SHAME ON YOU RALPH NADER

Since 2000, when he claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats, Ralph Nader has had blood on his hands.

By his own admission, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, pollsters indicate that 39% of the votes he received in Florida in 2000 would have gone to Gore, with only 25% to Bush. He fails to follow the math to its conclusion, though -- a clear Gore win in Florida by 13,111 votes – if Nader had not run.

Nader didn't mind because he got what he wanted in 2000 -- party clashes.

In the August 2000 issue of Outside Magazine, it was reported that when Nader was asked if threatened with a gun to his head, who would he vote for – Gore or Bush – he immediately said, “Bush.” Why? “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

Nader’s agenda is no longer the well-being of Americans. His agenda is a complete disruption of majority rule. Nader wants a multiple choice, multiple party democracy – but this would often leave Americans with a leader that the majority of the people, split into two or more parties, voted against.

With almost 4000 American military dead, to say nothing of the multi-fold more disabled, poorly cared for, often with ruined marriages and families, together with estimates between 88,000 to almost a million Iraqi citizens, leaving a dangerously angry generation of uneducated orphans – all as a result of the Bush administration’s determination, beyond reason, to oust Saddam Hussein and control the future of the oil-rich land – there is a lot of blood that has been shed. In a war that was a phony response to 9/11.

Al Gore would not done this to Iraq – or to Americans. Therein lies a huge difference.

When Nader ran again in 2004 – despite Bill Maher and Michael Moore publicly dropping to their knees before their former hero, on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”, and begging him not to run – he claimed it was because he alone was willing to end the war in Iraq – the war his ego facilitated.

Nader’s 2004 run was largely unsupported and pathetic, especially when he knowingly accepted – and defended – donations from top Republicans aiming to split the democratic vote.

Now, in 2008, Nader claims he must run again, this time to take on corporate control of the government. Again he seeks to fix what he made worse. It was his interference in majority rule that put the U.S. government in the hands of the most corporate-friendly President in history – the man who filled Cabinet posts with the lobbyists who had fought federal agency oversight.

Al Gore would not have populated the entire executive branch with industry lobbyists aiming to censor scientific evidence. Another major difference.

Whatever Gore's flaws, these unarguable differences have had significant, deadly consequences.

If Ralph Nader were the man he once was – the crusader for American consumers – he would put his energy into the important voting issues that have been rampant since 2000 - the Help America Vote Act (written by the corrupt and jailed Congressman Bob Ney under the influence of Diebold money transferred by Jack Abramoff), the hackable voting machines, the illegitimate purging of voter registration lists, the uncounted ballots, the corporate intimidation of election officials. There was an important role for Nader to play.

Instead, Ralph Nader has forsaken us. And “We, the People” are worse off for his betrayal.

We owe it to our selves, our families, and to the world, to see this 2008 candidacy for what it must be: empty, without value, and over.

"Would you vote for Hillary", RadioWest asks

In response to RadioWest with Carl Bernstein discussing his biography of Hillary Clinton:

“Would you vote for Hillary?”

There was a time when I would have voted for Hillary for President, beyond a doubt, and if she becomes the Democratic nominee, then I still will. Whatever her flaws, I still find her to be very intelligent, capable, compassionate and wise, with honorable motives -- all qualities that have been sorely missing in the present administration.

However, the problem lies in her husband's legacy. Will she be able to move forward and act objectively, without the need to protect and/or defend the parts of his policies that, in retrospect, have not worked or have had negative, even dangerous, unintended consequences.

Most notably, there is the use of depleted uranium in U.S. military weapons. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. On the contrary, it began with Bush/Cheney, only it was George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary, who first bombed Iraq on January 17, 1991, using penetrators made effective by the extremely hard heavy metal, which would burst into flames and sharpen on contact with its target, leaving tiny radiating particles in the air, and eventually making their way into the water and land, there in Iraq, as well as travelling upon the currents of the great dust storms that Iraq is famous for. The radiation, called "low-level", is no less intense or damaging for being "low-level" -- it just means that the range of the constantly emitting bursts is small, but once particles enter the body, by inhalation, the mouth or through an open wound, that emission range is perfect for attacking nearby cells as the particles work their way through. The kinds of cancers that occur depend on the size and solubility of the particles, and where they get stuck along the way. Doctors in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the greatest increases in leukemia, and cancers of the liver and lungs, as well as the previously rare occurence of multiple separate cancers. With the sanctions against Iraq in the 90's, treatment was almost impossible, and losses were great.

Then, under President Clinton, there was the crisis in Kosovo and Bosnia, and NATO moved in, armed with U.S. and British weapons. In January 2001, the NATO countries exploded with stories of cancers suffered by the troops who had served in the former Yugoslavia, and demanded an investigation. The United Nations sent a team from the Environmental division and the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, the Pentagon squashed scientific evidence linking DU and medical effects. It was years later that those who were still paying attention learned that Dr. Keith Baverstock of the WHO, their best expert in radiation, filed a report in 2001 acknowledging enormously harmful effects, but, under pressure from the U.S., it was shelved.

Even more horrible, then, is the fact that the U.S. military, no longer capable of pretending to be unaware of the effects, still uses depleted uranium in its missiles, penetrators, shields, tanks, and more. Yet few in Congress are courageous enough to try to introduce and support legislation to stop its use or even seek testing for every soldier who serves in the Gulf. Congressmen Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Kucinich (D-OH) have been leaders in this effort. But even Democrats have been reluctant to take this on, even though the greatest use by far has been ordered by the two versions of Bush/Cheney, in 1991 and from 2003 to the present, because in between the Bushes is Bill Clinton, their most successful President since FDR.

I don't know that Senator Hillary Clinton would be willing to face these truths and stop what so many in the rest of the world recognize as the kind of long-term, boundary-less destruction that qualifies as a war crime. It is the ultimate torture -- to watch your loved ones, especially those who are most vulnerable -- your children, suffer through cancers and birth defects.

We need a leader who will end this.
And we need citizens who will demand to know what the candidates will do about it.

Depleted Uranium Still in the VA Closet

Is there perhaps another reason for the VA Secretary James Nicholson to get out before it's too late?

Perhaps so.

For two years I've been researching Depleted Uranium, in waves, as time allows, interrupted by such other urgencies as Diebold and the Bush adminstration's usurping of public safety by controlling EPA and OSHA testing and findings under the guise of Homeland Security.

Some central concepts to know about DU:

It goes back to Bush/Cheney. January 1991, Bush Sr. and his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney blasted Iraq with hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium weaponry.

Depleted Uranium is used because when it strikes, the friction causes it to instantly burn and sharpen, leaving radioactive particles. These particles hang in the air until moved by air or water.

They are available to be inhaled, ingested through food, water, or simple hand-to-mouth exposure, or they can enter a body by landing on an open wound.

Depending on their size and solubility, they may lodge in the nooks and crannies of the brain, the lungs, the bones, the colon, the liver - blasting nearby cells with "low-level" radiation [Note: Low-level does not mean less deadly, it means the range of the the attack is very small - but perfect for whacking the hell out of the local DNA in a human body).

If the particles are small and soluble they may just move swiftly to the kidneys, where the chemical poisoning may end the suffering quickly.

And these particles are predicted to continue to radiate for hundreds of millions of years, contaminating the water and food chains, carried by wind for hundreds of miles (Iraq has some of the greatest wind/dust storms in the world), causing birth defects and suffering for innocent people for generations to come.

(This is why international human rights attorney Karen Parker calls it a war crime and helped a initial report come before a UN Human Rights subcommittee in 2003. Funny how that whole division seemed to suddenly collapse and was further dashed by the formidably nasty neoconservative John Bolton.)

In January 2001, while Cheney was engaged in finding the best lobbyists to fill the Cabinet, news from Europe was bursting with almost hysteria, as the NATO forces that had been a part of the "peace-keeping" missions in the former Yugoslavia were suffering cancer at an alarming rate, with the blame going to the depleted uranium weaponry used by the United States and the UK.

In response to the concerns of the NATO allies, the United Nations assigned its World Health Organization to investigate. If they had then allowed the world to see the report of their senior radiation expert, Dr. Keith Baverstock, the use of DU weaponry could have been stopped. But the report was shelved, presumably under political pressure. Baverstock has since retired and is working elsewhere to get the word out.

