Peace activists have nothing to lose by voting for Nader

by Salvador Astucia, Oct. 17, 2004

Ralph Nader

President George W. Bush

Senator John Kerry

Many Americans, particularly liberal-minded types, like and respect Ralph Nader a great deal, and many would vote for him as President in November 2004 if it seemed remotely possible that he would win. But such Americans do not want to vote for Nader because they desperately want to remove President George Walker Bush from the White House. It has become their only objective. Speaking as a peace activist, I fail to see the benefit merely removing Bush from office, particularly if the successor’s core values are no different from the sitting president’s. On the major issues of war and peace, President Bush and Democratic Senator John Kerry are virtually identical. Kerry quibbles over Bush’s handling of the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism, but Kerry’s voting record reveals he supports Bush’s foreign policy as much as any Republican politician on Capitol Hill, not to mention that Kerry aggressively supports America’s failed Middle Eastern policy over the past fifty years (a policy which bows to Israel and condemns Arab and Moslem nations at every turn). On October 11, 2002, Kerry voted to approve a joint Senate and House Resolution which gave President Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq (H.J. Resolution 114). In addition, Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Yet Kerry and his Democratic running mate, Senator John Edwards, both criticize Bush’s ongoing War on Terrorism and Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

I am not pro-Bush, although between the two pro-war candidates, I jokingly tell friends that since I do not like either, I might vote for Bush because he makes a better punching bag. Of course this is a facetious comment, but it raises a serious question. Why remove someone we do not like only to replace him with someone with identical beliefs? Many liberals have a problem facing this reality, but the truth is Kerry’s voting record on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act were in complete support of President Bush’s Iraq policy and the overall War on Terrorism.

I prefer being able to continue criticizing the guy who started the Iraq war rather than putting a pretty face on an ugly situation by allowing Kerry and Edwards to continue Bush's policy of war while smiling at the camera with their pretty boy faces, creating an illusion that something has changed. At least with Bush, we know what we're getting (a punishment from God?). With Kerry, we don't really know what to expect, other than we know he is just as pro-war as Bush. In fact, Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, have both criticized Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq. So what should we expect is Kerry's solution for that; a massive withdrawal? I don't think so. It sounds like Kerry is planning to send more troops to Iraq, not less. Furthermore, Kerry has suggested on several occasions that we need to worry about Iran developing the nuclear bomb. It sounds like Kerry is proposing a military strike against Iran as well. Is that his solution to the problems in the Middle East? Does Kerry think attacking more Moslem countries will enhance America's credibility as a superpower?

For liberals who think the prime objective in the 2004 is to remove Bush, they should ask themselves the following hard questions: (a) What is John Kerry proposing that is different from Bush's foreign policy, particularly regarding the Iraq War? (b) How can genuine peace activists vote for Kerry?

Kerry tries to fool peace activists by using cute slogans--like "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"--to criticize the very policies he helped create. Kerry says if he is elected president, he will work to build a coalition of nations to "win the peace" in Iraq, and he suggests this will lead to an eventual reduction of American military forces in that nation. But for those of you who watched the second presidential debate, you may recall Bush’s response to Kerry's proposed solution. Bush conveyed that it would be impossible for an American president to build a coalition of nations to fight in Iraq if the other nations know the American president himself is fundamentally opposed to the war. Well liberals, you may think Bush is dumb, but his response to Kerry on that particular issue was right on the money. There is no way other nations will follow an American President into Iraq after he has repeatedly said it was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." To believe Kerry will fulfill such a commitment is incredibly naïve.

What gives Kerry and Edwards the right to use empty slogans like gone "win the peace" after selling their souls to the Devil and voting to give Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq, plus they voted for the Patriot Act? Don't kid yourselves. Kerry and Edwards never voted for peace, as they suggest; they voted for war! We do not "win the peace" by launching a war. We "win the peace" by opposing unnecessary wars before they start, not after.

Genuine peace activists who intend to vote for Kerry should realize that Kerry is not a peace activist at all. His words and his voting record speak for themselves. Kerry made the following statements, on October 11, 2002, as he cast his "Yea" vote to approve the Resolution giving Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq:

Kerry has given two explanations for why he voted to use military force against Iraq. First, Kerry claims Bush misled him about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but when pressed, Kerry admits he would have voted the same way regardless of Iraq's WMD status. So the WMD argument is really a moot point. Kerry didn't like Saddam Hussein, so he voted to use force to remove him from power. In fact, Kerry constantly says the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but we all know--especially peace activists know--this is a lie. The world has become far more dangerous since Saddam Hussein was toppled from power without cause by an uninformed president, supported by both the Republican party and the opposition Democratic party.

Second, Kerry claims when he voted for use of military force in Iraq, he meant for Bush to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before invading Iraq. Kerry claims Bush rushed to war too quickly. I agree that Bush should not have launched the invasion in the first place, but Kerry’s claim that Bush rushed to war is not entirely accurate. Bush waited about five months after the joint Senate/House resolution was passed by the Senate in October 2002 until the actual invasion was launched on March 19, 2003. Furthermore, the Bush administration would argue that they did exhaust diplomatic avenues before resorting to military force. Kerry suggests that five months of diplomatic discussions was not long enough, but frankly, five months seems like a reasonable period after the Congress has granted a sitting president carte blanche authority to use military force if he chooses. Of course this begs another question. Why did Bush even request a joint resolution from Congress giving him authorization to use military force against Iraq? As president, doesn’t he have that power already, under the Constitution? In a word: Yes.

