Nader Calls for Impeachment of Bush Over the War in Iraq

By THOMAS J. LUECK

Ralph 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.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25nade.html

Every Dem senator, rep, and governor should be calling for Bush's impeachment. Actually they should have been doing it for the past year.

I want the man and his loyalists to serve time for crimes against the American people and the world. Impeachment isn't good enough!!! Besides, replacement Cheney would be as bad if not worse.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

I think Nader is the media's little freak-show boy. Bring him out, put him on camera, and let him make an ass out of himself and all of the left along with him.

Any pretense of Ralph building a movement with the Greens is gone with him taking the endorsement of the "Reform" party, a bunch of low-life freaks that even Jesse Ventura would not be associated with.

at least several states. Kucinich isn't.

Nader will.

Tell me why I should vote for you and not write Dean's name istead? Spinless is right.

Like effectively voting for Bush rather because Kerry won't give you exactly what you want.

Having a spine is doing what it takes to win. Like Kerry is doing now.

I'm actually involved in the Kerry campaign -- I am the chair of my local Dem party's "Ways and Means' committee and even went to a Kerry rally last night (Karen Hughes was speaking). But the man keeps doing his level best to turn me off -- oddly enough most of the Kerry people at the rally were at best luke warm for him; not relishing voting for him! I mean his stay the course in Iraq doesn't sound any different from Bush's stay the course in Iraq -- they both take this country over a cliff! I have decided I'm going to work for him because I believe that Bush is worse, but never again will I prostitute myself like this. In the future I'll either be part of a progressive movement like DFA if it looks like it has a chance of taking back the Democratic party or I'll go Green. I fear that it's not just that the Dems don't have a spine, but that their Bush-lite positions are what they really stand for. I mean how many years and how many campaigns are the Democrats going to sell us on the notion that they stand on the right side of health insurance, education, worker rights, etc. issues and yet never deliver much of anything to us even when they are in power. They say all kinds of great things to get our support, but once they're finally in, they do the corporate bidding anyway. Just think Dianne Feinstein -- I mean this turncoat actually voted Bush's medicare care fiasco.

I hear you. Just what is it they are not so willing to listen to the progressives? Is the road that Bush has taken us into any better. I question Kerry. He will defintly get my vote, once he hears people like me. Get out of Iraq now...get the UN. Worry about globalization and its effect on our local economy. Every where I drive here I see a picket line and a strike. First, it was the gorcers, and now it is the telephone company employees. Health care cost is way out of wack, even if one wants to pay for health services.

So I ask, what does it take for Kerry to listen to me or hear my message? Move to India so I can follow the job trail. Get a job with a US company would he then think I have something to say. It is all so confusing. Sticking to the republican policies, even light wise, is bankrupting this whole country. Soon Kerry will not find a country to govern because we would have all moved away seeking our transfered jobs.

Also, and most important, Kerry has a big chance to win the presidency. I sure would not want him to run on a Bush Light platform. He does not need to. We can go to our liberal roots. I believe liberalism is the conscious of a nation. I hope he will return to that. He once was a liberal.

Bottom line, he does not need to imitate Bush. He is his own man and I want to empower John Kerry and not a Bush like personifaction.

God, I hope he is reading this.

anyone who voted to give the chimp dictator powers should be thrown out with him.

,...and that the members were incapable of being deceived by the executive's fabications. Since this neocon cabal engaged in deception and fabrication,...the responsibility duly falls upon their shoulders.

LMAO

We knew it by searching on the internet and wrote and faxed them all before the IWR vote, yet the poor pathetic congresscritters were so stupid they couldn't figure it out?

Bwaaahahahahahaha.

Funny one.

btw, over a hundred congresscritters were not fooled and voted against. (are they clairvoyant?)

were taken in by this. Henry Waxman the Great and Righteous was among them. And he's nearly perfect in my book, otherwise. Nobody has done more to stay on cheney's pants legs about the secret energy task force papers and a lot more. For everything else he's done, I HAVE TO give him a pass on this. Henry Waxman is completely excellent, other than that mistake. About the only thing I find lacking in him is that he isn't loud and in-yer-face enough.

So.... if I feel compelled to forgive him and continue supporting him, I'm left asking myself if I can do likewise for others, like Kerry.

Besides... it would be a great way to turn bush's attacks on their ears simply by saying "yes. I supported it. I was lied to, just like the rest of the American people. He lied to ME, too." Turn it back, smack in the middle of bush's smarmy face. Just kick the legs out from under that "he flip-flopped, he voted for it and now he's against it" crap.

Nader is playing the extremist!

