[Liberation News Service]: Countdown to Electoral Uprising -- 23 Days to Go -- CIA fights back, US Marines speak out, Blix and Ritter denounce Bush, Smear of France provides cover for US firms, More on Nader's Betrayal of the Good

[richard power]

There are 23 days to go until the national referendum
on the CHARACTER, COMPETENCE and CREDIBILITY of the
_resident, the VICE _resident and the US regimestream
news media...Here are FIVE stories that should have
dominated the air waves on SeeBS Fork the Nation,
AnythingButSee Week In Revision and NotBeSeen Meat The
Press and SeeNotNews Lost Edition with Wolf Bluster,
but they didn't...The network and cable news
organizations are running away from the fact that
Kerry-Edwards are 3-0 in the debates, and that there
is an Electoral Uprising coming at the Ballot
Box...It's the Media, Stupid...They are full partners
in a Triad of shared special interests (e.g. oil,
weapons, media, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, etc.) with
the Bush Cabal and its
wholly-owned-subsidiary-formerly-known-as-the-Republican-Party...It
does not want to inform you about this presidential
campaign, it wants to DISinform you...


Phillip Sherwell, Daily Telegraph:  A powerful "old
guard" faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has
launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the
Bush administration with a battery of damaging leaks
and briefings about Iraq.
The White House is incensed by the increasingly public
sniping from some senior intelligence officers who, it
believes, are conducting a partisan operation to swing
the election on November 2 in favour of John Kerry,
the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.
Jim Pavitt, a 31-year CIA veteran who retired as a
departmental chief in August, said that he cannot
recall a time of such "viciousness and vindictiveness"
in a battle between the White House and the agency...
There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all
the blame for the failings of pre-war intelligence on
Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes.
Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called
"neo-conservative" hawks such as the vice president,
Dick Cheney, the secretary of defence, Donald
Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence
department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the
ill-feeling by demanding "politically acceptable"
results from the agency and rejecting conclusions they
did not like. Yet Colin Powell, the less hardline
secretary of state, has also been scathing in his
criticism of pre-war intelligence briefings.
The leaks are also a shot across the bows of Porter
Goss, the agency's new director and a former
Republican congressman... 
Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with
the former director George Tenet in July, acknowledged
that there had been leaks from within the agency. "The
intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for
all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves
some of the blame, but not all of it. People are
chafing at that, and that's the background to these
leaks."
Critics of the White House include officials who have
served in previous Republican administrations such as
Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA head of
counter-terrorism and member of the National Security
Council under Ronald Reagan.
"These have been an extraordinary four years for the
CIA and the political pressure to come up with the
right results has been enormous, particularly from
Vice-President Cheney.
"I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over
backwards to please the administration. George Tenet
was desperate to give them what they wanted and that
was a complete disaster."
With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the
Wall Street Journal declared in an editorial that the
administration was now fighting two insurgencies: one
in Iraq and one at the CIA.
In a difficult week for President Bush leading up to
Friday's presidential debate, the CIA-led Iraqi Survey
Group confirmed that Saddam had had no weapons of mass
destruction, while Mr Rumsfeld distanced himself from
the administration's long-held assertion of ties
between Saddam and the al-Qaeda terror network.

Steve Fainaru, Washington Post: Scrawled on the helmet
of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon
and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his
job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined
the U.S. Marine Corps. 
"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said
Perez, 20..."Sometimes I see no reason why we're
here," Perez said... 
The Marines offered their opinions openly to a
reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines
during operations last week in Babil province, then
expanded upon them during interviews over three days
in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward
operating base. 
The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their
participation in hundreds of hours of operations over
the past two months...
"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and
years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of
Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to
get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse.
It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're
going to stop being a policing presence and then start
being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going
to be here. We're never going to leave." 
Several members of the platoon said they were struck
by the difference between the way the war was being
portrayed in the United States and the reality of
their daily lives. 
"Every day you read the articles in the States where
it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' "
said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg,
Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every
day." 
Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he
thought government officials were reticent to speak
candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections.
"Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say
it," he said. "They can't get into it." 

