> Scaife 'n' Snitch (and the Hitch)

[Rakesh Narpat Bhandari]

>Rakesh:
>>It is horrifically ironic that after this active disregard for
>>African life, so far removed from any area of strategic interest,
>>Clinton wanted to be remembered as the president who healed race
>>relations.  It does not follow however that one should have supported
>>Nader since his constant carping against international institutions
>>and world bodies hardly gives confidence that he (or his Secty of
>>State Mike Dolan or UN representative Lori Wallach) would have not
>>also obstructed any UN action.
>
>
>Maybe you're right, but with the Democratic Party we have a track
>record. If Nader had been allowed into the Presidential debates,
>pehaps he could have answered the question that was put to candidate
>Bush on the subject so we wouldn't have to guess. Somehow I doubt
>that a President Nader would veto UN actions intended to prevent another
>Rwandan-type genocide.
>
>Peter

What would Secty of State Dolan recommend? You have to judge to Nader 
by whom he surrounds himself with (even Bhagwati likes Nader himself 
according to Doug). Nader has already said in no uncertain terms that 
he opposes the WTO which like the UN allows one nation one vote since 
it represents an infringement on American sovereignty by allowing 
small dictatorships to count as much as the US (so does Nader want US 
trade policy to be disciplined by global democracy--of course not). 
This is easily interpreted--as it was meant to be--as an expression 
of the desire for isolationist withdrawal from international 
institutions and bodies for the purposes of carrying out an American 
first trade policy.

Moreover, did Nader ever say anything about US obstructionism against 
UN action in Rwanda? Not that I remember. And how could he have made 
much of it--that would have forced him to lay out a well thought out 
position about how the US is to actually cooperate with the rest of 
the world, thereby alienating the anti globalization simpletons whom 
he hopes will one day make him the Chief Executive of the United 
States. Or perhaps Nader did not want to lose support by implying 
that he would sacrifice any number of American lives even for the 
prevention of a genocide? So Nader seems hardly different than 
Clinton here.

And did Hitchens ever say this is why he could not re-elect a 
Democrat (yes Clinton killed Rector but Bush has been killing people 
who were mentally arrested long before they committed crimes)? Rwanda 
was not the reason I remember he gave (or at least he seemed no more 
concerned about this than Clinton lying about his love of cigars).

At any rate, let's remember the depths of inhumanity to which our 
political culture can sink:

                     OCTOBER 12, 2000

                     NON-DEBATE AMONG CANDIDATES MAKES PUBLIC BEG FOR 
THIRD-PARTY

                     CANDIDATES

                     Moderator: "Is there any difference?"

                     Gore: "I haven't heard a big difference right in 
the last few exchangesŠ"

                     Bush: "Well, I think it's hard to tell." *

                     WASHINGTON, DC. Oct. 12 - The code phrase for the 
second Presidential debate was "I agree."

                     Twelve times during the debate George W. Bush and 
Albert Gore used a variant of the phrase "I agree with you", and 28 
more

                     times they used other words to let the national 
television audience know they were in agreement on everything from 
foreign policy

                     to trigger locks to the need for gas drilling in 
pristine areas of Alaska.

                     With that many "agreements," was it a debate? 
Bush obviously worried about that, mentioning during their agreement 
on a

                     hands-off approach to the genocide in Rwanda that 
"it seems like we're having a great love fest right now."

Rakesh