pokermush said:

I wonder, did he write a similar letter to Chavez after he made himself dictator? Or after Chavez's speech at the U.N.?

---

gettinjiggywithit said:

If you were to do your research, you would learn about the Green parties solutions to global problems, and the mess created in IRAQ. They are very proactively solution oriented and more importantly, taking responcibility oriented.

---

Quote:

If you read the letter objectively without bias, you would've seen that Nader was asking Bush for clarification on exactly which blunders (the things you called criticism)Bush was taking responciblity for and what he was going to do about making ammends?

---

Quote:

Nader didn't get us into this mess. Foriegn Policy and the Bush Administration did. Nader was calling Bush out on his comment about taking responcibility for it. Nader was calling him out on it being a hollow statement. If thats the truth, then Nader had the balls to call him on it.

---

Quote:

What you call being whiney/critical is what some people call holding an irresponcible President and government responcible for their actions. We need more people with a large public platform doing just that otherwise, government corrupption and passing the buck practices will run amok.

Indeed, a solution was being proposed by Nader and it began with asking Bush how exactly was he going to take responcibility and be held accountable for the blunders. The solution starts with reminding the President that the American people expect him to take accountability and responcibility for all of his actions he has been entrusted to make with the power given to him.

---

Quote:

How you missed that is beyond me.

---

Quote:

How you missed what the Green party would've done to prevent 9/11 and all of the tax money waste and bloodshed from there on is understandable if you know nothing about their stances and platforms on Foriegn Policy. I'll let your ignorance of where they are prevention and solution oriented slide.

---

Quote:

There were no solutions or alternatives offered in this letter. The purpose of this letter was purely to throw more hyperbole into the public view. The target audience for this letter is clearly the American Public, not the President

---

Quote:

Come on, the target audience of this letter was the American people, not George Bush. Any "questions" in the letter were rhetorical.

---

Quote:

No, Nader was jumping on a PR opportunity to get some undeserved attention. He brought no new ideas into the discussion, just repeated the same old criticisms to be lapped up by the same audience.

---

Quote:

Oh please. The "responsibility" bit is a solution? It is just a ploy to rehash all the reasons why Bush is the devil incarnate. If anything, Bush deserves credit for being willing to accept responsibility.

---

Quote:

I didn't miss it. It wasn't there. Not a single solution or constructive suggestion, just criticism and whining.

---

Quote:

And "pull out" wouldn't count as a solution even if it was there, because it is not realistic. But Nader can sit there and throw stones with his simplistic "pull out" "solution", no matter how unworkable or dangerous it might be, because nobody has to suffer the consequences of his "solution".

---

Quote:

And that BS about enlisting Bush's daughters, that Bush is somehow unqualified to be commander-in-chief if he doesn't have a child in the service?

---

Quote:

I'm sure that scores lots of points with unthinking Bush-haters, but that shot what little credibility he had left.

---

As explained, only the thinking would see that Bush doesn't practice what he preaches. The non thinking would miss that. As for your credibility statement, please post links of where Nader was caught lying or not practicing what he preaches. Its clear, you never even researched enough if anything about him, to even be able to give him credit in the first place. What is it suppose to mean to me or anyone that he has none with you because he simply asked Bush why this cause and the dire consequences if not addressed by his plan, is not worth risking his childrens blood for?

This should bring you into the thinking mentality of Ralph Nader. If a cuase, or poorly planned plan of action, is not worth risking his own kids lives for, he won't ask other peoples children to do it.

Simple. Because of his having that sense of mature wisdom and responcibility for others, he earns more trust from me.

Why would I trust a fincial planner or broker who says I should risk my life's savings in a company he beleives in, when he himself won't invest any of his own money into it. Would you? That would be a red flag to me that I am being conned and suckered. 

I don't think any Commander in Chief should ask us of us and our families what he is not willing to ask of himself and his.

Maybe you are okay with being conned?

