Barack Obama | Libya | Moammar Gadhafi | News | Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader: Obama Committing Same War Crimes, Impeachable Offenses That Bush Did


Ralph Nader goes after the Obama administration's 'Odyssey Dawn' Libya operation, on Democracy Now.

“Barack Obama is committing the same crimes [as Bush and Cheney], in fact worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we’re creating more enemies, he’s violating international law, he’s not constitutionally authorized to do what he’s doing, he’s using State secrets, he’s engaging in illegal surveillance, the CIA is running wild without any kind of circumscribed legal standards or disclosure. Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.”

Watch Nader, AFTER THE JUMP...

Public opinion is split, the Guardian reports.

President Obama sent a letter defending the Libya intervention to members of Congress on Monday in an effort to quell a growing rebellion over his failure to consult the Senate and the House of Representatives before embarking on the third major military action of his presidency.

In the letter, Obama attempted to address criticism that he had failed to either brief or discuss his decision in detail with both Democrats and Republicans. Under the US constitution, Congressional approval is required for declarations of war.

And what's the meaning of Odyssey Dawn anyway?

Odyssey Dawn started as a sort of unclassified code name, so that during the planning stages people could talk openly about working on Odyssey Dawn without giving away the nature of the project, says Elliott. But instead of coming up with a catchy, ready-for-prime-time name like Desert Storm when the operation was approved, they stuck with Odyssey Dawn.

"A lot of people have called trying to find meaning in the name," says Elliott. "The bottom line is that it was designed so there is no meaning."

Meanwhile, a U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya today. Both airmen are reportedly safe.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. If Nader did not run as a spoiler Bush would not have been elected and this would not even be an issue.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Mar 22, 2011 8:13:47 AM

  2. I remember him! He played a ditzy politician during an election once or twice.

    Posted by: Still Ditzy | Mar 22, 2011 8:28:48 AM

  3. He should go back to rating vacuum cleaners.

    Posted by: ANON IN SO CAL | Mar 22, 2011 9:05:36 AM

  4. I hate Ralph Nader with every molecule in my body because if it weren't for him W wouldn't have won in 2000 and the world would be a lot better today.

    Posted by: Brent | Mar 22, 2011 9:19:58 AM

  5. The blood Bush shed is on YOUR hands Mr. Nader!

    And, yes, you're right. Obama is guilty of the same crime. The French are only launching this war because they have an election coming up and the ruling conservatives are about to take a blood bath at the polls behind the socialists and the radical right. Libya is to Sarkozy what the Falklands were to Thatcher and we have NO business being a part of it.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Mar 22, 2011 9:24:57 AM

  6. Yes, and I'm afraid my President's decision to bomb Libya is all about the American 2012 Election. He wants to be seen as a "strong" Commander and Chief. Yeah, well, the American people are interested in their economy, Mr President--not in foreign dictators.

    Let this temporary international force get rid of Gadhafi and get the hell out of there. The Libyan people will have to figure it all out. There should be no attempts at nation building or democratization by anybody but Libyans. Get out now!

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 22, 2011 9:42:15 AM

  7. Agree wholeheartedly with Brent and Tampazeke. I wonder if Nader was paid by Bush & Co. to run as a spoiler? Nader has as much blood on his hands as Bush & Co.

    Posted by: jerry | Mar 22, 2011 10:23:31 AM

  8. Andy and others

    obama by US LAW (Law since 1973 in fact) 48 hours to address congress on the Lybian war

    He did within the 48 hour window (from point Us troops engage enemy the clock starts ticking on 48 hour window to seek congressional approval giving flexibility to commander and chief to do whatever might need to be done in the modern era)

    By law he now has 60 days free reign there .....either congress approves and thus gives him an extension past the 60 days or does not and he has to pull all US troops from lybia within 60 days

    Neither supporting or condemning Lybian action BUT Obama has been well within the law

    Posted by: | Mar 22, 2011 10:42:07 AM

  9. 1973 Law gives Obama 48 hours from engagment to notify congress

    He did, well within 48 hours

    He now by LAW has 60 days freedom with troops there to seek congressional approval or not (if not then 60 days to remove US troops)

    it is the law and he has followed the Law

    Now everyone can shutup

    Posted by: | Mar 22, 2011 10:43:49 AM

  10. sorry for repeat posts

    for some reason my first did not post right away

    Posted by: | Mar 22, 2011 10:44:55 AM

  11. Yeah right! F*ck those poor civilians being murdered in the streets by a lunatic and a group of mercenaries.
    I wonder if gays were singled out how you would all feel.

