Chalabi and Neoconservative craziness

I haven't been willing to say this before, as I think that labeling neoconservatives crazy fails to understand the roots and idiocy of their world understanding and is just a cop-out intended to diengage debate-but these people are just plain insane. Do they actually believe that Ahmed Chalabi was legit? They're sticking their necks on the line for a man who everyone else knew from the moment they met him that his greatest influence in life was Paul Newman's character in the Sting. Richard Perle is out there picking fights with the CIA, saying, that they have no "evidence" that Chalabi was funneling info to Iran (Note to Perle: does the CIA require the same evidence for implicating Chalabi as Chalabi requires for sending the US to war over WMD?) Tge logical thing for Perle to do here is sit quietly in the background and let Chalabi go down, it wouldn't be the first time our media has ignored the mistakes of his cabal. But no, he's out there just garnering more attention to the failure of his and Chalabi's backers analysis of everything Iraq. Go Richard, go.

Nader and Party

After the third person in as many days approached me today about getting his beloved Ralph Nader on the ballot, I decided to do a little bitching. Now I never bought the Clintonian crap about Nader costing Gore Florida, as Tom Tomorrow so rightly pointed out back in December of 2000, if that was the case than Dems should be blaming David McReynolds just as much (Socialist Party candidate who got more than 1000 votes in Florida). No, my animus for Nader and his backers runs slightly deeper. At least in 96 and 00 Nader was part of a party and however much I disagree with the Green's tactics (spending little time reaching out to the necessary constituencies for a Progressive Party, i.e. African-Americans and the working class) at least the Greens have been involved in party building and consolidation at the local level, with an eye toward eventually affecting change. This year on the other hand, Nader doesn't even have the flawed but well meaning Green backing, he hasn't even sought it (instead taking up the Reform shell to get on the ballot in a few states). Now Nader must know there is no chance that he's going to win and withouht the Greens, he and his supporters don't even have the argument that they are trying to expand a little known national party. Thus, Nader can't be working toward any future progressive movement, Nader's is a movement built solely on his individual person. This simply evinces a complete lack of understanding of American politics. Building a true progressive movement takes work and organizing, years of activism and coalition building, not the appeal of any single individual (ask Teddy Roosevelt). Nader and his supporters, raised in an age where individual campaign spots are sexier than the gritty work of party and coalition building unfortunately think merely acting contrarian and saying progressive things is enough in a democracy. They're wrong-if you really want to cast a protest vote this November, then please, vote for Mr. McReynolds, at least he understands the necessity of party organizing.