Kucinich Shines in New York Democratic Debate, Should Take On Clark

[Karmadillo]

"There's an iceberg up ahead! We have to change course immediately!"

"I'm sorry, sir, but you're not tall enough, your hair could stand to receive a more artful part, and your funding is woefully insufficient. I suggest you drop off the Titanic so the better qualified observers can direct us without undue interference."

"But there's an iceberg--"

"Sir, from the left side of the boat, there always appear to be icebergs. I suggest you move to the center. From there, I'm sure you'll be able to see it's clear sailing all the way to the horizon and beyond."

http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx092603.html

September 26, 2003
Kucinich Shines in New York Democratic Debate, Should Take On Clark
Matthew Rothschild

Dennis Kucinich proved once again Thursday that he's the most progressive candidate in the race by far. But he missed a golden opportunity to go after General Wesley Clark, who seemed woefully underprepared.

From the start, Kucinich didn't vacillate. His first time up, he was asked about Bush's $87 billion request for war and occupation: "Will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion, and if the answer is no, what's the message you would send to the troops?"

Kucinich responded: "The answer is no. I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops, and I think we best support them by bringing them home. Our troops are at peril there because of this Administration's policy. . . . I say, bring the troops home unequivocally, bring them home, and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper. After a while, we're going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing, and the future of this nation."

Only Al Sharpton came close to echoing Kucinich's clarity and courage on this vital issue.

Howard Dean, the erstwhile peace candidate, said, "We have no choice" but to support the $87 billion request. Carol Moseley Braun, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards concurred. Clark fobbed it off as a hypothetical question before mouthing the apparently obligatory "we need to support our troops."

more...

On edit: Added title of article

[mmm]

1. Kucinich is by far the best choice

no one else even comes close

[maha]

3. In my opinion

... I'd put him at 8 out of 10, just ahead of Lieberman and Sharpton but behind everyone else.

Sorry; I watched the debate carefully and even studied the transcript. Kucinich should drop out.

[CWebster]

16. note the dichotomy

between the poster's words and the poster's poster.

[maha]

29. Not at all.

I want to get out of Iraq. The question is, how? Only an idiot assumes a withdrawal will be cheap and bloodless.

[CWebster]

31. Then maybe you should put your headlines in small print

with a disclaimer on them.

[maha]

35. The problem is

... that removing our presence from Iraq without it turning into a bloodbath is going to take a certain amount of time and money and thought. This is something Kucinich as his followers don't seem to be able to grasp. And that's why I don't support Kucinich.

[Desertrose]

44. what would you call it now?

Sure as hell sounds damn close to a bloodbath now!

Have you considered that without the US presence that there would be a lot less reason for anger & terrorism. If we would bring our troops home and UN could go in for humanitarian aid and minimal peacekeeping, my guess is there would be a lot less bloodshed.
Those who say we can't leave now ...you simply don't get that our simply being there is a big part of the probelm.

Bushwa has made Iraq a lightening rod for increased terrorism and rage.
He went in with no plan- he STILL has no plan beyond grabbing oil and yet we can't bring home our troops? Tell me what I don't get about that?

Staying and spending more money maintaining troops for an outcome that will never work as planned makes no sense. That money could be used in a much different way ...in Iraq & at home.

I get it...why don't you?

Continuing a wrong course of action rather than making changes....thats a nice way for bushcorp to get what they want.

Maybe you should add "in a bodybag" to your sigline....

Peace-the only way...thats why I choose Dennis Kucinich!
DR

[LWolf]

49. We all get it when we want to,

don't we DR?

:hi:

Good points: current american casualties, and our presence and actions escalating tensions and furthering the cause of terrorists.

More reasons to get out and support the UN's efforts to restore order.

[maha]

55. Yes, we should get out and let the UN (or NATO, or both) take over.

That is exactly right. Now, what are the steps necessary for DOING that?

[charlie]

50. A timely article in the NYTimes

about suicide attacks...

I have spent a year compiling a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 to 2001 — 188 in all. It includes any attack in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while attempting to kill others, although I excluded attacks authorized by a national government, such as those by North Korea against the South. The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have have committed 75 of the 188 incidents).

Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.

NYTimes link

The clock's ticking....

[maha]

54. Please learn to read.

I WANT THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ I WANT THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ I WANT THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE THERE TO BEGIN WITH I WANT THEM OUT ASAP.

Is that clear? Good.

Now, the question is not WHETHER we should withraw. Yes, we SHOULD WITHDRAW.

I'll pause for a while and let you take that in. This is complicated, I know. Don't go on and read the rest until you're ready!

The questions are, HOW should the troops be withdrawn? Do we just pack them all in a plane and bring them home next week? Do we have NO responsibility to the Iraqis and the world for the colossal screwup that is Iraq? Have you given any thought to the consequences of a sudden withdrawal right now?

I'm saying Kucinich has not thought these things out at all, and that's why I don't respect his position.

[bpilgrim]

59. arrange for a multinational force with UN control

in a nut shell.

BRING THEM HOME, NOW!
http://news.GlobalFreePress.com/flash

peace

[maha]

63. I agree.

We definitely must hand the mess over to a multinational force with UN or NATO control, and we must bring our own troops home asap. I'm just saying that this will take time and money, and DK and his supporters don't want to acknowledge this.

[bpilgrim]

67. time and money is just feed the addiction and is just what the neo-cons

want and will PROLONG the MISTAKE.

if the funding is cut they will have no choice but to bring in a multinational force.

power never ceeds power willingly it must be wrest from them through struggle.

time to play HARD BALL.

peace

[maha]

73. The withdrawal itself will take time and money.

Is that really so hard to understand?

[bpilgrim]

77. the sooner that happens the less it will be

"Is that really so hard to understand?"

peace

[maha]

83. Not true.

Time and thought have to be given to HOW we withdraw, or the consequences will be worse for us and the world in the long run.

[bpilgrim]

109. the longer we feed the addiction the more it will cost in time, $, lives

thats a fact.

We inform the UN of our intent, surrender control to them and rotate out as they rotate in.

that didn't take long.

peace

[Desertrose]

75. Just as your hasty comment to me is

rather rude...so is your assumption that someone who is running for the office of President and talking about bringing troops home, has no plan. He hasn't shared with you...oh dear, that was a mistake , wasn't it?

