MORE REASONS TO VOTE FOR NADER? NINE DEMOCRATS POINT THE WAY

Here's a number that offers telling reasons for voting for Ralph Nader in
the fall. Nine Democrats. Not even double digits. Last week, the U.S. Senate
finally voted $934 million to wage war in Colombia. The House voted earlier
this year to provide $1.7 billion in anti-narcotics aid for Colombia over a
two-year period. The Senate bill only covers the first year. So where does
the "nine Democrats" number figure in this picture? The sum total of
puissant legislators who voted for Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone's
amendment, which would have taken $225 million from the $934 million and
spent it instead on domestic drug treatment programs, consisted of nine
Democrats and two Republicans. Here they are: Boxer, D-Calif. (co-sponsor);
Grams, R-Minn.; (Patty) Murray, D-Wash.; Byrd, D-W.Va.; Harkin, D-Iowa;
Specter, R-Pa.; Dorgan, D-N.D.; Leahy, D-Vt.; Wellstone, D-Minn.; Feingold,
D-Wis.; Mikulski, D-Md.

Notice how closely the numbers mimic the few co-sponsors of Feingold's bill
to slap a moratorium on the federal death penalty. And where were those
supposed liberals like Kennedy, Kerry, Bayh, Feinstein, Schumer, Torricelli,
Levin or Sarbanes? If this is how they behave in opposition, why do we need
the Democrats to recapture Congress?

Here's another number: 19. That's the number of senators who voted in favor
of Washington Republican Slade Gorton's amendment slashing the Colombia
package from nearly $1 billion down to $200 million in order to pay down the
national debt: Gorton, Murray, Allard, R-Colo.; Kohl, D-Wis.; Boxer,
D-Calif.; Gramm, R-Texas; Leahy, D-Vt.; Collins, R-Maine; Grams, R-Minn.;
Mikulski, D-Md.; Craig, R-Idaho; Gregg, R-N.H.; Crapo, R-Idaho; Harkin,
D-Iowa; Specter, R-Pa.; Enzi, R-Wyo.; Hutchinson, R-Ark.; Thomas, R-Wyo.;
Fitzgerald, R-Ill.

So, here we have the alliance against folly in Colombia, cemented between
Republican fiscal conservatives and the radical Democratic faction. If you
toss in Feingold and Wellstone, who didn't vote for Gorton's amendment, we
reach a grand total of 21 senators unpersuaded by the administration's
arguments that the way to win the war on drugs here is to throw money into
the bank accounts of Colombian military officers and Pentagon contractors.

The administration is fighting a counterinsurgency war under the pretext of
drug interdiction, as George W. Bush accurately notes. What of the dreaded
"narco-guerrillas"? As the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington
sensibly pointed out last week, "The FARC, founded by Marxist guerrillas
decades before the emergence of cocaine production in Colombia, imposes
taxes on drug lords and coca farmers to fund their multimillion-dollar
military operations; its militants are rarely involved in the actual
cultivation and trafficking of drugs.

"In fact, the right-wing paramilitary, which both the Colombian and U.S.
governments acknowledge is responsible for 78 percent of the nation's human
rights violations, is known to be far more deeply involved in
narco-trafficking than their leftist counterparts. While the U.S. aid
package will undoubtedly reduce drug production, the paramilitary groups'
deep ties to the Colombian armed forces and large-scale dependence on the
drug trade will invariably lead to selective eradication efforts."

But all this commotion over the Senate vote obscures the fact that the
United States is already waging a major bio-war in Colombia, evoking the
bio-war waged with Agent Orange against Vietnam 35 years ago. The Colombian
national police force is already busy spraying from the air, with the
financial backing of the United States, Colombia is getting $330 million
during this year and the next, irrespective of the new Senate legislation.
As in Vietnam, aerial spraying has indiscriminately doused people, fields
and livestock with poison. International observers say that the toxic
effects of this spraying have destroyed vegetable crops and fruit orchards
and contaminated streams and lakes, killing fish and farm animals. Several
children have reportedly died after being doused by the spraying. Thus far,
the hardy coca plant has been resistant to these poisons, flourishing in
contaminated soil.

McCaffrey's triumph could be to wipe out all agriculture other than
coca-growing. His next stroke (disclosed in the latest edition of
CounterPunch, the newsletter I co-edit) is to launch a fungus developed by
U.S. bio-warriors, designed to attack the coca plant and opium poppy. This
fungus will, so to speak, jump the tracks and further devastate Colombian
crops. Meanwhile, if conditions in Colombia prove too arduous, the drug
lords will simply shift operations to Ecuador or Peru, just as they shifted
from Bolivia to Colombia.

Back to the halls of Congress, and yet another number for you. In a 363-56
vote, representatives of we-the-people defeated a motion that would have
withdrawn the approval of Congress from the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization. Under the 1994 laws authorizing U.S. entry in the WTO,
the administration has to submit a report on the costs and benefits of
membership. After the report is filed, any member of Congress can sponsor a
resolution to withdraw from WTO.

Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian Republican, duly did so, arguing that U.S.
entry in the WTO is illegal and unconstitutional. Paul said, "It is the U.S.
Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else."
As with the Senate resolution on Colombia put forward by Gorton, Paul and
such Republican legislators as Bob Barr of Georgia formed common cause with
anti-WTO radical Democrats.

So there's the math for you. A bipartisan coalition of about 30 senators and
56 representatives can be relied upon to do the right thing on big-ticket
items like wars abroad and the WTO. Against them are ranged the massed
legislators of the Permanent Government, which is presently exerting itself
mightily to keep Ralph Nader out of any debating venue for presidential
candidates where he might have an opportunity to lay out these realities.