Kucinich on Iran: Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same - "All Options On Table" A Euphemism For War

[Hissyspit]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/04/05/kucinich_bushs_approach_to_iran_raises_questions_about_impeachment

- snip -

The Bush administration recently altered its position on Iraq, saying that the U.S. is willing to talk to Iran on security in Iraq. At the same time, the administration also reaffirmed that all options are on the table to deter Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Though other Democratic presidential candidates have criticized Bush's approach to Iran and called for direct talks, Kucinich argued that by repeating the "all options on the table" line, his rivals are supporting an eventual invasion: "Senators (Hillary) Clinton, (Barack) Obama and (John) Edwards are all virtually the same, saying all options are on the table. That is a euphemism for war," he said.

Voters only have to look at how those candidates have voted on the Iraq war to predict how they'd handle Iran, Kucinich said. Edwards and Clinton voted to authorize the war in 2002, though Edwards has apologized and Clinton says she would not have voted the same way if she knew then what she knows now. Obama, who wasn't in the Senate then, opposed the war from the start, though he and Clinton have voted to continue funding it while pushing for the withdrawal of American troops. Kucinich voted against both the authorization and subsequent funding of the war.

"Anyone running for president who tries to assert that they stand for peace while simultaneously voting for funding needs to be challenged," Kucinich said. "That old canard: 'I'm doing it for the troops?' Oh, please," Kucinich said. "If they really cared about the troops, they'd bring them home."

[JI7]

1. HAHAHHAHAHHA

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

6. Let me ask you a question point blank? Will you vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is?

[still_one]

5. If you really believe the position of the Democratic nominees on Iraq is the same as bush

BS. Kucinich can say what he wants, but everyone of the candidates is better than anyone of the candidates the republicans have to offer

Aruge, debate, and vote for the candidate of your choice in the primaries, but I will say this:

ANYONE who doesn't vote DEMOCRATIC in the GENERAL ELECTION in 2008, is voting to continue the war in Iraq, doesn't believe in a dialog with other countries, doesn't believe that the Supreme Court is important, doesn't believe in national healthcare, social security, or a woman's right to choose

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I know I'd choose being a quadrapeligic over being dead, that's for sure.

Not that I'd like to have to make that choice....

[still_one]

8. Good, we agree

I also believe Kucinich is an important candidate, because he will keep the candidates focused on getting us out of Iraq

In fact, if and when bush vetos the funding bill, Feingold, I believe with Reid, are going to introduce a bill to try and stop funding, at least I think that is what I heard

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Yep, Kucinich is dragging people over as fast as he can. It's good to have

an in house critic, it's extremely valueable to have a dissenter on our side.

I grow weary of candidate worship. I've been around long enough to know that power corrupts, and we the people get screwed if we give up our power to our fleeting heroes.

Keep all their feet to the fire (including Dennis') and it ends up a lot better for we the people.

I've only had one political hero in my life and that was Paul Wellstone. One thing I liked about Wellstone is he started out as an activist rabble rouser and remained in that role for a long long time before he ever entered politics as a politician. i think it gave him perspective.

[The Sushi Bandit]

9. Dennis is my Man!

http://www.mauiweekly.com/features/story2348.aspx
check out this link about his visit to maui a few months ago... he is for real!

[AtomicKitten]

10. Nonsense.

But I appreciate Dennis saying precisely what I expect he would thereby setting him apart from those that understand politics.

It is critical that the candidates be credible on issues of national security.

Dennis' position on national security is a euphemism for failing miserably in the primary - again.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. I think LBJ would have agreed with you.

Though I have to say, you don't win 5 house races and before that win the Mayorship of a major American city without understanding politics. Well maybe you might think you do, but I disagree.

Some politicians approach politics from a moral/ethical position. Paul Wellstone, Burney Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich seem to be in that class.

And some approach politics from the point of view that you just have to do stuff you might not agree with if it means you get elected, because after all, your first job is to get elected if you are a politician.

[AtomicKitten]

13. *

Dennis Kucinich will not win the nomination. All the bluster and hubris from his supporters will not make it so, but please feel free to pretend he has a snowball's chance in hell. I've got no problem with the charade.

I, however, do resent his attempts to bloody the viable candidates; here he takes a pot shot at three of them by misstating their policy positions to get a rise from people that aren't precise in their thinking and prefer to rely on slogans about war and peace.