Agence France Press: In separate comments in The
Independent on Sunday, Hans Blix, the former UN chief
arms inspector until the US-British invasion in March
2003, and Scott Ritter, a senior inspector in Iraq
from 1991 to 1998, backed a US official report
concluding Iraq had no banned weapons before the war. 
The authors of that report, although Bush appointees,
"have had to acknowledge that the reality on the
ground was totally different from the virtual reality
that had been spun", Blix wrote... 
Duelfer said the Iraqi leader had however hoped to
renew his weapons quest if sanctions were lifted --
and both Blair and Bush have rushed to use that to
argue their pre-emptive strike was necessary. 
 "This is the new straw to which the governments
concerned have begun to cling", Blix wrote...
He questioned whether, as the Duelfer report
recommends, UN inspectors would be allowed to carry
out their work "in future cases, when supervision and
verification will be needed, for example, in Iran,
Libya and North Korea (news - web sites)". 
Ritter, too, said Bush and Blair were "scrambling to
re-justify" the war now that the banned weapons
argument no longer held water, with claims they have
made the world safer. 
But Ritter charged that history would judge the
leaders harshly for making the world a worse place by
flouting international law and creating chaos in Iraq.

He said "the world's two greatest democracies" had
undermined the legal framework of the United Nations
(news - web sites) set up after World War II at
exactly the time when the world needed multilateralism
most, to fight a global war on terror. 
"Saddam is gone, and the world is far worse for it --
not because his regime posed no threat, perceived or
otherwise, but because the threat to international
peace and security resulting from the decisions made
by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq in violation of
international law make any threat emanating from an
Iraq ruled by Saddam pale in comparison," he wrote. 

John Lichfield and Anne Penketh, Independent (UK):
Washington and London have been accused of a concerted
effort to smear France in an attempt to distract from
the main conclusions of America's official report on
Iraq's non-existent weapons programmes.
A section of the 1,000-page report by the chief US
weapons inspector in Iraq contains allegations about
Baghdad's attempts to bribe and subvert French
politicians in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq last
year...
The report does not suggest that such bribes were ever
actually offered or accepted, but rather that Iraqi
intelligence had told Saddam Hussein they had
"targeted" France for treatment of this kind.
Efforts appeared to be under way yesterday to draw
public attention away from the absence of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq by suggesting that senior
figures in France and Russia - which was also anti-war
- may have been paid to support Saddam's regime...
The report also partially repeats a list naming
figures from all over the world - including a French
oilman said to be close to the French President,
Jacques Chirac - who received preferential treatment
in the allocation of oil export licences.
However, unlike the first list published by the Iraqi
newspaper al-Mada in January, which detailed the
beneficiaries of a kickback scheme devised by Saddam,
this one carries the official approval of the US
authorities.
All the American names, and all but one of the UN
names, have vanished. The names of US companies and
individuals had been removed "because of US privacy
laws".
The report - and intensive American and British
official and unofficial spinning of the report -
concentrated instead on the French and Russian figures
on the list, including the former French interior
minister Charles Pasqua and Patrick Maugein, head of
the Soco International oil company, said to be a
friend of President Chirac.

www.naderfactor.com: A four month review has revealed
a disturbing pattern of Bush supporters providing
organized assistance to the struggling campaign of
Ralph Nader, almost entirely in key "battleground"
states, including AZ, CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NM, MI, OH,
OR, VA, WV, and WI. 
The report also detailed instances, in Florida and
Arizona, where Mr. Nader has actually hired Bush
supporters to lead his efforts. Nader is accepting
this support despite months of public commitments to
turn back cynical Bush assistance intended to use him
to siphon votes from John Kerry.

