An editorial in the WaPost this morning rips Nader's policies without any backup. Check the following hawk sequence:
Asked whether the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein, Mr. Nader rejected the premise of the question -- he said the problem of Saddam Hussein should have been resolved after the first Gulf War -- but then went on, disturbingly, to suggest that they are not, citing postwar problems with food, electricity and security.
Why is it disburbing to suggest that Iraqis are not better off now than when Saddam was in power? You'd have to have your head stuck in a hole - or buried in The Washington Times - to think that Iraq is as rosy a place as the Bush Administration paints it to be. Take the following except from a recent New York Times article on the state of hospitals in Iraq - post-Saddam Iraq, that is:
At Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Children, gallons of raw sewage wash across the floors. The drinking water is contaminated. According to doctors, 80 percent of patients leave with infections they did not have when they ... Doctors say they have been beaten up in the emergency room. Blood is...
Ummm....yeah, you get the idea of how wonderful post-Saddam Iraq is.