None of the three candidates he lifted his leg on are advocating war or more war. Two made the epic error of voting yes on the IWR, but one had the good sense to oppose the war from the get-go. Gobama.

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. So what are you afraid of?

Dennis speaking the truth?

As for the "lifting of his leg" comment I must say that it doesn't deserve a response. I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Afraid? I named my emotion -- resentment.

You can re-read my post if you have any more questions.

I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Seriously lame and dated personal attack, dude.

[zulchzulu]

34. What's funny about this vitriol...

This dude is for the "peace candidate"...

:puke: :rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

17. 9 of the ten or so declared or rumored to run candidates will lose. So it's all

bluster and hubris from 9 or so of the candidates and pure brilliance for one.

Only one candidate is viable, the rest will be also rans.

I resent your assumptions about who is legitimate. All of our candidate are legitimate because they all meet the requirements of the US constitution and the Democratic Party for candidacy.

I know you can't stand anyone to say even anything approaching the truth if it reflects badly on your heroes.

Well, if you prefer hero worship to honesty, that's your problem.

The truth of the matter is, three said all options are on the table for Iran. That would include nuking Iran, since nuking is an option. That is what they said, but if you prefer to believe they are lying about that, then that is your right.

I take them at their word, and it looks like Dennis does too.

Einstein said you can't simultaneously prepare for war and for peace. But what did he know?

If you call that "lifting his leg on" then you aren't very familiar with politics. I think about the one million Iraqi men women and children that Americas leaders "lifted their leg on."

You go ahead and feel sorry for those same leaders, if you want to. I'll reserve my pity for the poor people of Iraq and for our dead and wounded soldiers. Votes have consequences.

I'm not sure if voting to fund a war one is opposed to is a calculated move, a naive move, or just going along with the crowd. But i would like to know what Obama has to say about it. Hopefully we will find out during the debates.

[Greyhound]

18. LOL! A 5 term congressman doesn't understand politics, but you do.

What is that public office you've been elected, and re-elected to? Oh yes, you haven't.

DK's supporters "aren't precise in their thinking", but you are, so precise that you have some apparent difficulty expressing your derision for all those idiots in Ohio that keep electing him over and over.

Before you start criticizing others for their opinions and beliefs, especially in a written medium, you might consider a few english, or writing courses at your local community college.

[AtomicKitten]

19. *

Before you start criticizing others for their opinions and beliefs, especially in a written medium, you might consider a few english, or writing courses at your local community college.

I'll pass your advice on to my editor. :rofl:

On the canceled Democratic debate, Kucinich defended The Fox Noise Channel calling them a "legitimate news organization" asserting, "the public deserves honest, open, and fair public debate." Kucinich said, "It's an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny." :eyes: High-minded rhetoric indeed from a guy who has refused to debate any challenger since he was elected to Congress. The last congressional debate in which Kucinich participated was in 1996. Apparently, the congressman has had no trouble insulting the voters in all the years he's been the incumbent.

And every time Kucinich misrepresents the other candidates' positions for self-serving purposes (you know, the other candidates that do understand politics - perhaps your local community college offers a reading comprehension course B-)), you can expect he will be called on it.

[Greyhound]

23. Please do, I'm sure it will make her/his job much easier.

We have Mr. Pacheco and Mr. Pitt here too, perhaps you would enlighten us as to what you've written as well.

As for your insulting and arrogant assessment of the voters of Ohio, and the simpletons that find such radical ideas as peace is better than war, taking care of people is better than ensuring avaricious profits for corporations, and international cooperation is better than imperious force, how we can come to realize that your's is the better way. So far you neither defend nor retract, choosing instead to ignore the matter.

Now, why don't spend some time telling us why we should vote for the candidate you, with your superior insight and intellect, think that we should be supporting. Or is it just easier make asinine pronouncements from the safety of your much deserved anonymity?

[AtomicKitten]

25. what is asinine, sir

... is to suggest that anyone here at DU thinks "radical ideas as peace is (are) better than war." That extrapolation is entirely in your head. Your crankiness appears to be getting the better of you.

I support Al Gore; if he doesn't run, Barack Obama.

On edit and since you asked:
My results from http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=08frontrunners

(100%) 1: Sen. Barack Obama (D)
(87%) 2: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D)
(84%) 3: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D)
(77%) 4: Gov. Bill Richardson (D)
(76%) 5: Ex-VP Al Gore (D)
(71%) 6: Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D)
(71%) 7: Sen. Christopher Dodd (D)
(66%) 9: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D)
(60%) 10: Sen. Joseph Biden (D)

[Greyhound]

44. I can only assume by your nonresponse that you have no argument

to justify your derision, nor claimed prescience, so I guess those of us too stupid to concede defeat a year and a half before the election will just have to muddle through the best we can, without your help.

Of course, in the current version of America I'm sure that it makes sense to you that the best way to end a war is to provide the funds that will ensure that is does not end for years to come, but I suspect that, just like the bastards that voted to allow and continue to fund it, if it was your ass over there getting shot at you'd have a different point of view.

[AtomicKitten]

46. it probably never occurred to you

that the difference of opinion here is how to end the war, not ending the war. Having overlooked what apparently was too fine a point to stand out to you, I view that as really the crux of this conversation.

One of the reasons I support Obama is because he was against the war from the get-go; that matters to me. And although I wish someone could wave a magic wand and make the war just stop, I realize it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that and requires a certain degree of finesse. IMO just cutting off funding will not work and will have devastating consequences.

I flat-out don't agree with Kucinich's not particularly well thought out albeit emotionally sticky opinion about how to end the war. I also think Kucinich was out of line with his distorted framing of the policy views of Edwards, Hillary, and Obama re: Iraq, and I think he did it for self-serving purposes.

And rather than attacking me personally for my point of view, try addressing the difference of opinion. Isn't that what we are here for? Jeez, if I want someone to abuse me verbally, I'd call my mother.

[Greyhound]

47. Fine by me. You're the one that took it to nasty.

Perhaps you can somehow believe that the way to end a war is to make certain that it doesn't end for years to come, but we don't share that view. Hell we fell for it when Nixon did it in '68, but it's funny that it wasn't ended until after thousands more soldiers and hundreds of thousands more citizens were dead, and nothing was accomplished, he was on his way out, disgraced, in his second term, just ahead of his imminent impeachment.

I just can't believe that so many people are falling for this crap, It's déjà vu all over again, they haven't even bothered to make up different lies.:eyes:

Since you are speaking in favor of this "policy", maybe you can answer this, did we achieve "peace with dignity"? Did we "save" Vietnam from the "evils of communism"? How do you imagine that the outcome will be any different this time (other than the fact that this time it was the Republiks that started it and the Democrats were elected to end it)? What miraculous transformation will occur that will make it all worth it?

Another difference this time, due to the absence of the draft, none of them have any blood in the game. Just like the cheerleaders here safe at home and whining because the price of gas is too high. Playing politics, pretending that up is down and wrong is right, while poor people on both (all) sides continue to die.

[AtomicKitten]

50. interesting how people view things.

FTR: I did not attack you personally. You cannot say the same.

That aside, I remember quite well what transpired during Vietnam. Many of my male classmates were drafted. I wore the black arm band and protested.

What is different this go is that the Democratic Congress is maneuvering to set a binding time line for withdrawal just like the GOP did during the Clinton Administration. It is more precise and absolute than cutting off funding. I don't believe there is a reasonable argument to be made that cutting off funding would be faster or more efficient than a time line for withdrawal.

The difference as you pointed out is that with no draft, people have not hit the streets en masse over and over and over and over again like they did during Vietnam (full props to those that have protested). Because of no draft, the draftable generation for the most part, and I have a 20-year-old son so I know firsthand, have their IPod ear buds in and are grooving to Fall Out Boy.

You are arguing the war itself and venting your anger and frustration, pointing your finger at people that aren't behaving like you are and accusing them of not being engaged, aware, complacent, and of playing politics. On that count you are dead wrong. This isn't an exercise in comparative outrage.

I think if people would pull up their socks and do the hard work of separating emotion from strategy, some of these flash-fires on DU wouldn't be so prevalent. With impatience at bay, extracting our sorry asses from Iraq is, in fact, a stickier, much more complex endeavor than simply shutting off the faucet of resources.

I realize you are content to back the candidate that is screaming from the rooftops, thinking he is the one that has the answer, but I don't agree and apparently neither do a majority of Democrats because he doesn't appear to have knocked himself out fundraising on his own behalf. Until election finance reform is a reality, that matters. If you don't get elected, you don't govern.

And back to the beginning of this exchange and the above conversation aside, Kucinich gave us a dry run in 2004 and there is no reason to believe either by actual support or by fundraising prowess that he has a ghost of chance of getting the nomination. I realize you disagree and that is your prerogative, but just like Nader rendered himself a pariah by attacking the Dems, if Kucinich keeps up attacking and trying to bloodying up the - and again sorry this is tough love - viable candidates (and I will object every time he does), he too will be reduced to a similar fate.

It will take more than bellicose rhetoric to end this war.

On edit: My most fervent desire is that Gore throws his hat into the ring because I believe he will unite the party and kick the ever lovin' crap out of the GOP. I hope on that we agree. And then what would DU have to argue about?

Peace.

[zulchzulu]

30. Lay off the bong, Junior

What the hell are you taking about?

Do you think that those who see past Little Kootchie's screaming tantrums and flailing, failing campaign are therefore for war and corporatized media spinoffs...

I was a fan of Kucinich.

What a fool I was.

He is a charlatan. He's pretty meaningless as well and will waste lots of people's money to get barely 50 delegates before it's all said and done. There's a good reason why he will never get past 1% in any primary...

[Greyhound]

43. Do you have anything to add, or are you just compelled to interject

meaningless and unsubstantiated judgments due to some inferiority complex that you have yet to deal with? Or Perhaps you've just been off your meds too long?

In any case, if you want to discuss the issue, then you'll need to make a point, otherwise life's far too short to waste any more of it on you and your opinions.

[AtomicKitten]

45. self-delete

[rinsd]

32. AK, I think you may have been misinformed.

"The last congressional debate in which Kucinich participated was in 1996."

I was interested in this because people blasted Clinton when she ignored Tasini but let McKinney off with a pass when she did the same to her primary opponent.

Now Kucinich may not have debated his primary opponent this year.

http://www.newsnet5.com/politics/8604065/detail.html

http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/cleve_openers/archives/print129657.html

But I know he debated his GOP opponent at least once

http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/opennotebook/

[AtomicKitten]

42. He went from 1996 to 9/06 without debating.

Before his 9/06 debate with Mike Dovilla, the last congressional debate in which Kucinich participated was in 1996 when Rep. Martin Hoke, the then-incumbent, agreed to debate him, the challenger, at the City Club of Cleveland.

[zulchzulu]

28. Kucinich would rather support the war by proxy and make money off it

That's precisely what he is doing.

By not offering viable, passable legislation to end the war incrementally (i.e., realistically) and trashing the efforts of those who see the big picture and want to put Bush in a corner where he has nowhere to go, Kucinich sees only himself as some self-appointed "Peace" candidate.

Kucinich only offers failure...charlatanesque chest-thumping with no viable solutions to the war are in fact no different that a Republican voting for the war. It's the same result. He knows it. He wants to use the war as a way to raise money for his vanity campaign. It's that simple.

If Kucinich really cared about ending the war, he would join the others that are trying to do so realistically. What admiration I've had for him in the past has absolutely vanished.

I had mentioned in another post about what he would be like in real life. Imagine being on a mountain climbing camping trip that you didn't want to go on, but due to being forced to, now are there. There are storms coming and you need to run for shelter. Nancy Pelosi advises you to go into the cover where the storm will pass and you can survive. Kucinich stands there yelling at you that we should have never gone on the mountain and need to go down now. Who do you listen to?

[AtomicKitten]

29. no-brainer

at least for me :)

[Flabbergasted]

48. I'll take a link on any indication that he supports the war or makes money off it please?

You do realize he is one of the least wealthy people in congress?

[Flabbergasted]

14. Yes an extremely important fact.

[Adelante]

20. I disagree with Dennis on this particular point

"All Options On Table" A Euphemism For War

Properly it's a euphemism for all of the diplomatic toolkit, one part of which is the possibility of military force. It's unrealistic to remove that leverage from geopolitical negotiations. Nobody else will. Even a Paul Wellstone will know this and Dennis Kucinich should know it. However, saying it is on the table and going to war are two very different things. Clearly war is the very last step that should be considered once all other possibile resolutions have failed, in strictly limited circumstances, and extremely rarely. In the case of Iraq, the IWR voters permitted the cart to go before the horse. Dennis is right about that and I see no problem with him criticizing his opponents as long as he does it truthfully. He's running against Democrats here, not Republicans. I also wish our candidates would focus their attention on the threat of war with Iran rather than on the money at this time. The primary race could have started this month with the same obscene amounts of ca$h from the cows.

[Sparkly]

21. I've always loved Dennis, but lately I find I'm disagreeing with him more and more....

He's taking almost Nader-like positions, in the sense that he's practically standing outSIDE the party and hurling rocks within. It isn't helpful.

It'd be folly to take ANYthing "off the table" especially before talks are even in view. There's much more he could be doing to avert war with Iran. Seems to me this tactic is just counterproductive.

[skipos]

22. Yep. But we should just let him get his 1% and not worry too much about it. nt

[bigdarryl]

24. OH MAN!!! I Can't wait for those debates Kucinich is going to CRUCIFY them on there Iraq vote

[AtomicKitten]

26. Obama is looking forward to it.

[zulchzulu]

27. Sorry Kootch... your vanity campaign is sinking deeper in the muck

It's pathetic how Kucinich has become.

[SaveElmer]

31. "All Options On Table"

Is a euphemism for "All Options On Table"

Meaning like every President since George Washington, you don't tell a potential adversary what you are and are not going to do before negotiations even start...

Either Kucinich is incredibly ignorant, or more likely, grandstanding as part of his campaign strategy...

[zulchzulu]

33. Kucinich's own quote PROVES he is utterly clueless as a legislator

From the article:

"Anyone running for president who tries to assert that they stand for peace while simultaneously voting for funding needs to be challenged," Kucinich said. "That old canard: 'I'm doing it for the troops?' Oh, please," Kucinich said. "If they really cared about the troops, they'd bring them home."

Thank you Dennis. Thanks for proving you HAVE NO IDEA how legislation is passed. Yes, that funny word...legislation. Yunno, that thing you're supposed to be doing for your job...

Okie dokey, Dennis.

Let's walk into DennisWorld.

It's a land where you can say simplistic bumpersticker slogans and at least 1% of the crowd cheers with glee!

It's a land where you say things like "we just need to bring the troops home now" and presto...little magic dust swirls in a big cloud that turns into a big tie-died peace sign that turns into a magic carpet that miraculously whisks the troops away from harm's way.... ah.... bass the bong, baby...we're on a roll....

Meanwhile, back in Realityville, legislation needs to not only be able to be passed that can help stop the war, but also has enough votes to be veto-proof. If you fight against that legislation, you are either for the war or are allowing to legislation to fail by being against it and worse, offering NOTHING but bloviating failure with a price... to pay out of your pocket for a campaign doomed to failure.

[Radical Activist]

36. Kucinich doesn't pay for his campaign out of his pocket.

He doesn't pick up the phone to raise money for his campaign either. He expects small time online donors to bear the burden of his vanity campaign.

[Radical Activist]

35. "Kucinich" is quickly becoming a euphemism being full of

shit.

[AnOhioan]

38. Yes, there is a name I won't mention that is "full of shit"

It is not Dennis Kucinich though

[John Q. Citizen]

49. Is your above post the kind of trash talking you deplored when you were whining

about people bashing Obama yesterday? Telling lies about Obama? Being mean to Obama?

We Kucinich fans let this stuff role off like water of a ducks back.

Yet state the obvious and verififiable truth, that Obama has voted to fund the war every single time it came up, and you howl about how unfair people are being to you poor victims.

If I were to start a post "Obama is quickly becoming a euphemism for being hypocritical" would you consider that an unfair attack on poor little picked on Obama?

I would. I would consider that out of bounds.

You are what you hate, apparently.

[paulk]

37. if DK keeps this nonsense up

he's gonna lose his seat in the House in 2008.

[larsj]

39. Iran has no Nukes

Iran will not have nukes for 10+years.

Iran does not need to be 'dealt with' especially not by us with our recent record of lies for oil conquest and military Industrial complex profits.

Iran being a threat is a lie, created by Bushco for the benefit of PNAC. The candidates that play along are enabling Bush in these lies and should not be trusted.

[LWolf]

40. Truth is the enemy

when it doesn't reflect well on the Democratic Party, if I read many of these responses correctly.

There is more integrity in self-examination, acknowledging flaws, and accepting responsibility for fixing them than there is in denial, distraction, misrepresentation, and manipulation of reality.

In my opinion, of course. Every time someone goes on the attack for the Democratic Party or a Democrat when the criticism is valid, or rushes to support the denial, etc., I lose a little more respect for the party as a whole.

Frankly, I keep wondering how many people will be left to vote "D" when dissent is not tolerated.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.