Kucinich- Dems promise to end war "TOTAL FRAUD"

http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/11/dennis-kucinich-blasts-democratic-leadership-says.html
Dennis Kucinich blasts Democratic leadership, says the vow from his party's leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a "total fraud"
By Nashua Telegraph | Kucinich

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said Wednesday the vow from his party's leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a "total fraud."

The Ohio congressman said the most recent House-passed plan to set a timetable for ending the war still would permit permanent bases in Iraq and allow Americans soldiers to train Iraqi military and police and to fight off insurgents.

"This is a fraud, a total fraud, and it breaks the promise the Democrats made to the voters that we would get out of Iraq," Kucinich said of his own party's congressional leadership during an interview Wednesday.

"They want to be on all sides of the issue. Instead of getting out of Iraq, we are getting in deeper," Kucinich said.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow

fraud

...but he's certainly one of the GOOD Congress Critters. :shrug:

hes right. have we not gotten deeper into this Iraq mess?

Non-binding of course.

... but "fraud" is close enough - and far more accurate than 'principled' or 'courageous' or even 'moderate.' I'll never understand how selling out on core values can be called 'moderate.' There's a time when compromising is synonymous with 'corrupt' and it has to do with core values and baseline principles.

Every day we continue to occupy Iraq is itself a war crime. Every day. We are in continuous violation of the Geneva Conventions and, in so doing, violating our own Constitution. There is absolutely NO COMPROMISE on this - it's every bit the equivalent of an overthrow of our constitutional democratic republic. Regaining it will only cost more and more in lives and suffering as each day goes by.

Our children and grandchildren should piss on our graves.

to breathe on this Planet..

Not only is this a war of aggression, it is clearly a genocide.

I have yet to even hear these words uttered by any pundit.

They will see us as the hypnotized, complacent, silent, sleepwalkers, who stood by and made excuses or, at best, wrung our hands, while the horror was happening before our eyes.

And, we will say, "We didn't know."

We're a nation of cowards and outlaws as long as we put up with the crimes of OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

but thats such a stretch it almost made my eyes bleed reading it

while the "good Americans" dutifully shop, gossip about Brittany Spears, and watch insipid sitcoms on TV.

I'm beginning to think the people of this country are even MORE ignorant
and arrogant than I previously thought.

You KNOW we are in deep shit when even democrats
are "buying" and supporting the MSM backed so called
"democrats."

Just look at the fucking abundance of ignorance on
this thread about DK- our only hope of saving the two party system.
revoking the Patriot Act and the powers of war act, upholding the constitution
and rule of law... ISN'T THAT what is at stake here?
How the fuck can ANYone buy the corpora-crat shit when THESE
are what we stand to lose?

I could swear, some of the posters on this thread
could be Fox news talking head bimbos and Ken dolls
with their MSM "DK is not electable bullshit propaganda.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
BHN

Agree 100%!

All Congress has to do to end the war is to stop funding it.

To stop it quicker, they could pass a resolution to rescind *'s Iraq war authorization.

Both actions would be veto-proof.

:yourock:

Wouldn't it be nice to have a President that tells the truth?

Empire is the opposite of democratic republic.

Always tells the truth as he sees it. You have to admire that, even if you disagree.

get to be President, but I'd like to see him as Speaker of the House (at least for a while.) He'd clean out the stables.

try to be positive. After all, no votes have been counted. If not, you've alread convinced yourself.

is all end?

:bounce:

The leadership is a bunch of mealy-mouthed liars.

DCCC and DSCC keep calling for money, and I keep telling them that ALL my donations are going to Kucinich!

--of course by not following through it is fraud. This is a life and death issue---not playing politics!!
Dennis Kucinich is not playing a game, and I respect him for truly standing up for our soldiers. Our soldiers have been overextended, abused, neglected and hidden away ---not supported, not respected, and not given a place to heal in society. This is not only fraud, it is a crime, (added to all the others).

...hairsplitter...:eyes:

However, setting deadlines in the latest funding bill is means to an end. We do have to put up more of a fight and not cave on spending this time around. Dennis needs to pay more attention to being both "smart" and honest.

Troop increases are an increase in momentum, not a change in direction.

Your distinction is an exercise in pettifoggery. The Democrats didn't capture both houses by convincing people that they would pass strong nonbinding suggestions to the baby in chief attached to billions more to be spent on failed policy. This crap is only a means to the end of public trust in the Democratic party.

The "fraud" charge is Dennis's to prove as he made that comment. I'd like HIM to provide specifics on what Democrats did to "de-fraud" voters.

The greatest problem we have in the Dem Party is politicians who don't understand that the smartest thing they can do is just tell the damned truth, rather than holding a wet finger to the wind *all the time*!

They don't get any smarter than Dennis Kucinich.

speaking.

I'm disappointed with our Party leadership as well, but if I were running for President, I'd want to see MORE Democrats elected not LESS, you?

corrupt ones like HRC.

eom

Namely, the Democratic strategy of "let ourselves be pushed around by a chimp with a 25% approval rating, and hope Americans still like republicans less at the end of the day". This cowardly inaction is really dangerous for our country, and has its own electoral risks as well.

I can't speak for Kucinich with any authority, but I'll tell you that I do want to see more Democrats elected. I just don't want to see their cowardice and complicity validated in the same stroke.

Perhaps Kucinich is hoping to prevent that from happening by characterizing the current behavior harshly.

for example, I liked what you had to say. If Dennis had said "why is our leadership allowing a failed President with a 25% approval rating to push us around" I'd applaud him. I applaud what he says much of the time, but then he says something like this and I realize why he said above, I realize why he's in the bottom tier.

The SINGLE LARGEST ISSUE in 2006 was the continuing occupation of Iraq. EVERY poll and EVERY stump speech attacked the GOP on this issue. EVERY one!

Is THIS how revisionist history is created? By DENYING something so obvious?

