In 2003, a number of leading greens were so worried about the green party’s public image as presidential election spoilers they issued a public statement discouraging nader from contesting the presidential election, "Last year, when Nader was making his decision about whether to run for president again, 17 well-known Greens, among them Ted Glick, issued an open letter calling on Nader not to run." (Alan Maass ‘A Report from Milwaukee: Green Party Shifts Into Reverse’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/maass07012004.html July 1, 2004).

These greens began talking about the possibility of the green party running its own presidential candidate contesting only safe states i.e. those which would obviously be won by either bush or kerry. They didn’t want the party to contest all seats as nader wanted. David cobb started a campaign to become the green party presidential candidate who would pursue a safe states policy.

Nader couldn’t take the risk of the green party refusing to put up a presidential candidate, or refusing to nominate him, or refusing to contest all states, so he sought and won the nomination from the reform party. "But his break with the Greens wasn't driven by his personality-he just wanted to work with a group that knew it was going to run a presidential candidate, and the Greens couldn't figure that out until late June. That would be too late to mount a credible effort to get on the ballot, he predicted. That prediction turned out to be correct; while Nader has gotten on ballots in over 35 states, the Greens have yet to get their candidate, David Cobb, on 30, even though they haven't had to face challenges from the Democrats over ballot access anywhere near as fierce as those directed at Nader." (Greg Bates ‘What If Nader Critics Get What They Demand?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bates10092004.html October 9 / 10, 2004).

John ross was even more blunt about the reform party. "Created in 1992 by H. Ross Perot to battle NAFTA, the Reform Party stole the election from the first Bush for Clinton when the pipsqueak Texas billionaire pulled 19% of the popular vote, a third party effort you never hear the Democrats grousing about. Nader, who took a measly 3% in 2000, inherited the shell of the Reform machine from the Buchananites, racist rats who sacked the party and then abandoned ship after 2000." (John Ross ‘Bush May Lose, But His War Will Go On: Burying Iraq, Burying Bush (Part Two) Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 21st 2004).

During his interview with pat buchanan, june 21st 2004, nader took an even more dramatic, and radical, step by accusing george bush jnr and the american congress of being zionist puppets, "The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer (sharon) comes to Washington, the puppets prance." (Ralph Nader ‘Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking’ The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html June 21, 2004). Such a statement was bound to undermine nader’s support amongst america’s jews but it should also have boosted his popularity amongst american arabs/moslems. Green zionists must have been mortified by these views which probably confirmed their suspicions about nader after his nomination by the reform party. It confirmed their desire to distance the green party as much as possible from nader.

Nader reiterated the same point a week later, "What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."" (Nader's speech to the conference of the Council for the National Interest entitled, "The Muslim Vote in Election 2004" quoted in ‘Ralph Nader Calls Israel a "Puppeteer"’ IsraelNN.com http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=64895 30.06.04).

These statements attracted a great deal of media attention. The anti-discrimination league, adl, wrote to nader complaining that he was a bigot and anti-semite, "After Nader made the initial puppetry allusions, Foxman and Barbara Balser, ADL's national chairman, wrote to him complaining that "the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful US Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse." "What he said smacks of bigotry," Foxman said. He said Nader was continuing to spread a "canard" about the Jews. "He fuels the conspiracy theory that the Jews control the White House and the Congress. And it's a lot more sinister after Iraq." (‘Nader stands by claim that White House, Congress are Israeli "puppets"’ August 14, 2004).

On august 5th, nader responded to abraham h foxman, national director of the adl, by asking how many times the adl had criticized sharon’s policies in palestine. He then rubbed salt into the adl’s wounds by pointing out that, "As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares and among citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in Israel to debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there is in the United States." (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004). He mentioned a zionist joke, "The Israelis have a joke for the obvious ­ that the United States is the second state of Israel." (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004). And then endorsed a statement by thomas friedman, "Finally, treat yourself to a recent column on February 5, 2004 in The New York Times, by Thomas Friedman, an author on Middle East affairs, who has been critical of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. Mr. Friedman writes: "Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he’s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who’s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year—all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing." (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004). This is the first time a major presidential candidate has stated such views which, given the depth of zionist indoctrination in america, are radical and highly controversial.

On august 13th, abraham h foxman replied on the adl’s website to nader’s letter. "I was disappointed to read your letter of August 5 because it merely confirmed my concerns about your original comments, in which you characterized the Jewish State and American Jews as being "puppeteers" who control foreign policy in Congress and the Administration. Rather than allay our concerns, your letter only furthers conspiracy theories about Jews and borders on bigotry."

On august 12th, a washington post editorial compared nader's comments with the views of neo-nazi white supremacist groups. "This is poisonous stuff. And if Mr. Nader doesn't understand what such words actually mean, the less savory elements of American society certainly know how to read such code." The same comparison was made a few days later in the same paper, "After all, both play on the age-old anti-Semitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr. Nader is at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such metaphors, he sure isn't showing it." (‘Mr. Nader's Baiting’ Washington Post August 14th 2004 Page A20). Nader denounced this editorial as "shameful and unsavory".

Nader’s comments seemed to win support from arab/moslem sectors of society, "His frank criticism of US Middle East policy has certainly ruffled pro-Israeli feathers, but it has ensured Nader's continued appeal to many Arab-Americans, especially given widespread disapproval of US President George W. Bush's foreign policy, and disappointment that Senator John Kerry seems to offer few alternatives, especially with regard to Israel." (Hussein Ibish ‘Nader draws ire of pro-Israeli Americans’ Daily Star http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id
=2&article_id=7432 August 18, 2004); "Even if some progressives detest Ralph Nader's decision to run this year, pro-Palestinian advocates must admit that it is gratifying to finally hear such arguments made in the public arena - for these criticisms have been political faux-paux for far too long. And certainly Nader is right to point out that little will change regarding the US and Israel if Kerry defeats Bush in November." (Josh Frank ‘Ralph Nader as David Duke? The ADL Wants You to Think So’ August 21 / 22, 2004).

In october, nader condemned the adl for its usual trick of putting anti-semitic words in the mouths of its opponents in order to denounce them for being …. anti-semitic! The comments nader had made about the puppet-puppeteer analogy mentioned only "Israeli military policy" or "the israeli government" not jews, "My comments related to the Israeli government ­ with the fifth most powerful and second most modern military machine in the world ­ through its prime minister possessing the role of puppeteer to puppets in the White House and Congress. You distorted the comment into "Jews controlling the U.S. government." Shame on you. You know better. If you do not see the difference between those two designations, you yourself are treading on racist grounds." (Ralph Nader ‘Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing Israel is not Anti-Semitism’ http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=276 October 12, 2004). He also condemned the zionist state for "the violent Gulag that imprisons them (palestinians) in the West Bank and Gaza."

In the letter, nader launched a full frontal attack on foxman’s support for the zionist state’s vile oppression of the palestinians. "Your insensitivity here is legion. You fail to understand that your studied refusal to reflect the condemnations of Israeli military action and mayhem against civilians … contributes to the stereotypic bigotry against Palestinian Arabs and the violent Gulag that imprisons them in the West Bank and Gaza. Yours is more than the "crime of silence" so deservedly condemned in other periods of modern history when despots reigned. Indeed, you are too willing to justify any violence against innocent Palestinian children, women and men in the mounting thousands on the grounds of inadvertence and security when such casualties are either direct or foreseeable results of planned military operations. Your refusal to condemn bigoted language, cartoons, articles and statements in Israel up to the highest government levels, can be called serious insensitivity to "the other anti-Semitism." (Ralph Nader ‘Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing Israel is not Anti-Semitism’ http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=276 October 12, 2004). This was perhaps the biggest public offensive ever launched against the adl which regards any criticisms of the zionist state in palestine as being anti-semitic. But then again what else could be expected from bigots who put anti-semitic words in the mouths of their opponents in order to denounce them for anti-semitism?

In conclusion, after nader’s comments on the palestinian-zionist conflict at the national convention of the american-arab anti-discrimination committee in june 2003; his nomination from the reform party; and his june 2004 remarks about zionist puppets in congress and the white house; it is more than likely that zionists in the green party didn’t want the party to have anything more to do with him. It is entirely plausible that there were greens who were opposed to the nomination of nader as the green party’s presidential candidate a long time before nader started to express his opinions on zionism. However, it is too much of a coincidence that green zionists’ opposition to nader seemed to increase with nader’s increasing criticisms of zionism. The majority of those who opposed nader within the green party, who probably composed only a minority of green party members, were zionist greens. It has to be suspected that green zionists simply did not want nader talking publicly about zionism ­ perhaps because it would reflect badly not merely on the zionist state but on the green party. However, they did not couch their opposition to him in terms of their concerns about his criticisms of zionism. Instead, in order to dissuade the green party from endorsing him, they stressed the entirely speculative idea that he might undermine the democrats’ chances of electing john kerry.

At the green party’s 2004 national convention, most of the delegates considering whether to endorse nader, would have focused on the merits of nader’s principles, policies, and presidential strategy. But, it has to be asked, did zionist greens ask themselves an additional question: ‘Would voting for the green party’s endorsement of nader be of any benefit to the zionist state in palestine?’ Is it possible that what was critical in helping them to make up their minds about nader was that endorsing him would not be good for the zionist state in palestine? Is it possible they opposed his endorsement not because of their fear of helping the republicans to win the presidential election but because of nader’s radical views on the american-zionist relationships and the palestinian issue?

Benjamin is the founding director of Code Pink and Global Exchange - the latter has received funding from george soros, "George Soros who has funded her (Medea benjamin) Global Exchange organization in the past." (Joshua Frank ‘The Green Party Unravels From Within’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09072004.html September 7, 2004). It has been alleged that benjamin’s "support for Cobb carried a lot of weight at the Party's national convention." (Joshua Frank ‘Green House Party Gasses’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09092004.html September 9, 2004).

Ted glick continued his onslaught against nader and camejo by arguing they were campaigning to elect bush, "Peter Camejo was the first one I heard put it out, back in April: 'Kerry will do what Bush wants to do better.' In other words, Kerry and the Democrats are the greater evil, not the Republicans which, followed to its logical conclusion, means that Camejo hopes that Bush/Cheney will win re-election." (Todd Chretien ‘We Are Living in the Logical Conclusion: The "Logic" of Lesser-Evilism’ http://www.counterpunch.org/chretien09252004.html September 25 / 6, 2004).

Not surprisingly, glickman is a supporter of cobb’s safe state strategy to prevent the green party from undermining kerry’s challenge to bush, "Glickman, along with yet another East Coast refugee/attorney and PGP co-founder Blair Bobier, has been a major behind-the-scenes actor in the undemocratic nomination of David "safe states" Cobb as the Green presidential candidate. Bobier serves as Cobb's Media Director." (Michael Donnelly ‘Situational Democracy: The Show Me the Green Party?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly08272004.html August 27, 2004).

Michael donnelly recounted the story of how a green activist was persuaded to stand down against his democratic rival, darlene hooley, the incumbent congresswoman who is a centrist clinton-democrat. Mitchell t besser was the pacific green party’s (pgp) candidate for congress in oregon's fifth district until, after a meeting with darlene hooley and her chief of staff, oregon afl-cio president tim nesbitt, he retired. The pacific green party then decided not to find a replacement candidate for besser, "At any rate, Glickman's chums in the Democratic Party must be pleased. Glickman, Bobier and the others in the inner circle of the PGP agreed to "not pursue a replacement candidate."" The green party is running hardly any candidates in oregon, "The upshot is not a single incumbent Oregon Democrat member of Congress has any possibility of the PGP impacting their reelection. Add in Cobb's current polling at 0% and some might say "Mission Accomplished."" (Michael Donnelly ‘Situational Democracy: The Show Me the Green Party?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly08272004.html August 27, 2004).

Another incident concerning marnie glickman is worth highlighting. A meeting was arranged between Liz Trojan, the co-chair of the Pacific Green Party; Jeff Strang, co-chair; Teresa Keane, Oregon Green candidate for the House of Representatives; Jeff Cropp (Keane's campaign manager) and Marnie Glickman (ex-Co-Chair of the national Green Party). Cropp and Glickman decided that Keane should not fight for a seat in the house of representatives (which will be a closely contested battle between the democrats and the republicans) but should fight for a u.s. senate seat (which is a safe seat for the democrats). Liz Trojan and Jeff Strang contended that nominations can only be made at a convention but were over-ruled by Marnie Glickman. Glickman’s presence at the meeting was bizarre considering she … "had no reason to even be at the meeting, as she holds no position whatsoever with the Pacific Green Party, and did not even attend the convention where Keane was nominated." (Joshua Frank ‘The Green Party Unravels From Within’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09072004.html September 7, 2004).