Quote:

If Ralph Nader had his way, we'd all be driving to work at no more than 15 miles per hour, in padded cars wearing helmets, one day per week. There would be no airplanes, because they are too D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S, so 9/11 wouldn't have happened. And we would give in to all the people around the world who hate us, so they would love us instead.

---

What on earth are you talking about? I realize this is a drug site and that you may be completely incoherant and unable to make any sense at all this point under the influence of something. Please clarify on your state or please support the fantasy land jibberish you just imagined with actual facts based in reality.

Got news for you. Nader would having us driving cars using bio fuels or electric that can top out at 180mph. He never would've engaged in the military occupation of Saudi Arabia in interest of keeping them secure and stable to secure our interests in their oil which first got Osama and al queda pissed at us and Nader never would take lobby bribes to support the Isrealis who are fucking with the Palestineans which got Al Queda them further pissed off with us, which is how terrorisim and haters of America are generated.

Read up on Naders and the Green Partys Foriegn Policy views before you speak any more nonsense.

We do not need to be making foolish decisions with Isreal, Iraq and the Saudis that bring the heat of terrorism onto us, when we have no NEED to secure the territory in interest of their oil. We have alternatives, don't need their stinking oil, and the Green party wants to get us off of it, out of there and unto Alternative energy sources ASAP.

HELLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO???????? Thats called taking smart initiatives. What Bush is doing is wreckless, not needed and stupid in light of the alternatives.

If you want to call Bush brave and bold, for conning us, putting us in jeopardy to secure his own friends and families personal oil interests then I would say you are right about that.

What the Green Party would do in my view is an even bolder, braver and sensible move that better secures the lives of Americans interests, taking progressive and much needed action and us out of the stone ages of fossil fuels and into the 21st century of alternative energy.

Quote:

I've been listening to Nader as a guest on various TV news programs for at least the last 15 years, and read plenty by him and about him too. He strikes me as overly self-important and as having his head in the clouds, like a college student who never got out of his abstract and idealistic stage

---

Quote:

I can see that you automatically and blindly accept any and all things alleged or insinuated negatively about George Bush, so I'll skip all that stuff.

---

Quote:

Except to say that no purpose would be served, other than to fluff up the haters, for Bush to spend eternity going into the minutia of every last gripe anyone has ever had about his presidency or the Iraq war.

---

Quote:

Are you aware that Nader tried to prevent his workers from joining a softball league, citing safety concerns? You're probably too young, and too uneducated, to know that your hero was a fierce opponent of repealing the federally-imposed 55 mph speed limit. The list goes on. You seem surprisingly uninformed for someone who advocates Nader so strongly.

---

Quote:

And his logical and moral faculties are failing him in his old age if he thinks that George Bush's daughters -- remember they are adults who make their own choices about where they want to go in life -- not serving in the military has any bearing whatsoever on whether the commander-in-chief should be in charge of the military. His daughers joining the military -- or not -- is not George Bush's choice to make, and as a father I would expect him to support whatever choices his daughters make in the matter.

---

Quote:

Extremists like Nader hate George Bush so much that they actually criticize him for not forcing his own children into the military. And if he did force his children into military service, Nader and all the other self-serving nutjobs would be all over him criticizing him for that too. 

---

Quote:

It is ironic that you sign each post with "love", yet you make no effort to sort the valid criticisms of Bush from the bullshit. You automatically applaud even the most outrageous of mud-slinging. Th

---

The last part you wrote got cut off in the quotes. Yes, I sign my posts with a heart and the peace sign. Again, I don't know where you get this idea that I hate anyone or why its relevant, unless you are trying to create more unsubstantiated fluff to create a false picture that anyone who can run an objective critical analysis of the Presidents words and actions, must be a hater and therefore , everything they say is invalid.

Try using arguments grounded in reality for a change.

gettinjiggywithit said:

...an objective critical analysis of the Presidents words and actions...