Have you checked DKs website and read the issues? He seems to have figured quite a few things out...he offers solutions not just politico-speak. I have not researched recently his plans to bring the troops home, but have heard bits & pieces of his speeches and yes, he has plans to help us get out of this godawful mess.

Of course we don't just get them all out on the next plane- but we have to plan on doing it and not say yeah, we we WANT to bring em home. Of course it is not an overnnight process but we have to BEGIN it. I really am not stupid enough to think there are no consquences...there will be many and very harsh...but to stay and continue the way things are now is a neverending royal & lethal mess. (Remember Viet Nam...I do)

And yes we have grave grave responsibility to the Iraqis...but keeping a military force in their country now may not be what they need. They need to get their country put back together-is having the US military presence there the best thing? IIMHO is isn't. Am I an expert on foreign affairs-nope. It is a screwed up mess and I really feel we all want the best for our troops & yes,the Iraqis too.

You realize the US will be condemmed either way- we made the mess...do we stay and make it worse or pull out & leave them struggle? I personally don't see how the country can come back to balance with the US there...how do we get out with the least amount of damge??

Too bad we offended the UN & so many countries. It would be great to have their help but bushwa STILL doesn't want to give up the oil. So who suffers??? Our troops and mostly the Iraqis.

So excuse me, but if I have thought of all these things...why in the world would you think Kucinich -the man who has proposed a Dept of Peace (look that up- lots of "thinking" involved in that!) hasn't? That is really just rude.

Peace
DR

[maha]

82. Sorry, but

But I'm getting pretty tense about the lies being told about the other Dem candidates in this thread, which is what got me into this thread. And you were throwing arguments about why we have to get out of Iraq at me, and OF COURSE WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. The question is not WHY, but HOW.

"Of course we don't just get them all out on the next plane- but we have to plan on doing it and not say yeah, we we WANT to bring em home."

That's exactly my point, and exactly the position of most of the other dem candidates. The other Dems are acknowledging that additional money and time will have to be spent before the goal of bringing the troops home will be accomplished. But last week Kucinich said NO more money, and I think that's irresponsible. Maybe in other places and times he said, well, we'll have to spend some money. But that is NOT what he said last week in the debate.

"Of course it is not an overnnight process but we have to BEGIN it."

Won't happen until Shrub is out of office. Eyes on the prize.

"I really am not stupid enough to think there are no consquences...there will be many and very harsh...but to stay and continue the way things are now is a neverending royal & lethal mess. (Remember Viet Nam...I do)"

Yes, I do very well. I was a college student in those years. Wasn't drafted because I'm a girl. But I was against that war, and I'm against this war.

[Mairead]

87. Kucinich said no more money FOR CONTINUING TO DIG THE HOLE

That's quite a significant difference from 'no more money for anything'. How did you miss it?

[maha]

97. That's what the rest of the candidates are saying.

There's a weird dichotomy going on here. Several people on this thread have claimed that the other Dem candidates advocate "staying the course" on Iraq and would not get out, and that Kucinich had the best answers on Iraq in the recent debate, and I'm saying that's bs.

In the debate, in the question of the $87 billion expenditure, most of the other candidates in the recent debate said, in effect, we've got to spend something, we can't give Bush a blank check, we've got to see where this money is going, we've got to see to it the troops have the equipment and supplies they need right now, and then we've got to see how we're going to use this money to rebuild the infrastructure and we've got to bring in other countries before we can withdraw.

Then Kucinich stands up and says "The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home." Exact quote, right out of the transcript.

My contention is that he's ducking the tough questions with answers like that. It's really easy and self-indulgent to say, well, we'll just not spend any more money and we'll just bring the troops home. The other candidates addressed the fact that questions have to be asked and money will have to be spent; Kucinich did not. I'm saying that's why he didn't impress me in this debate.

Maybe ELSEWHERE he addresses these questions, but that means he was demagoging the question in the debate, doesn't it?

[Mairead]

85. Why don't you try offering some evidence instead of your unsupported

opinion that 'Kucinich has not thought these things out at all'?

Dennis is saying 'hand the whole thing, including the opportunities for pork and perqs, over to the UN'. Sounds like a plan to me.

[MuseRider]

93. I have never read

a statement made by DK that has not been well thought out and not supported. I think, besides being a progressive, that that is the very reason I felt comfortable enough to decide who to back as early as I did. He speaks about what he knows and backs it up every time. I may not always completely agree but I know it is policy that has been thought out and comes from a humanity based position.

[maha]

101. See my answer #87

Some of DK's responses in the recent debate border on demagogery. They were neither well thought out nor supported. This is particularly true of his answer to the famous $87 billion question.

[MuseRider]

106. I saw your answer

and I can't believe you thought with one lousy minute to reply he could tell you just why he said that and how he plans on doing it. If you really want that answer you need to look for it. I have never heard this guy go off "half cocked" and make a statement he can't back up but perhaps it is because I have spent the time looking for the answers.

[maha]

98. That's a goal, not a plan

and the other candidates have the same goal, EL*

*Except Lieberman

See my response #87.

[Mairead]

86. "Maybe you should add 'in a bodybag'"

Good one, DR! :thumbsup:

[maha]

100. This is what I'm talking about.

Apparently, in Kuchinich World, we're not supposed to ask hard questions about how a goal will be accomplished.

You seem to think I support the war in Iraq. I do not.

My contention is that if the Kucinich "bring them home right now" plan goes into effect, there will be MORE troops coming home in body bags than if we actually think about what we are doing first.

But if you LIKE killing all the American soldiers you can, hey ... go for it!

[moosedog]

5. I agree...

I have had this opinion from the start, but thought I must be wrong because no one else seems to think that way. He has spunk and the intelligence to help the country ge tback on track. I doubt he will get anywhere. I hope the people don't underestimate this little(big) man. Al Sharpton is my second choice. What a team they would make. They would show just how much there is in these little giants. Mrs. Moose....

[Mairead]

88. PLEASE - send him money today or tomorrow!!

I can't emphasise this enough: anyone who likes his policies, even if you don't believe he can win ---SEND HIM MONEY TODAY OR TOMORROW.

It's vital.

[Renew Deal]

96. It's like burning money.

Let's be real here. His views are not what wins presidential elections. He is running 0-1% in the polls after about 4 months running. Giving him money would be like running it through the shredder. The sooner he drops out, the sooner the contenders can get their message out. I'd like to get the field down to about 6.