Yikes! :crazy:

I realize that our approval rating sucks, with good reason. However, I also realize that suggesting "fraud" was perpetrated on the voters by "the Democratic Party" is both asinine and dishonest. In order to claim "fraud" one would have to point me to a specific claim made by who ever the hell Dennis is talking about, and share with me how that claim was deliberately not carried out.

I too am frustrated, but I know that we are between a rock and a hard place. And so does Mr. Kucinich, if he's a smart as some here claim he is.

Light Up Black Friday!

:woohoo:

elected.

Dennis is going overboard here. I am looking for a real solution to getting out of there.

Biden's plan has merit. Dennis Kucinich's plan has "applause lines".

For Kucinich to call his fellow Democrats a fraud without taking the complexities of the situation into account is simplistic and opportunistic.

There is plenty wrong in staying in Iraq to "train Iraqi military and police."

It is not our country. We should not be there.

As long as we stay, we will just make the situation worse.

we don't let the Iraqi forces do anything without express permission and our officers in charge.

You think that will change if we are there "training" them? What's the incentive when we can continue occupying with permanent bases while hunting the phantom "Al-Qaeda" that work for us?

Dennis is right in calling this fraud- it's not even a change of direction...just less of our troops and more puppets.

Dennis has the ONLY plan to get us out and get the UN and other residents of the area involved. Centrists dems are as much involved as Bush in trying to get the Profit Sharing Agreements (PSAs) for Iraq's oil by remaining involved in Iraq's politics with permanent bases and so called training of Police and troops. If after 5yrs the police aren't "trained" they never will be. What the US training of Police means is ending police corruption...meddling...in their enforcement issues...with more troops to come when things don't go right. Dennis' plan would get us the hell out within 3mos. Congressional dems are putting a timeline on what would have to happen anyway in '09 because of the military not being able to sustain its presence and because of a new democratic president.

Centrist dems have stalled ending this occupation and will continue to do so till we get a new president. It is a fraud to suggest they are doing anything meaningful or they would give no funding except for immediate withdrawal for which Bush has not felt pressured enough to even have the pentagon "draw up a plan".

Bush thinks he can just tell the American public that withdrawal means surrendering to the terrorists and then we will support another $50billion here and $200billion there from Congress. Dems in Congress think they can get away with a slow (like over the next 10-20 yrs. leaving troops behind to train and keep the peace from a permanent green zone and permanent military bases) but not complete troop withdrawal. Keeps the war profiteers happy...at least till they can figure a way to attack Iran and steal their oil with PSAs. It is a fraud.

Psst, it's "production sharing agreements"

He should have been aware of that for about 5 years now.

:eyes:

Want to "train" them??? Well, then give them scholarships to our military schools. We've got the School of the Americas in Georgia ... and how's THAT worked out? Why can't they train themselves?? It's NOT like they have no experience with police and military in their extensive history!! How about training in Arab-speaking nations??

What a fuckin' INSANE notion that the U.S. is there to "help them". Bullshit.

hunky dorey? It'll happen about the same time as the Iraqi police and army are trained.

if, by "everything's hunky dory", we mean "everyone's dead".

oh yes, Vietnam

Sorry, I need to chuckle here

Or are you willng to go out there and carry out the white man's burden too?

The people in that region were one of the first civilizations in the world, long before America was - a-hem - "discovered", as though there weren't millions of Natives living here already. Yet for some inflatable reason some people seem to think we HAVE to "teach" them how to govern and protect themselves. And people wonder why we're looked upon as being self-righteous and arrogant. Go finger.

huh?

That makes the Democratic leadership into a fraud?

saddam hussein had the waring factions of iraq under control, and they had one of the most educated, secular supporting societies in the region. growth towards human rights can only happen if a society is educated.

it wasn't perfect, by far, but the economy was functioning well, until our sanctions, the shiite and sunni factions were not allowed to destroy each other, and sharia law was not permitted. (if we were going to get up-in-arms about human rights violations, there are a LOT worse situiations we could have championed.)

other than the pie-in-the-sky red-herring of a homegrown elected democracy (of western definition), saddam was the best thing going for keeping the cap on the generations of cultural grievances.

EVERYONE now knows saddam had NO weapons of mass destruction, that it was all lies. practically everything that came out of the mouths of any member of the bush administration was lies.

the three main reasons for doing what we did are oil, israel and pnac.

oil, because american corporations want to achieve short term riches, so we invade and take, rather than develop alternatives.

israel, because any reduction of power of iraq or iran as a regional power is a defacto benefit to israel, which enables them to continue to refuse to EVER give back the land they stole from the palestinians in the 67 war (who should be forced by the united nations to return to the boundaries drawn BY the united nations).

and little lord pissypants' need for validaton by advancing the aims of the pnacers (which dovetails nicely into the first two reasons).

everything else is lies, thrown up to justify the blatant act of aggression by the world's only super power on one of the world's weakest nations that was the LEAST able to defend itself. (with afghanistan being one of the few that was even weaker...)

saddam kept the lid on.

we blew it off, and are now trying everything in our power to save face for this american atrocity.

basically quite simple.

maybe afghanistan was cupable in the allowing of training on their soil, but saudia arabia, origin of 15 of the 19 hijackers, has gotten off scott free, on all levels. they are still reaping huge financial benefits doing business with those they tried to destroy.

(never mind the fact the WE overthrew the government of iran for our benefit, got our asses kicked out, with americans held hostage, then WE supplied almost all the weapons to the region when iraq was the good guy fighting iran, when WE encouraged iraqis to rise on their own and we would support them, BUT DIDN'T, that OUR corporations assisted in slant drilling in kuwait, then telling saddam that we would look the other direction if iraq invaded kuwait, then boldly declaring our support for kuwait, thereby creating the whole "invasion of kuwait" crisis, launching the gulf war, PURPOSELY stopping short of complete control, because of the complexities involved of controlling a culture so foreign to our own, yet returning years later to do what we knew could not be done, while parroting platitudes of it being over in weeks, being welcomed as liberators, being pelted with flowers...BECAUSE of wmds, gonna bomb america, blah blah blah)

but no one really cares about the truth. certainly not our own politicians.