Under the US Constitution, the president does not need Congressional authority to wage war. The Constitution states that the president is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces which means he has the power to launch military attacks as he pleases. But the Constitution gives Congress authority to control the purse strings. What this means is the president can launch limited military attacks without permission from anyone, and it is completely legal; but if he decides to commit American military forces to a war for an extended period of time, then it would be wise to first get a written commitment from Congress, prior to waging the war in question, stating that Congress generally agrees with the President’s reasons for going to war and has confidence in his ability to decide when to use military force against the enemy. In other words, the president should get a promissory note from Congress, essentially promising to pay for his war once he launches it. This is exactly what President Bush did when he requested Congressional authority to use military force against Iraq. When John Kerry voted for the military force Resolution, he was essentially making a commitment to pay for a long-term war if Bush chose to use military force. And realistically, we all knew Bush intended to start a war in Iraq. Surely, Kerry knew this when he voted to give Bush carte blanche authority to use military force against Iraq. Bush never made his intentions a secret. So for Kerry to now claim America’s invasion of Iraq was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" is opportunism on a grand scale.

John Kerry, like most people in the world, knew President Bush intended to launch an attack against Iraq with or without other nations because Bush said repeatedly that he was prepared to "go it alone" if necessary. Kerry knew Bush was prepared to "go it alone" when Kerry voted for the military force resolution on October 11, 2004. If John Kerry truly believes the Iraq War was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," then he should never have voted in October 2002 to give Bush carte blanche authority to use military force against Iraq in the first place. And again, Bush waited five months before launching the attack, so strictly on a factual basis, Bush did not act like he was overly eager to go to war once Congress gave him permission to do so. Although I disagree with Bush's decision to go to war, I have to admit that waiting five months seems more than reasonable, within the context of the political environment at that time.

John Kerry and John Edwards both make misleading comments about the Iraq War, often calling it "that mess in Iraq." War by definition is messy, so when I hear Kerry and Edwards call this particular war a mess, I have to wonder what led them to use that specific label. To call it a mess suggests we are losing badly. Are they referring to the casualty rate? If so, this is not the case at all. Although I am a peace activist, I am also a realist. Compared to other wars, the Iraq War has been a cake walk as far as loss of American soldiers. The Vietnam War, in earnest, lasted about eight years, from early 1965 (when LBJ started the aggressive escalation of military forces) through total withdrawal of forces in early 1973. During that period, about 58,000 Americans were killed in the conflict. This means, on average, about 7,200 American soldiers died every year in Southeast Asia. Since the Iraq War began over one and a half years ago, less than a thousand American soldiers have died. So if we’re judging the war in terms of American casualties, the Iraq war is being run as efficiently as any war in history. When Kerry and Edwards voted to give Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, did they honestly expect that no American soldiers would be killed? I don’t think so.

So if we rule out casualty rate for American soldiers, is there another reason to call the Iraq War a "mess?" Perhaps Kerry and Edwards are referring to resistance being fought in Fallujah and Najaf? Did anyone think there would be no resistance whatsoever when America launched a brutal, unprovoked military strike against Iraq? Does defending one’s country against foreigner invasion constitute a mess? Not to me it doesn’t. This is the nature of war.

In the final analysis, Kerry and Edwards have no reason to call the Iraq War a mess because they helped create the unfortunate situation in that nation. They voted to use military force, something that is by definition messy business. Only genuine peace activists have the right to use such a word as "mess" because, again, war by definition is messy, and genuine peace activists are opposed to war. But Kerry and Edwards are not peace activists. Their voting records reflect their willingness to use military force even for highly questionable reasons, the most obvious case being their decision to give President Bush Congressional authority to use military force in Iraq.

Kerry has even said he supports Israel’s right to assassinate its enemies. The following is an excerpt from NBC News, MEET THE PRESS, which aired Sunday, April 18, 2004:

Many accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on issues, but my main criticism of Kerry is he misrepresents his positions, but his underlying views on matters of war and peace remain unchanged. He is quick to vote for war when peace is a far better alternative. He is quick to give a war-hungry president carte blanche Congressional authority to wage war. Since Kerry and Edwards both voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act, they lost their rights to criticize the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration’s violation of Americans’ civil liberties, and the War on Terrorism in general. These are all policies Kerry and Edwards helped create. Therefore, Kerry and Edwards are part of the problem and cannot be considered a possible solution, or even the lesser of two evils. Genuine peace activists realize that evil is evil, regardless of its quantity or the decoration on the container in which it is packaged.