Robert buzzanco has written about these experiences, "Even though the LAB conceded it had no standing to investigate me, Geiselman and an ally of his, George Reiter, a KPFT programmer and Green Party candidate for office, who considers himself a Jewish peace activist but supported this Zionist smear campaign, voted against cancelling the investigation. When I asked for time to speak and respond to these charges, a PNB member from Houston, Theresa Allen, voted that I not be allowed to talk. When I finally spoke I was interrupted by Charles Smith, a new member of the PNB, and the LAB Chair, Deb Shafto, and others tried to rebut me and cut me off during my talk." (Robert Buzzanco ‘Was This Network Worth Saving? Pacifica Caves In To Smear Campaign’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/buzzanco1003.html October 4, 2002). Reiter defended himself from buzzanco’s charge of pro-semitic bigotry, "I spoke as a Green candidate for congress at a large demonstration called by local Palestinian organizations in front of the Israeli consulate against the Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians, did several shows on the issue, described Sharon and his policies as a threat to the existence of the Israeli state in my candidates speech to the Jewish community center, and my candidacy was endorsed by the Palestinian Affairs Council." (George Reiter ‘A Defense of David Cobb’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/reiter07202004.html July 20, 2004).

Their criticisms of nader seemed quite vicious, "With a mixture of vicious Nader bashing, hyperbole, inanities and outright fabrications; David Segal, Austin King and John Eder lay out quite succinctly David Cobb's "Safe State" (non) strategy which has beached the Greens on the rocks this election year (and in the future) as firmly as hurricane season has the fleets of the Caribbean." (Michael Donnelly ‘The Nuance Comes Off’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly09142004.html September 14, 2004). At the end of october they announced, "We've issued a new report detailing how Ralph Nader has now allied himself with a dangerous, cult-like "social therapy" political group. Please spread this information! See the report at http://www.greensforimpact.com/nadercult.pdf

Greens’ strategy was even less tolerable because, by not putting any political pressure on kerry to support green issues, kerry was able to move even further to the right, further away from green policies, in order to win the votes of floating voters.

But, what made greens’ strategy even more of a political disaster, however, was that they helped to elect kerry when there is little difference between his policies and those of george bush jnr.

The green party’s strategy for the 2004 presidential elections was a disaster. It was, in effect, to sacrifice itself (and the Earth) for the benefit of john kerry who had little interest in environmental or Animal rights issues. For greens to sacrifice their party, their principles, and their policies, for another party was political suicide.

Nader was correct to argue that the green party, or any third party in a two party system, has to continually challenge the two major parties if it is to succeed. It has to stick to its principles and policies even if it faces a barrage of abuse from the main parties or if it threatens to undermine another party’s chances of electoral success. The greens have to continue fighting until the democratic party is forced, by electoral necessity, to come to an agreement with them which is mutually beneficial to both sides. It has to be suggested that if the green party/nader had continued their progress from past presidential elections then the democrats would, at the very least, have had to agree to adopt some green policies if it wanted kerry to have a chance of winning the election.

Perhaps what happened in british politics over the last twenty years is a good parallel for happened in the presidential election campaign in america. The tories, under margaret thatcher, won the 1979 general election. She did not win because she won a landslide of votes but because the third party at the time split the centre-left vote. If the two parties on the centre-left had come to some agreement before the election then they should have been able to defeat her. In the 1983 election, thatcher’s vote actually dropped in comparison to the vote she obtained in the 1979 general election but she won an even bigger majority in the commons, a landslide, because there was an even bigger and more extensive rivalry between the two centre-left parties. The same happened again in 1987 and 1992. Over these four elections, the labour party refused to come to any agreement with the third party, primarily the liberal democrats, because it believed it could win an outright majority of seats in the election. But, in each election, the centre-left’s vote split allowing the tories to keep returning to power. It was only when labour and the liberal democrats reached an agreement over how to contest the 1997 election that both labour and liberal democrats won more seats. Labour won the election and was able to form a government for the first time since 1979. The labour party had been so arrogant and bloody minded it lost four consecutive elections before it was forced to acknowledge the existence of the liberal-democrats ­ to the benefit of both! Interestingly, since being in power the labour government has demoralized many on the left and, as a consequence, the liberal democrats are expected to do well in next year’s general election. If the liberal democrats had succumbed to labour party propaganda not to split the centre-left vote, as in greens america have capitulated to the democrats, then they would not now be in the position where their anti-war stance has given them a significant boost in public opinion polls. The liberal democrats are a good example of a third party fighting for their principles and policies and eventually winning increased electoral support. They would never have got into such a good electoral position if they’d sacrificed themselves to the labour party.