The sanction/no-fly-zone/whatever policy was a riduculous carry over from Colin Powell and Old Bush's 1991 war to reestablish Kuwait. It was in the process of collapsing. Bush inherited a situation where Iraq was going to reestablish itself in the world of petro-commerce. The neocons could not have that.

So, little lord pissypants had a "bad" hand in the poker game of petropolitics. We will never know if President Cheney would have been successful if they had listened to General Shinseki and sent in 300,000 soldiers to depose Saddam and reestablish a government.

I think another factor was that Saddam was linked to "terrorists" who gave a cross look at Israel, so that interest group wanted Saddam's head on a post.

(Not to take anything away from your post. )

Fully agree.

Go Kooch! :sarcasm:

Timeline Smineline, just keep giving us the billions and call it what you want...it still won't get done. Bush will leave 200,000 troops to "train" Iraqi police with 20,000 more to protect the 200,000. Stretch it all the way till just before the election of a democratic president...then Bush attacks Iran making it impossible for a dem to pull out of the area...just like he promised.
Dennis is cog in the republican/centrist go along dems machine.

are what frightens Republicans.

as though what the neo-cons are doing isn't extreme.

Dennis doesn't frighten the powers that be because they can control the message.

Dennis doesn't have to "waffle" and play any one's side because he tells the truth. Unfortunately that's the last thing the state wants anyone to hear. So he'll be marginalized, ignored and ridiculed, especially when he's not there to defend himself.

He's doing the best he can with what he has. Like Ron Paul he knows the MSM and power elites will do everything they can to deny him an equal and proper forum, so he's plowing the grass-roots approach.

Will it work? It's a long shot. But stranger things have happened.

I do however know this, if a miracle should happen and DK become the next POTUS, he better have some damn good security.

But, it's no mystery to me why he remains in the bottom tier on the list of candidates. The "problem" is not the media, it's Mr. Kucinich. When he realizes that, perhaps he'll have an actual shot at the Oval Office.

Neither Webb, nor Hillary, Nor Obama or any of the other wanna bees exclusive of Kucinich are "Centrist". Rather they are right leaning and virtually indistinguishable from their Republican counterparts on the bulk of all issues facing America. Don't be fooled just because they threw the public a "bone" in the increase to the minimum wage.

Kucinich's positions are exactly where 70% of this country is at (if you don't include the top 1% crowd). There are any number of polls that have been referred to as "blind taste tests" on the candidates, that prove this to be fact.

So, whatever your personal problem is with Kucinich, or if you are just here as an indiscriminate disruptor, you should at least get your facts straight. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :woohoo:

Provide JUST ONE example of a Republican who's voting record rivals Clintons on every issue sans foreign policy. ONE.

Dennis needs to examine "Dennis" and not "the media" if he's going to get anywhere on his multiple attempts at the Presidency.

Welcome :hi:

"Sans Foreign Policy?" Please, I guess Foreign Policy is not important? Ok how about comparing Clinton to Republicans in War Funding, or how about comparing her to Republicans on voting for loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping (she votes YES along with her Repug counterparts), or maybe you prefer to compare her voting record on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (again she voted YES along with her Repug counterparts), or wait...how about her voting record on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act (she voted YES along with her Republican counterparts...oh, and by the way...John Edwards, put him down as co-author of the Patriot Act), or maybe we could compare her vote to name Iranian Guard a terrorist organization (once again along with her Repug counterparts).

I know you said JUST ONE example, but there are so very many examples and I have really only touched the surface with these.

So, you can choose to say to me "My Rear", but the facts do seem to back me up in my assertion.

The answer to the problem is clearly a no-brainer.... it's simply "Nobody but Kucinich in 08".

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

where her votes might be likened to a sitting Republican, and I still think you'd be hard pressed considering her 'ratings' by various interest groups.

Clinton's ratings on - National Security Issues

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Center for Security Policy 32 percent in 2005-2006.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Security Council 20 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Center for Security Policy 28 percent in 2003-2004.

2002 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Security Council 50 percent in 2002.

1998-2002 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Center for Security Policy 56 percent in 1998-2002.

Examine Hillary Clinton's overall voting record. She is a strong supporter of a womens right to chose, animal rights, tax fairness, civil liberties, education, the environment, labor/workers rights, science/health, veterans issues, poverty, womens rights, etc...

See here > http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

Dennis Kucinich had a record on choice that rivaled conservatives until he decided to run for President. Shall we ignore that or hold him "accountable?"

2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 10 percent in 2001.

2000 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.

1999-2002 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 14 percent in 1999-2002.

1999-2000 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 95 percent in 1999-2000.

Dennis talks about "being right the first time" but that doesn't count issues he chooses not to mention, apparently?

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/candidate-record-kucinich.pdf

BHN

his mind on that issue.

and he came out on the right side of the argument, but if changing his mind on abortion is the best mud you can sling at Kucinich I'd say he's in a pretty damn good position on the issues.

Now as for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Webb or any of the other DLC Democrats, you cannot look at their records and call them "Centrist", at least not with a straight face anyway. They are all Right leaning and only thinly distinguishable from their Republican counterparts.

I see no sense in justifying your centrist comment by insisting we Compare her votes only on those issues where she differs from Republicans, and ignore the many positions where she is in lock step with them. You even chose to completely brush off the other "non-foreign policy" positions I pointed out as if I had not even raised them.

I have no problem with your supporting Hillary if that is your chosen candidate. What I do have a problem with is a misrepresentation of her position and of her politics in a venue where folks might read it and attach some credence to it. Hillary is clearly NOT a "Centrist", she is a Conservative DLC Democrat, and as such she is in step with the neo-con Republican agenda, and effectively to the Right of 70% of this Nation.

For 70% of the Nation, Kucinich IS the "Centrist" candidate, and all the other Democratic wannabees, exclusive of Gravel, are to the right of his Centrist positions, and pretty much fall into the Republican camp of ideals.

The facts, the candidate voting records and the declared positions of hundreds of thousands of Americans in these blind-taste-test candidate polls clearly support my assertion that Kucinich is the "Centrist" candidate for an overwhelming majority of Americans, and the other Democratic candidates fall clearly to the right of that vast majority.

If you can look at the Hillary campaign, and declare her positions to be centrist to you, then you are clearly not amongst the 70% of average Americans in your ideals. If you overlook Hillary's positions and stances on issues such as Foreign Policy, the Patriot Act, Trade Agreements, the Bankruptcy Bill, etc. where she is in lock-step with the Republican agenda so that you can call her "Centrist", then what value is there in your claim ? As Bill Maher once said "Why buy the Raisin Bran if you're going to pick out all the raisins".

I proudly support Kucinich because he actually does represent the vast majority of Americans on virtually all the issues, and that is because he actually "listens" to his base of constituents as a legislator should. I don't want another Republican in the White House, but I also do not want a DLC Republican-Lite candidate in the White House to the same degree. If we go that route we will only garner more of the same that we have right now, and may prove the end of our Democracy.

For me, I desire change....REAL change...and as such, I support that little guy from Ohio's 10th district.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :applause:

four votes you don't like is absurd and I intend to point that out. Further, this thread is not about Hillary Clinton and I'm not going to discuss her going forward.

As for Dennis there is more I could critique, but I'm not participating here to slam him on his record. I don't require perfection in my Presidential candidate(s) or fellow human beings. What I do ask for is thoughtful/honest commentary by those running for office, and his comments above are neither.

Provide the quote by the Democrat or Democrats who "promised to end the war" and Dennis will have a point. All this other mumbo jumbo is simply an attempt at distraction and I'm not going to go "there" again.

The pretense that a 'moderate' approach (gee ... surge only 10,000 troops? kill only 500,000 Iraqis?) even EXISTS is sheer nonsense. There's NOTHING 'moderate' about being HALF-CORRUPT or murdering fewer people. Nothing. There's NOTHING moderate about Ben Nelson, for example. I don't give a damn what party label he uses.

This fiction of being 'moderate' ignores the question of right and wrong, justice and injustice! Is it more 'moderate' to commute Scooter Libby's sentence?? After all, that WOULD be the claim according to the Fecal Fuhrer since only an extremist would argue to either (1) imprison him for 10+ years or (2) give him a Medal of Freedom.

That there's some better 'moderate' position between TORTURE and NO TORTURE, for example, is complete and utter nonsense ... a refuge of those who just don't want to think. The argument of 'moderation' is what turned people's backs on the Nazi regime so they could have "Peace in our time."

Would Ted Bundy be better (and moderate) if he'd only killed 17 women instead of 34? No. The claim of 'moderation' is sheer mental sloth, imho.

In school, a 'moderate' is called 'C' where the 'extremes' are called 'A' and 'F.' It NEVER makes a 'C' the best grade. Never.

on the world - period. When you hear people HERE use the word "fraud" to describe why they won't "plug their nose" in 2008, remember where you heard it.

As for the diatribe on the word "moderate" it does not pertain to my comments on Mr. Kucinich. Jim Webb has positions on the matters you note above, feel free research his position on torture for starters.

... an honest repudiation of the gross errors made by "Appeasement Democrats" that please the Fascist Right. The FACT that Kucinich was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and so many of the other candidates voted out of political cowardice or abject ignorance on the KEY ISSUES of the last 6 years is what irritates "Democrats." So, the only thing the fan clubs for other candidates can do is sneer and raise completely MYTHICAL claims pf "unelectable" and "radical" and "extreme" ... and it's TOTAL hogwash. It's SOUR GRAPES.

From a purely logical point of view, it's a tangle of Circular Reasoning. (1) It's claimed that a position is 'wrong' or 'immoderate' because it's coming from Kucinich and NOT from "my candidate." (2) Because he's 'wrong' or 'immoderate' then his positions must be 'wrong'.

It's the one-two fallacy fling of 'ad hominem' and 'poison the well' ... and completely contradicted by the record: Kucinich was CORRECT on every key vote. Every. Key. Vote.

It's totally laughable to pretend that we'd NOT be in far better shape if every Democrat (and a few Republicans) had voted the same as Kucinich over the last 6 years! There is NO OTHER DEMOCRAT (not even Feingold) about which that can be BETTER said! None!

Now, the Kooch-bashers the run to another fallacious posture and say "See? It shows he's not 'leading'!" No, it really doesn't. What it shows is that he wasn't bought off as much as others!! It seems that corporate money can buy off a LOT of folks who might otherwise FOLLOW.


What really puzzles me is why every liberal Democrat hasn't DEMANDED candidates with track records as good as Kucinich. Astonishing.

Dennis is FARTING in the Cathedral of the Democratic Party Establishment by pointing out that the clergy are MOLESTING the children!!!! Horror of horrors!! Heretic!! All the bead-rolling, tithing, eucharist-gulping idiots are horrified. I mean... our clergy are sooo nice-looking. Tall, too!

Yeah. Riiight. :eyes:

It's like I've been watching a fuckin' PARADE of Naked Emperors, both big and small!! (Poor mouthy kids!)

2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

Apparently many "progressives" don't mind Dennis's (pre-Presidential candidate) position on returning to back alley abortions?

Dennis is doing nothing more than using the base to raise money, while hurting our chances to really effect change with a new President. He's castigating the entire Party without naming names, or providing specifics. It's cowardly. If he has an issue with any statements made by Pelosi or Reid, then he needs to name the statement, and call out the perpetrator of the supposed fraud.

Who made this promise: "This is a fraud, a total fraud, and it breaks the promise the Democrats made to the voters that we would get out of Iraq," Kucinich said of his own party's congressional leadership during an interview Wednesday.

I want the quote(s) of the Democrat(s) that "promised" voters we would "get out of Iraq" if they were elected.

As a Minnesotan, I supported Paul Wellstone in every election he set out to win. I worked on the Mondale campaign as well. I am a liberal and am not opposed to a strong liberal voice, I am simply opposed an ignorant one.

San Francisco Chronicle Dec 6, 2006

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told cheering supporters Saturday that Democrats would move the nation in "a new direction ... for all Americans, not just the chosen few," and pledged an ambitious agenda on subjects ranging from House ethics to foreign policy.

Speaking in San Francisco the day after adjournment of the Republican-controlled 2005-06 Congress, Pelosi declared -- as she had throughout her party's successful November election campaign -- that "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq."

And, Democrats are working on legislation that does just that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071108/us-iraq/

The majority of Americans didn't do that. When they heard Pelosi et al pledge to stop the war in Iraq, they took that at face value and voted for them. You may not see what's happened since as a breach of that pledge, but many do.

One someone with Dennis's experience should be able to make.

It's a clever interpretation intended to deflect criticism, that's all. Cling to it if you like, but the majority of Americans who voted for the Dems in '06 didn't have the same understanding, and watching the Dems roll over on the matter of Iraq since then hasn't brought them to better understanding.

edit: subject line

Americans were disgusted with Republicans on several major issues. I haven't seen one poll that indicates Democrats won because they "promised to end the war."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6126176.stm

In fact, Pelosi made it clear that we have "limited" ability to force a change in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/politics/main2143962.shtml

Still, the strategic course of the war is set by the president. Congress has little leverage to force the president to change course. Mr. Bush sent Congress a signal on Wednesday when he announced he would replace Secretary of State Donald H. Rumsfeld. The change, Mr. Bush said, would provide a "fresh perspective" on the war.

Recognizing Congress' limitation, Pelosi said that when it comes to Iraq, "it's not about the Democrats in Congress forcing the president's hand."

The first test on the war for Democrats could come next year when Mr. Bush sends Congress a spending bill to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats have said they will not hold war appropriations hostage in exchange for policy changes. Instead, they are hoping Mr. Bush will heed the results of the election and the upcoming recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James Baker.

"The president is the president of the United States," she said. "I hope that he will listen to the voices of the people and, again, putting aside partisanship and looking to a partnership to end this war."

The "fraud" is being perpetuated by those who claim that Democrats "promised to end the war."

Despite what you believe, this isn't some "terrible misunderstanding". There'd be no reason for Americans to feel so disappointed and angry over Iraq now (a full 68% combined) if they hadn't been told by the Dems before elections last year to expect more. Voters understood the Dems. Unfortunately the Dems have decided to use '08 as an excuse for not getting their hands dirty.

Also, I never said Americans have no reason to be disappointed with Democrats/Iraq. You are attempting to distract.

Let me be clear, I am among the disappointed. That does not make it "ok" to say Democrats promised to end the war when that is not the case.

But you believe what you like. It doesn't change the fact that most Americans don't see it the way you and the Dems in Congress would like them to.

to make B.S. claims about what was promised to the electorate before the election.

What's BS is parsing to avoid accountability, something I've had a bellyful of after 7 years of Bush**.

Since we're not going to agree, the last word is yours if you want it.

Peace :hi:

...without seeming rude! :dilemma: :)

Peace to you, too, mzmolly. I'm glad we could discuss this without getting ratty with each other.

LOL, me too! See, I did have the last word - at least so far. :evilgrin:

:)

...for a shot at the White House is to appear as much like them as possible, whilst being just different enough to be distinguished from them.

From where I'm standing Kucinich is the ONLY one in the bunch who has not broken his oath of office. And you have the bloody bare faced gall to try to tell us that that is what is wrong with him.

:eyes: Absurd. Dennis Kucinich is running for office and appealing to the base, and that's about all he appeals to.

I respect much of what he says, but when he says something counter productive, I intend to mention it.

NOT only when it is politically expedient to do so.

And all but him, have pretty much flat stated they will not do what they are obligated to do by the oath they took, because it wouldn't be good for them and or the party.

I've got news for you. The United States of America does not exist merely to give them a job, and it does not exist for the convenience of a political party, though the actions of the Democratics have certainly ensured that it has done so for the past seven years.

The United States of America exists for the greater common good of it's people. Or at least it did once upon a time.

"defending the constitution?"

Please, go and READ the Constitution, the Patriot Act, the Geneva Convention
and everything you can get your hands on about Rule of Law.
Please?

I ask this in all seriousness and with deep concern, as a fellow citizen who
realizes that the ignorance of my fellow citizens can only
perpetuate the mess we are in.

BHN

:hi:

I have read the Constitution, the Pat Act, and portions of the Geneva Conventions - NONE of them pertain to the claim Dennis Kucinich made in the OP.

Please, go and READ the original post. Please?

Not that you're very good at it. Since focusing solely on the subject at hand doesn't distance the other candidates from their constitutional violations one whit.

What it has to do with the OP is that their "ending" of the war still constitutes a violation of their oath of office.

"Well we're there now. We just have to make the best of it." is not a constitutionally permitted option. Any decision to stay in a self appointed role (any self appointed role) perpetuates the original violation.

This is not a game, it's a discussion on the topic above.

unconstitutional acts. AND THIS WAR WAS, IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE SUCH AN ACT.

They are not constitutionally bound to 'end war'. They ARE constitutionally bound to end all involvement in THIS war.



Your game is to attempt to limit the scope of the discussion to the immediate subject and words in the OP alone. And to not explore the ramifications of those words except insofar as to how they affect the political aspirations of a bunch of people who too act as if the Constitution was just a God damned piece of paper.

Nice try.

You put political expediency ahead of what is right and say he shouldn't say bad things like that because it hurts those fraudster's chances.

I might be wrong (this is a long discussion) but I don't actually recall you saying anywhere that you believe what he said to be wrong. Only that he was wrong to SAY IT. I don't think I am wrong, I just went back over your posts and a couple of times you came mighty close to agreeing with what he said. You have demonstrated yourself to be a political animal pure and simple far more interested in seeing your side winning by any means, than in them taking their chances and actually doing what is right.

If the Democratic Party cannot win in '08 by doing what is right then America DESERVES the government it gives itself. It just a fucking pity that the rest of the world does not.



Oh and referring back to your post #117. The OP may have little to do with "defending the Constitution." But is has everything to do with UPHOLDING IT. Nice little piece of selective quotation there.

I do believe what Dennis said was 'wrong/inaccurate' and I've said so in this thread.

(if not longer)

It is getting the fuck out of other people's/countries' business.

It might also include internal reform as is being promised to appease the masses, but first and foremost it's getting your fucking national nose out of everybody else's ruddy business.

And this is what Kucinich is telling us. The other candidates have every intention of continuing to attempt to manipulate (or intimidate) the rest of the world in a way that advances US corporate and national interests.

Apparently some dumb asses in this country are
fine with that plan.

BHN

Though, for the most part I agree.

bhn

You aren't playing a "moderate" "just trying to reason" role in this topic. You seem to be looking to discredit him.

One can disagree with his approach and argue his "electability". But I think anyone who does not respect his adherence to principle and his intent and refreshingly honest approach has blinders on.

Unfortunately many these days do not understand the impact and power of emphasizing Peace, dialog, and adhering to principles of Justice and Compassion. To them Kucinich seems "wishy washy and weak".

He may not, in the end, prove to be the winning candidate. He may not even be the best person to have as president (I am still making up my mind), but WE NEED HIM IN THIS RACE and in office. If only to raise the dialog and question what are very obviously failed ideas about power and strength.

Kucinich may be more like the inventor who has great imagination and can design life saving products. Hopefully our leadership will take to heart what he expresses. Maybe it is better someone else eventually "market" and sell the "inventors" machinations. But make no mistake... In this race, Kucinich is the one with the real talent to understand the challenges we are against in the near future.

eom

you attempt to justify a Clinton election on the basis of insisting we "exclude" certain of her positions where she falls in line with Republican ideology so that we may call her a Centrist. To me, that is "absurd".

A Centrist Hillary is NOT.

Kucinich on the other hand represents over 70% of the American public, and I can back this statement up this simply by recalling any of the many online blind taste polls which Kucinich tops by HUGE margins. Here's one for you to peruse http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php in case you don't want to take my word for it.

So, in response to your post, apparently I must hold a different definition of "absurd" than you do.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :applause:

"goddess of peace?"

I'm not here to defend Clinton or not, she's not the subject of this thread.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine :thumbsup:

"... moderation in principle is always a vice." Absolutely.

;)

I thought that was just a right-wing thing. Guess not.

Next.

But I don't think questioning the party leadership is the same as campaigning for the Republicans.

If he has an issue with Pelosi, he should name her. He should hold HER accountable, not insinuate that "Democrats" promised to "get us out of Iraq."

Defending the principles of this nation? Please. Tahiti Nut has been incredibly lucid in explaining what Dennis represents, and what it is that may be achieved with such a candidate. I can only laud and support such demonstrative passion. We need a change, and DK has not a thing to do with Republicans. However, your capitulation to the media agenda and the parroting of such, does.

Dennis represents Dennis. Did you catch his loooooong wait for a Bush handshake after Bush's pre-election speech? What exactly did that "represent?" Who was he "capitulating" to?

Dennis is not ignored because of the media, he's ignored because most people don't relate to him for more than five minutes.

The truth is hard to accept if you are supporting any of the top 3 front runners.

I understand that and feel their pain.

I mean, it's one thing to prefer a candidate due to other issues, but WTF is it with folks (even on DU) who let their candidate preferences DELUDE them into throwing stones at Kucinich for saying what's TRUE???

Freaking INSANE!

The majority of Dems want to keep the Fiasco going for their benefit of the '08 Elections & also want that Oil Deal to be finalized. The MIC & the Multi-Corps control them all. The majority of Dems don't give a rat's ass what the citizens want. They are also banking on Dems to vote for them no matter how betrayed they feel.

... in enabling war crimes, abrogation of civil liberties, and violations of human rights, then a "two-party system" becomes merely Codependent Political Corruption. It's the very thing which impels me to be an anti-partisan independent liberal. It is amoral and irresponsible to consign our most-cherished values to authoritarian social organizations, whether they be religious or political.

When I observe the corruption (abrogation of trust) in the Roman Catholic Church and the 'Protestant' churches, I could say (like Nader) there's no essential difference between the two. It's NOT surprising to me that adherents to one or the other to totally miss the point and proclaim (self-righteously) that the 'differences' are clear ... EXCEPT insofar as abrogation of trust. The 'proof' of pushing forward the EXCEPTIONS seems merely to prove the rule. This seems to be WHERE we're going, even if not quite 'there' yet.

There are "bosses" and "individual contributors." And it's got LOTS and LOTS of people who 'buy' its product and wear its logo. They nicely customize their 'product' for different areas of the country, too. :eyes: It's called a "marketing strategy."

Don't let being a fan let you not realize that. I was a SF49ers fan, but I still KNEW it was a corporation. Being a fan NEVER prevented me from seeing them going offsides. Being a fan never prevented me from understanding that DeBartolo broke a law.

:shrug:

"Authoritarian" though?

Our schools are authoritarian. Parents are authoritarian. Corporations are authoritarian. In EVERY case, we do what we're told by others "in charge." Period.

That's just cynical, divisive, unreferenced bullshit by some chair-sitter with nothing better to do with his or her time.

So many Americans, both republican and democratic,
simply prefer to stay misinformed at any price,
because their EGOs are attached to a particular candidate.

To hell with any evidence that may prove
complicity with the corporate corruption that
is systematically destroying this country and others.

Whaddaya gonna do?

BHN

:hi:

the things I hear here now in support of the traitor democrats. Very much how Free Republic defends the Bush. Blind Stupidity or what the hell Kool-Aid flavor are You drinking?

freaking insane is right.
time to kiss our asses goodbye because there are some very very strange things at work here. down is up, war is peace,

I wonder why he has been missing in the last three debates.

unless the people get them the hell out of the way and the US the hell out of Iraq.

Total Withdrawal, as well.

is for withdrawal also.

are going to decide who I get to choose among. I would love to vote for Kucinich but he will be knocked off the ballot long before most of the country gets to have their say. It would be wonderful to have a national primary day so the real choice could be the one voted for.

But instead of attacking the problem, he is attacking the Democratic leadership for cheap points. Get a few more donations so he can fly to Hawaii "to campaign" with his beautiful wife.

Envy, maybe?

In my opinion you are only half right. Yes he is building a movement. But it is the RIGHT thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2333649&mesg_id=2337565

I'm betting THAT'S part of the reason why it won't be done. :shrug:

All you have to do is read the DLC position papers on foreign policy and you'll see why they are called PNAC-lite. The powers-that-be want us to continue our self-destructive quest for imperialism and Kucinich is the only one brave enough to call them on it.

...it is going to take a president who is for the people, like Dennis Kucinich to end this war, get our troops home, restore the U.S. Constitution and the laws which represented that document and get the country and representative government back into the hands of the people

didn't seemed too concerned when the dems got the majority in congress in 2006?

only worse

In my very first vote for president, I voted for the candidate who was advertised as the "peace candidate," and who painted his opponent as the "warmonger." I'm speaking of the 1964 presidential election. I voted for LBJ. Little did I know--for I was very young at the time--that Congress had voted for the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution only a month before the election, on the basis of false evidence that the LBJ administration had provided, of a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. military ships, nor had I any notion of what that would mean. John Kennedy had been assassinated a year before. (Neither did I know of his new executive orders, just before he was killed, ordering the withdrawal of U.S. military "advisers" from south Vietnam. Found that out only recently, actually.) LBJ was now the president, and was running for reelection, and had made much of his opponent Barry Goldwater's statements threatening to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. I was against that, and had been born a Democrat anyway, and voted for LBJ, in the belief that he would keep the peace, and be better for the country in other ways.

What I got for that vote, and that act of faith in our Democratic leadership, was TWO MILLION people slaughtered in Southeast Asia, and over 55,000 U.S. soldiers killed, and countless millions of injuries, over the next decade.

Lesson: Beware of Democrats bearing peace.

That was a long time ago, but the lesson that BOTH of our political parties are controlled by the "military-industrial complex" is still relevant. I don't know what to do about it. And I wish that the generation that rebelled against THAT war--including myself--had been more savvy and more persistent, and had dismantled this aggressive war machine THEN. But we did not. And here it is again, manufacturing wars to keep its coffers fat with our tax dollars.

I think they've "bought the farm" this time--as the old fly-boys used to say. They've bankrupted us. And the poor and middle class are going to pay the price of a projected TEN TRILLION DOLLAR deficit, for many decades to come. And the world has meanwhile been re-aligning itself against the out-of-control U.S. bully--probably not a bad thing (since WE can't control our own government), but it will have (and is having) economic consequences. The Bushites and collusive Democrats have earned the enmity of the world, have trashed our economy, and shredded our Constitution, and have even installed a highly riggable electronic voting system, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, so that reform is blockaded, and will be impossible until we restore transparent vote counting, if we can.

And I don't see anyone among the Democratic candidates for president--except Kucinich, and possibly Edwards--who is fundamentally challenging what has been done, how our party leadership has responded to it (or not responded to it), and what these actions and truly dreadful policies bode for the future. Kucinich and Edwards are also the only two who have questioned the vote counting system (Kucinich more than Edwards), which is curious, indeed, since the vote counting system is so blatantly, obviously riggable. "Trade secret" vote counting, indeed. I mean, come on.

With my knowledge of the election system, and what was done to it during the 2002 to 2004 period, and some other early hints about the 2006 Democratic Congress, I really didn't expect them to stop the war, or do anything but what they have done--lard Bush and Cheney with hundreds of billions more of our non-existent money, to keep killing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights, and to solidify the U.S. military position in the Middle East on a permanent basis. One of the early hints was an interview I caught on C-Span in the week after the elections, of the crop of new "Blue Dog" Democrats who were re-forming that old Gary Condit coalition of Bush-friendly traitor Democrats. What they said, in essence, was that they were for cutting everything in the budget, and making everything "pay as you go," EXCEPT THE WAR BUDGET. And Pelosi was there in the studio endorsing this--though she didn't speak in those interviews.

Our leadership showed its hand very early, in fact. Everybody noticed "impeachment is off the table" (cuz it was such a shocker), but few realized what this "Blue Dog" coalition meant, although some activists had warned of a DLC strategy to use money and power to get this kind of Bush-friendly, war-friendly, corporate-friendly, rich people-friendly, so-called 'Democrat' elected, riding the tide of public revulsion against the Bush Junta. Other candidates were elbowed out, so that these were the 'D''s that angry voters pressed the button for--often not realizing that they were just voting for a Bushite by another name. Maybe a little smoother, maybe a little less visibly corrupt, but essentially a Bush vote on almost everything that matters.

We had the same problem back in the 1960s--that peace was not an option. No matter who you voted for, the war continued, and was escalated. Nixon eventually ran--when LBJ stood down, obviously reviled by the voters over the war--on a platform of "peace with honor," purporting to have a "secret plan to end the Vietnam War." The war went on for five more years--and was expanded to Cambodia and Laos. The true candidate who would have ended the war--and I'm quite sure he meant it--Bobby Kennedy, was assassinated just prior to that election (1968), the one that Nixon won. And I have no doubt now that that is WHY he was assassinated. It was the night of the California primary, which Bobby Kennedy had just won. He was headed for the White House, and he really meant to end the war. From a Cold Warrior background, he had come to understand how evil it was, and he identified with the young generation which was being conscripted to fight it. The carnage by 1968 was horrendous. He had done his homework. He could see no sense in it whatsoever. He reminds me of Edwards--who voted for the Iraq War, but seems to have genuinely reconsidered that vote, and even apologized for it.

