PDA

View Full Version : Ralph Nader: Open Letter to George W. Bush



DLR'sCock
08-22-2005, 04:36 PM
In the Public Interest

Open Letter to George W. Bush
July 8, 2005

On June 28, 2005 you addressed the nation in prime time about the situation in Iraq. You called the casualties, destruction and suffering in that country "horrifying and real." Then you declared: "I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it," you asserted and went on to explain your position.

My question to you is this: "Who is doing the sacrificing on the US side besides our troops and their families and other Americans whose dire necessities and protections cannot be met due to the diversion of huge spending for the Iraq war and occupation?"

Let's start with the wealthy. In the midst of the ravages of war, you gave them a double tax cut, pushing these enormous windfalls through Congress at the same time as concentrations of wealth among the top one percent richest were accelerating.

You also cut taxes for the large corporations that benefit most from arcane, detailed tax legislation. Many of these corporations have profited greatly from the tens of billions of dollars in contracts which you have handed them.

Companies like Halliburton, from which Vice President Dick Cheney receives handsome retirement benefits, keep getting multi-billion contracts even though the Pentagon auditors and investigations by Rep. Henry Waxman have shown vast waste, non-performances, and not a little corruption. Not much corporate sacrifice there.

You and Mr. Cheney need to be reminded that your predecessors pressed, during wartime, for surcharges on corporate profits of the largest corporations. As Rep. Major R. Owens pointed out recently in introducing such legislation (H.R. 1804), the precedents for such an equitable policy, at a time of growing federal deficits, occurred during World War I, World II, the Korean and Vietnam wars. Ponder the difference. Past Presidents increased taxes on the large companies as a way of spreading out the economic sacrifice a little. Instead, during record, even staggering big corporate profits, you reduce their contributions to the US Treasury and military expenditures.

Where is the presence of the sons and daughters of the top political and economic rulers in the Iraq theatre, where they can see the suffering of millions of innocent Iraqi people? You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of family members serving over there among the 535 members of Congress, and the White House. No specific data is available for the families of the CEOs of the Fortune 500. But we can guess that very few are stationed in and around the Sunni triangle these days. Can't get much tennis, golf or sailing in, if that were the case. How often have you extolled the patriotic sacrifice of members of the armed forces, the Reserves and the National Guard? How often have you praised their work as the highest form of service to their nation, its security and future. Well, what about your daughters' having this sublime opportunity to be on the receiving end of their father's encomiums? Remember Major John Eisenhower, among others.

In an earlier unanswered letter, I urged you and Mr. Cheney to announce that you would reject the tens of thousands of dollars in personal tax cuts that passage of your tax cut legislation for the wealthy would have accorded both of your fortunes. Recusing yourselves would have conveyed the message that it is unseemly to sign your own personal tax reduction. It would also have furthered the principle of the moral authority to govern.

Well, you did sign your own tax cut, while tens of thousands of Americans had to leave their employment and small businesses and go to Iraq at a reduced pay and worrying about inadequate protective equipment and insufficient training.

Those rulers who send young men and women into undeclared wars on platforms of fabrications, deceptions, and cover-ups do not have proper incentives for responsible and effective behavior and politics. Some degrees of shared sacrifice provide prudent restraint against the manipulations and recklessness of politicians and the supporting avarice of their fellow oligarchs.

Without some measure of sacrifice, programs are misdesigned to pursue stateless terrorists in ways and areas that actually produce recruitment opportunities for more such terrorists. Note your own CIA Director Porter Goss's testimony before the Senate earlier this year. But the resulting warmongering, where the "intelligence and the facts" are fixed to the policy, became unsavory re-election strategies in 2004.

You have often told us that you want to nominate federal judges who believe in a strict construction of the Constitution. How about a President who believes in the strict constitutional authority of Article One, Section Eight which gives Congress and Congress alone the power to declare war? Requiring a declaration of war, together with legislation requiring, upon such a declaration, the conscription of all eligible members of Congressional and White House families would assure that only "unavoidable and necessary wars" are declared and fought.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

Guitar Shark
08-22-2005, 04:57 PM
Ralph Nader can get run over by a car for all I care. There wouldn't even be a "President Bush" but for him.