Greens showed a high level of political naivety in accepting democrats’ mythology about the 2000 presidential election. They showed self-destructive folly in sacrificing their own party, and nader’s, for the sake of a kerry victory. They showed complete timidity in refusing to challenge the democrats. And they showed they were promoting policies which weren’t important enough to fight for. Greens’ fear of undermining kerry was turned into a green political nightmare.

The american public is never going to take greens seriously if it sees them sacrificing their principles and policies for tactical reasons. It is never going to believe that green issues are important if it sees greens sacrificing their policies for another party. Americans have also seen greens capitulate under a barrage of democratic propaganda so it isn’t going to think much of their political stature giving in to such pressure. They’ve seen the greens selling themselves to the democrats without getting anything in return so they’re hardly likely to regard them as being good political operators. After the green party’s capitulation to the democrats, the public is highly unlikely to take greens seriously in future presidential elections - and more importantly, they aren’t going to take green issues seriously.

If greens were serious about green issues they had to be willing to take the risk of splitting kerry’s vote and re-electing bush. If they were going to be taken seriously by the democrats and the electorate, they had to pose such an electoral threat. The greens had to try and force the democrats to acknowledge their political power and come to some agreement with them - if not in this presidential election then the next or the one after that. Politics is often a game of poker. If a third party wants to be taken seriously it has to take votes from a major party and it has to ensure this threat is taken seriously by the major party. Kerry knows the greens refuse to threaten him so he’s just ignored them and their policies. Only parties which present themselves as serious contenders are able to win the respect of the electorate.

Greens should have stuck with nader and fought all out to win as many votes as possible. If greens had stuck with nader they could have had a considerable impact on the presidential election.

David cobb commented in an email interview with joshua frank that it was difficult for nader to organize a super-rally of his supporters as he’d done, with greens, in the previous election campaign. "Oregon was the birthplace of the super rally and, as you know, Ralph drew tens of thousands of people, people paying to see him, in 2000. This year, Ralph found it pretty difficult in Oregon to get 1000 people to attend a nominating convention for him." (David Cobb quoted in Joshua Frank ‘"I Don't Have Any Goals for Votes": An Interview with David Cobb’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10042004.html October 4, 2004). Cobb didn’t seemed bothered that the green party couldn’t organize such a rally either. (It can be suggested that super rallies not merely invigorate those attending, help to boost their commitment to the green cause, they are a huge publicity stunt attracting a great deal of media attention thus reaching a wide audience which might not otherwise have been aware of that party’s credibility). What this showed was that both nader and the green party’s position in the 2004 presidential election had deteriorated from what it was four years ago. A part of the reason why nader had so many problems getting ballot access and staging super rallies was that, as will be noted, he’d been forced to spend a huge amount of time, effort, and money, in courts around the country trying to get ballot access. But, the main reason was that he didn’t have the support of green party activists. Instead of building on nader’s success, the greens deserted him and both were left far worse off than they would have been if they’d worked together.

What cobb says about nader’s decline was interesting, "I don't think this is the year for super rallies …. It's safe to say it's a different political climate than it was four years ago." What he seemed to be implying was that four years ago there were vital political events taking place which electrified large numbers of people to get involved in politics whereas in 2004 there were fewer political events of any significance to motivate normally non-political people. This seems bizarre in the extreme. Nothing of any importance has happened since the november 2000 presidential election? Except the pentagon and new york bombings, the war in afghanistan, the war in iraq, and the zionist state intensifying their state terrorism against innocent palestinians.

Contrary to cobb’s statement, the events of the last four years should have driven far more people into politics than was the case in 2000. If this was so then the reason that nader and the greens failed to build upon their joint presidential campaign in 2000, was because of greens’ refusal to support nader. Greens’ attitude seemed short sighted and self destructive since it was commonly believed that nader’s 2004 campaign could have been more successful than his previous two campaigns which would have given an even bigger boost to the green party.