So we're back to the dilemma facing genuine peace activists. Why won't they vote for Ralph Nader--a man they admire and respect--instead of settling for Kerry and Edwards, two men of highly questionable character? The peace activists rationalize their flawed logic by telling themselves they need to get Bush out of the White House no matter what. I agree that Bush came to the White House unprepared for the job and allowed his cronies to run his policies. But as I asked earlier, why remove someone we don’t like by replacing him with someone with identical beliefs? If we put Kerry in the White House, then we’re really giving a second wind to the Iraq War. My view is let's keep the guy in power who started the war and hold his feet to the fire to bring it to an early end. Voting for Nader is another way to hold Bush’s feet to the fire. Voting for Kerry is a green light to war mongers.

As I stated earlier, I am not a Bush supported, but if I were to limit my vote to the two candidates running in the two major parties, Bush would be the logical choice for the reasons stated. At the end of the day, the 2004 Presidential election is not about good versus evil or right versus wrong, or even war versus peace. The 2004 Presidential election is merely a power struggle and nothing more, as long as we limit choices to Bush or Kerry.

For those who say voting for Nader is throwing your vote away, I say Hogwash! If we believe in peace, then we have no other choice. Normally I try to stay away from partisan politics, particularly presidential races, because we often don't know the pressures under which the sitting president makes decisions. But in a few weeks Americans will cast their votes for the most powerful leader in the world: the President of the United States of America. This particular election demonstrates--more than any in my lifetime--the vast corruption which exists in the American form of government. We Americans like to think of ourselves as free, but the 2004 presidential election demonstrates there is little freedom associated with the manner in which modern American presidents are selected.

Decisions regarding war and peace are made in modern America in a similar fashion as they were made in the former Soviet Union. A handful of un-elected thugs call the shots and a huge propaganda campaign follows to keep the populace pacified. Despite Americans' claims of freedom, our government operates in a similar manner, especially regarding issues of war and peace. In the Soviet Union, the KGB and PRAVDA led propaganda campaigns in support of the authoritarian government's foreign policy decisions. In America the FBI works jointly with Jewish media moguls who dominate the news media in massive propaganda campaigns designed to garner public support for brutal wars.

In America we elect politicians who handle the uncomplicated business of keeping the country running, mostly with short-to-midrange planning. Most of these politicians have little knowledge and little interest in foreign policy other than making grandiose speeches during their re-election campaigns. Most are bought by special interest groups and serve as sock puppets for their sponsors' hidden agendas.

If you choose to vote for Ralph Nader, any realist will tell you there is little hope that he will get into the White House; and Nader knows that himself. But a realist will also advise you that if Kerry wins the election, the situation in Iraq will not improve or change, based on Kerry’s own voting record and his own statements regarding Middle Eastern policy and his unyielding support for Israel. But if you choose to vote for Nader, you will send a message to Washington that you want a change in the way things are done. You will send a message to the Democratic Party that you no longer support their weak candidates. If Bush wins in 2004, it will be the second time in a row the Democrats have lost a highly winnable presidential election. So the Democratic philosophy of quibbling and sniping rhetorically, but voting consistently for war is a strategy of failure. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for change, regardless of the outcome of the election.

In many ways, the state of affairs in Iraq today should be celebrated, not mourned, by genuine peace activists. The war mongers are on the run. For years the United States has bullied the United Nations, protecting corrupt nations like Israel regardless of the will of the United Nations. With the loss of America’s political clout and diplomatic influence around the world because of the Iraq War, Israel too has lost its great protector. Genuine peace activists everywhere must rejoice in this new state of world affairs. And on the topic of Israel, it is important to note that Ralph Nader’s ethnicity is Lebanese. (Kerry claims he recently discovered he was part Jewish.)

Many people can still remember the hopeful words of the late President John F. Kennedy, on June 10, 1963, when he spoke of world peace during the graduation ceremony at American University. In the wake of 9/11 and America's War on Terrorism, few people are optimistic about JFK's dream of long ago. But circumstances beyond the control of any one human being has placed a great deal of power in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And it appears to be a kind of power that he did not seek, but was thrust upon him through the humiliating Anglo-American assault on the poor nation of Iraq. Through the suffering of the Iraqi people, the words of Kennedy stand tall, and prophetic.

We sought a Pax Americana in Iraq, enforced on the world by American weapons of war, but we failed; Republicans and Democrats alike, Bush and Kerry alike. We all failed. Now we must turn to the United Nations to help build a genuine peace. A new era appears to be on the horizon. Regardless of who wins the election, America will have a difficult time waging war in the near future. To genuine peace activists, this is a major victory!

Hopefully I have given genuine peace activists several reasons to vote for Ralph Nader on election day. It is not a wasted vote! It is a vote against war. Regardless of the outcome of the election, a vote for Nader sends a strong message of peace and hope for the future. Certainly that is reason enough.

To learn more about Ralph Nader, click here:

http://www.votenader.org/

Salvador Astucia

H.J. Resolution 114: On October 11, 2002, the United States Senate approved H.J. Resolution 114, "Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002." Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted Yes to the Resolution. On March 19, 2003, the Bush Administration launched a military strike against Iraq.

To read Usenet discussions about the above article, click here:

To read Ralph Nader's plan to withdraw American military forces in six months, click here.