Generals to quit if US strikes Iran

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31326

Generals to quit if US strikes Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-02-26 03:48. Iran

By Press TV



Some senior US military commanders are prepared to resign if President Bush orders a military strike against Iran, a new report says.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” The Sunday Times quoted Monday a source with close ties to British intelligence .

“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible,” the source added.

If proven true a revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented because 'American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.

Robert Gates, the defense secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

Iran has announced that in face of any aggression it will respond like a 'tsunami'.

[eleny]

1. K&R

[lovuian]

2. Generals are rebelling They Know this is madness

Its coming to a time where the Military have had ENOUGH

[Supersedeas]

61. the madness of King George will give way to the madness of John McCain -- if

Diebold can swing it.

[defendandprotect]

74. ...but supposedly HARRY REID and NANCY PELOSI can't see this . . ?

Don't see a need for immediate remedy --- ?

Ignore the message of 2006 --- ?

[alfredo]

3. Resignation is the protest tool of choice in the military.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. This is the ONLY tool actually

:-)

[alfredo]

36. There are others. Soldiers have their passive aggressive tools to

slow things down. Radio operators have "sunspots" , and there is sick call.

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Yeah. E-4's have tools unavailable to generals.

Individually, those tools are weak. Collectively, they would be strong. We were beginning to use them collectively n the Vietnam days.
A draftee army is easy to trigger into a passive-aggressive stance. Maybe all-volunteer forces are less so. Maybe that's why we have all-volunteer forces.

[alfredo]

42. One of their tools is related to retention rates. Keep giving us the

green weenie and you will be fighting your wars alone.

In 69 I was offered $10,000 to re-up. At that time that was a good chunk of money. I didn't bite. If you are not given a compelling reason to stay, no amount of money will keep you.

[sce56]

46. Now they have "Stop Loss" And also threatening to transfer those who refuse to reup

to units shipping out to Iraq EVEN IF THEY HAD JUST RETURNED!

Got Fascism Yet?
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602211200/
Fascism Accomplished!

[alfredo]

48. I would be calling my congressman on the spot. Of course if he's a Rep,

I would find another that can help.

[Forrest Greene]

81. There's Fragging n/t

[Warpy]

11. Actually, there's also the military coup

something I think we might be perilously close to.

A provisional military government until the new president is sworn in next year might not look like such a bad thing. However, once they get that kind of power, men are loath to let it go. In addition, we'd be living under martial law for some time to come. I shudder to think what that will do to an already unstable economy.

The Pentagon has been our best and most unexpected ally in stopping the Iran attack mania of the neocons and their AIPAC enablers. I sincerely hope they continue to do so. I am extremely fearful that Stupid intends to launch an attack on his way out of office, dumping a new war along with a deep recession into the lap of his successor, just like his daddy did.

[alfredo]

29. Military coups are too messy. They cause all kinds of undesirable

reactions. Let's put our efforts behind war crime charges against bush and his junta. The law and the moral high ground is on our side, let's use it.

[leveymg]

55. There are political tools being used by the brass right now other than resignation or an open coup

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/18/10343/6778

How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney
by leveymg
Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:59:48 AM PST
There's a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief - coup d'etat -- but, there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here's how it works in practice.

MORE below . . .

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed a range of options to deal with domestic political crises. These contingencies include major military or terrorist attacks on the United States, natural catastrophies, insurrections, civil disturbances, and the partial or complete cessation of civilian goverment. There are also contingencies for how the military deals with illegal orders received from the President.

The last contingency is, by far, the most difficult and sensitive for the national command staff. Confronting and managing the threat posed by a manifestly imcompetent or incapacitated CIC who issues launch orders without proper consultation would be the ultimate test of an officer's discretion and command judgment. That is why they have procedures to deal with it.

There is enormous fear and misunderstanding among the public about the power a President has to summarily order military action, particularly the first-use of nuclear weapons. Under no circumstances short of actual hostilities or a confirmed threat of attack, could the military carry out launch orders committing the military to war on the sole authority of the President. George W. Bush can not just pick up the phone in the middle of the night and begin a nuclear strike. That order has to be countersigned by others within the chain of command. At minimum, it would require the consent of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, orders received from the President require consultation with the Joint Chiefs before the combat commander can put together a strike package. See, JP 3-12: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Final Coordination (2), II-2, http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

The President's decision to authorize the release of nuclear weapons is based on the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant commanders, and allies. This authority is exercised through a single chain of command that runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the combatant commanders. Nuclear weapon orders are transmitted from the President and Secretary of Defense via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in accordance with established procedures.

The Pentagon carries out planning for all possible contingencies, particularly those that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Ibid., II-3. The staff of Joint Chiefs and the combat commands attempt to prepare reponses to all possible threats or orders they may receive. Somewhere in a locked file in the D-Ring of the Pentagon, the JCS staff have developed contingency planning for how top military commanders would respond to manifestly illegal or irresponsible orders issued by a deranged President.

Any response to an improperly authorized Presidential order would always involve consultation with civilian agency and Congressional leaders. The military's planned responses could range up to and include the use of troops to forcible remove the President from the White House, depending upon the circumstances. Under no circumstances, however, short of the total annihilation of civilian chain of succession, would a military commander be seen taking control over government.

Historically, the top Pentagon brass have employed means other than the visible use of force to deal with conflicts with civilian commanders.

Political Containment

One doesn't contemplate the involuntary removal of elected civilian leadership lightly. Civilian control over the military is the cornerstone of the American constitutional system, and all actions must serve that end. Therefore, the military brass will not act independently and will seek out responsible elected and appointed officials for any action prior to contravening Presidential orders or the actual removal of a President. Prior to any direct intervention in the political process, Pentagon commanders would have to be convinced that all normal procedural and political options, including Impeachment or succession under the 25th Amendment, had been exhausted or were futile.

SNIP

[alfredo]

68. I'm a big fan of removal in place. Leave them in their job, but

neuter them. They are still king in name, but are completely powerless. Such actions would drive authoritarians like bush and cheney completely nuts. Once out of office, drag their butts to the Hague.

[leveymg]

86. And, that is precisely what's been done.

It's not the first time the military brass have felt they had to intervene, behind the scenes, to counter a White House they saw as acting irresponsibly.

[alfredo]

87. It needs to be expanded to domestic policy.

[yurbud]

4. people don't seem to realize how big a deal this is. Has it happened this high up

the chain of command before?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. No

and it is big... this is the only reason why they have not gone in

[roguevalley]

24. other than that general who told the bushes and others to take their

coup and shove it in 1932, no.

[yurbud]

27. yep. Though Smedley Butler was retired at the time, and he was just one guy

[lovuian]

5. Military is rebelling Another Preemptive Strike is leading

into Madness of WWIII

[lpbk2713]

6. I think I'll go rent 'Seven Days in May' now that I'm inspired.

I think BushCo has provided Hollywood with tons of material to make future movies with.

[Frustratedlady]

10. Provided there is a future...

[Crabby Appleton]

9. The source of the story is not particularly credible it's an Iran based

news org. I predict that no US Generals or Admirals would resign if there is an attack on Iran.

[babylonsister]

13. I hadn't noticed the source, thanks. Here's a better one, though

it's from a year ago.

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

more...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. The story has been floating around for a while

so they are just repeating a story that originated in the US... in fact look at the New Yorker for the origin of it... year or so ago

[Matariki]

12. "a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible"

The should question the MORALITY of it.

Perhaps they are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Morality is not an effective argument with this administration.

Every military brass who has moral reservations will find or invent sound tactical reasons for not attacking.

[Drifter]

14. He's going for the Trifecta ...

3 wars lost.

Cheers
Drifter

[sabra]

16. article is from a year ago - but still go good for awareness...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

[babylonsister]

18. Yup, see #13. nt

[TahitiNut]

17. When the military takes a stance - and the people don't - we're in deep doo-doo.

A free and democratic nation CANNOT afford to have its military take a prominent role in deciding foreign (or domestic) policy. No matter how much one might agree (when it's a populist position), this is totally and completely antithetical to self-governance. It was dangerous when a cabal of Generals planned a coup against Roosevelt. It was dangerous when MacArthur took a political stance against Truman. It's dangerous when Generals resort to such threats now. It's symptomatic of the degree to which the People have abandoned responsibility for "Do It Yourself" self-governance and surrendered to childish and slothful "Let George Do It" irresponsibility.

[The Stranger]

22. I was thinking the same thing -- the U.S. has now become a banana republic.

The military has a say in civilian policies, but, at the same time, it is being forced to do so by the criminal regime and its enablers in Congress (the Nancy Disaster).

[gateley]

72. Wiki definition of Banana Republic:

Modern usage

In modern usage the term has come to be used to describe a generally unstable or "backward" dictatorial regime, especially one where elections are often fraudulent and corruption is rife. By extension, the word is occasionally applied to governments where a strong leader hands out appointments and advantages to friends and supporters, without much consideration for the law. A banana republic can also be used to describe a country where a large part of its economy and politics are controlled by foreign powers or even corporations.


So, I agree with your statement. We're there.

[defendandprotect]

75. We're now the GOP's "banana republic" --- that's what they've been working for ---

[Hugabear]

19. If only they would order their troops to seize the White House instead

And to take the criminal who is masquerading as their Commander-in-Chief into custody.

[TahitiNut]

26. God forbid! Few things would be more frightening to me.

Sheesh! :scared:

[Hugabear]

33. That frightens you more than a renegade criminal commander-in-chief?

The man is responsible for countless war crimes, over 600,000 Iraqis dead. Congress seems powerless to do anything. If this asshole decides to take military action against Iran, then he deserves to be dragged out of the White House in handcuffs.

[TahitiNut]

35. It's frightening that anyone purporting to be 'progressive' would wish for a military coup.

Pinochet? Franco? Musharrif? No, thanks!

[Hugabear]

37. Would it technically be a military coup?

In those instances, the removing party installed themselves in power. In this case, they'd simply remove Bush & Cheney because of their war crimes, and Pelosi (or whoever the Speaker of the House is) would take over.

[Duer 157099]

53. How many of these military coups were engineered by the US?

I wonder what a non-US-government-sponsored coup would actually look like (I mean, in theory; not that I want to actually see one)

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. You do realize what you are asking for, don't you?

(Having read plenty of history I suspect you don't, the last thing you want is a military in a coup situation and no civilian control... as bad as bush is... and he is plenty bad, a general in charge and full suspension of all rights would make you wish for george)

[kineneb]

51. granted, but our choice may be Blackwater or the Army, etc.

not that I like the idea at all, but the thought did occur to me... and given the choice I would probably go with the military as a "known quantity"... just sayin'...

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. There are plenty of reasons for concern, but OTOH

when the cops bust into a crack house and arrest everybody there, they don't take over the lease.

You do realize that if * nukes Tehran, congress standing up on its hind legs and filing charges of impeachment is NOT going to do a damn thing. Too little, too late. They will HAVE to be forcibly removed from power.

Generals in charge is a very bad thing. Generals following the direction of legitimate civilian control - whether it be congress, or Sec Def, or whoever orders them to remove *, is a good thing.

[kestrel91316]

20. Good. I hope they do. Resign, that is.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Remember Scott Ritter saying of this administration, "The are not Americans"?

Seems like the generals get that now.

[Peace Patriot]

23. This is why Donald Rumsfeld and Exxon Mobil are looking elsewhere for more oil

to steal.

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

First, economic sanctions, inflicted by Exxon Mobil, recently (their legal effort to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets, over a dispute about Venezuela's 60% share in Venezuela's oil--a deal that Norway's Statoil, France's Total, British BP, Conoco and even Chevron consider reasonable enough to agree to, or continue talking about). Rumsfeld urges economic warfare, and something else. He states that the U.S. should "act swiftly" in support of "friends and allies" in South America. And I don't see any other interpretation that could be put on this, except U.S. military intervention in support of fascist thugs planning coups--likely first in Bolivia, then Venezuela--after the targets are destabilized and softened up.

Bolivia's Foreign Minister is, in fact, traveling to Washington DC this week to protest Bush/U.S. Embassy interference in Bolivia. The Bushites are using USAID-NED funds (and covert budgets, I'm sure) to support rightwing separatist groups that want to split the country up. These are rich rural landowners, who want to break their provinces--the areas that are rich in oil and gas--away from the central government of Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia (in a mostly indigenous country). The vast population of poor indigenous in the urban areas--driven off their small peasant farmlands by the rich landowners--desperately need the oil/gas profits for education, retraining, medical care, small business loans and other bootstrapping. The rich rural landowners, the Bush Junta, Donald Rumsfeld and Exxon Mobil want all the profits to go to themselves and other filthy rich power players.

In fact, they want to break the back of the democratic Bolivarian alliance in the Andes region that includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina. Venezuela and Ecuador are members of OPEC and have lots of oil. Bolivia, as I said, has some oil and lots of gas. And Argentina is not only closely allied with these countries, on their common goals of social justice and regional independence, there was a big oil find in Argentina recently, which makes them a primary Rumsfeld target rather than just an accessory to the crime of social justice. I won't go into the Bush/CIA "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami, a short time ago, by which the Bush Junta tried to smear Argentina's new leftist president, Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, prevent her election and "divide and conquer Venezuela-Argentina. Suffice it to say that the Bush Junta has been trying every rotten dirty means they are capable of, to destroy this core group of leftist democracies.

And the reason that Donald Rumsfeld is writing about this, in Dec 07, only three months ago, is Iran. They had counted on Iran being next. They have been frustrated by the U.S. military opposition to attacking Iran, and also, I strongly suspect, by China's and Russia's opposition. In my opinion, Rumsfeld is in the active early stages of Oil War II: South America. I expect trouble there before the year is out. They have to get it started while Bush is still in office, and also before President Rafael Correa kicks the U.S. military base of Ecuador, when its lease expires, sometime this year. (I don't know that date yet--but it could be an important one.)

You wonder what Rumsfeld's been up to since slaughtering 1.2 million innocent Iraqis to get their oil? This is what. And if he can't pull off U.S. military (or associated U.S. "war on drugs" forces) "swift" support of his fascist pals, he also has Blackwater mercenaries (active in Colombia), Colombian "security" forces, the Colombian military and rightwing paramilitaries (more torturers and killers of innocent people)--all funded by us--and assorted militias and paramilitaries in the target countries, with activity already evident on the Venezuelan and Bolivian borders (one of the things the Bolivian minister will be protesting in Washington).

Is Rumsfeld pipe-dreaming? I don't think so. Indeed, I think everything is pointing to a Rumsfeld war plan this year. It could even become THE issue in the November election. I don't think it will succeed. But I do think it can cause a lot of havoc and suffering--Rumsfeld specialties. Chaos = opportunity for profiteers and resource thefts.

[FourScore]

25. k&r

[spanone]

28. bu$h* & chenee don't need no steeenkin' generals.....

[Quantess]

30. Sounds reasonable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. I hope this is true

Invading Iran would be 1) immoral and 2) stupid on every possible level.

When Hitler wanted to invade Poland in 1939, his generals tried to talk him out of it, not necessarily on moral grounds, but on practical grounds: Invading other countries might work for a while, they said, but eventually, Germany would get clobbered.

Hitler threw a tantrum and insisted that they start planning an invasion.

Some of them considered resigning or staging a coup, and a couple of them did resign, but in the end, most of them decided that they were under an oath to obey their commander-in-chief unhesitatingly.

[raccoon]

57. And look how the German people paid for it.

So many deaths, and starvation. I am not referring to the concentration camps, but to German soldiers and civilians.

Great post.

[AntiFascist]

32. K&R, very cool! n/t

[fascisthunter]

34. BREAKING: Republican Party Loses Support from the Military

about fuckin' time! All the GOP does is send them to wars they shouldn't be fighting.

[bluesmail]

38. K&R

[paparush]

39. The Anti-Coup! I'm all for it!!

[lonestarnot]

41. So when these 4 or 5 resign (hopefully before the wo) we'll know what up.

[othermeans]

43. Sorry no 5 star generals in the US now!! n/t

[MilesColtrane]

45. I applaud the true patriots in the Pentagon who would take this action.

The Commander-in-Chimp is clearly insane and not to be obeyed if he gives this order.

[tuckessee]

47. If true.....

...those generals have my ultimate respect.

[idovoodoo]

49. What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. And a farrago of lies.

There is no fucking WAY any field grade officer would mutiny. None of them have the balls to do it.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Dan]

50. Well, for every one that resigns,...

there are two or three+ others willing to take their place. Don't believe otherwise, because you will be sadly mistaken.

If our fearless leader decides to attack Iran - you cannot depend on the military to be a voice of reason...the deed is done. Their role becomes one of protecting or rather projecting our military will.

Once a conflict has started as a result of our leader's actions - I am not sure how it will turn out, because we no longer control the agenda. Iran has some say, and maybe an apology and willingness to impeach Bush-ie for such an act, might not be enough to stop things put into motion.

Our Congress has proven itself inept - to be quite honest - a total f-----g embarrassment; an the best argument possible for mandatory term limits.

Having said all that - I am not sure what could be done;(. A massive protest by the American people means nothing to fearless. And with a non-responsive Congress - maybe, the only way to do something to make a statement is a nationwide work stoppage. A refusal by workers to do anything that would support the war effort against IRAN. But there would be hell to pay - because of some of the recent laws passed by fearless.

[MrSlayer]

54. And then they'll just get more Generals.

Generals who agree with them. Just as they've been doing all along.

[TheCowsCameHome]

56. Exactly. It's worked so far.

[disndat]

62. Republicans can steal elections

That's the real frustrating problem. There's big money to be made so supporters and enablers can always be found to support their criminal enterprises. Obama is our only real hope. He has to have a VP to make his assassin-proof. The RW will stop at nothing. NOTHING!

[Tarc]

63. Um, this story is exactly ONE YEAR OLD, people

I'm not against it by any means, I sure as hell wold love to see BushCo challenged in this way by the military until they blink and back down.

But whatever this afterdowningstreet.org website is, I think they saw this posted somewhere else, failed to notice that the days says Feb 25 2007, and decided to run with it as if it was breaking news.

From The Sunday Times
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Too bad that the enlisted fodder can't quit as well.

But, the pawns only get to kill and die for the kings.

[Kitty Herder]

65. Yeah, I think the message has been sent to Bush and Cheney that

they can't get away with attacking Iran. And I, for one, am glad of it.

[peacetalksforall]

66. Doesn't this mean that the Generals are taking a stand because Congress didn't..

Congress with the help of Republican DINOs have given Dick everything he wants.

[defendandprotect]

76. Absolutely . . . !! Dems got the msg in 2006 --- and IGNORED IT . . .!!!

For the sake of Bush and the warmongering criminals in power --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

77. Absolutely . . . !! Dems got the msg in 2006 --- and IGNORED IT . . .!!!

For the sake of Bush and the warmongering criminals in power --- !!!

[lpbk2713]

67. After reading some of the comments in this thread I've come up with a new name for Dumbya.

President Queeg



"I'm the decider."

:rofl: :rofl:

[happygoluckytoyou]

69. MAYBE IF WE DONT ATTACK.... BUSH WOULD RESIGN?

[mynameisearl]

70. 58 replies and no one has mentioned

Press TV is 100 % owned and operated by the Iranian government , just thought someone should mention it .

[Cheap_Trick]

71. THIS is why we MUST vote for the democratic nominee

WHOEVER it is.

[defendandprotect]

78. "Whoever it is" . . . ???? So we get more of the same like with Reid + Pelosi--????

When will Democrats wake up to what is actually going on --- ???

[Cheap_Trick]

82. so you're going to vote for McCain then?

or maybe Nader? like it or not, our next president WILL be either McCain or the democratic nominee. so go ahead and vote republic in november so we can have 4-8 more years of the same conservative crap ruining this country. or don't vote at all like a petulant child. but don't come back here bitching and moaning when you don't like the results. please enlighten us as to "what is actually going on ---" this should be good :popcorn:

[defendandprotect]

83. So you're going to vote for more war --- ???

Why are you not concerned about IMPEACHING this president and protecting the Constitution/Bill of Rights?

One stupid question, I guess, deserves to be followed with another . . .

As I said --

What we need is impeachment ---

Reid and Pelosi sit on their asses while America is taken apart ---

If you disagree that Reid and Pelosi were voted in to stop the war in Iraq, then say so ---

If you disagree that Bush has done anything that warrants impeachment, then say so ---


I'm in NJ, so I have the luxury of voting my conscience --
I certainly would never vote for a Republican --- would you?

I would certainly vote for Nader, provided that NJ stays BLUE --

I certainly would not vote for anyone who supports warmongering or war --
and that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran ---


At some point, you're going to come to the realization that you're being manipulated by the
Democratic Party which is now mainly owned by corporations.

When you do, you're going to need a Plan B --

And you will be looking for a third party --- and IRV -- Instant Runoff Voting

In anticipation of that, you should be fighting to stop the hindering of third parties by
the Republicans AND Democrats ---
and the SMEARING of Nader by Democrats -- who have also infiltrated the Green Party.

[Cheap_Trick]

84. Nader doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell

of winning and you should be smart enough to know that. where did i say i was against impeachment? oh yeah..nowhere. but the FACT is the next president will be EITHER a republic or a democrat. PERIOD. it may suck. it may not be what you want. but that is the reality of the situation. get over it. i am realistic enough to see this. too bad you aren't. a vote for nader is a vote for mccain. so you must be voting for more war.

[defendandprotect]

85. Neither do you stand a "snowball's" chance of getting single-payer health care

from the Democrats, nor an end to the war in Iraq from the Democrats --

What I pointed out re Impeachment is that Obama finds that Bush hasn't sinned enough ---
he sees no reason to impeach Bush!

The next president may be a Republican . . . simply because of another STEAL ---
and because since 2000 the Democrats have done nothing about Republican steals --
if you have other information on that, please let me know!

"A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain . . ." -- Right! And "The Russians Are Coming! The
Russians Are Coming!" and Nader is a Red --- !!!
Like McCain is now saying . . . Iraq is Vietnam and the Commies are about to take it all -- !!!

Give it up ---
What you're spouting is FEAR based ---

I am voting against war --- just as we all did in 2006 --- see Pelosi or Reid doing anything
about that yet? Hey, it's only been a year plus . . . !!!

[Cheap_Trick]

89. what i'm spouting is REALITY based

I'd LOVE to join you in fantasy land with gumdrop mountains and chocolate rivers and president Nader who will solve all of the nations' ills with the wave of his magic wand. Whether or not candidate X is better than candidate Y is not what I was saying, merely pointing out the REALITY of the situation. Apparently, you are too dim to understand what I'm saying. "The Russians are coming"? "Nader is a red"? :rofl: What I AM saying is that Nader is not going to win. Does not stand a glimmer of a chance of winning. I swear you poodle heads are about as scary as the Larouche supporters. Maybe you should read my words slower. Would that help? THE. NEXT. PRESIDENT. WILL. BE. EITHER. A. REPUBLICAN. OR. A. DEMOCRAT. HOW. MANY. VOTES. DID. NADER. GET. IN. 2004.? IN. 2000.? That's not fear based...that's reality based. Whether or not Nader is the "better" candidate (or what he promises) is not the issue. If, by some miracle he became president, you and he would both find that it's a lot harder to implement a plan than it is to promise one. A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain means exactly what it said. But for the slower witted ones, I'll explain. If you're not voting for the democratic candidate, it only helps McCain simply because (once again) NADER IS NOT GOING TO WIN. Since you're not supporting the democratic party, I think you'd be happier at another site or something. You're not going to find much if any support for him around here. The name of the site is Democraticunderground, not Ralphnaderunderground or Greenpartyunderground.

Sorry if my being realistic spoils your buzz, but c'est la vie.

[defendandprotect]

73. Attacking Iran seems to be a still active subject for the WH criminals . . .!!

[defendandprotect]

79. How many Generals have already resigned or been fired --- ???

Plus whistleblowers in every part of government including Bush's own administration --- !!!

What we need is impeachment ---

Reid and Pelosi sit on their asses while America is taken apart ---

[defendandprotect]

80. And Obama still opposes IMPEACHMENT . . . ??? !!! ??? !!!! ????

[goforit]

88. The generals have to do a little more than whimpily "QUIT"!!!!! We need action!!