If cobb’s strategy of dispensing with nader does not lead to a massive long term boost for the green party he will be seen as the biggest wrecker of alternative politics in a long while. "Cobb’s claim that he will grow the Green Party may be the biggest lie of a campaign season peppered with fabrications. Everyone knows that he will get, at most, 250,000 votes nationwide. This means Cobb will have shrunk the Green Party to 1/10 of its size in terms of votes (Nader received 2.7 million in 2000) and to less than 1/20 of its size in terms of money raised. Growth by shrinkage is a new concept in American politics, and one that Greens should reject." (Carl Mayer ‘Cobb's Cool-Aid: Why the Green Party Will Implode if the Green Party Doesn't Dump Cobb Now’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Mayer0824.htm August 24, 2004). Joshua frank was not optimistic about cobb’s prospects for success, "The Green Party and the Left have collapsed, and whether Cobb admits it or not, he's now at the helm of the sinking vessel." (Joshua Frank ‘Of Icebergs and Islands David Cobb, the Greens and the Collapse of the Left’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10092004.html October 9 / 10, 2004).

The greens’ tactic of capitulating to the democrats meant they were going to have to take responsibility for anything that kerry might do in office ­ such as serial military adventures against iran, saudi arabia, and pakistan. As carl mayer stated, "When the dust settles on November 2, Green party members should remember who worked with the Democrats to diminish America’s most vibrant third party: Cobb, LaMarche, Benjamin, Ben Manski, Marnie Glickman and Ted Glick, the supposed champion of independent politics who actually takes money from Democrats." (Carl Mayer ‘Cobb's Cool-Aid: Why the Green Party Will Implode if the Green Party Doesn't Dump Cobb Now’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Mayer0824.htm August 24, 2004).

It is important to recognize that green zionists made their decision to end the green party’s links with nader not on the basis of what is best for the green party or for nader but on what is best for the zionist state in palestine. As zionists, they decided to do everything they could to prevent the green party from giving nader a platform for talking about america’s appallingly one sided approach to the zionists’ war against defenceless palestinians and zionists’ domination over american politics. They had at all costs to protect the zionist taboos against public discussion of these issues. The influence of zionists over american politics is not confined to congress, the presidency, or the two main political parties but to the green party and just as they have manipulated the former for the benefit of the zionist state in palestine so they did the same for the latter. Without zionists in the green party, and the zionists in the media supporting their green zionist chums, it is arguable that the green party would never have severed its links with nader.

The democrats’ accusation that nader was responsible for gore losing the 2000 presidential election is just one of many hypotheses about the election. There is never going to be decisive proof about which of these hypotheses is true. There is no evidence that nader took votes from gore, "Now, I'm of the view that most people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have either not voted at all or voted for other third party candidates had he not run." (Mark Grueter ‘Just 92 Days Left: Real Time with Ralph Nader’ http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/08/just_92_
days_le.html#more August 03, 2004). But this did not matter to the democrats who have sought to remove all possible opposition to kerry in what they hoped would be a tightly fought contest, "Whether or not the Greens actually stole the election from the Democratic Party is moot - what's pertinent is that the Democratic Party believes this fantasy .." (John Ross ‘Bush May Lose, But His War Will Go On: Burying Iraq, Burying Bush (Part Two) Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 21st 2004). The greens were gullible and feeble enough to succumb to the democrats’ big lie.

It has been commonly acknowledged for many years that more jews vote for the democrats than for the republicans. It is also commonly accepted that, as a consequence, the democratic party has tended to be a bigger supporter of the zionist state in palestine than the republican party. For example, bush was never a great supporter of the zionist state in palestine and adopted the zionist outlook only after the new york and pentagon bombings. Traditionally, democrats’ foreign policy tended to be more supportive of the zionist state than republicans’ foreign policy. Gore’s choice of joe liebermann as his vice presidential candidate in the 2000 presidential election was intended to consolidate jewish support for the democratic party, reassuring them of strong support for the zionist state in palestine.

The democrats’ choice of john kerry as their 2004 presidential candidate gave an added impetus to the democrat party’s support for the zionist state in palestine. Kerry has familial and emotional ties to the zionist state which are likely to prevent him from adopting a more balanced foreign policy in the middle east than george bush. As linda s heard has stated, "If at all possible Kerry is more pro-Israel than George W. Bush and deeply aware of the issues surrounding Middle East politics. Earlier this month, Kerry’s brother Cameron, who converted to Judaism in the early 1980s, spent six days in Israel courtesy of the American Israel Education Fund, which is linked to AIPAC. Accompanying Cameron was Jay Footlik — Kerry’s campaign adviser on the Middle East and a former resident of Israel." (Linda S. Heard ‘Whether It’s Bush or Kerry, Israel’s Laughing’ Arab News http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=48986&d=27
&m=7&y=2004&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion July 27 2004).