---

gettinjiggywithit said:

what the Green party would've done to prevent 9/11   

... Bush ... for being a phoney hypocrite

... I am being conned and suckered

Nader would having us driving cars using bio fuels or electric that can top out at 180mph. He never would've engaged in the military occupation of Saudi Arabia in interest of keeping them secure and stable to secure our interests in their oil.
we never occupied Saudi Arabia, by the way

Nader never would take lobby bribes to support the Isrealis who are fucking with the Palestineans
those silly Israelis, thinking they have a right to exist! Ha!

What Bush is doing is wreckless, not needed and stupid in light of the alternatives.
ahhh yes.... those elusive alternatives that nobody is willing to propose

If you want to call Bush brave and bold, for conning us, putting us in jeopardy to secure his own friends and families personal oil interests then I would say you are right about that.

Bush is telling us we are all doomed to being terrorized in the future if we don't take further action now and sacrifice our blood. Considering his own daughters are not even taking action or making any sacrifices, it looks like they don't even beleive him. Simple.

---

gettinjiggywithit said:

What the hell, I'll fisk it

Open Letter to President Bush 1-19-07

Yeah right. Just another tedious editorial

Dear President Bush:

I have read your address to the nation on “The New Way Forward in Iraq” and wish to share some observations.

You say “where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” You then quickly change the subject. Whoa now, what does it mean when you say the responsibility for mistakes rest with you?

Ralph, you should be smarter than this. I don't ever recall you using such a childish device as the "whoa now". And what do you think it means? For a historical reference see HS Truman's famous little sign. I think you know what that said. "Quickly change the subject?" What, did you want a list of what he thought the mistakes were? I'm guessing they weren't what you thought they were General Nader.

Responsibility for “mistakes” that led to the invasion—which other prominent officials and former officials say were based on inaccurate information, deceptions, and cover-ups?

And other prominent officials and former officials said do it. There is never a dearth of "experts" on either side of any issue. This "expert" says it was mandatory to invade Iraq and squelch the fuck while we could. Missing that opportunity would have been criminal.

Of course there was inaccurate information and deception and cover ups. There is hardly one human endeavor that doesn't have all three. The notion that there is anything that is perfect in the world anywhere, much less in a war, should have been removed from your consciousness by the age of consent. Or the first time you got laid, whichever came first. But this is no surprise from a man who has made his entire reputation out of being a professional scold. Sometimes useful, oft-times not. What have you ever built Ralph? He made his entire bones on the Chevrolet Corvair. Nailed that but has ever since been somewhat of a gadfly. And that was a looooong time ago.

At any rate, Ralph, I don't think Bush was referring to the invasion itself as a mistake. Just certain decisions during the prosecution. And I'll bet my life savings his idea of the mistakes aren't anywhere close to what yours are. Just because.




Responsibility for the condoning of torture, even after the notorious events at abu-Gharib prison were disclosed?

This is a straw man. What happened at AG had no remote resemblance to the so-called "torture" advocated by the administration. AG was a bunch of retards acting like sadistic prison guards (oh gee, that's never happened before). It wasn't sanctioned and was in fact prosecuted and the morons are currently in prison. As for interrogation techniques that are sanctioned, I think that they should be determined by several factors. Expectation of reliability is important as is importance of information. But the greatest measure is urgency. The classic example is the ticking time bomb. For that, I'll do it. Myself. Anybody who conflates the two should clearly never be in a serious security position. Which he hasn't been. thankfully.

Responsibility for months and months of inability to equip our soldiers with body armor and vehicle armor that resulted in over 1,000 lost American lives and many disabilities?

The numbers here are questionable but irrelevant. Increase armor, decrease speed. Many troops don't want the greater armor and in many applications it is a detriment. Like an added 20 pounds in 110 degree heat. Or humvees that can't maneuver. Once again, General Sidecar knows naught of what he speaks

Responsibility for the gross mismanagement over outsourcing both service and military tasks to corporations such as Haliburton that have wasted tens of billions of dollars, including billions that simply disappeared without account?

Now he's worried about money? Which is it general? Troop lives or funds? Halliburton Halliburton blah blah blah. The notion that a war will ever be run like a predictable corporation (which never works exactly according to plan anyway) is just stupid and childish. "Gross" is certainly a subjective judgment considering the enormity of the expense and the chaos inherent in the task. To me any abuse seems to be well, if not overly, screeched about by the nattering nabobs.

Responsibility for serious undercounting of official U.S. injuries in Iraq—because the injuries were not incurred in direct combat—so as to keep down political opposition to the war in this country?

I have no idea what he is referring to. There is and always has been plenty of opposition and I sincerely doubt that there is any understatement



Over and over again, during your political campaigns you called for consequences to attach to bad or failing behavior. Responsibility means consequences, you said.

Well just how does that belief apply to you, as a failed and disastrous commander-in-chief and caretaker of both American soldiers, American tax dollars and, under international law, the safety of Iraqi civilians?

This is just grandstanding bullshit. Strip away the nonsensical rhetoric and the only complaint here seems to be about the Iraqi civilian casualties, which by and large are almost entirely a function of the murderous attacks of the anarchistic thugs who wish to create a power vacuum and impose their own regime as opposed to an elected regime. Tyrants with bombs

You said, “I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister... that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people….” But you have stated on many prior occasions that a U.S. retreat from Iraq would be catastrophic. Now you imply that if the Iraqi government does not deliver, the U.S. commitment will end. Which is it?

This is the nonsense of the child that is Nader. On the one hand the enemies must not be encouraged. On the other, the Iraqis must not be allowed to think that daddy will always be there for the heavy lifting. I ask you, Ralph, what message would you send? I think I know. It's surrender and fuck all the Iraqis who voted for a government and let the man with the most guns win. Real honorable, you repulsive twat.

And the Iraq war has lost the support of the American people some time ago.

With much thanks to you and your waffling negativistic ilk.

What are the people to believe “not open-ended” means? Especially since your new Secretary of Defense told the Congress that within two months it will be known whether your troop escalation strategy is working or not.

Well, I think that might actually speak for itself. Once the deployment is complete we should expect an improvement in 2 months. If not, I guess we'll run away. Or not. Gotta keep the enemy guessing, right Ralph? Or don't you think there is one. Never forget that the enemy (which is much larger than Iraq, or didn't you get that memo?) thinks we are weak because of the likes of you. "America has no spine so we can fuck her where we want." Thanks Jimmy (Iran), Ronnie(Iran and Lebanon) and Bill(Somalia and Iraq). What a disgusting state we have fallen to because of pussified morons like you.

You said that your Administration will “partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.” Why do you continue to use misleading euphemisms? They are not “coalition brigades”—they are U.S. soldier brigades. Even the British want to draw down their small number of troops.

This is just stupid. Our troops have always been working closely with the Iraqi army and police and they take over more and more every day. And much of the Brit populace is just as lily livered as much of ours, so what. Blair remains steadfast.

You said that a discovered al Qaeda document describes “the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of [Anbar Province].” “This would bring al Qaeda,” you asserted, “closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.” Since your field commanders’ estimate a total of 1300 al Qaeda, mostly foreign fighters, widely disliked and increasingly opposed by the local people and their tribal leaders, why are you continuing to engage in this preposterous sequence of doom, this politics of mega fear ala your neo-conservative advisors?

Memo to General Sidecar: because they continue to kill enough civilians, with help from Iran, to win the newspaper war, which is the only forum they can actually prevail in. Thanks for helping, you vile twat.

Why indeed, do you do this when your own intelligence officials, including your former Director of the CIA, Porter J. Goss, and military leaders in Iraq, have said publicly that the U.S. military occupation has been a magnet for the attraction and training of more and more terrorists, including those from other countries who will acquire demolition and other skills before leaving Iraq.

Here's another memo for General Sidecar: If they're attacking our troops in Iraq they're not blowing up the financial district of NYC, a place I happen to be rather fond of and which contributes mightily to the financial well-being of the nation, unlike you, although you have certainly made quite a fortune for yourself investing there, n'est pas?

Your comment that victory in Iraq will bring a “functioning democracy that… upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people,” invites the response, “Have you done this in our country?”

Given your serial civil liberties’ violations, frequent mockery of the rule of law and our Constitution, and your ignoring the judgment of last November’s election (not to mention the desire by 70 percent of U.S. soldiers polled last January in Iraq wanting you to leave within 6 to 12 months), there is a pronounced lack of consistency here.

Ralph doesn't seem to understand the Constitution himself. Civil liberties violations? I don't think so. Name one that was struck down by the court. He caved on some that I wouldn't have (I think the FISA act is unconstitutional) but it seems to be on his terms. Civil rights for terrorists and non citizens? I'm not so concerned. Remember, spies can be shot on sight. Or captured. And cornholed until they talk. And then shot. In the unimpeachable words of some Supreme Court Justice, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact".

As to last November, you damn well better not get too antsy in the pantsy there General. The Senate tipped on the nuts of one Joseph Lieberman, quite the supporter of the Pres's policy in the middle East, but who had to defeat a Democrat in the election. Whisker thin comes to mind as a descriptor. Mandate? That's what the idiot in Florida was looking for but not exactly what you got.

Finally, you conclude that “We mourn the loss of every fallen American—and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.”

Why not some exemplary sacrifice from the Bush family? What is keeping those bright, capable daughters—Jenna and Barbara—from showing that the family is not expecting everybody but the Bush family to sacrifice? Why are they not demonstrating their sacrifice and resolve for your Iraq democracy war by enlisting into the armed forces?

Could it be that they disagree with your policies? Or could it be that they do not consider your war-quagmire “worthy of their sacrifice?”


Ralph Nader

---

Quote:

As long as it stokes your fires against Bush, you will accept and promote wacky fringe theories and cheer the most absurd criticisms against him without applying even minimal research or critical thought.

---

Quote:

You are equally accepting of positive statements about Nader or the Green Party. Lets take a look:

gettinjiggywithit said:

what the Green party would've done to prevent 9/11

... Bush ... for being a phoney hypocrite

... I am being conned and suckered

---

---

And I can back that up with Bushes own words. He says he takes responcibility. He says the responcible should and will be held accountable when reffering to other peoples fumbles. Bush has said these things in his public speaches many times. Nader was just quoting what we all have heard from Bush.

Because Bush has never specified exactly what it is he is taking responcibility for and how he is going to hold himself accountable, makes his words phoney and a hypocritical until he does.

If you beleive that Bush is somehow taking responcibility for all of his criticle errors, then yes, you are being conned by Bush IMO until you can provide evidence showing specifically what he is taking responcibility for and what he is doing to hold himself accountable for it.

Quote:

we never occupied Saudi Arabia, by the way

---

No kidding. We just have a Military base kept there from the gulf war. It doesn't matter that we know it to be that. What matters since this war is all about countering the threat of terrorism, is that Osama Bin laden and Al Queda, see that base and all of our military bases as occupations.

If they continue to plot against us because they beleive they are being occupied and influenced by the Infidels, (true or not)we are going to have problems with them Houston.

Quote:

those silly Israelis, thinking they have a right to exist! Ha!

---

If you are clueless about how they have been provoking and antagonizing the Palestians, then, you have more homework to do before we can discuss that point any further. Both countries are acting like spoiled brats and why we put ourselves in the middle of their dickering favoring Al Quedas longer time enemy is your question to ask to yourself.

Quote:

What Bush is doing is wreckless, not needed and stupid in light of the alternatives.
ahhh yes.... those elusive alternatives that nobody is willing to propose

---

Thanks for admitting to knowing nothing in this area either.