He is saying the things that very very few Democrats need to be saying. And frankly if Kerry doesn't start showing the kind of backbone that Ralph is demonstrating, then Ralph will pick up a lot of anti-war/anti-Bush votes come this fall.

Kerry's continued insistence on "staying the course" and willingness to commit even more troops to the Iraqi quagmire will hurt him in the end. Kerry needs to start channeling the Kerry of the early '70s. With his Vietnam service, Kerry has the moral gravitas to call for peace, and he needs to start using it NOW.

There are damn few anti-war/anti-Bush voters who will fall for Nader's faux lines.

Nader has nothing to lose by making hollow statements. He has no power. He has no base. He's runnning in a whacko right-wing party. He hangs around with the likes of Grover Norquist and Phyllis Schalfly.

Nader is a con man trying to siphon off dim Dems votes.

Sure isn't going to win over any Naderites, Greens or anti-war people friend. Kerry needs to stop trying to outrattle sabers with Bush and come out squarely against the war, with a real plan and timetable to get the US out of Iraq NOW! Otherwise the progressives and leftists will either vote for third party anti war candidates or stay home in droves. Kerry's bit about being out by the time his re-election comes around sounds a lot like LBJ's promise vis-a-vis Vietnam, and we all see how well that worked out:eyes:

You can deny all you want to how much impact the anti-war vote will have, but you do so at your own peril. Many many anti-war people, both that I know and around the country are sick of Kerry's promise to "stay the course" and will vote Nader/Green. This is THE issue to these folks, and having the two major party candidates both coming out for the war will simply drive them to vote for the anti-war candidate. And this very well could cost Kerry the election. Haven't the Dems learned anything from the '68 election? Apparently not.

That is the reality of the situation friend, and spin it however you wish, it still remains an 800 lb gorrilla in the living room. Kerry has to deal with it sometime, and that time should be now.

Kerry has a legitimate chance to stop Bush. Nader has a legitimate chance to... well, nothing. Nader has two choices in this race. He can stay in the race and help Bush, he can get out and help Kerry.

Which is he choosing?

Talk is cheap. Bush says a lot of the right things, too, but doesn't do them. It's called campaigning.

And Kerry is doing exactly what he needs to be doing. He's beating Bush.

Coming across with saber rattling and vague promise to withdraw in four years isn't going to get him that anti-war vote, they will either siphon off to the Greens/Nader, or simply stay home in droves. Learn your lessons of history, remember Eugene McCarthy and the '68 election. Third party candidates have little chance of winning, but they can siphon off enough votes to insure a loss.

Which is why Kerry needs to remember his anti-war roots and come out squarely against this illegal and immoral occupation. If he continues to rattle the saber and make vague four year promises, he will alienate the anti-war left and lose the election. The choice is his, let us hope he chooses wisely.

Look at the numbers. When Nader is in the race, Kerry polls even or behind. When Nader is out, Kerry leads by five or more points.

Want an explanation to go with your proof? Votes in the middle count more, because the people who don't vote Kerry will vote for Bush. Those on the extreme won't vote (or will vote for one of the "third" parties, same thing).

It would all be easier with the sellout Nader drawing little flashing neon arrows pointing at himself. He's the new Ross Perot, only without the ethics.

"When Nader is in the race, Kerry polls even or behind. When Nader is out, Kerry leads by five or more points."

Judging from that one statement alone, I would surmise that Kerry needs to be doing something to pick off the Nader vote, like offering a road to peace and withdrawl from Iraq, or offering up UHC, or something to get those Nader votes.

And your statement about the extreme left voting Nader or not voting(as opposed to those in the middle voting for Bush) is fallacious at best. In the '00 election, 198,000 registered Dems and 398,000 self described liberals, all in Florida, were so pissed at Gore for his backing of an offshore drilling project in the Gulf that they decided to double screw Gore by voting, not third party, but for Bush. Secondly, as we saw in both the '00 and '02 election cycle, Democrats lose when their leftist base either sits out or votes third party.

The Democrats run for the center is running after a chimera. For every swing/middle vote they pick up by running as 'Pug lite, they lose two from the left, either through non voting or third party voting. If they continue to run to the center, they are going to simply alienate too many people to continue as a viable party. Besides, people want a real difference in the candidates. Why should they vote for Bush-lite when they can vote in the real thing?

Polls show that when Nader is out of the race, Kerry wins. When Nader is in the race, Kerry ties or loses. I'm not sure where you are having trouble with that. Why go after those Nader voters by promising them whatever elitist crap they want when you can get better results by Nader just dropping out?