One of the underlying reasons why kerry and bush were so similar was because they received funding from the same sources. Ralph nader asked the center for responsive politics (crp) to answer the following questions: Is Kerry in bed with large contributors from the customary hedge their bets Republican campers- how many of them and for how much? If elected, will Kerry give them the access they want due to their donations? Preliminary crp results: 50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. These are preliminary results because there are so many that it is too expensive for the Center to review the donations for final results. Maybe an independent media outlet would like to try ... We're waiting for the full story on how the Kerry campaign is funded by the Republicans who play both sides of the two party duopoly." (http://www.voteNader.org October 18th 20040).

The first manifestation that kerry was more hardline than bush in support of the zionist state in palestine, and thus more likely to support military action to boost the zionist state’s domination of the middle east, came in september 2004. "It is rather significant that the United States is now selling Israel over $300 million worth of bunker-busting bombs. They don't need those for the Palestinians," Richard Holbrooke told Bill O'Reilly on Sept. 23. O'Reilly was visibly surprised by the clear implication of this observation. Holbrooke is, after all, the leading Democratic spokesman on foreign affairs, John Kerry's presumptive secretary of state. "[But] let's realize where we are. In 1981, the Israelis attacked the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak. President [Ronald] Reagan personally criticized Israel. Today, we all recognize that Israel was 100% right to do it."" (Zev Chafets ‘Iran's nukes: Israel's on the case’ Jewish World Review http://www.jewishworldreview.com October 5th 2004).

Further evidence of kerry’s tough stance in support of the zionist state emerged at the democrats’ 2004 national party convention, when barack obama "whose staunch opposition to the Iraq war made him a hero among Democratic Party liberals" argued it might be necessary to attack iran and pakistan, "On September 24, Barack Obama - the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite - suggested "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse," he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."" (Sharon Smith ‘Democrats Target Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html October 13, 2004); "In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal." (Tom Mackaman ‘Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml October 1st 2004). Obama restated many of these ideas at the democrats’ national party convention where he was a keynote speaker. "Obama, the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, is being hailed as a "rising star" in the Democratic Party." (Tom Mackaman ‘Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml October 1st 2004).

During the first presidential debate with bush, kerry stated he would not back down over the leveling of falluja, "What I want to do is to change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off Fallujas and other places and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You've got to show you're serious." Kerry decried those who believe it is not possible for america to win in iraq, "I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning." As a consequence he has pledged to send an extra 40,000 troops to iraq.

Although many of kerry’s comments about the war in iraq sound anti-war, they were not, "Kerry's argument that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" is a sleight of hand. This is not an antiwar statement. On the contrary, it is an argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the "real" war on terrorism - in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere." (Sharon Smith ‘Democrats Target Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html October 13, 2004). This is why kerry promised to "double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world." According to sean donahue, "Starting in the early 1960's, the U.S. began using Special Forces to train foreign militaries and paramilitary organizations to carry out "dirty" operations - military actions like torture and assassination that the U.S. military didn't want to be directly implicated in. Central to the doctrine of Special Warfare is the concept that in fighting a barbaric enemy, it was necessary to "fight fire with fire" by adopting tactics as extreme as those of the enemy. Kerry's words indicate that he is prepared to launch an expanded, global counter-insurgency war against "terrorists," modeled on the covert wars the U.S. waged in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and Afghanistan during the Cold War." (Sean Donahue ‘Outsourcing Terror? John Kerry and the US Special Forces’ http://counterpunch.org/donahue10042004.html October 4, 2004).

Kerry also became a supporter of pre-emptive war and even pretended the doctrine had a long american tradition - seemingly forgetting about decades of MAD. "During the first presidential debate, Kerry appeared eager to stress his willingness to "go it alone" when asked his opinion about "pre-emptive war." "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike," declared Kerry, adding, "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War." This comment will have shocked those who recall the decades-long standoff between the U.S. and former USSR quite differently--as a period when a "first strike" by either side could easily have led to "mutual assured destruction." "Pre-emptive war" is the centerpiece of the Bush Doctrine, announced to the world after September 11." (Sharon Smith ‘Democrats Target Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html October 13, 2004).

