An Open Letter to Howard Dean from Rep. Kucinich

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

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?

<snip>
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

I am so glad I voted for Kucinich! He justifies it every time he speaks or writes.

How I sign all my emails

"If you are not paranoid, you are not paying attention"
America's challenge:LEARN TO READ BETWEEN THE ROTTEN LINES/LIES!
I Stand with Dennis Kucinich
I'm proud to be a Kucinich 2004 delegate
The ONLY TRUE Democrat!
www.kucinich.us

Details here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1763282

One of these days I will understand what's behind it. By this time, they've had ample opportunity to "know" better -- Kucinich himself was AT debates where Dean elucidated his position and I would think surely had enough opposition research down to have become aware of what Dean had on his website. So I don't understand the misrepresentations.

Dean's positions re the war have not appreciably changed at all since I've been following him, and that's been since very early 2003 if not late 2002. Yet DK and PDA are teaming up against him, pretending there's something to criticize. Doesn't make sense to me.

--it is about what we want him to do now. Wishing Bush success without any attempt to redefine success away from the Bush position of establishing Iraq as a permanent outpost of American power just will not do.

Another cat needs herding.

:evilgrin:

....legal base for military action."

Add this to the evidence of willful violation of the law and of the trust of the American and British public.



And, send yet another thank you note to Congressman John Conyers -- one of the few elected federal officials actually trying to save our democracy and our credibility.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; INDICT THE WAR CRIMINALS, NOW

This should be an interesting thread.


(Way to go Dennis!!)

Honestly, do you really believe either of these men seek to further divide "the people" who will be advantaged by UNITING to rid this nation of the right-wing, neoCON manipulators of will?

I don't think so.

We must watch for those seeking to cross our wires.

Dean might as well have just said it, whether he knows it or not, thats the real logic behind that position.

--let's not forget that reasonable people can disagree on timelines, and on the issue of whether or not we can really insure 'stability' there, but the bottom line has to be NO PERMANENT MILITARY BASES, period. And we can just rent an embassy building. No permanent bases was what Kerry said during the campaign, and it ought to be the official position of the party.

I think those of us who support immediate withdrawl would be satisfied with the democrats simply forcing the issue of getting some times or plans for exit out for the administration.

But to ask us to root for the administration as it continues to oppress the Iraqi people shows that Howard Dean is either woefully ignorant or doesnt care.

I think we should start demanding one now since we know Iraq was all lies and have the proof.

Here is an example of a timeline and a petition to sign.. please sign and forward!

http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/iraq-exit-action.php

Kevin, I want you to know that PDAmerica has been very seriously discredited in my mind (and I know I'm not alone) due to the dirty little trick you recently played, and now this. Are you and eridani tag-teaming?

I wasn't a Kucinich supporter and continue to have that decision validated as time goes on, but I surely expected BETTER from PDAmerica. Guess my expectations were set too high.

I hope more DUers wake up to the cute little shenanigans and self-serving opportunism coming out of the Kucinich/PDAmerica quarters. It's very unflattering.

And let me be sure you understand exactly what "very seriously discredited" means in MY book: your credibility (yours and PDAmerica's) is for all practical purposes ruined forever. I can't THINK of anything that would resuscitate or rehabilitate it for both entities.

--is what, exactly? If we have the power, that includes the power to criticise those who represent us.

would love to hear that.

peace

Flag desecration?

I don't get it, since Kucinich is effectively more what Howard Dean claims to be than Howard Dean himself.

Also, he voted for the flag desecration amendment because his brother, permanently institutionalized due to trauma in Vietnam, asked him to. Which is an excellent illustration of how leading from the gut makes for seriously lousy public policy. The best of them do this every now and then, unfortunately.

I was just presuming to answer for Eloriel. I like DK, voted for him, and think he is right yet again on the Iraq issue. I didn't like his flag vote, and I didn't like his dalliance with Edwards, (whom I LOATHE,) in Iowa, but all in all, he's about as close to an honest politician as you are going to get.

what is this in regards to?

.

are we going to play games or work together?

Did you not read the article that went up on the PDA site. It was going to be a lot more like this letter from DK.

But we did a letter in Support of Dean hence the quote...

"We are confident Chairman Dean will welcome a discussion of other options regarding our presence in Iraq. His statement of last week was fortuitous, because though we at PDA disagree with his premise, the fact that he made those statements has given us all the opportunity to discuss this matter at length and in detail."

And.. he has returned our call based on this language.

And has offered to meet with some of us.

This is good.

Remember, we are on the same side here. We were the first to write Dean a note to run for Chairman. But most of our base asked us to take a lead in holding his views up to the light, and say, we need leadership. We have done so. The PDA letter was movement driven. It was not a few folks trying to capitalize on a situation. Feel free to PM me if you want more details.

I am not going to repost your locked thread. And you know I won't. I will not go there. It would not be proper.

I am not going to say anymore about it. All of you apparently never paid attention to what he said all along. Why are you not writing congress?

I am glad he is meeting with you. Of course he would do that. How could he not?

I signed up for your group, I helped you push it here at DU. Remember, Kevin? I did that.

I think you were not fair about how this all happened. If you are giving me a choice right now, then the answer is I can't work with you after that thread here.

Maybe time will tell. I don't think you are that forgetful.

I am nothing if not fair. When someone misquotes Howard Dean and tries to manipulate the party chair....when many are not Democrats to begin with...it is an unfair thing to all of us.

I am not for holding feet to the fire of the wrong people. Be sure to read my post later in the thread about what he said in 2003. Fair is fair. You guys picked a man who opposed the invasion, and you attacked him via the internet in an organized fashion. Not a good idea.

It was the way you handled it here that day, and some owe apologies that have not been given. Remember you said it hurts? Yeh, it hurts like hell to be this divided.

Every single antiwar Dem does that constantly, as well as demonstrations and vigils.

And since when does disagreeing with someone constitute an attack?

You know I appologized for that post. If this was the way "I" "polled" this questions in DU. Your right.

But it is not. The post I replyed to above was about "PDA." MUCH MUCH larger then I. And the reason I posted it.. is because I as political guy in PDA was feeling the pressure from the base. Many who are replying to this letter with praise. They wanted us to use the language I used in the poll. Becasue of that experience we revlauated how we went forward. Believe it or not, your comments and others greatly impacted how we moved it forward with the language that is now.

Also .... let it be know that along with the Dean Petition, we have sent over 2,500 email into congress supporting H.Con.Res 35 from Woolsey, and over 15,000 calls to Congress asking how dare they vote for another Blank Check.

It is not ALL focused on Dean.

I think after a few rough bouts in DU land (and yes your critisisms along with others) we did the best we could knowing our base wanted/demanded we move on Dean.

We are ... and HAVE TO... remain working together.

I have to be honest... thank you for your critisim and past support.

I am still at a loss however how the above post says we "tagged-team" this issue. And I am at a loss why our credability of PDA is loss in that persons mind.

Folks need to realize... YOU are PDA as much as I am PDA.

Thank you for walking though all this with me, with us. Even thought we have this issues... lets not forget we are on the same side.

Honestly, thanks.

Maybe another time.

As you say, you decided to "move on" Dean at a crucial time. States are upset because they are not all getting money at the same time, people can NOT separate from their candidates long to function as Democrats together.

And here come the groups that are partly Democrats, partly not, misrepresenting his previous views. He is caught in between the DLC and the left, and he must be fair to all.

Kucinich is the only one who was a major candidate who says out now. I am not sure about Sharpton or Mosely Braun to be fair. How can he represent the views of just one group?

I would like to see us out. However, I think we all knew deep inside that taking that major middle east step to empire building, in the way we did it....was pretty damn final. We have destroyed the cradle of civilization. I think everyone who voted for it knew what was going to happen...shock and awe had been bandied about forever.

The other day someone defended Dean's position about pulling out of there....he said Bush fully knew there would be no leavning there. I wish it would be different. We did our share of peace rallies.

We fit better with DFA and the DNC right now. I felt like manipulative tactics were used, and I hate that at crucial times.

Someone asked those of us who supported him how we would react when he was chair and made decisions we don't like. I think we are doing better than most myself.

With limited resources, of course arguing about where money goes is going to happen. I'm not second guessing him on that one, as I don't know enough.

I fully expect that he'll take positions I don't like, and he should expect that I'll let him know about it.

I just happen to think organized attacks on a man who said this war is wrong....well, it's wrong.

I think calling him as being in favor of the occupation....well, it's wrong.

Bush started a new course in our history which could come back to bite us in a deadly way. Our congress knew it when they voted.

I am not saying "Dean is in favor of the occupation." I am saying "I want Dean to explicitly disavow PERMANENT MILITARY PRESENCE, and to do so advocating that this be the official party position." With that as the bottom line, I can agree to disagree with anyone on issues of timing.

are with us on the left of center. So thank you for moving forward on this fight. Your still with us when it comes to the greater movement, and we are all on the same team. Let's work together you via DFA and DNC, me via PDA, PM, DNC, TM, AI, the local party, and UFPJ to achieve our goals.

Glad to be walking with you.