[Karmadillo]

99. Actually, it's like an investment. If he wins, there's a huge return, and

if he doesn't, he has an opportunity to promote progressive polices and help rebuild the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Still a substantial return on a relatively small investment.

Since you appear to not support Kucinich, I can understand why you'd like the debate limited to the more centrist candidates. I'm sure you can also understand those of us who feel less than well represented by those candidates oppose such a move. You might as well humor us to some degree because without progressive Democrats, your candidate will have a lot harder time winning in the general election.

[Renew Deal]

103. Nothing to do with centrist or leftist.

It's not that. And I don't support 5 of the 6 I am proposing. I have just felt like it is too cluttered up there. Kucinich is an OK guy, and he does add something. We had a little internal poll here at DU. The question was how many do you think should drop by Dec. 1. The winner was 0 and I understand that. From the 6 I mentioned, I would be glad to trade Lieberman for Sharpton or Kucinich. Kucinich being on the 6 is fine with me. I am just trying to be realistic about it.

[bobthedrummer]

72. A Democrat like I recall them, progressive!

An opponent of corpofasicism and Republicans and a clean populist base.

[LWolf]

110. hey bobthedrummer

way off topic, but I was lost in Toluca Lake CA last weekend, driving around looking for a street I couldn't find, and I saw a shop with a big sign out front. Name of the shop? BobThePrinter. I thought I remembered a DU handle like that....not printer. Drummer. heh heh.


:hi:

[RichM]

2. This article presents a very good summary of Thursday's debate,

comparing & contrasting where everyone stood. The long list of Clark's empty evasive remarks is quite striking.

One thing in particular there: Clark's best moment was his first answer, which, as the article notes, seemed prepared. Clark was asked why & how he became a Dem, considering that he had publicly praised Shrub in May of 2001. He said,

"We elected a President we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead, we got neither conservatism nor compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us into war with Iraq...."

The point here is that the answer emphasizes the cutting of taxes. Yet the speech PRAISING Bush was May 2001 -- one month AFTER the first (and biggest) Bush tax cut. So, if the reckless tax cuts bothered Clark so much, why was he still publicly praising Bush in May 2001? It would appear that the tax cuts didn't really bother him so much, back then.

[xJlM]

6. We didn't elect Bush, either

Where the fuck does he get that shit? If he actually was a democrat, he'd be a little more upset about the fraudulent election of 2000. I think he's just the newest version of the same old shit...

[RichM]

10. In fact, as you focus on that sentence, it says "we thought we elected a

compassionate conservative..."

- This is also BS. NO ONE in his right mind believed that Bush was really a "compassionate conservative" (whatever the hell that is). So for Clark to stand up & pretend that that is what "we" thought is ITSELF dishonest or very suspicious.

[Mairead]

89. Well spotted, Rich!

:toast:

[LWolf]

4. Dennis is a progressive's ideal candidate.

We have an opportunity to cast our vote for what we really believe. I won't pass up that chance.

I agree that he was shining for the progressive cause.

I thought he did take on Clark:

"I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

[maha]

9. I have suspicions.

I'd like to hear m ore about that report and Clark's role in it. Kucinich's remark lacked context. Clark wasn't given a chance to rebut.

Kucinich supporters are jumping on this sentence as if it's "proof" that Clark is some kind of stealth Republican candidate. Fact is, I've been googling for corroboration of Kucinich's remark and haven't found it.

In other words, it may not be true. I'm not calling Kucinich a liar, but there's more to this story, or less, than we know.

[LWolf]

17. Actually, no.

I wasn't jumping on this sentence as if it's "proof" that Clark is some kind of stealth Republican candidate.

And I read the thread where it was discussed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=408436

That poster is a relative newcomer, and I don't remember seeing him/her claim to be a Kucinich supporter. As to that thread, the poster used Dennis' statement in the debate to argue against Clark. But he/she did not endorse Dennis.

I quoted the debate statement as a rebuttal to the article that this thread is about...this article claimed Dennis did not go after Clark. He obviously did, but not to the extent that the author/s of the article would have liked.

I also am not posting the remark to debate the substance; there is already a thread going for that. I'm also not using it to try to "prove" anything about Clark.

Back to the point: Evidence that Kucinich did indeed "go after" Clark in the debate.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

79. I was the poster. Good discussion here. I augment my motives.

I'm 42 years old, marched against Vietnam war when I was 7. Read the Pentagon Papers when I was 12, reading DU since 12/01, only posting recently.

I have a deep-seated and well-researched distrust of the MIC that Clark entered and succeeded in.

I love his current speaking but revile his past. For Clark to secretly endorse a plan to occupy Iraq for 5 years is an act that needs tons of scrutiny. Kucinich both says and does things I agree with and the 'electability issue' and 'ABB' comes up for consideration.

There is ample reason to wonder if ABB includes Clark.
Conflicted doesn't begin to describe my reaction to the man and the candidacy of Wesley Clark.

I caught the last 15 minutes of Clark in NH and couldn't believe what I was hearing. He spoke brilliantly and said all the right things and seemed genuine. Amazing words, dirty past. I think this is also what we're suffering from the Compassionate Conservatism cabal, right? Hmmm. I don't know.

If a brilliant man puts most of his ability to dissent in storage for a career, what kind of shape is it in when he retires? Does he use it with all his strength to make up for lost time by playing saviour? Or is it too flexible and musty to be used in the direct sunlight? I don't know.

Does working within and for a fascist militaristic machine make you the best candidate to temper it's appetite when you retire? I don't know.

I'm going to keep looking and listening and sharing.

[LWolf]

113. Great response.

I have a similar distrust of Clark, and I'm definitely with DK for the primary. It's the issues. And electability isn't one of them for me. I think we can take out * with any of the 10.

Looking, listening, sharing...

a good idea for all of us!

:hi:

[Pepperbelly]

7. So Dennis's Iraq policy is ...

immediate withdrawal?

Does he have any plans for assisting Iraq in rebuilding the infrastructure Bonehead and crew destroyed?

[Karmadillo]

11. He calls for UN control and US funding of the reconstruction. Here's

a press release:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030728Iraqst.html

Kucinich Renews Calls For The
US Withdrawal From Iraq

<edit>

“The United Nations must be brought in. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the US letting go of the contracting process.

“The UN must also take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq’s oil profits. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self- determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction.

more...

[maha]

13. Clue: The rest of the Dem field say essentially the same thing

Except maybe Lieberman and Gephardt. This is not a unique position.

[Pepperbelly]

14. thank you ...

my point exactly.

[RichM]

24. Bull. The other Dems say "Stay the course." That does not AT ALL

mean relinquishing control, & it does NOT mean pulling out soldiers. It implies no willingness to give up the reconstruction contracts. It is the policy line that would naturally lead to installing a US puppet regime.

Kucinich is willing to give up the contracts, to give up control of the oil, & to take the soldiers home as soon as possible. Since he's FOR relinquishing control, he is AGAINST installing a US puppet regime.

[maha]

36. Where are you getting your information

... that the other candidates aren't in favor of turning Iraqi resources back over to Iraqis?

You seem to have been fed a line of propaganda.

[Karmadillo]

34. Do you have a link? I'm not aware of any other candidate prepared

to force immediate negotiations to bring all US troops home as soon as possible (Sharpton may be the exception). As far as I know, the others, while calling for greater United Nations involvement, would keep a significant number of US troops in Iraq.

Only Kucinich and Sharpton expressed unequivocal opposition to the $87 billion downpayment for continued US opposition. As long as the money flows, US troops will stay and Bush has a free hand to minimize the role of the UN.

[maha]

38. Some people live in the real world.

A withdrawal from Iraq will take some money and some time, or else it will be a bloodbath. This is reality. Kucinich doesn't acknowledge reality; he just says, bring everybody home, no money at all, let the UN clean up our mess.

The other candidates (except Lieberman) have a more grounded and realistic view of Iraq. This doesn't mean they are going to continue Bush's policies (except maybe for Lieberman).

[Karmadillo]

42. Try reading the posts and try to be consistent.

1. First you say all Democrats (except Lieberman) are saying the same thing as Kucinich. See your post #13 where you respond to my posting of Kucinich's position by saying the other Dems are saying "essentially the same thing". Now you're saying the other candidates (except Lieberman) "have a more grounded and realistic view of Iraq" and "Kucinich doesn't acknowledge reality". Can't be both, can it?

2. Second, your interpretation of Kucinich's position is inaccurate. Since you called RichM a liar for an alleged policy distortion, I'll let you provide the appropriate adjective for your efforts. As my post #11 points out, Kucinich calls for a negotiated withdrawal (not "just...bring everybody home"), a US financed reconstruction (not "no money at all"), and a quick transition to Iraqi self-rule.

3. He backs up his words, as opposed to the others (except Sharpton), by opposing continued financing of the US occupation. And how will the US, as opposed to the UN, clean up its mess with the $87 billion (and, later on, even more money)? Here's a good guess (and one can only wonder why the other Democrats are supporting the Bush Administration in the pillaging of Iraq):

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/bush-s24.shtml

Bush at the UN—a war criminal takes the podium
By Bill Vann
24 September 2003

<edit>

In the meantime, the gangster regime in Washington intends to carry out the systematic plundering of Iraqi wealth, while using military force to suppress a growing movement of national resistance.

The Bush administration’s plans were spelled out over the weekend, when Washington’s handpicked finance minister in the Iraqi Quisling regime unexpectedly unveiled a blueprint for the country’s economic development.

This economic “reform” package—made public at the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting in Dubai and signed into law by Washington’s proconsul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer—amounts to a US plan for the wholesale privatization of the Iraqi economy. It imposes investment, trade and tax policies geared entirely to the interests of US multinationals at the expense of the Iraqi people.

The precedent for this plan is the kind of disastrous economic “shock therapy” introduced in the former Soviet Union more than a decade ago, leading to the plummeting of living standards for the vast majority and the creation of a wealthy criminal elite. In Iraq, however, the process is to be carried out at the point of a US gun, with the assurance that the overwhelming share of profits will be reaped by politically connected American corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel.

The plan calls for the privatization of everything from electric power, to hospitals and a myriad of state-owned industries. This process would inevitably involve a form of brutal triage, in which those few industries considered profitable would be taken over by US corporations, with the rest shut down and their workers thrown onto the scrap heap.

It allows for 100 percent foreign ownership in all sectors, save natural resources, and reduces trade tariffs to a minimum. Foreign companies would be guaranteed full and immediate remittance of all profits, dividends, interest and royalties.

more...

[maha]

62. Answers to your questions

1. All of the candidates (except Lieberman; hereafter abbreviated EL) want to turn the Iraq over to international control, turn Iraq over to Iraqis as soon as possible, and reduce and eventually withdraw U.S. ttoops, so in that manner Kucinich's position is not all that unique. However, only Kucinich and Sharpton have no plan as to HOW this is going to be accomplished.

2. I didn't call RichM a liar; I called Kucnich a liar. Sorry I wasn't clear.

You say, "As my post #11 points out, Kucinich calls for a negotiated withdrawal (not "just...bring everybody home"), a US financed reconstruction (not "no money at all"), and a quick transition to Iraqi self-rule." Well, that's fine; that's what the other candidates are saying, EL.

Bringing the troops home safely is going to take several months and cost a ton of money, a little detail that you and DK don't seem to want to address. You are intererpreting spending money to support the troops as money to continue the occupation, and that's a fallacy.

3. He backs up his words, as opposed to the others (except Sharpton), by opposing continued financing of the US occupation.

EL, none of the other candidates is in favor of continuing the US occupation as it is. Kerry and Gephardt are fuzzy, I acknowledge.

You write, "And how will the US, as opposed to the UN, clean up its mess with the $87 billion (and, later on, even more money)?"

That's exactly the question several candidates, INCLUDING Gephardt and Kerry and Edwards, asked in the recent debate. They all said that Bush is going to have to be very specific about how the money is being spent before they will approve the $87 billion, or any other figure.

You write, "Here's a good guess (and one can only wonder why the other Democrats are supporting the Bush Administration in the pillaging of Iraq):"

Thanks; I've already read this. I even discussed it on my blog and pointed out what an outrage it was. Not our current bone of contention. Your notion that the other candidates support the Bush Admiistration on the pillaging of Iraq is a fantasy.

[Karmadillo]

94. Thanks for the answers, but

1. You say Kucinich has no plan. Obviously not true. Negotiate with UN for US withdrawal, US financed reconstruction, rapid shift to Iraqi sovereignty. You may disagree with the plan, but it's hardly honest to say he has none. The other candidates, contrary to your assertion, have been no more specific and, from what I know, far less specific. If you disagree with the last sentence, please provide links. Thanks.