FORD
08-22-2005, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Ralph Nader can get run over by a car for all I care. There wouldn't even be a "President Bush" but for him.

...and Cruella Harris....and Diebold......and cousin John Ellis working for FAUX News......and 5 BCE appointees on the Supreme Court. Can't blame Ralph for all of it.

Warham
08-22-2005, 05:11 PM
Who?

Guitar Shark
08-22-2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by FORD
...and Cruella Harris....and Diebold......and cousin John Ellis working for FAUX News......and 5 BCE appointees on the Supreme Court. Can't blame Ralph for all of it.

I will agree with Harris, and would add Jeb Bush to the equation as well. And we can't ignore Gore's role either. The guy made a LOT of mistakes and wasn't a great candidate to begin with. You know there's a problem when you fail to carry your home state.

4moreyears
08-22-2005, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by FORD
...and Cruella Harris....and Diebold......and cousin John Ellis working for FAUX News......and 5 BCE appointees on the Supreme Court. Can't blame Ralph for all of it.

It had nothing to do with the people that voted for bush and wanted him to win. What a DICK!!!

academic punk
08-22-2005, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I will agree with Harris, and would add Jeb Bush to the equation as well. And we can't ignore Gore's role either. The guy made a LOT of mistakes and wasn't a great candidate to begin with. You know there's a problem when you fail to carry your home state.

Ultimately, it was Nader's presence though. All of those other things would have been moot had Nader not been there. Same way Perot's presence boosted Clinton past Bush Sr. It makes all the difference.

Then again, I know plenty of people who wouldn't have voted at all if that thrid option didn't exist. Far as I'm concerned, they're throwing away their votes. Better the devil you know and all that...

(and BTW, campaigning for office is far different from doing the job itself. Gore may have had to put on this very bland, borderline idiot facade as a campaigner, but behind closed doors he's apparently a very engaging, charismatic, and SMART individual.)

DrMaddVibe
08-22-2005, 10:12 PM
Cry, cry, cry.

Now you know why I despise Perot and Dole!

" I, know what you're dreamin',
I have those same dreams"

Nickdfresh
08-22-2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Cry, cry, cry.

Now you know why I despise Perot and Dole!

" I, know what you're dreamin',
I have those same dreams"

I understand PEROT...But why DOLE?

DrMaddVibe
08-22-2005, 10:16 PM
Same reason as Gore.

academic punk
08-22-2005, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Same reason as Gore.

Because Dole invented the internet?

DrMaddVibe
08-22-2005, 10:20 PM
Yeah, that and he was a suckass candidate.

"Who's been eating Bob Dole's peanut butter?"

academic punk
08-22-2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Yeah, that and he was a suckass candidate.

"Who's been eating Bob Dole's peanut butter?"

You know, you're right. And, like Gore, that was a real shame.

Because Dole happens to be one of the FUCKING funniest politicians this country has ever had. But when you're playing for the presidency, you ave to try to make yourself palatable for the entire country, so that means all the consultants come in and say "All right, what got you here is that you've got something special and unique. So the whole country can appreciate you, we're going to remove all that."

LoungeMachine
08-23-2005, 12:34 AM
I know it, you know it, the American people know it



Nader in 2000 was Karma for Perot.

Didn't the BCE threaten Perot's daughter's life or some such?

Eh, so much water under the bridge at Chappaquidik



Problem with addressing an "open letter" to The Chimp is assuming someone is actually going to READ it to him.

Terry
08-23-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Ralph Nader can get run over by a car for all I care. There wouldn't even be a "President Bush" but for him.


Yeah, but Gore should have mopped the floor with W in 2000, regardless of the Nader factor.

ODShowtime
08-23-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by 4moreyears
It had nothing to do with the people that voted for bush and wanted him to win. What a DICK!!!

nobody cares what you think