The presidential candidate blasts the powers in Washington for the recent financial crisis.
October 7, 2008


Ralph Nader brought a Portland audience to its feet Monday night with his signature call to fight Wall Street greed, corporate crime and the military industrial complex.
“If you’re not indignant, you’re not a citizen,” Nader said to about 250 people gathered at First Parish Church in Portland.
Nader, who’s on the Nov. 4 ballot as an independent presidential candidate, skewered last week’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
He said Congress approved the unprecedented taxpayer-backed rescue even though many Americans believe it will benefit executives who caused the mortgage-related financial crisis without holding them accountable.
“That means your representatives in Congress shut you down,” Nader said. “Wall Street stuffed Washington into a barrel and rolled it.”
Nader said he’s running for president again because the United States is drowning in debt and Americans have surrendered control of their lives to corporations that are running the country.
Regarding corporate influence in government, Nader said the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is “the speed at which their knees hit the floor” when corporations knock on the door.
He said he wants to reform the tax system, in part because the government has reverted to the days of taxation without representation that led to the Revolution. “We’re back to 1775,” he said.
Nader noted that about half of the nation’s annual operating budget is spent on defense and corporations that make up the so-called military industrial complex.
He said the true sign of courage in leadership is having the ability to wage peace and diplomacy.
Nader said he wants to improve workplace health and safety, continue fighting for consumer rights and provide universal health care for Americans.
Nader criticized the energy policies of the presidential candidates representing the major political parties, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain and Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.
He said both support a banquet of fuel options, including oil, coal and nuclear power, that aren’t good for consumers or the environment.
Nader supports clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and wants to put a stop to oil, nuclear, electric and coal subsidies.
“Some forms of energy are better than others,” said Nader.
Nader, who’s on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia, also complained that third-party candidates are excluded from the presidential debates.
“I looked at that stage the other night,” Nader said. “It really had a lot of space, didn’t it?”
The audience at the Congress Street church included people of all ages and political persuasion.
Nader is “a Connecticut Yankee with a very high order of intellect,” said Tom Little, an independent voter from Connecticut who is working as an apple picker at a local orchard. “I don’t agree with him on everything, but he represents a legal, law-enforcement response to a criminal government.”
“I’ve voted for Ralph every time he’s been on the ballot,” said Claudine Grange, a Democrat who is a nurse practitioner and lives in Portland.
Grange disputed the notion that she’s throwing away her vote in what is basically a two-way race.
“I vote my conscience,” she said. “Whether he wins or not isn’t important. He’s educating the public and he’s telling the truth and that’s what matters.”
Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:
kbouchard@pressherald.com


JOEL BRINKLEY: Evidence grows that Israel, with U.S. aid, is preparing to attack Iran
October 11, 2008For the last few weeks, all eyes have been on North Korea, as the nation’s idiosyncratic leadership began reopening a plant that manufactures weapons-grade plutonium. Christopher Hill, an assistant secretary of state, met, to no effect, with North Korea’s leaders in Pyongyang last week – a visit that would have been inconceivable while hawks still dominated the Bush administration.
But, as anyone might guess, the problems in Iran did not suddenly freeze while everyone looked east. In fact several recent developments leave the strong suggestion that Israel is preparing to attack Iran – with significant help from the United States.
The likelihood of an American attack has diminished. American commanders “think it would complicate the situation in Iraq and the region,” John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador, told me. He favors an attack but says “the Bush administration was much more inclined to do it a few years ago.” Secretaries Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, at State and Defense – relative moderates within the Bush administration – now dominate discussion of issues like this.
Would Washington support an Israeli attack? Recently, the administration has given clear signals that it would not. But then, why did the Pentagon announce last month that it planned to sell Israel 1,000 new GBU-39 bunker-busting bombs? They are small weapons that can be dropped from the wings of the fighter jets in Israel’s air force. Each can penetrate 6 feet of reinforced concrete. If several aircraft hit the same target the total penetration could be much deeper.
Why does Israel need those bombs? Israeli military analysts have been saying they are for attacking underground weapons depots in Gaza or southern Lebanon. Perhaps.
But then, why about the same time did the Pentagon agree to sell Israel sophisticated upgrades for the country’s Patriot anti-missile missiles – and send more than 100 technicians to install them? If Israel attacked, Iran has warned that it would fire volleys of ballistic missiles in response.
And there’s more: Just last week came the news that the United States has deployed an advanced early-warning radar system in Israel for detecting incoming missiles. It is so sophisticated that, for now, U.S. Army crews will be stationed there to operate it.
Bolton and others advised against “reading all of that into this,” as he put it. The United States continually sells military equipment to Israel. Most years the United States gives Israel about $2 billion in military aid, and it must be spent on American arms.
What is more, Abbas Milani, an expert on Iran at Stanford University, told me that the Iranian press of late has been saying “the time is past” when the United States might attack. And while there is some concern about Israel, the Iranian papers correctly note that the country is locked in negotiations to form a new government that aren’t likely to be settled for several weeks. Israel would not attack before a new government forms.
At the same time, though, Israelis certainly saw Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the Iranian president, telling the United Nations last month that “the Zionist regime is on a definite slide toward collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of this cesspool.”
Still, all of this may be a hall of mirrors. The United States may be arming Israel purely for defensive reasons. Israel’s military exercises and blustery threats may simply be the state’s way of warning Iran. On the other hand, the Bush administration’s statements cautioning Israel may simply be an attempt to prevent Iran from blaming Washington if Israel does attack.
In any case, Bolton said, “Israel’s decision will not be based on what the Pentagon wants.” And if Israel does attack, Iran will consider Washington responsible, no matter what the administration has said.
“So if the U.S. is going to be blamed anyway,” Bolton offered, “we ought to go ahead and assist them.”
Joel Brinkley is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for The New York Times and now a professor of journalism at Stanford University. Readers may send him e-mail at: brinkley@foreign-matters.com
Share this:
Tags:bunker-busting bombs, Bush administration, Iran, Israeli preparations, military exercises, United States
Posted in Commentary, USA, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »