another manifestation of modern alienation was born, created out of many worlds, of old and new ones, linked to the global market in numerous ways. That the Taliban soldiers, together with Pakistani border guards, in these very days are being bribed to turn their heads the other way, so to let refugees pass a closed border, and that this is all organised as an enterprise, selling the fear of famine and death for what amounts to several months salary, is just another example on how the force of commodity production and the spirit of George Bushs is very much is alive in the realm of Taliban.
The world is increasingly moving towards a triadic American-European-Asian Empire. The enforced alliance-building we are now seeing around the Pentagons campaign of Infinite Terror (which magnitude is still quite unclear), and the seeking of legitimation for this through the United Nations, is not just a facade. We are moving towards a global order, also politically, in a whole new sense. Just as the the increased speed and magnitude of communication and transportation on a global level is increasingly also furthering a blurring between terror, policing and war. But we should also be aware of the new positive possibilities for a struggle of global resistance founded on solidarity this opens for us, with a potential to take us beyond capitalism.
Capitalism is a complex, globally interlinked social system that only can be surpassed through a collective creative effort on the basis of human communication and practical, non-hierachical and globalised solidarity of the working classes. There never was and never will be any other road. Now less than ever.
A last word about terror. In a play of words: Out of the ruins of anarchy, anarchy cannot arise, only the rule of the Market and the State in their most brutalised, authoritarian manifestations. In its proper sense, anarchy of course does not signify disorder and the struggle of each against all, however common such a belief may be, but the overcoming of the Rule of the Siamese Twins of Market and State through the human creation of a global classless society, where people in cooperation rule over their own lifes and destinies, and the freedom of all becomes the condition of the freedom of each, as the freedom of each is the condition for the freedom of all.
[I'd argue that this terror on two sides--the old and the new lion--will shake the little people out of any illusions and complacency. It's either DO SOMETHING or be eaten...]
Posted 12 May 2004 - 01:31 AM
Polish city of Kracow found solution on dragon who constantly demanded food; ; nicely bake pig was filled with sulfur. After consumption dragon drunk half Vistula river and broke to pieces. And this way from dragon is only cave left.
Unfortunately Poland has new problem ;
criminal from Vietnam vera ; Henry Kissinger comes to Poland and demands from Polish president Kwasniewski Polish soldiers in Iraq. :confused:
Another thing was David and Goliath story;
Philistine champion named Goliath taunts his enemies; Choose your best soldiers to come out and fight me. If he can kill me , our people will be your slaves. No Israelites take him up on the offer ,for he stands more than nine feet tall and wears 150 pounds of body armor. The sword he carries can easily slice off a man
Posted 12 May 2004 - 03:44 AM
Worth a chuckle. Capitalism... can only be surpassed....? What does the author mean by surpassed? Does he mean it is the best there is but socialism will greatly improve our society?
What is a collective creative effort? Give me an example of collective creativity? A group would have to have the same thought at the same time in order for it to be called creative.
It is individuals that are creative. No group is creative. An idea originates with an indivdual. That others agree to it, modify it develop it, is also the product of the individual. Where would that collective creative effort originate?
Stringing together a bunch of pedantic words such as, "...human communication and practical, non-heirachical(sic) and globalized solidarity of the working classes.", is stating the same tired old cliches. Someone must organize and communicate this practical, non-heirarchical, global solidarity of the working class. If we are "non-heirarchical" who will lead us or do we just mill about in solidarity, like one big lump.
Socialism is a contradiction in itself and leads to an oligarchy which is exactly what one might think capitalism has produced.
A true free market without intervention from controlling governments, bankers and monopolistic corporations has not existed for the last century. Until it came under the influence of these characters things were developing and we were learning.
Mid-stride, they were able to deceive and bribe enough people to
gain a toe-hold and finally control over civilization.
The current oligarchy that highjacked our governments are using socialism as the tool to redistribute every one's wealth except theirs. No one will ever become powerful enough to threaten them. They will never be able to amass the wealth it would take to dethrone them.
The masses, for the most part, suspect nothing. Isn't that right, Pinky?
Da, yeah! What'll we do tomorrow, Brain?
Same thing we do every day, Pinky. Try and take over the world!
Posted 12 May 2004 - 05:29 AM
-Atheism was an attempt to remove the main barrier between people and maintain egalitarianism between nations-
You mean regiment people into an ant nest run by an elite at the top of bureaucracy.
The principle standoff was between communism (socio-economic)
and capitalism. Religion was just a wippingboy as today with the
so called threat of terrrorism which Islam breeds. A prof in Hawaii estimated 200 million people died of unnatural causes in the last century. The vast majority were from secular tyrany eg communist and fascist and obviously a small amount by religion.
The imperialist catholic church wasnt that big a threat to Russia
because it had its own church as in the Balkans, the fact that the poles become captured by them would have been a significant reason for the fragile relationship between the Russians and Poland. And inspite of the huge percentage of Poles who were
catholic (anti communist at that time) they didnt embrace
communism it was imposed on them. Today the catholic church has a major stake in international socialism which I believe is grooming itself for world centre stage. This has something to do with not putting up a fight in the late forties and the collapse of the atheist experiment.