Support Our Troops, Save the US Constitution,
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Restore Fiscal Responsibility in the White House,
Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Save the Environment, Break the Corporatist
Stranglehold on the US Mainstream News Media, Rescue
the US Supreme Court from Right-Wing Radicals, Cleanse
the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat the Triad, Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wbush10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/10/ixnewstop.html
The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush 
By Phillip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 10/10/2004)
A powerful "old guard" faction in the Central
Intelligence Agency has launched an unprecedented
campaign to undermine the Bush administration with a
battery of damaging leaks and briefings about Iraq.
The White House is incensed by the increasingly public
sniping from some senior intelligence officers who, it
believes, are conducting a partisan operation to swing
the election on November 2 in favour of John Kerry,
the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.
Jim Pavitt, a 31-year CIA veteran who retired as a
departmental chief in August, said that he cannot
recall a time of such "viciousness and vindictiveness"
in a battle between the White House and the agency.
John Roberts, a conservative security analyst,
commented bluntly: "When the President cannot trust
his own CIA, the nation faces dire consequences."
Relations between the White House and the agency are
widely regarded as being at their lowest ebb since the
hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by
CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F Kennedy in
1961.
There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all
the blame for the failings of pre-war intelligence on
Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes.
Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called
"neo-conservative" hawks such as the vice president,
Dick Cheney, the secretary of defence, Donald
Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence
department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the
ill-feeling by demanding "politically acceptable"
results from the agency and rejecting conclusions they
did not like. Yet Colin Powell, the less hardline
secretary of state, has also been scathing in his
criticism of pre-war intelligence briefings.
The leaks are also a shot across the bows of Porter
Goss, the agency's new director and a former
Republican congressman. He takes over with orders from
the White House to end the in-fighting and revamp the
troubled spy agency as part of a radical overhaul of
the American intelligence world.
Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with
the former director George Tenet in July, acknowledged
that there had been leaks from within the agency. "The
intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for
all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves
some of the blame, but not all of it. People are
chafing at that, and that's the background to these
leaks."
Fighting to defend their patch ahead of the future
review, anti-Bush CIA operatives have ensured that
Iraq remains high on the election campaign agenda long
after Republican strategists such as Karl Rove, the
President's closest adviser, had hoped that it would
fade from the front pages.
In the latest clash, a senior former CIA agent
revealed that Mr Cheney "blew up" when a report into
links between the Saddam regime and Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the kidnappings and
beheadings of hostages in Iraq, including the Briton
Kenneth Bigley, proved inconclusive.
Other recent leaks have included the contents of
classified reports drawn up by CIA analysts before the
invasion of Iraq, warning the White House about the
dangers of post-war instability. Specifically, the
reports said that rogue Ba'athist elements might team
up with terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.
Critics of the White House include officials who have
served in previous Republican administrations such as
Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA head of
counter-terrorism and member of the National Security
Council under Ronald Reagan.
"These have been an extraordinary four years for the
CIA and the political pressure to come up with the
right results has been enormous, particularly from
Vice-President Cheney.
"I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over
backwards to please the administration. George Tenet
was desperate to give them what they wanted and that
was a complete disaster."
With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the
Wall Street Journal declared in an editorial that the
administration was now fighting two insurgencies: one
in Iraq and one at the CIA.
In a difficult week for President Bush leading up to
Friday's presidential debate, the CIA-led Iraqi Survey
Group confirmed that Saddam had had no weapons of mass
destruction, while Mr Rumsfeld distanced himself from
the administration's long-held assertion of ties
between Saddam and the al-Qaeda terror network.
Earlier, unguarded comments by Paul Bremer, the former
American administrator of Iraq who said that America
"never had enough troops on the ground", had given the
row about post-war strategy on the ground fresh
impetus.
With just 23 days before the country votes for its
next president, both sides are braced for further
bruising encounters.

Posted to the web on Saturday October 9, 2004 at 12:59
PM EST
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20794-2004Oct9.html

For Marines, a Frustrating Fight
Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged
By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page A01 
ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq -- Scrawled on the helmet of Lance
Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and
western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job
as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the
U.S. Marine Corps. 
"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said
Perez, 20. 
Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in
Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the
events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting.
Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by
a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated
by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly
faceless enemy. 
"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez
said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times
as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an
enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go
house to house until we get out of here." 
Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines
from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt
terms their frustrations with the way the war is being
conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is
being waged. The platoon, named for the size in
millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st
Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah,
30 miles southwest of Baghdad. 
The Marines offered their opinions openly to a
reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines
during operations last week in Babil province, then
expanded upon them during interviews over three days
in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward
operating base. 
The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their
participation in hundreds of hours of operations over
the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply
from those of the interim Iraqi government and the
Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a
certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful
democracy. 
"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and
years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of
Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to
get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse.
It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're
going to stop being a policing presence and then start
being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going
to be here. We're never going to leave." 
The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young
Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase
of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective
of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq.
Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations
engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed
1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many
areas of the country. 
Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such
hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr
City, the violence in Babil province, south of the
capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the
Marines took over operational responsibility for the
region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been
wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records.
Four have been killed, two in combat. 
Senior officers attribute the vast difference between
the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness
of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced
armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of
persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had
come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day.
Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by
mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other
times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed. 
Realities on the Ground 