2. I don't want to hassle you on who you were or weren't calling a liar, but here's what RichM wrote in post #25:

DK - give up contracts, give up control of oil, take soldiers home ASAP; control goes to UN

The others: don't give up contracts, don't give up the oil; keep the soldiers there; control stays with US.

Do those things sound like "Basically identical positions?"

If you're now saying you're calling Kucinich a liar, where's the lie?

3. Kucinich clearly recognizes bringing home the troops will take time and money. That's why Kucinich calls for negotiating the process with the UN. UN will move in, US will move out. It's not that difficult to imagine.

4. The other candidates may have asked questions, but a number of them (check the transcript) agreed they would vote to approve the $87 billion. This is, contary to your claim, supporting the continued pillaging of Iraq. Most of the objections expressed involved how the bill would be funded (rolling back the tax cuts etc--if there were any objections to the sort of occupation describe in the WSWS I posted above, I don't remember them).

Voting for the request means the troops won't be brought home anytime soon. Voting for the request means there won't be serious negotiations to allow the UN to replace the US and lead Iraq to self-government. Voting against the request, however, removes the very means of continuing the immoral status quo.

[maha]

102. Well, maybe it wasn't DK.

SOMEBODY on this thread said the other candidates advocate "staying the course" in Iraq, and that's a lie.

[Terwilliger]

46. does "real world" mean "stupid arrogant American?"

since the only reality here is that we initiated (and Democrats authorized) an illegal, immoral war

[bpilgrim]

56. the 'REAL WORD' is what the teeVee programs... DAILY - n/t

:hi:

peace

[maha]

66. "real world" means accepting responsibility

IMO it would be just as stupid and arrogant to pull out suddenly right now as it was to go in to begin with.

[MuseRider]

61. Yes, and some people

wish to change this very ugly real world into something better. You want info? Go to the candidates web sites and find it.

[maha]

70. That's what I'm sayin'

I do know where the other candidates stand on the issue of Iraq. The Kucinich supporters do not and are spreading misinforation. That's why I am challenging them.

[MuseRider]

91. Kucinich supporters do not?

Perhaps some of us do not know the nuances or maybe even the real policies of other candidates because some of them seem to change with rapidity. Not to be insulting to any of them, I like most of them. That is a LARGE statement you made about Kucinich supporters, a blanket statement and therefore completely untrue. If you wish to learn more about Kucinich there is a wonderful thread in Politics and Campaigns right here on DU. Perhaps if we all were more educated about all the candidates we could more easily see the nuance of each and debate rather than accuse. I know I am woefully behind reading the sites of other candidates so I always appreciate when someone defends their candidates view with info or a link. If I do this correctly you will have the link to a thread that has a lot of info on it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=10913

[maha]

105. That's what I'm talkin' about.

This thread in a nutshell:

Other: Kucinich won the debate.
Maha: I wasn't that impressed.
Other: ONLY KUCINICH wants to turn the Iraq war over to the UN and get out.
Maha: Huh? Right now they pretty much all want to turn the Iraq War over to the UN (or NATO, or "multinational forces") and get out, EL.*
Other: No, they don't. They want to continue Bush's policies.
Maha: Where do you get that? (Never answered to my satisfaction.)
Other: Kucinich wants to bring the troops home NOW, and that's his plan.
Maha: That's not a plan. Steps must be taken. Money must be spent.
Other: If you don't agree with Kucinich, you must want all the soldiers to come home in body bags.
Maha: If we proceed to withdraw without adequate funding a preparation, all the soldiers WILL come home in body bags.
Other: If you don't agree with Kucinich, you must not appreciate how bad things are in Iraq.
Maha: Go to hell.

And that's my last word on this thread.

* Except Lieberman

[MuseRider]

107. Getting out of this thread

is probably a good idea. Until you know what he means by spending the time to find out you will not have the high ground here. You will be at the level that you are screaming about here. Some know, some don't and you apparently don't either, at least about the nuances of DK's policy.

[jumptheshadow]

112. The problem with this position

By the admission of U.N. leader Kofi Annan, the organization is in painful need of a major restructuring in order to be effective. Personally, I love the concept of the U.N. Every dollar we send to it ultimately is a good investment. But I don't believe it could handle the massive reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure. Its own infrastructure is too shaky at this given moment.

That's why the most effective solution will ultimately be a compromise. The U.S. should cede its financial interests in Iraq. Our new Democratic president should negotiate for as much U.N. help as the organization can effectively provide. Unfortunately, American and U.N. troops will have to provide security for reconstruction personnel.

[RichM]

20. Generally speaking, he is saying "US out, UN in."

He recognizes the need for humanitarian assistance. He understands that what is really going on behind the scenes is nothing but great-power haggling over control of oil & reconstruction contracts; he doesn't want this to determine policy. So he's proposing that decisons be made through the UN. He wants the Iraqis to be able to control their own fate as soon as possible, unlike Bonehead, who wants to install an obedient puppet regime.

[Pepperbelly]

22. that does not differ much from

what Dean and Clark propose. Basically identical positions.

[RichM]

25. No,not at all. Here is the comparison -

DK - give up contracts, give up control of oil, take soldiers home ASAP; control goes to UN

The others: don't give up contracts, don't give up the oil; keep the soldiers there; control stays with US.

Do those things sound like "Basically identical positions?"

[maha]

27. What it sounds like is a lie.

I've got a transcript of the dadblamed debate sitting next to me as I keyboard. NONE of the candidates, not even Lieberman, are saying "don't give up contracts, don't give up the oil; keep the soldiers there; control stays with US."

In other words, your position is bullshit.

[RichM]

37. I offered my interpretation of "Stay the course." Let's hear yours.

When an American politician of either party says "We have to stay the course and support our troops," I believe my interpretion is exactly what he means.

Needless to say, it is not something you'd be likely to find in a transcript.

[maha]

39. Who is saying "stay the course"?

Other than, maybe, Lieberman, none of the Democratic candidates are saying that.

If you disagree, please provide concrete examples. I think you are wrong.

[LWolf]

40. Sounds like a flame to me.

When someone goes into a conversation determined to make a predetermined point, and willing to twist and spin liberally to get there.....

I understand RichM's "don't give up contracts" etc. to be his interpretation of the democratic candidates' "stay the course" remarks. Since that's the course we are currently on. I don't see a falsehood there.

Of course, it's all open to interpretation and spin, isn't it? In come cases, all political discussions turn out to be "bullshit."

[maha]

41. But who says "stay the course"?

That's what's baffling to me. I've got a copy of the debate transcript on my desk; I've got a window to the debate transcript open on my computer. I did a text search of the words "stay the course," and it came up once -- in Kucinich's remarks. Kucinich accuses the other candidates of saying "stay the course," BUT NONE OF THEM SAID IT. They all said, "the course has to change."

Go back and actually READ what the other candidates SAID.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A433-2003Sep25?language=printer

Lieberman is a weasle, agreed, but what the other candidates are saying is "we need to withdraw but we need to do so in a wise and responsible manner that doesn't make stuff even worse than it already is."

[LWolf]

47. I'll let RichM give you that one,

since it's his(?)post! I believe Dennis, and RichM, were referring to statements made previous to the debate, but I don't have links for ya.

[maha]

52. You'll have to do better.

Howard Dean sure as hell isn't saying "stay the course." He's been against the war all along. Ditto Clark (recent confusing statements notwithstanding), ditto Moseley Braun, and ditto Sharpton. Mosley Braun, Clark, and Dean clearly want to bring the troops home. But they understand that a safe and orderly withdrawal will take some time and money. How MUCH time and money is a matter they need to be pressed on.

Sharpton's policy is indistinguishable from Kucinich's.

Lieberman was going on about staying the course in the recent past, no question about that.

Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt all voted for the Iraq War resolution, but months ago they backed off of support from the war in various ways. None of them is saying "stay the course" NOW. If you want to argue that they should have had more sense that to have supported Shrub in the first place -- well, you'd be right. Also, I have serious concerns that these three guys -- Kerry and Gephardt in particular -- would not pursue a withdrawal as vigorously as I would like. But with each of those guys I believe you'd have to go back a few months to find any quotes supporting Shrub on the war.

[Mairead]

92. No, Dean hasn't 'been against the war all along'

Up til 20th February, he was for it. See Jake Tapper's column in Salon for the quote, or simply do a search on 'Tapper' in DU within the last week.

[Karmadillo]

95. Is this the quote?

I don't have access to Salon premium, but this quote has been posted several times without it being labeled a fabrication. If this had passed the Congress, Bush would have decided the UN hadn't enforced its own resolutions, given the required notice, and then gone to war. Not the most antiwar position I can think of. Sounds pretty much like a blank check.

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

"s I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

[Mairead]

114. Yep, that's the quote

[bpilgrim]

57. feeding the addiction is not 'a wise and responsible manner' imho

replacing U.S. troops and political control with a U.N. sanctioned multinational force, prefably made up regional forces, and political control is the ONLY 'reasonable' course we will eventually have to take if we don't wan't to go brooke by bleeding to death slowly on the hot insatiable sands of iraq.

i like DK's plan the best :hi:

peace

[maha]

64. DK doesn't have a plan.

He has a goal, turning the mess in Iraq over to somebody else, which is the goal of the rest of the candidates, EL.* The question is, how will this be accomplished? Do you think it can be done next week for no money at all? What is the PLAN?

*Except Lieberman

[bpilgrim]

69. cut off the funding... don't feed the addiction.

force them to the table.

unless we wanna drag this thing out even further.

:hi:

peace

[maha]

74. That's irresponsible.

You sound just like the neocons -- starve the beast.

Bringing home the troops with minimum casualties, turning the mess over to a multinational force, WILL COST MONEY AND WILL TAKE TIME.

[bpilgrim]

78. no that is called the 'REAL WORLD'

the more you feed the addiction... the more it will cost in time, money and death.

peace

[RichM]

80. OK, here are some quotes culled from the transcript re "stay the course"

You're right that that exact phrase wasn't spoken Thurs. nite. However, the point is the CONCEPT of "stay the course," not the phrase per se. "Finish the job" is exactly the same idea. And, depending on the exact details, "supporting our troops" may also amount to much the same thing. (If you keep the troops there, you retain control. This leads to controlling reconstruction, & eventually installing a puppet government & de facto control of the oil.)

For example, in your paraphrase above, you portray the other 8 candidates as saying "We need to withdraw but we need to do so in a wise and responsible manner..." This may also amount to a euphemism for retaining control. (Even Bush would agree with "withdrawing as soon as possible in a wise & responsible manner.") You'd have to know the details of the plan (specifically as regards the troops, the oil, & the contracts) before you could judge whether it's a euphemism or not.

===================
OK, here are the relevant quotes. You can judge for yourself whether or not they are equivalent to "stay the course," or whether they might well amount to the same thing, once the details are filled in. Bear in mind: the Iraq question that was asked was not about Iraq strategy generally. It was limited to how one would vote on the recent $87 billion request.

Clark - We need to make this operation a success. We need to support our troops.

Dean - So I believe not only should we get rid of the $87 billion worth of tax cuts to pay to support our troops--even though I did not support the war in the beginning, I think we have to support our troops...

Lieberman - But we have no choice but to finance this program for two reasons...We have those 140,000 American troops there. We need to protect them...We cannot afford to lose this fight.

Graham - I will support whatever is required for the troops in Iraq. I will not support a dime for the profits of Halliburton. We have two clear issues: one, support of the troops. I believe that should be done by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans and using that to pay the cost of occupation of Iraq. For the rebuilding of Iraq, I believe that we should look to the Iraqi oil source in the same way that in the 1990s we looked to the Mexican oil source in order to finance the bail-out plan that we had for them.

DK - The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

AS - In terms of your question (about the $87 billion) I would unequivocally vote no, because I think to continue to invest in a flawed and failed policy is not wise or prudent.

Edwards - Well, what's happening, Gloria, is we have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. The second thing is, when we went into Iraq, we, the United States of America, assumed a responsibility to share--and I emphasize share--with our allies and friends the effort to reconstruct. .... So the answer to your question is, we will vote for, I will vote for, what's necessary to support the troops.

CMB - And so, it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we just not blow up that country and leave it blown up; we have a responsibility...

Kerry - ...There are some other conditions that I think are critical and, until I know how that comes out in the struggle, I can't tell you exactly where I'm going to vote.


===============
My remarks on the 9 mentioned: AS & DK are clearly different. Kerry actually didn't say much; he confined his remarks to the vote on the $87 billion. The rest all want to support the troops. Lieberman, Clark & Graham are the worst, naturally. Graham overtly admits that he wants to steal Iraqi oil to pay for reconstruction -- EVEN WHILE making the jibe at Halliburton. (Where does he suppose the oil sales proceeds would go, if not to companies exactly like Halliburton?) Clark insists on the operation's "success." That means "victory" - doing it our way. Lieberman doesn't sound like he'll be pulling home troops any time soon. Neither does CMB. Her remark about "not cutting and running" is exactly "stay the course."

[Pepperbelly]

30. that is not Clark's position ...

“I wasn’t one of those who was anxious to get into Iraq. I always was skeptical of it. I always doubted that there was an imminent danger that required us to do it. Nevertheless, we’re there now and that’s all ancient history.

So, what we have to do is I think, number one: establish legitimacy. For some reason, we fought the UN full endorsement of this mission and the full engagement of the United Nations. For the life of me, I don’t know why. The same people who fought the UN were telling me five years ago – all they could talk about was ‘burden-sharing, burden-sharing, burden-sharing,’ ‘mission creep, mission creep, mission creep,’ ‘exit strategy, exit strategy.’ And somehow, all that disappeared and I don’t understand it. So, I’d go first to the United Nations. I’d say, “Look, we know you don’t have a security force. We’ll finish the job, we’ll work for security. We want you to come in and we want you to really help us work the reconstruction and the redevelopment of Iraq.” There’s political redevelopment to be done, there is economic reconstruction to be done. And, there’s a whole new climate in the Middle East to be created.

Legitimacy is job number one. The second is the creation of public order over there. As soon as you can turn those responsibilities over to elements that speak Arabic and preferably Iraqis the better you are.

The third thing is, stay engaged in the region and work for peace as an effective intermediary between the contending parties in the Middle East so we don’t attract more anger and more hostility in the region.

But you know, my fourth point is, we’re there. This is a difficult situation. It’s going on on three levels: the resistance you see today, the ordinary life of the people in Baghdad and down below that something we’re not quite sure of, which is a sort of level three, subterranean forming up of Iranian dissidents coming in and organizations from Syria. We just don’t know where that’s going to go. We can influence it if we’ll work for legitimacy through international institutions, move the problem over to the Arabic-speaking and the Iraqis, and stay engaged as a constructive force in the region.”

[maha]

33. I agree

"Let's just get out" is not a substantive policy.

[Mairead]

90. His policy is to hand the whole thing--including the contracts--over

to the UN. In other words, the whole thing, not just the nasty bits.

[ott]

8. As long as people withdraw support because they're told he's unelectable

... We're going to hit that iceberg. And it won't be on a Republican administration's watch.

Sure, anyone other than Bush might slow down the process, but Kucinich is the only one who can 180 the course. I've not seen any of the other candidates willing to do what's needed.

[maha]

12. That's not why I don't support him.

I don't like his policies. It's grand to say, "let's just PULL OUT OF IRAQ," but that's not a policy. I want to hear HOW he's gonna pull out of Iraq. As much as I hate the war, there are solid reasons for an orderly, gradual retreat as opposed to a bugout.

[moosedog]

15. How to pull out ....

Let the UN and other countries have some of the oil and riches that were taken. Then the rest of the world would help and let the middle east live the way they want to . If we are friends and help them to settle their quarrels instead of controlling them, then our young women & men would not have to lose their lives to make the thugs in power get richer and run the world. But do you, for one minute, think that our, power hungry, greedy, squatters in the WH, are willing to share the stolen goods?

[maha]

26. That's fine, but

How does it differ from the rest of the Democratic field? All of them (Lieberman excepted) are saying get out, let the UN or NATO take over, give Iraq back to the Iraqis, etc.

The question is, how will that be done? Are you going to just send all the troops a plane ticket? Or are you going to finance an orderly withdrawal along with repair of insfrastructure?

I thought the best answer to the Iraq question in the debate came from Carol Mosley Braun:

MOSELEY BRAUN: I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are in the desert in Iraq and who right now are in the shooting gallery without even sufficient supplies to sustain themselves.

And so, it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we just not blow up that country and leave it blown up; we have a responsibility.

Following in on that responsibility means we will have to vote some money. The estimates vary as to what that is.

Almost a year ago, I called on this president not to go into Iraq and I called on the Congress not to give him the authority to go into Iraq, and at the same time asked the question, "Mr. President, how much is this going to cost?" He didn't answer the question then, he's not answering the question now.

But I believe that it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.

I also liked Edwards's answer:

EDWARDS: Well, what's happening, Gloria, is we have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them.

The second thing is, when we went into Iraq, we, the United States of America, assumed a responsibility to share--and I emphasize share--with our allies and friends the effort to reconstruct.

That does not mean George Bush should get a blank check. He certainly shouldn't get a blank check under these circumstances.

So the answer to your question is, we will vote for, I will vote for, what's necessary to support the troops.

But we have a lot of questions that have to be answered first. We have to find out what--how he plans to bring our allies in, how much control he plans to give up in that process. We need to find out what, in fact, is our long-term plan there, how much money he plans to spend over the long term.

He's given us no long-term budget nor any idea about how he plans to pay for it.

So I think there are a lot of questions that have be answered.

And as one of the people on this stage who has a responsibility, I take that responsibility very seriously.

But this is what Kucinich answered to the question:

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate--and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.

After a while, we're going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing and the future of this nation.

First off, it's outrageous for that statement about the security document to have been allowed to stand without rebuttal. What document? Where is this document? For all we know, it's an anti-war document warning Congress that we'd better get out now or we'll end up spending $245 billion. Kucinich implies that Clark WANTS to spend the $245 billion, and I suspect that's a falsehood.

Second, it's easy to yell "let's get out!" I say it all the time (see graphic below). But any withdrawal is going to cost a lot of money jsut to prevent it from becoming a bloodbath. Kucinich's answer suggests to me he doesn't think this stuff out real hard.

I was way unimpressed.

[LWolf]

28. And that's why I do.

I love his policies. They are the closest a politician has ever come to what I really think!

Here's some of the "how," since you wanted to hear it:

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#un

July 28, 2003: Kucinich Calls for U.N. to Replace U.S. In Iraq
In statements from his Congressional office and on the campaign trail, Kucinich continued today to advocate that U.N. peacekeeping forces replace U.S. troops in Iraq. His stance is in stark contrast to other Democratic candidates; Howard Dean, for example, supports sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq (Meet the Press, 6/22).

Kucinich said today: "This weekend, with the deaths of 5 US troops, we were once again reminded of the dangers facing US troops in what has become a quagmire. To date 243 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. It is time that the United States begins the process of withdrawing our troops, and
allow a UN peacekeeping force to take over the reconstruction of Iraq.

"In their rush to war, the Administration failed to adequately prepare for the post-invasion period. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the US letting go of the contracting process.

"The UN must also take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self- determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally, the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction."

<snip>
9/7/2003
Kucinich Answers President Bush
Congressman Kucinich issued this statement in response to Bush's televised address from the White House: "Rather than acknowledging the failures of his policies, and the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, and that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the President this evening attempted to compound his blunders by deepening America's involvement in Iraq.

"He seems to forget that he attempted to drag the entire world into this using claims that had no basis in fact -- the same world that he now has to go back to lacking credibility and having squandered the good will that was there two years ago.

"The Bush Administration's arrogant occupation of Iraq has harmed the United States' position in the world community, caused the deaths of 289 American soldiers at last count, and diverted tens of billions of dollars from domestic needs. Now the President is asking for another $87 billion.

"We must allow the UN to take over peacekeeping operations in the country. The UN must take over management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton.

"The President has been unable to produce evidence that this war was fought over weapons of mass destruction. It is not too late for him to prove that it was not fought over oil. That can be done by returning control of the oil to the Iraqi people."

[maha]

32. He's not saying anything the other candidates aren't saying.

How is Kucinich's position different from the others? (except Lieberman)

[LWolf]

43. Since you asked:

:7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=10913

Plenty of substance right there for you. Take a look at:

Universal Health Care; only CMB, another favorite of mine, supports single payer health care for all americans.

Agriculture: Sustainable farms focused on raising food healthy for people and the environment: support for organic farming and opposing Monsanto's bid to force GMO crops and livestock literally down the world's throat.

International Relations: Strong on negotiation and partnership to solve problems. Strong on human relations across the globe. Much, much more.

Economy: Rebuild America's infrastructure

True support for troops: Congressman Kucinich supports legislation that provides the necessary services to our nation’s veterans. He is currently a cosponsor of HR 179, the "Keep Our Promise to America’s Military Retirees Act." This legislation, introduced by Representative Ronnie Shows, restores health care benefits to military retirees with more than 20 years of service. He is also a cosponsor of legislation, HR 303, introduced by Representative Michael Bilirakis to permit retired members of the Armed Forces who retired with over 20 years of service and who have service-connected disabilities to receive compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs concurrently with retired pay, without deduction from either. America must keep its promise for adequate health care and retirement benefits to those veterans who have served our country. Congressman Kucinich will continue to support and advocate any legislation that makes this promise a reality.

And much, much more.

The really great thing about Kucinich is that when he states a position, he actually introduces and/or supports legislation to make it happen. Reading his record in the house is an eye-opener. You'd find that he's already introduced legislation concerning many of the issues in his platform.

Most recently: last Sunday he told us (at a Studio City house party) that he is working on a bill to address BBV concerns. Complete with public ownership of codes and mandatory paper trails.

[Karmadillo]

45. Thanks much for the info about Kucinich working to address BBV concerns

I didn't know that, although I should have guessed it would be on his radar. What a President he'd make.

[LWolf]

48. He discussed the BBV issue in response to a question from

a young woman at the party. He didn't hesitate, jumped right in, and dissected the issue very cleanly, along with his work to address the concern.

He pays attention. And he acts on the issues. You have to hear him respond to impromptu questions from individuals to get the full effect!

What a president he'd make...a people's president.

[maha]

53. That;'s fine, but...

we were discussing his policies regarding IRAQ. How are his policies different from that of the other candidates?

[bpilgrim]

58. arrange for a multinational force with UN control

in a nut shell :hi:

peace

[maha]

65. How?

In a nut shell. What steps will you take to accomplish this?

[bpilgrim]

71. cut off the funding... don't feed the addiction.

it's the ONLY WAY, imho.

:hi:

peace

[maha]

76. Wishing won't make it so.

You are going to beam them home with your transporter, then?

Either answer the question or go away. WHAT STEPS ARE REQUIRED TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME?

This is critical, because the other candidates ARE addressing this issue, and Kucinich is NOT. That's why I don't respect them.

[bpilgrim]

81. thats why advicate cutting off the funding... DON'T FEED THE MACHINE

and it will stop... that is not fantasy that is a fact.

if you want to stop the neo-cons you have to stop feeding them.

peace

[maha]

84. I think I'll stop feeding you.

You are not thinking things through. And I am out of patience.

[bpilgrim]

111. same principal

very effective as well

:hi:

peace

[Enraged American]

18. In defense of Clark's "compassionate conservative" comment.

Would you have wanted Clark to say that the election was stolen? I wouldn't have. If we were living in a country with people of higher intellect, such as France, it would have been OK. But HERE, it would've been pretty embarrassing. Most of the Democrats I know don't even care anymore. Such a comment would have portrayed him as a "sore loser."

Oh, and I'm sorry to say; but Clark's comments about "compassionate conservative" are 100% A-OK with me. When Bush was "elected" NO ONE F---ING KNEW THAT HE WAS A FASCIST! HE WAS JUST ANOTHER DAMN REPUBLICAN!! America has changed.

[Pepperbelly]

19. IMO ..

compassion is good.

Conserving is good.

Bush is neither compassionate nor does he conserve.

[10digits]

21. I will surely vote for Kucinch.

When he speaks I hear music.
When he was elected Mayor of Cleveland he spanked the hornet's nest. I was living there then.

DK didn't rock the tired old boat he sank it. Cleveland was racialy divided and Dennis was elected because he united the poor blacks and whites and he won!!

The powers that be attacked and Dennis reeled and made mistakes(who would'nt)
I will vote for DK here in AZ.

[LWolf]

23. I want a new avatar.

The raised fist. That's what I always think of when I hear people standing up for the candidate that will sink the ship of corruption.

:yourock:

[Desertrose]

51. Hey 10digits

I'm in AZ too...N Az....what part are you in?
if you can...PM me sometime

:hi: welcome to DU
Peace
DR

[bpilgrim]

60. welcome to DU 10digits

:toast:

DK is da man :bounce:

peace

[MuseRider]

68. YIPEE!

Welcome to DU. Another Kucinich supporter is a good thing.

[JVS]

104. Great!

[Karmadillo]

108. Welcome, 10digits. Like those images.

n/t