My point is that we will not be permitted a choice. If Edwards moves ahead in the presidential race, and it is determined by the corporate powers that rule over us, that he really will withdraw from Iraq, and change the country's direction, away from militarism and associated corporatism, they have several options, the least ugly (and visible) of which is, the rigged voting machines.

I really am not sure of Edwards--as I wasn't of Bobby Kennedy back then. I didn't vote for Bobby in that primary. I voted for Eugene McCarthy, the candidate who initially challenged LBJ in New Hampshire and drove LBJ out of the race. I knew Bobby was going to win the primary and the general election. He was hugely popular, and very charismatic. My vote for McCarthy was a "message" to Bobby--stick with your antiwar promise. I did think that Bobby would make a great president. And I think the genuineness of his intention to end the war can be measured by what happened to him that night. Bang-bang, shoot-shoot. There were a number of CIA interests that were threatened by him (CIA activities in Latin America, for instance). But Vietnam was the biggie. Could this war machine perpetuate itself indefinitely, by inventing wars? That was the question. And could both party leaderships be made to toe the line? It came to quite a test with the Reaganites' illegal war on Nicaragua, but when the Democrats did not impeach Reagan for that awful crime (and for one most Americans didn't even know about then--a far bloodier crime in Guatemala, where TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers were slaughtered, with Reagan's knowledge and complicity), it was all over really. The Democratic Party was cemented within the "military-industrial complex," and that is who the leadership is loyal to, not to the people.

Of Clinton I would say that, although he was not particularly militaristic, he laid the groundwork for the Bush Junta, with the sanctions and no-fly-zone bombings against Iraq--softening them up for the kill--and set up NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and other global corporate predator policy that has made it very difficult for we, the people, to fight Bushite fascism. Clinton also "balanced the budget" on the backs of the poor, and created a surplus, which the Bushites promptly looted for tax cuts for the rich, and a corporate resource war. Some good, some bad in Clinton--but a long, long way from the party of FDR, and John and Bobby Kennedy, who understood the phrase "robber barons" and had genuine feeling for the "little guy"--the workers, the poor--against the Goliath of Big Business, with John and Bobby having a strong, native distrust of the CIA of that era, and Hoover's FBI, and of warmongers like the Miami anti-Castro Cubans. Their distrust was based on experience, and possibly also because they were Irishmen, who know to keep a wary eye on entrenched fascist power.

Lesson for now: Start with unrigging the voting machines. This democracy was not destroyed in a day, and will not be restored in a day. It's going to take time. We have to think both short term (like, whom to support for president, for what it's worth at the moment), and long term, to restore our democratic institutions from the ground up.

Taint th'smoothest move ...

:shrug:

... to spread the idea amongst voters that Democrats suck

Which is why he is getting my vote- even if I have to write it in.

BHN

nt

Kucinich is simply calling them out for reneging on their part of the deal.

San Francisco Chronicle Dec 10, 2006

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told cheering supporters Saturday that Democrats would move the nation in "a new direction ... for all Americans, not just the chosen few," and pledged an ambitious agenda on subjects ranging from House ethics to foreign policy.

Speaking in San Francisco the day after adjournment of the Republican-controlled 2005-06 Congress, Pelosi declared -- as she had throughout her party's successful November election campaign -- that "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq."

So what part of what DK says about this isn't the truth?

House Democrats Push Through Legislation Calling for Troops to Come Home From Iraq
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3867650

corruption and lies.

yes, he is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted process and not bought and paid for like the others.

Supreme Court justices ruling on cases involving hunting buddies?

Billions of dollars in cash taken from the federal treasury to be "lost" in Iraq?

Government by crony?

A substantial number of Republican Congressmen indicted or convicted?

Widespread political prosecutions of people like Georgia Thompson and Don Siegelman?

Somebody's not paying attention ...

He will be "taken seriously" when he has "unexpected" money.

Let's make it happen.

$100 million/month. That's PER MONTH, folks!!!

That was said by George Wallace, who knew he had no real chance to be elected in 1968, but who wanted to make his mark on history. And while Wallace may have been incorrect in '68, he would be right today. And so is Kucinich.

Americans love an underdog who's a fighter. They respect stand-up individuals who fight the good fight against all odds.

Dems are at 11% in the polls for a reason.
Yellow lines and dead armadillos...
Fence sitting gives me splinters from here.

DK has to be the most unelectable candidate out there. I do not get the DU love for candidates who do not stand a chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone winning a general election.

America has ONE corporate party with TWO right-wings.

where have I heard that one before???

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071124/NEWS09/711240334/-1/caucus

Go Kucinich!

Total corporate media propaganda. I say no more. I vote with my heart and my mind in sync this time. I figure we're toast if we compromise this time.

Disgusting and pathetic to contemplate how many
so called democrats on this board BUY AND perpetuate
the SMEAR on the ONLY DEMOCRATIC, NOT CORPOR-CRATIC,
candidate we have in the race.

I guess when "good democrats" like the "good Germans" are THAT ignorant,
we really have no hope.

None the less- I WILL vote DK, even writing his name in
if necessary, because I will not give up hope, or my right to vote
for some one OTHER than WHO the MSM tells me is my candidate... even though some
of the dumb asses on this thread REALLY give me reason to.

BHN

I have come to the same feelings and thinking.
There's a book called 'Theologians Under Hitler' that almost addresses the sad, tragic dichotomy of liberals parroting corporate propaganda almost unwittingly -it seems.