Ralph Nader: Obama’s a ‘war criminal’

Ralph Nader: Obama’s a ‘war criminal’

It’s no surprise that Ralph Nader isn’t a fan of former President George W. Bush. After all, the longtime activist ran against him in both 2000 and 2004. But Nader’s even less a fan of President Barack Obama, if only because he thinks Obama was capable of so much more.

On issues related to the military and foreign policy, Obama’s worse than Bush, “in the sense that he’s more aggressive, more illegal worldwide,” Nader told POLITICO, going so far as to call Obama a “war criminal.”

"He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”

And of course he's right... Obama now reserves the right to assassinate American citizens without judicial due process. And most of the left still loves the man...

The other night I had dinner with my sister-in-law (an Obama supporter) and mentioned the kill lists. She had never heard of them. Didn't know anything about it. I was dismayed that anyone could not know this. She even thought I was making it up!

I had to Google the articles for her to read at the dinner table to convince her. She looked horrified for a moment, then shrugged her shoulders and said "Well, Romney would be worse".

If ever anyone needed to understand how Nazi Germany was possible, you need only look at home, I'm affraid.

History does indeed repeat itself, and I fear we are on course for some very dark times. Our ignorance will defeat us. It doesn't look like we're going to turn this thing around.

I support Obama, but I don't agree with him signing the NDAA. I think that was a bad move on his part but I do not think its worse than the Patriot Act and the establishment and creation of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) those two things were the biggest threats to personal freedoms in the history of the U.S.

As for Nader's comments, I do not think I agree with him in that Obama is has gone beyond George Bush. George Bush invaded Iraq without any evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, he then proceeded to privatize the war so his buddy Dick Cheney could send in halliburton and countless other companies and reel in record profits and deals.


I think most Democrats here can admit that they don't agree with Obama signing the NDAA,

But I have yet to come across a Republican and right winger that admits George Bush invaded Iraq without proof of WMD's was a mistake

reply to post by muse7


No offense, but I think your perspective makes my point perfectly. You focus upon all of the injustices of the past, while ignoring the very ones staring you in the face.

We have a sitting president that believes he can assassinate American citizens without judicial due process, and the significance of that washes past you.

...and they called Reagan the Teflon President.

ETA:

And even the things that you identified that you don't like from Obama aren't enough to keep you from supporting him.

We are toast.

Like I said, if anyone ever needed to understand how Nazi Germany was possible, we only need to look in our backyards.

reply to post by loam


I have already said that I do not agree with Obama signing the NDAA. It was a bad thing to do and I think most Democrats or Obama voters can agree with me on that.

As for the rest of my reply, I was talking about Nader's comments.

reply to post by muse7


But you began your post with, "I support Obama".

That is the point I am addressing.

As long as we permit our leadership to behave in this manner, there will never be meaningful change the saves us from the abyss.

reply to post by muse7

Originally posted by muse7
But I have yet to come across a Republican and right winger that admits George Bush invaded Iraq without proof of WMD's was a mistake

Addressing your edit:

I know many.

But you don't have to take my word for it, because you can look it up.

This was a poll taken this year that asked the question:

The poll, constructed by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003. By contrast, 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats shared that view.

Source.

So more than a third of Republicans don't believe it was true.

Inform youself!

Originally posted by muse7
I support Obama, but I don't agree with him signing the NDAA. I think that was a bad move on his part but I do not think its worse than the Patriot Act and the establishment and creation of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) those two things were the biggest threats to personal freedoms in the history of the U.S.

As for Nader's comments, I do not think I agree with him in that Obama is has gone beyond George Bush. George Bush invaded Iraq without any evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, he then proceeded to privatize the war so his buddy Dick Cheney could send in halliburton and countless other companies and reel in record profits and deals.


