Ralph Nader: Obama A 'War Criminal' But Still Better Than Romney

Ralph Nader provided a cogent critique of Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and the dreadfully poor choice confronting American voters in 2012. In spite of the depressing nature of his criticism against what Nader sees as the failing political system of the USA, he says Obama and the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils.
It wasn't long into Barack Obama's administration that, in the sense of being fair to George W. Bush, who absolutely was and is a war criminal, I wrote (in the old version of Guillotine):

"As we noted earlier, if Obama chose to continue the war(s), then he would be the war criminal."

And acknowledging then, on February 18, 2009, that Obama was basically following Bush's war plan explicitly, except he was also surging Afghanistan—we now know to no purpose except to kill more people and further instill hatred in all Afghans towards the USA—I decided that yes, Barack Obama too was a war criminal.

Decent arguments can be made that lots of American presidents have been war criminals. LBJ and Nixon certainly seem likely candidates.

Now, in a Politico interview with Patrick Gavin, Ralph Nader concludes the same thing: Barack Obama is a war criminal.

In fact, Nader says Obama has "run an even worse, criminal and constitutionally insupportable, military and foreign policy [than George W. Bush]."

Nader correctly identifies the most disturbing thing about the President's behavior, and his action or inaction, resulting in so many more pointlessly killed human beings in the Terror Wars: Obama supposedly knew better.

As Nader says:
“I don’t know whether George W. Bush ever read the Constitution...[Obama] taught the Constitution, and this is what we got.”
The "this" Nader refers to is the fact that Obama, who was a professor of constitutional law, nevertheless chose to violate the United States Constitution "with abandon."

Nader once again acuses Obama in that respect of being worse than Bush:
"[Obama] has gone beyond George W. Bush—in drones, for example. I mean 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...and that is a war crime, and he ought to be called to account."
Asked by Politico if Obama was above or below average for presidents Nader has seen, and always criticized, over the last twenty years, Nader said Obama was below average, because the President "raised expectation levels" and failed to meet them, and also because, in Nader's words, Obama is "above average in intellect and knowledge of legality".

Nader's third reason he thought Obama was subpar was the most politically relevant, especially for prospects for progress in Washington if Obama should be reelected. Nader criticized the President for failing to "run with the Democratic party", that is for selfishly focusing upon his own reelection, without working or talking as if he cared much about having Democrats retain the Senate and recapture the House.

As Nader said:
"If the Democrats don't recover the Congress, [Obama] can't get anything done in [the next] four years."
Despite his intense criticism of Barack Obama, Nader views the President's opponent and the GOP as even worse—in fact "off the charts" bad. Describing the tactical advantage to Obama of going recklessly strong on warmaking and assassination, Nader said it probably seemed a good idea in the short run against "a decrepit war-mongering" Republican Party. On that point, Mitt Romney has not criticized Obama for being too strong on warmaking and war blustering, but rather too timid. Romney gives the strong impression that a war with Iran will be his chief foreign policy objective.

Nader said that Romney had changed from his moderate past and had "bought into the extreme right wing of the Republican Party—represented by Paul Ryan".

Nader summed up Romney: "He's basically a corporation running for president, masquerading as a human being."

Nevertheless, Nader said the Democratic Party, up against the "worst Republican Party in history", was too "sick and decaying" to toss the Republicans out of control of the House of Representatives.

Nader concludes about the choice for voters:
"Obama is the lesser of the two evils. But as Glen Ford, of Black Agenda said, he's the most effective evil—because he brings credibility. He brings the Democratic heritage to it. He has legitimized the lawless, warmongering, and militarism abroad of George W. Bush."
So, bottom line—one extremely depressing endorsement of Barack Obama from Ralph Nader.

Comments

  1. Ralph Nader is a selfish A$$hole! and directly responsible for giving us gwb, who the President has been trying to clean up after, with an obstructionist congress.
    Ralph Nader needs to look in the mirror!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ralph Nader seems to be one of a very few who sees the US political situation with clarity and profound understanding....no cool-aid here. BY THE WAY, NADER DID NOT PUT G. BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AL GORE DID....COULDN'T CARRY HIS OWN STATE AND DID NOT DEMAND A RECOUNT IN FLORIDA.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand people feel angry at Ralph, but he's quite correct that the notion of being a "spoiler" is just bigoted nonsense. As he says, either all candidates are attempting to spoil the situation for everybody else, or you can drop that silly rhetoric and realize everybody has a right to run. It isn't Ralph's fault if the Democrat sucks so bad that people preferred an alternative. Democrats should offer better choices—and not just better than Republicans—but better than the crop of Dems we've seen for a long time. The Democratic Party has become Republican Lite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Ralfie...why the fuck are you not mentioning THE GREEN PARTY or JILL STEIN. The greens helped and supported you when you ran. WTF???

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment