Someone owes Dennis an apology for falsification of his letter

[genius]

Earlier today, Madfloridian (using a DFA logo) posted a falisfied version of a letter from Kucinich to Dean. The falsified version had the additional words added after Wellstone's name "The only Senator to vote against the war," in what appeared to be an attempt to make Dennis's letter look inacurate. Dennis always has the facts down cold and so no one connected with Dennis bought the defamation. What I want to know is did this falsifed version come from DFA, itself, or from another source.

Dennis is the leader of the opposition to Bush in Congress. For someone to go out of their way to falsify one of his letters is, in effect, an attack against all those who are truly opposed to Bush. I want to know where this falsification originated.

If anyone spread the false information, they also owe Dennis an apology.

[Selatius]

1. You'll never get an apology, I fear

Only a coward would stab Kucinich in the back like that. You honestly think someone who would stoop to such bullshit tactics is going to grow a set of steel balls and come out and admit it???

[Adelante]

2. MF's not about to do something like that

There were differing versions of the letter, but MF did not spread anything falsely. She is a sincere person.

[madfloridian]

8. MF has a hard drive of the facts on this. Nothing to do with being nice.

I will hire a lawyer if need be, and I will not be intimidated. See the google cache below.

[Adelante]

12. I didn't say you were nice

I said you were sincere.

[madfloridian]

13. I am being accused.

This is not funny!!

[Adelante]

15. I'm not being funny

I don't think this is funny.

[Clarkie1]

3. Do you have a link to the original letter?

That would be helpful in making your case.

[madfloridian]

5. I have a whole damn hard drive full.

The mods locked the thread, but I have proof. If this continues I will hire a lawyer.

[LittleClarkie]

6. In the locked thread is a google cache of the original from Yahoo

And if the OP is waiting for an apology from Yahoo, I fear it's gonna be a while.

Some aide maybe, getting alittle zealous perhaps. We may never know.

But I think it was picked up here innocently enough.

[nickgutierrez]

7. Here's the link from DK's email:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich

[genius]

11. It's posted at Kucinich.us

Here's the content of the actual letter:

An Open Letter to Howard Dean

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.

Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

[madfloridian]

4. Here is the google cache link. I am very sorry you started this.

http://tinyurl.com/9pxkq

"Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?"

I will await YOUR apology. I have about 5 of them on my hard drive, showing this quote. Common Dreams and The Nation changed it after almost a day with marking it as edited.

We can take this to the mods if you wish. I have written them already and I have my documents.

[killbotfactory]

9. How did DFA hack the google cache?!

Those insidious bastards!

[genius]

14. But that's the falisified version - not the letter DK sent to Dean.

I think Dennis awaits your apology for desceminating this falsifed version.

[madfloridian]

10. I will hire a lawyer. My hubby agrees. I have the proof.

The letter was edited. Threaten me, I will do something about this.

Google cache, I also have Kevin's post in Kucinich forum.
http://tinyurl.com/9pxkq

[killbotfactory]

16. Kucinich does not make mistakes

Your proof must be wrong.

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Clarkie1]

17. I've seen the evidence MF posted. She owes you no apology.

Obviously, it was not her error.

[madfloridian]

18. Here is Kevin Spidel's post in the Kucinich forum last night.

An Open Letter to Howard Dean
by REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH



Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.

Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

[Radical Activist]

19. I got the letter via email.

It was not the version with the "only senator to vote against" quote. I have to think what I got in my email from the official Kucinich email list is what Dennis actually wrote.

[Moderator]

20. Locking

The original post in this thread contains a clear personal attack on another DU member, explicitly prohibited by DU rules:

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.