    Posted by: davey | Mar 22, 2011 12:22:51 PM

  12. Considering only 36% of the public supports fighting in Libya it can hardly help the presdient's 2012 ambitions.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 22, 2011 1:23:44 PM

  13. Wow! All I can do is hang my head in shame at the idiotic rationalizations of my fellow Americans posting above. Have fun trying to figure out what went wrong when the empire crumbles :)

    Posted by: Stunned | Mar 22, 2011 1:24:21 PM

  14. While it may seem humanitarian to bomb Libyan air targets, it really doesn't make sense in the bigger picture. I'm usually defending Obama, but this seems ridiculous. Are we now expected to send american troops into ALL countries that have civil strife? What about bahrain, for example?

    Here's whats going to happen.

    Quaddafi stays in power. It makes the allies look weak. Brazil, China etc. all go back to doing business with Libya. More Libyan sponsored terrorism to get revenge.

    I think it's time to let other countries take the lead and look after our own (still collapsing) house.

    Posted by: dms | Mar 22, 2011 1:52:31 PM

  15. I will take this opportunity to say to Ralph Nader: I'm sorry I didn't vote for you in 2008. I was under the illusion that Obama actually cared about due process and the rule of law.

    Posted by: Skye Winspur | Mar 22, 2011 2:10:13 PM

  16. "I was under the illusion that Obama actually cared about due process and the rule of law"

    OK, SKYE you have exactly 48 hours to read MSTROZFCKSLV's comment above explaining how the President obeyed the process and the rule of law. (Thanks, MSTRO)

    As a Democrat and Obama supporter I am terrified of any foreign intervention between now and November 2012. I am cynical about the White House's motivation. Even though it is a good thing to bring down a ruthless dictator--is it good for re-election here at home?

    Americans don't like foreign wars--especially if they are not in Europe Everybody else on the planet can go to hell. You don't believe me? just ask 'em.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 22, 2011 2:44:41 PM

  17. Why does anyone listen to this washed up old windbag? Especially after he single handedly inflicted George W. Bush on the world. He can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

    Posted by: Justin | Mar 22, 2011 3:08:14 PM

  18. Justin et al,

    The American voters and the political system they participate in "inflicted" George W. Bush on the world. Those of us who believe in a multiparty system in which we can actually vote for the party/candidate that most closely represents our views are not guilty of anything other than bothering to vote as one would vote in a genuine democracy. After the sick feeling that voting for Obama left in my stomach I will never again let anyone guilt me into voting for Democrats just because they're a lesser evil than Republicans. Going forward I will either vote green/progressive third party candidate or just simply boycott the election. I have the right to do either of these things. What the hell ever happened to freedom and liberty and all the stuff that this country is supposedly about?

    Posted by: Say what? | Mar 22, 2011 3:27:22 PM

  19. Thank you Say What

    I believe in voting for candidates that reflect my personal views. If the Democratic party was able to get it together in 2000 or 2004, voters may have voted for Gore or Kerry instead of Nader. But the Democratic party still panders to conservatives by not being "too liberal."

    Besides, as Democrats love to point out but seemingly forget whenever Nader is mentioned, Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush. The Supreme Court stopped the recount and left the Bush certification standing. And Nader had nothing to do with that.

    Posted by: Eric | Mar 22, 2011 4:29:47 PM

  20. @Eric, that's completely right. The Supreme Court appointed Bush president. It's ethical for Nader to have run; it's completely unethical for the court to have stopped the recount. Not to mention that Clarence Thomas was elected to the court by the subject of that case's father (Bush sr), and didn't recuse himself, or that Scalia and Cheney were hunting buddies, etc. Talk about conflict of interest.

    Posted by: me | Mar 22, 2011 8:14:08 PM

  21. I was not actually referring to the war in Libya, but to Obama's acquiescence in the seemingly endless torture of Bradley Manning.

    Posted by: Skye Winspur | Mar 23, 2011 12:01:35 AM

  22. And, to the commenter who wrote, "I wonder if gays were singled out how you would all feel"--well, Obama had the opportunity to boycott the National Prayer Breakfast, organized by people who singled out gays for genocide in Uganda. Instead he attended and shamelessly pandered to them.

    Posted by: Skye Winspur | Mar 23, 2011 12:04:57 AM

Post a comment


« «Dance Diva Loleatta Holloway Dead at 64« «