Several members of the platoon said they were struck
by the difference between the way the war was being
portrayed in the United States and the reality of
their daily lives. 
"Every day you read the articles in the States where
it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' "
said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg,
Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every
day." 
Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he
thought government officials were reticent to speak
candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections.
"Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say
it," he said. "They can't get into it." 


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&ncid=732&e=2&u=/afp/20041010/wl_uk_afp/iraq_weapons_us_britain

Posted to the web on Saturday October 9, 2004 at 3:19
PM EST


Former UN arms inspectors slam Bush, Blair after
weapons report
Sun Oct 10, 5:33 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Two former senior UN weapons inspectors
in Iraq (news - web sites) criticized US President
George W. Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) for clinging to
ever-weaker arguments to justify their war on Iraq. 
In separate comments in The Independent on Sunday,
Hans Blix, the former UN chief arms inspector until
the US-British invasion in March 2003, and Scott
Ritter, a senior inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998,
backed a US official report concluding Iraq had no
banned weapons before the war. 
The authors of that report, although Bush appointees,
"have had to acknowledge that the reality on the
ground was totally different from the virtual reality
that had been spun", Blix wrote. 
Charles Duelfer, who headed the Iraq Survey Group,
said in the 1,000-page report released Wednesday that
Saddam had destroyed most of his chemical and
biological weapons after his 1991 Gulf War (news - web
sites) defeat and that his nuclear program had
"progressively decayed". 
Duelfer said the Iraqi leader had however hoped to
renew his weapons quest if sanctions were lifted --
and both Blair and Bush have rushed to use that to
argue their pre-emptive strike was necessary. 
 "This is the new straw to which the governments
concerned have begun to cling", Blix wrote. 
A former Swedish foreign minister who led the UN hunt
for banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq,
Blix said that in fact "the world succeeded in
disarming Saddam (Hussein) without knowing it". 
He questioned whether, as the Duelfer report
recommends, UN inspectors would be allowed to carry
out their work "in future cases, when supervision and
verification will be needed, for example, in Iran,
Libya and North Korea (news - web sites)". 
Ritter, too, said Bush and Blair were "scrambling to
re-justify" the war now that the banned weapons
argument no longer held water, with claims they have
made the world safer. 
But Ritter charged that history would judge the
leaders harshly for making the world a worse place by
flouting international law and creating chaos in Iraq.

He said "the world's two greatest democracies" had
undermined the legal framework of the United Nations
(news - web sites) set up after World War II at
exactly the time when the world needed multilateralism
most, to fight a global war on terror. 
"Saddam is gone, and the world is far worse for it --
not because his regime posed no threat, perceived or
otherwise, but because the threat to international
peace and security resulting from the decisions made
by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq in violation of
international law make any threat emanating from an
Iraq ruled by Saddam pale in comparison," he wrote. 
Ritter, a former intelligence officer in the US
Marines, was an inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998,
when he resigned, citing a lack of UN and US support
for his tough disarmament methods. 
Both men have been outspoken critics of Bush and
Blair, and authors of books on the hunt for Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction. 