Peace,
Kevin

I am with DFA for electing candidates to local offices. I am with DNC again, as is my husband, to help build the party more for the people. I do not think it is productive to attack the party chair this soon. I don't care anymore if I am accused of worship and all that crap. People who know me, know I am about a whole lot more than that.

I was jumped on that day pretty badly. It did hurt. I had never done a thing but help you push PDA. I got hurt for my help.

Maybe someday.

but I left a link in my post right near the top. You're already familiar with that thread tho.

Kevin, this ISN'T the way to work together.

Oh, sure, Dean will play your silly games. I was thinking earlier this evening, while I stepped away from the computer, Dean could so easily respond in one of his absolutely no-nonsense one-liners (somethine like, "Why not talk to the people who can do something about this?" only MUCH, MUCH better), but he wouldn't do that. FOR THE SAKE OF PARTY UNITY he'd say something like, "Sure, iI'll be happy to talk with you," and do it and be gracious as all get out about it every step of the way.

This is so bleepin bogus (another reason your credibility is in the toilet):

I think after a few rough bouts in DU land (and yes your critisisms along with others) we did the best we could knowing our base wanted/demanded we move on Dean.

I tried to explain to you, and I believe I wasn't alone, that what you could DO was explain that they had it wrong about Dean -- you know, actually foster understanding and communication and party unity and all that. In fact, I said you had a RESPONSIBILITY to do that, both for your base, the Dem Party, and Dean. But, of course, you patently refuse to see or acknowledge the reality (and why IS that, despite the fact that several of us keep pointing it out to you??), so you got to carry on and play this little game.

Disgusting. Simply disgusting.

Kucinich. He just lost them.

I am with you, Eloriel.

I am tired of all the "Open Letter" to Chairman Dean. He is not the policy maker in the Democratic Party. You have a problem with policy take it up with the policy makers.

We don't need the Republicans to tear the party apart. We have the progressives.

Progressives seem to always want to be the minority, hence they will always be right. Black and White thinking is not the exclusive domain of the Bush Administration.

There is only one legitimate answer from the Dems, and that is "Hell no!" The party should not continue to exist if it advocates conquest of other countries as a policy.

Progressives are perfectly capable of seeing grey areas with the issue of exactly how we should go about leaving. There is a big range of opinion here, ranging from just get out now to defining and sticking to some kind of criteria for stability there before we leave.

What is this problem that so many people seem to have with discussing public policy in public?

a "permanent presence in Iraq."

Your calling on Dean to disavow that is utterly ridiculous: he already has.

What is this problem that so many people seem to have with discussing public policy in public?

DO it without engaging or criticizing someone who's got the LEAST to do with it right now, namely Howard Dean. Good grief, you're like someone calling on the fire chief to be held accountable for your child's rotten teacher or something. I mean it really is about that RIDICULOUS.

Get a grip, people!

--he is endorsing permanent occupation. Unless he chooses to redefine success, which he didn't on that occasion. Any time any high-profile Dem backs Bush in this manner it simply supports the Bush lie.

Why do you persist in ignoring the reason for the invasion when the PNAC told you in a public forum 7 years ago what it was?

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

WMD and Al Qaeda were bogus reasons, and Ari Fleischer even said that if Iraq's neighbors were able to convince Saddam to go into exile, the invasion was on anyway. So it had fuckall to do with eliminating a badguy dictator as well.

The war was a straightforward imperial conquest, with the intention of establishing a permanent American imperial outpost to rule the entire region by force. Any Dem who says we have to 'finish the job' is endorsing that project. Any Dem who wishes Bush well instead of calling him on this fundamental lie can expect to get flack from a lot of grassroots activists who want the party to stand for something different. This is very different from arguing about how long it will take to extricate ourselves with minimal harm to all concerned, and I'm fine with a whole range of opinions on that.

It is simply an indication that they have absolutely nothing to counter with.


The argument could be made, and admirably so, that Dean's intent is to fix a wrong. But that is simply naive--and somewhat arogant in it's assumption, considering as someone so insightfully described it above- as breaking and entering and then moving in to stay.

That is the reality.

It's easy to say we should leave. But what exactly is the plan? Something this important requires a good strategy so it doesn't just go to shit.

:eyes:

fail? For our President to fail?

Brilliant strategy.

--on the problem of defining success.

Why dont we all just support the president as he does immoral and unethical things, what a brilliant plan.

I think ending the illegal US occupation of Iraq is in fact a very brilliant strategy.

for our troops to leave in manner that ensures as few deaths as possible, and just up-and-leaving is not going to accomplish that.