The fascist nazi-vatican alliance which despised democracy is no
basis to argue that democracy is no good. How desperate for proof can one get?
Posted 12 May 2004 - 08:37 AM
I found the attempt to describe capitalism a bit obscure. A NWO is
one thing but to refer to a capitalist world order is merely referring to a world where capitalism dominates (but where the
market and state are subject to financial oligarchy through debt.)
I saw no significance in trying to compare Bush and the Taliban.
I assume that terrorism on the one hand and formal power structures all work against the common man is what is being said.
I cant argue with that but would this person ban voting so no majority can over-rule any individual?
Capitalism is not a social system its firstly a phenomena relating to human enterprise. The whole range of various political
types that were linked with this odd view of capitalism shows it cant be a common system.
The two dimentional thinking of talking about workers (of the world unite) shows it just a hand (fist?) sticking up out of the ground next to some headstone. Hang on, is that a hammer or a sickle in that hand?
But then it turns to the old anarchy notion of overcoming the
formal power structures (market and state) to free people to some miracle informal order/cooperation not unlike like the libertarians subscribe to.
Lastly if the human cause is on behalf of all workers one assumes then that the dialectic (!) confrontation is between those who work and those who dont. Those who dont are:
in prison, in hospital, unemployed, retired, in ill health and in peace time perhaps the armed forces.
All the rest are working for a living. I thought that they outnumbered and had more influence on the organised world around them than the non-workers.
I would advise them to use the word "common" rather than "collective" because you cant have non-hierachical coexisting with collective.
Posted 12 May 2004 - 10:59 AM
Whenever we use "capitalism" here we are referring not to the free election of some to practice free enterprise, but the very much monopolistic--one option only--that prevails nowadays. What what we are proposing here is the possibility that you and I follow different paths to Utopia--without the need for the Fox. We don't need bureaucracy to accomplish this, only the free will of people to choose one or the other option.
<What is a collective creative effort? Give me an example of collective creativity? A group would have to have the same thought at the same time in order for it to be called creative.
It is individuals that are creative. No group is creative. An idea originates with an indivdual. That others agree to it, modify it develop it, is also the product of the individual. Where would that collective creative effort originate?>
Between your individualist conception and Marxist collective conception, there's a middle ground. I'm not interested in a secluded life owning things. I'm interested in the interaction with a community that by being happy can contribute to my own. Yet I'm ardently independent, so the buck stops there...
Any idea may start with one, but then is fully developed by all. It's like a dance. Someone creates it, but then it's fun in the dancehall...
<Stringing together a bunch of pedantic words such as, "...human communication and practical, non-heirachical(sic) and globalized solidarity of the working classes.", is stating the same tired old cliches. Someone must organize and communicate this practical, non-heirarchical, global solidarity of the working class. If we are "non-hierarcal" who will lead us or do we just mill about in solidarity, like one big lump.>
Here I'm going to turn to the man who coined the phrase "Big Brother," so he's a trusted guide to both rejecting the State and rejecting hierarchy of any kind...
<<<Orwell did, however, want the tendencies that lead some men to guide societies and other men to obey them, to fade away; in effect, he wanted to change the state of nature that led to hierarchal social structures.
As critic Alex Zwerdling eloquently puts it in Orwell and the Left: "The born victim and the born ruler; each acts his part in an almost predestined way. The victim's humility and shame become reflex responses; the ruler shifts uneasily between arbitrary assertion of power and the guilty gestures of charity. Orwell suggests that no amount of good will on either side can make this fundamental property of power tolerable. The task is to shatter the molds from which such men are made
Posted 12 May 2004 - 11:13 AM
``The good news for us,''`is that Dean is not the nominee.'' Dean's unconditional opposition to the war, , would have made him a more formidable opponent for Bush than a candidate like John Kerry, who voted to authorize the war and remains committed to a U.S. military presence in Iraq.
: There is a growing antiwar constituency among the U.S. electorate, and the candidate who would normally inherit it, John Kerry, can't.
But there is a candidate who can.
The worsening war has at last handed Nader a rationale for his run. Unlike Kerry, who said he would even consider increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, Nader favors a total withdrawal within six months.
``This is Nader's moment,'' Suddenly his sails are filling out.''
Last July, when only 27 percent of Americans thought the Iraq war was ``the wrong thing to do,'' according That figure is now up to 40 percent, while those with a favorable view is at 50 percent, down from 65.
the war has risen in what pollsters call ``salience,'' joining the short list of political issues that can move a significant bloc of voters to vote one way or the other.
The large majority of antiwar Democrats can be expected to stick with Kerry, who continues to draw from the bottomless well of liberal animus toward Bush. But Nader doesn't need much to become the election's deciding variable.
If the war continues to sink in popularity,, we could see Nader rise.
Three percent may not sound like much., but an antiwar candidate guarantees the re-election of a war president. intercepts from
-- an antiwar candidate who guarantees the re-election of a war president is blessing to the world. A winning war president guarantees winning communism world wide. Nader knows it and world knows it as well.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users