Kerry was willing go to war to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons ­ like those owned by the zionist state in palestine.

The first person in print to point out kerry’s hardening stance was william safire, "As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator Kerry's edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy sea change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President Bush. His abandoned antiwar supporters celebrate the Kerry personality makeover. They shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany." (William Safire ‘America's newest neocon’ http://www.iht.com/articles/541895.htm October 5, 2004).

Justin raimondo was quick to confirm safire’s analysis, "The idea that John Kerry is some kind of peacenik, who will get us out of Iraq and drive the neocons out of the Temple of Democracy, is a myth that will die a hard death, but die it must." (Justin Raimondo ‘Kerry, the Hawk’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3713 October 6, 2004).

Raimondo highlighted some of kerry’s last political advertisements, "Safire, of course, is absolutely right about the hawkish bona fides of the Democratic nominee, and, if more proof were needed, the Kerry camp promptly provided it in a disgusting series of new ads linking those damn Ay-rabs. If warmongering hysteria works, then the Democrats are more than eager to try it: anything to capture the White House. And you'd better believe that behind this display of Saudi-bashing is the implicit threat of war." (Justin Raimondo ‘Kerry, the Hawk’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3713 October 6, 2004).

In the october 6th vice presidential debate, senator edwards called iran the biggest source of terrorism in the world implying that kerry would take america to war against iran. Edwards had no sympathy whatsoever for the palestinians, "during the vice- presidential debate, Mr Edwards was asked: "What would your administration do to try to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" Mr Edwards said: "First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves. What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists?" In a week in which Israel launched its bloodiest incursion into Gaza in four years, he did not mention Palestine once." (Gary Younge ‘Under siege since 9/11, Arab voters shift to Kerry’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1328800,00.html October 16, 2004).

This statement angered many american-arabs/moslems. It seemed an electoral mistake given that many of them voted for bush in the 2004 presidential election campaign and had become disillusioned with him in office. It seemed even more of a mistake given that there were major clusters of american arabs/moslems in the swing states that kerry needed to win the presidency, "Muslim groups say they are a key vote in the battleground states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin." (Teresa Watanabe ‘Citing Civil Rights Worries’ Times late October 2004).

Juan cole suggested there were about 7 million self-identified Jews in the US. "A majority of American Jews is closer to the liberal "Americans for Peace Now" than to AIPAC, the American Jewish Congress, and other such rightwing single-issue advocacy groups." He estimated "probably only 10 percent or so" were neoconservative and that "no more than 2 million or so are self-conscious about (being arab-americans). And, "there are probably on the order of 3 million Muslim Americans, only a minority of which are Arab-Americans." He concluded, "With just a slight change in rhetoric, Kerry and Edwards could probably avoid alienating most of these Arab Americans and Muslim Americans, and could at the same time get the vast majority of the Jewish vote. They'd be trading a small number of pro-Likud voters for hundreds of thousands of Arab- and Muslim-American voters." (Juan Cole ‘Arab-American Swing Vote Up for Grabs’ http://www.juancole.com/ October 16th 2004).

And yet kerry refused to make the necessary political adjustment. He "failed to meet with the Muslim coalition or to promise anything in return for its support." (Teresa Watanabe ‘Citing Civil Rights Worries’ Times late October 2004). Perhaps one of the reasons kerry didn’t bother to meet such a large electoral group or promise to pursue policies they supported was because, "A national coalition of American Islamic organizations endorsed Sen. John F. Kerry for president Thursday, saying he would better restore the civil liberties many Muslims believed had been lost under the homeland security measures adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks." (Teresa Watanabe ‘Citing Civil Rights Worries’ Times late October 2004). In other words, just like the green party, arab/moslem americans sacrificed themselves to kerry so he didn’t have to bother about them.

Kerry’s warmongering went well beyond the point where it could be deemed to be merely spin designed to reassure floating voters that he would make a reliable commander in chief ensuring their safety against terrorist threats.

The main differences between kerry and bush were on the domestic scene but there were few on the more critical issue of american foreign policy. Kerry’s zionist zeal was more than likely to lead him into wars against iran and syria. On this crucial issue, kerry was worse than bush. Kerry’s liberalism on the domestic scene should not disguise the terrible consequences his zionist zeal would have on the middle east and, as a consequence, america itself.