I think most Democrats here can admit that they don't agree with Obama signing the NDAA,

But I have yet to come across a Republican and right winger that admits George Bush invaded Iraq without proof of WMD's was a mistake

edit on 9/26/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/26/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/26/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

I am a conservative, all be it an environmental scientist (most of us I know of are conservative who are professionals, a few are socialist about it. We all agree on clean environment just how to go about it is the argument with us). I am voting R lately anyway, but only voting R because I am looking for a real conservative type

I TOTALLY agree with Nader on many things including the comments about Bush AND Obama.

Wrong is wrong. Cheney is a war criminal IMHO and he was in control of the WH. Since GW was an idiot, he really was a figurehead for the older Daddy Bush who put his crony Cheney up for VP to run his boys affairs. We are being run in the ground by the same families and voting R for conservatavism is becoming a joke just as much as liberalism being taking over at the top by the commies. I am leaning toward voting Libertarian if it wasn;t for the Dems being so obviously in the tank for communism I could do it with a clear conscience but for now I feel forced to vote R or we get President 'redistributionist'. I would vote Ron Paul but two things about that. One he is being slammed so bad by the media that the common man who are wanting to be told what is what by the lying media, just doesn't do enough homework to have a clue what his positions really are and two he chose the R's instead of being something like the Libertarian he seems to be so he made his bed, he shall lie in it.

We need less gov not more, and GW Bush gave us more then did so promoting unconstitutional laws in the name of 'safety', just like Adolf Hitler did. NOW Obama has reversed his opinion of the oppressive Bushes practices at GITMO and overseas in foreign battle theaters, while still blaming the economy plus anything that pops in his head on Bush and while the dem's help continue the steady march to take away obvious freedoms we had just a few short years ago. BOTH political party's are way wrong. We need to find a way to remove these fake left and right 'leaders' from their fake paradigms of providing safety while stealing our freedoms to do so. Powerful people do not volunteer to give the power back is one reason our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. But remember one thing the last few presidents starting with the day after Reagan was shot and the dementia set in, thus giving GHW Bush the secret power he was coveting from the day he was in charge of the CIA in the 60's, have all presided over the loss of freedoms, period.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by muse7

 

Originally posted by muse7
But I have yet to come across a Republican and right winger that admits George Bush invaded Iraq without proof of WMD's was a mistake

Addressing your edit:

I know many.

But you don't have to take my word for it, because you can look it up.

This was a poll taken this year that asked the question:

The poll, constructed by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003. By contrast, 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats shared that view.

Source.

So more than a third of Republicans don't believe it was true.

Inform youself!

edit on 26-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

Let's get one thing straight. The Kurds KNOW Saddam had WMD's first hand and you should remember their plight of chemical bombs being used against them. The media was in the tank for helping the D's win the 2006 elections is the only reason we don't all KNOW that we have the records of selling those very chemicals to them form within the US.

reply to post by loam


I agree with you and i share your sentiments. My benchmark for the Obama admin. is not how much worse the policies of the Bush admin were or how much worse Romneys would be. It is the promises he made to the world before he was elected.
The man is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, but to kill innocent civilians is a geostrategic and political necessity for his Administration as much as it were for the previous ones.

I'm having a hard time witnessing how people still believe he would be 'the lesser of two evils'.

reply to post by Justoneman


The exact same pattern was repeated in Hitler's rise to power.

I see nothing in our present course that prevents us from arriving at the same point.

People forget that Hitler's ascension was a peaceful one and not taken by force in Germany. He had the people's support for very similar reasons we see here today. I'm baffled why that doesn't terrify people.

Nader is now just someone that likes to see his name in the paper.
He creates a buzz by stating something "news worthy", and sits back and enjoys the reactions of the masses.

He should have stopped back in the 60's when he wrote, "Unsafe At Any Speed", a book that killed the Chevy Corvair (I owned one).

I actually hold him responsible for GWB, and and most of the financial problems we have now.

reply to post by ctdannyd


Too rich.

But you wont hold Obama responsible for anything?

Sad.

reply to post by loam

Of-course he's a war criminal as was Bush and so many other Presidents before him.