See, Nader out of race, Bush loses. Nader in race, Bush might win. If I told you that you had the power by one action to defeat George W Bush, would you do it? So far, Nader won't. That tells me all I need to know about Nader and his supposed ideology that I or anyone else needs to know. He doesn't care about his ideology, he cares about himself.

As for the rest of your analysis, you'll have to show me some verifiable evidence that 600,000 Democrats voted for Bush rather than Gore because Gore wasn't leftist enough, otherwise I'll dismiss the claim out of hand.

Therefore, those who would vote for him must be wooed away by Democratic compromise. If you simply ignore Nader, you risk losing those votes. FDR faced a similar dilema in his first re-election bid, and he compromised to get the Sociallist vote. Guess what FDR's compromise was, Social Security and Unemployment insurance.

You can source my 600,000 registered Dem and self described liberal vote in Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". He has the source for the figure in his notes at the end of the book, but since I'm currently not at home, I can't tell you where he got that figure.

Compromise friend, it is a time honored tradition in the big tent Democratic party, are you so foolish or arrogant as to not use it now that the time for compromise has come? Would you doom the party and the country to please your own stiff necked pride? Who is being elitist now?

The adults are in charge!

Impeach Bush?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He's a multimillionaire stock investor. He lobbies Congress to keep corporate donations secret. He busts unions in his own corporations. He used to claim he didn't own a house when he did. He abuses his employees. He's a liar, a patsy, and a corporate whore.

I hate him, even when he says the right thing. Does he want to get rid of Bush? That's easy. Drop out of the race. Until then, he's Bush's right hand man, no matter who he panders to.

leave us with, yep, that's right, Cheney's impeachment insurance, Hastert. Any impeachment now would just be congressional GOP campaign ploy to save their own miserable hides from the ire of righteously pissed off voters.

No, as much as I would love to see the bastards out ASAP, it may not be a good thing. The congressional GOP members are way too bent over from the neocon threats to act as a reforming element if they took over the WH. They would just go through with a fine tooth comb and commit to the shredder all documentation of their complicity in the looting of the US Treasury and rubber stamping policies which dragged America thru the mud on the international stage.

No, at this point, we do not want Hastert in the oval office and we sure as hell can't toss out shrub without Cheney too. Can you imagine the fun Crash Cart would have being sworn in, serving just long enough to appoint an interim V.P. and then resigning 'for health reasons'? Having the opportunity to appoint the next president of the US, Cheney could pick a pretty vile creature since he wouldn't have to stand for election. Then, in November, the neocons run a pretty, photogenic dark horse that not enough voters know anything about and we have the whole damn cycle starting over again.

If Nader is asking for this now, I have to wonder about all those claims he is an operative for the neocons. Let's see, he got the message that most of us are not falling for his third party ploy and it won't work to siphon off many votes from the Dem ticket this election. Suddenly, NOW he wants an impeachment drive? Maybe he really is a cardboard cutout of a rampaging, extreme liberal while soaking up lots of money? Where was this impeachment effort in 2001, 02, & 03? I must have missed the reports of his valiant efforts to rid the nation of the heinous neocon junta for those non-election years. I'm sure he must've been working night and day to save the country from the junta for the past three and a third years.

and Guantanamoa Bay? Where's the Independent Prosecutor to expose this?

he called for Internationally supervised elections in USA.

with statements like this. Any puke who was considering Nader as a protest vote may say this goes beyond the pale(viewed from GOP world).

So tell me again who* does Nader work for by running in this election and making statements such as this?

It is not like there is any will or majority in Congress to even approach this, although technically he is correct.

How about Kerry having the balls to say this?

:shrug:

had gotten an email from a Republican who said that impeachment had been talke about in some Republican circles.....

MMMMM

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

from it..Like a good dog, he's still remembers and is determined to shake it off and try like crazy to reclaim his once unique status as America's Watchdog. Ralph is more concerned about how he is perceived by the American people. He revels in the delight at the perception of America's do gooder..which is not really a bad thing.

I believe he will do as much damage to the Bush presidency as he can while he's still in the running. Come Sept/Oct.. Nader will shift 100% of his support to Kerry, insuring a sound defeat for Bush..

Just my opinion...nothing written in stone anywhere...

That was the "no difference" Gore. Where was Nader then? And impeachment NOW? How clueless can this man be?

A voice of reason .
;)

He will of course backtrack from his comments but Severin clearly and unequivocably called for resignation or impeachment today. He graded Bush's speech and F. Of course he then said he will vote for him over Kerry. Go figure.

past the point of 'they're both bad' of what his platform was 4 years ago. And which I agreed with to some point. But if the events of the last 3.5 years don't make an educated and rational and objective person to reevaluate the dire road to death our Nation is on, well then, Nader and his people are immoral!