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=569949

France says report's bribe claims are bid to smear
Chirac
By John Lichfield and Anne Penketh
08 October 2004 
Washington and London have been accused of a concerted
effort to smear France in an attempt to distract from
the main conclusions of America's official report on
Iraq's non-existent weapons programmes.
A section of the 1,000-page report by the chief US
weapons inspector in Iraq contains allegations about
Baghdad's attempts to bribe and subvert French
politicians in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq last
year.
The war went ahead after France, a permanent member of
the UN Security Council, threatened to veto military
action, saying that more time was needed for the UN
inspection effort, and fearing that war would
destabilise the region.
The report does not suggest that such bribes were ever
actually offered or accepted, but rather that Iraqi
intelligence had told Saddam Hussein they had
"targeted" France for treatment of this kind.
Efforts appeared to be under way yesterday to draw
public attention away from the absence of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq by suggesting that senior
figures in France and Russia - which was also anti-war
- may have been paid to support Saddam's regime. The
ultra-nationalist Russian politician Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, whose name is on the list, repeated his
denial that he benefited from Saddam's bribes
yesterday.
The report also partially repeats a list naming
figures from all over the world - including a French
oilman said to be close to the French President,
Jacques Chirac - who received preferential treatment
in the allocation of oil export licences.
However, unlike the first list published by the Iraqi
newspaper al-Mada in January, which detailed the
beneficiaries of a kickback scheme devised by Saddam,
this one carries the official approval of the US
authorities.
All the American names, and all but one of the UN
names, have vanished. The names of US companies and
individuals had been removed "because of US privacy
laws".
The report - and intensive American and British
official and unofficial spinning of the report -
concentrated instead on the French and Russian figures
on the list, including the former French interior
minister Charles Pasqua and Patrick Maugein, head of
the Soco International oil company, said to be a
friend of President Chirac.
Saddam used a secret voucher system within the
framework of the UN's oil-for-food programme to reward
those "willing to co-operate with Iraq to subvert UN
sanctions", the report notes.
The report says M. Maugein, who received vouchers for
13 million barrels of oil, was "considered a conduit
to Chirac", although it adds that this was "not
confirmed".
M. Pasqua, once a close associate of M. Chirac, has
been a marginal figure in French politics, excluded
from the President's inner councils for almost a
decade. M. Maugein is an oil man who could
legitimately have sought contracts under the
oil-for-food programme with Iraq. Both men have
previously denied taking any money from Iraqi oil
export licences.
The report also says Iraqi intelligence identified
"ministers and politicians, journalists, and business
people" who could help Iraq in its prime goal of
lifting the UN sanctions. The report also suggests
that French businessmen were interested in
sanctions-busting, saying that it had found evidence
of procurement transactions that included
"negotiations for possible WMD-related mobile
laboratories".
The French government reacted angrily to the
accusations in the Duelfer report yesterday. The
allegations had already been denied by the individuals
and companies concerned and the French government had
no reason to believe that they were true, said the
French foreign ministry spokesman Hervé Ladsous.
A senior official in the foreign ministry said that he
thought that France was the victim of a clumsy smear
campaign. "If there were French individuals who were
involved in corrupt dealings with Iraq, they should be
investigated," the official said. "But to suggest that
there was a concerted bribing of French politicians is
absurd. You only have to look at what is happening in
Iraq every day of the week to see why there was no
support for the war in France last year."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1008-21.htm

Alliance Between Nader and Bush in Key States
WASHINGTON, DC - TheNaderFactor.com today released a
comprehensive, documented report detailing one of the
strangest alliances in American political history -
Ralph Nader & George W. Bush. This report is the first
to document, in one place, the extensive political
support given to Ralph Nader by supporters of his
alleged opponent, George W. Bush.
A four month review has revealed a disturbing pattern
of Bush supporters providing organized assistance to
the struggling campaign of Ralph Nader, almost
entirely in key "battleground" states, including AZ,
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NM, MI, OH, OR, VA, WV, and WI. 
The report also detailed instances, in Florida and
Arizona, where Mr. Nader has actually hired Bush
supporters to lead his efforts. Nader is accepting
this support despite months of public commitments to
turn back cynical Bush assistance intended to use him
to siphon votes from John Kerry.
"Ralph Nader has betrayed his supporters and
sacrificed principle for his own personal political
gain," said David Jones, President of
TheNaderFactor.com. 
"Nader is allowing himself to be used as a tool by
surrogates of President Bush to divide the opposition
to the president's reelection," Jones continued.
For a copy of the report, click the link below:
http://www.thenaderfactor.com/press/072304/
TheNaderFactor.com is a project of the National
Progress Fund,a political organization based in
Washington, DC dedicated to ending the destructive
policies of the Bush Administration.