Elusive? Bio fuels, solar shingles, solar panels, electric cars, wind generators, all exist and many attempts to bring them all to market have been squashed by the politicians taking bribes from the Oil companies. Please do your research before thinking you can have an intelligent discussion on this topic. I can go for days on it. You still think they are elusive. Did you know that 90% of Brazils driving population has been running their cars on this "elusive alternative energy" for the past ten years now? Look into why GM canceled the production of their electric cars, recalled them all and destroyed them. Look into why regan took the Solar Panels off of the roof of the White house that Carter installed and why regan took away the tax incentives for alternative fuel use that Carter put in place. Look into the threat made to those wanting to produce bio fuels from the saudis saying they will just drop oil prices to push them out of the market place. Look into Bush saying, that he wouldn;t let that happwen and that he would keep gas prices at their all time high regardless if the Saudis dropped oil prices, so alternative bio fuels would have a fair chance to get established. look into why Bush has allowed gas prices to recently drop again.

"Elusive"? You're funny.

Quote:

You haven't objectively analyzed anything. If you had, you'd see that there are plenty of valid criticisms to be had of Bush. But none are as sensational as "he tricked us into going to war" or "this war was just to protect his buddies' oil interests". That's how you can tell whether someone's criticisms are driven by hatred and predudous

---

Since when, I ask again, is someone calling a spade a spade, nothing more or less then just that. If I say, Blue is blue, does that mean that I hate the color blue and have a prejudice against it because I prefer the color red?

There are some dem views I agree with and support and some republican views I agree with an support. For the most part, I don't see many differences between them these days when it comes to how they vote in congress.

Where do you get these ridiculous assumptions from that I hate specific people just because I can be critical of their actions and disagree with them, or that I am predjuiced against the whole of an entire political party because of that as well?

Before I read zappas wack at the letter, there is another mis assumption of yours that I want to clear up. 

Nader hasn't made his bid for the 2008 yet. He may not run. My personal values match the majority, not all, of those held by the Green party. Nader has just been a public rep for them.

What I know about Nader is that he is a man of integrity who is very difficult to dig up damning information on. Which is why the best people can do is call him "crazy" or say something about his caring for his employees related to a softball legue, or caring that we save lives with safe speed limits, seat belts and air bags. I can say I trust that he genuinely cares about the safety and wellfare of the American People and the planet. I have not heard of or found any evidence to prove otherwise.

I would trust him to uphold the values of the Green party and I would trust him not to pilfer from tax money, not to waste tax money, not to take bribes to sell out the green parties values. I can't say that I have ever trusted any dem or rep canidate like that. He's a rare breed of politician. I would give him a chance to serve this country as President if I could. I am okay saying that. He's good people and I'll continue to beleive that until its proven otherwise.

He's helped to save American lives by bringing in mandates for safer speed limits enforcing auto manufacturers to install seat belts and air bags and you have a problem with him for that? It's my turn to ask you just how old you are and how many lives you are responcible for taking care of? Have you even managed people yet in Business or have you just worked under managers to date?

I ran my own multi million dollar bussiness in the Carribean being responcible for the safety of my crew staff and thousands of cruise ship and resort passengers we took out on our snorkel tour boats every year.

That and along with being a parent, I am a point in life where I have had to grow up and mature some and appearantly can better relate to the level of care and sense of responcibility coming from Nader then you can. This isn't a contest about any of that either. If you can't appreciate or respect Naders sense of doing the responcible thing when he is in a position too, then, thats okay also.

Lets just get clear on that and where our differences are coming from.

P.S. My spell checker hasnt been working so please forgive any typos.

Zappa, I have to take a leave from the PC for now, but will entertain your fist at the letter when I get back on. I like how you put that.

Quote:

He just criticizes to criticize. Not one constructive suggestion, just finger-pointing.

---