Yes, by the way, that was Bill Clinton in charge during the US bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo.

Which is why Hillary should not be elected. She has a legacy to protect.

Which may also be why the Democrats have failed to jump on this.

Because there is a problem of liability. The greatest class action suit in history. And there have always been people who knew this, and squashed it.

So those who speak up about the effects of DU are shot down quickly. The frustration of trying to raise the issue for almost two decades has left some exhausted and cynical. Careers have been destroyed, scientists discredited, articles pulled, journalists stopped. Some activists have turned on each other.

Regardless of all that, the DU is still radiating.

Saddam Hussain tried to get the world to hear the effects it has had on Iraq, especially when sanctions kept hospitals unable to treat the increase in cancer, especially among the most vulnerable, the children.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has decried the hypocrisy of the US using DU weapons while taking the world to the brink of another impossibly horrific war over Iran's uranium projects.

Much of the rest of the world knows what has been done in our name.

But we don't. And we don't know why they are all so crazy mad.

Ron Paul was right in the Republican debate. Too bad he didn't go all the way and say what exactly we'd been bombing Iraq with. Not only did Bush 1 and Cheney break their word to the Saudis about staying only long enough to get Iraq out of Kuwait -- they poisoned the entire Middle East for the rest of time.

Oh, well. At least somebody's making money on it, right?

Okay, hopefully, this might inspire a bit of Googling. And sharing.

And if you Google, you just might run into this article, pointing out that Nicholson's predecessor, Anthony Principi, also left rather abruptly and some suspected that increased reported on DU influenced his decision.

Know Bush Fact #35

Based on the belief that the truth shall set you free:


As hundreds of thousands of earnest people arrive in New York for a variety of creative protests, many worry that conflicts in the streets televised across the world will be used to Bush’s advantage.

Keeping demonstrations peaceful is urged.

But the gentlest intentions may not be enough.

On January 20, 2001, the Bush-Cheney Presidential Inaugural Committee coordinated with the D.C. Police and federal law enforcement to send out government agents provocateurs – undercover agents (caught on tape - see PBS' "Now with Bill Moyers") walking through groups of peaceful demonstrators, covertly squirting pepper spray at close range into the faces of innocent people.

Not just to intimidate, but to provoke violence and arrests.

And that was before 9/11. According to Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice, a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C.:

This is an effort to criminalize dissent. It's an effort from the Ashcroft Justice department specifically since September 11th. . . They're targeting people purely based on people standing up and saying they oppose government policy.

Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard and her husband, Carl Messineo, have several lawsuits filed against D.C. police and the federal government regarding this abuse of civil rights. (The D.C. Police had to admit that the pepper sprayers on Inauguration Day were indeed their own officers.)

Now, under John Ashcroft, the Justice Department allows FBI agents to go undercover to monitor citizen gatherings, whether or not there is evidence or suspicion of criminal activity.

So local police are doing their part as well.

In April 2003, the Colorado Coalition Against War in Iraq, a non-violent group, appropriately contacted police to notify them that they intended to go to U.S. Senator Wayne Allard’s office to present a resolution calling for an end to the U.S. presence in Iraq and an independent inquiry into the truthfulness of the justifications for the military action.

The night before their intended presentation, the group found themselves shocked by the suggestion of an eager new participant who said they should they up the ante and storm the building. Fortunately, wise leaders prevailed, and the new guy was later found to be with the Sheriff’s Office.

Recent terrorist alerts in Washington and New York have shown Bush and his administration anxious to display a sudden burst of diligence. Now, at the Republican National Convention in New York City, amidst new reports from Abu Ghraib, revelations of an Israeli spy in the Defense Department influencing Middle East policy, the Census Bureau reporting a growth in poverty and the uninsured, and scornful words from the Iraqi soccer team, Bush needs an enemy he can crush, especially on prime time television.

Demonstrators in New York should be very careful, and observers need to watch for Bush distracting from serious issues by focusing on turning peaceful dissenters into dangerous, crazy, Kerry-supporting terrorists he must crush for the safety of the American people.

To verify/research, Google "Bush +protest +pepper".