Problem is, who is going to bring these criminals to justice?

The American people thats who.

Unfortunately, the groups which would in all likelihood demand justice have been marginalized: Ron Paul supporters, sovereign citizens, Constitutionalists etc.

But the US government recognizes this "threat" which is why they have set the precedence of suspending citizens' rights.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by loam

 

I agree with you and i share your sentiments. My benchmark for the Obama admin. is not how much worse the policies of the Bush admin were or how much worse Romneys would be. It is the promises he made to the world before he was elected.
The man is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, but to kill innocent civilians is a geostrategic and political necessity for his Administration as much as it were for the previous ones.

I'm having a hard time witnessing how people still believe he would be 'the lesser of two evils'.

I don't get how Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. What exactly did he do to earn this prestigious prize?

George W. was a mistake but I agree with some posters that he was just a figurehead. The man couldn't even talk right! Now that he's in Dallas he has gone on the local news describing how he no longer wants to deal with politics and turns down invites to political fundraisers. The way he talked made it sound like he didn't even really want to be president.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to thrive on the celebrity status he has. It bothers me how many jokes he cracks and how many silly talk shows he goes on. I think he needs to start fulfilling the promises he made to us before he was elected and to stop blaming Bush for all the mistakes.

That's just my opinion.

reply to post by loam

Because Hitler was a bad man. The US government's mass murders are "good".

reply to post by texasgirl

He escalated one war: Afghanistan and started two new ones: drone bombing Pakistan and the invasion of Libya.

Thats "peaceful".

Makes you really wonder how much in our planet's history is factual and how much is re-written lies and propaganda.

reply to post by loam


i am still thrashing the idea around in my head... that the Libyan/benghazi embassy seige was actually a false-flag operation by the hawks in the present administration...

see... the Ambassador was an instrumental guy in recruiting AQs & Islamic Jihadists from Libya to fight against the Syrian government... he was like a middle man for the Saudi's who want to overthrow the Syrian-Iranian connection...
the Saudi's hired Ambassador Stevens to weed out the extremists that fought against American troops in Iraq, etc ---so the forces would 'be-clean' to US inspections


We all know that the Øbama regime is hots for the Muslim Brotherhood, but Morsi of Egypt and lots of mujahedeen/militants/AQ/Jihadists are pro Syrian and to a degree Iranian jihadist ways of thinking about a Caliphate.

there are pieces of the puzzle in articles all over the place, just waiting for You to connect the dots...
that the USA itself financed & armed the Jihadists/Muslim Brotherhood leaders that planned the Embassy seige and then carefully insisted for weeks the 'protest' that gor out of hand was a blowback of some cruddy anti-Muslim YT trailer called 'The Innocence of Muslims'


the rabbit hole is in plain sight folks....
note this drifting away of the original propaganda by the Administration,,, even after the UN speech

Øbama:

Obama: No Doubt Benghazi Attack a Sign of Extremism
posted 9/25/12
Speaking today on ABC’s “The View,” President Obama insisted that he had “no doubt” that the attack on the Benghazi consulate earlier this month “wasn’t just a mob action” but was a sign of extremism.

Obama went on to say that he found it “interesting, just this past week, there were these massive protests against these extremist militias that are suspected, maybe, of having been involved.” Read more...

this came from www.wide awake news
source: www.wideawakenews.com...

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Makes you really wonder how much in our planet's history is factual and how much is re-written lies and propaganda.

Clearly, most of it.

But even the truths seem to fail to offend.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by loam

 

Because Hitler was a bad man. The US government's mass murders are "good".

edit on 26-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no treason given)

But what about all the good things Hitler did?

reply to post by loam

And of course he's right... Obama now reserves the right to assassinate American citizens without judicial due process.

No, Obama does not have that right.

Obama does have the right to protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic. So if an American citizen has DECLARED themselves an enemy combatant, then Obama is REQUIRED to protect the country from them.

Fear mongering and trying to compare Obama to Hitler is a clear sign of desperation.