It is about the party making a statement that it does not share the Bush goal of a permanent presence there, period. Arguments about how to leave are futile because the situation on the ground keeps changing.

the Party. And you know it.

So does Kevin of PDAMerica.

So does Will Pitt.

And I contend that it was Kevin of PDAmerica's RESPONSIBILITY, if he had "base" (members) who were calling on Dean to "change" his position to make it clear to his base that they were wrong about Dean's position.

But he won't do that. Refuses again and again and again to do that. Prefers to foster MISunderstanding, DIStrust, unwarranted criticism of Dean, disunity within the party, distraction from the real problem people, etc., etc., etc.

Wonder why.

And wishing Bush "tremendous success" endorses the Bush policy of never leaving. What PDA and Kucinich and quite a few other people want from Dean and from every other prominent Dem we contact is an upfront declaration that our policy is NO PERMANENT PRESENCE in Iraq.

but still want my country and troops to succeed.

My earlier point on this thread still stands----What is the definition of success? Once we agree on that, then we can work on a timeline and exit strategy.

They launched an unprovoked, illegal invasion of a disarmed country in compliance with UN Resolution, and you want our troops to succeed at what??

This was my exact response to this post, as well! Every time I hear the phrase, "finish the job" I want to slap the *(%$ out of every neocon I can think of. What !@#$%&* job??

There can only be one successful end to this nightmare! That would be to withdraw immediately and then to offer financial support to rebuild the smashed infrastructure that we have incurred since our little "adventure". President and troops succeed....INDEED!

reinforces the notion automatically that we must support the mission.

Simplistic but highly effective appeal to a nationalism that is as ignorant and arrogant as Germany's leading into WW2.

and focus on the last part

then slap yourself :eyes:

and know that there can be no compromise.

U.S. Out. Now.

:eyes:

short, simple, and suicidal

Ya gotta know when to hold and know when to fold. We withdrew from Vietnam with nothing to show but our own disgrace and the ruined lives of so many of our military and so many of their civilians.

At the risk of sounding repetitious, we owe them a whole lot of apology, a whole lot of compensation (at the very least, to rebuild their smashed infrastructure) and a whole lot of getting out of their country.

It's not ours to say what form their government should be. Its not ours to tell them that a theocracy is bad, good, or indifferent.

It's ours to respect them as any other sovereign nation and to extend to them the same courtesies that any other sovereign nation commands.

There is no other solution, unless hubris and arrogance are valuable state department policies that we, the people, truly want to embrace.

:shrug:

Or maybe the situation is a little more complicated than that? Yes, everyone on this board can agree that we have to get out of Iraq. But we need a good strategy and timeline to do it without causing a bloodbath. It's a very delicate situation and the wrong move could result in lots and lots of dead bodies.

It's simple, really. What was our exit strategy in Vietnam?

Our exit strategy should be the same.

Just to bring things into focus a little more clearly...

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1068

The name of the article is "An Exit Strategy for Iraq."

There is plenty of room for progressives to disagree on how to get out, which is not a simple thing at all.

I think our bottom line should be NO PERMANENT BASES. I think of everything else as up for discussion.

We stay and occupy Iraq until 'WE' leave. Then they work it out for themselves. Who says we have to stay until they have the stable secure state that we want to force on them? What do they want? It is impossible to force someone to be free at the point of a gun.

and focus on the last part

:eyes:

Our foreign policy on Iraq is to bomb and murder its population into permanent submission, with the purpose of using it as a permanent military center for control of the region by force. You're goddam right we should be rooting for that to fail. The longer our foreign policy consists mainly of attempting to control the world supply of a disappearing resource by force, the more difficult it will be to take all those wasted resources back and throw them into inventing the post-oil economy.

It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the details of managing withdrawal, but the Dems don't have much reason to continue to exist if they back the Bush plan for permanent occupation. Kerry disavowed permanent bases when he was campaigning, and that ought to be good enough for the official position of the party.

However, from a moral perspective, it's what has to happen. It's the only way that the Vietnam War came to an end.

There's nothing to root for with regards to success in imperialism.

about wishing Bush "incredible success" to be facetious/sarcastic.

The word "incredible" made me very curious.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong.

:evilfrown:

if you can not get the people you represent in congress and the senate to go against the dlc and what they stand for..how do you lead them??

how many drums can you beat to the very people that you must work with for change..when they refuse to change..even to the detriment of themselves..thats what dean is up against..these congress people think they wont get enough money from us to win and they think..think that they must pander to the dlc corporate thugs!!
until that thinking changes..well you see whats happening!!

fly

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Dean_warns_of_danger_of_Iraq_pullout_04_21_2005_0901am.html

"An American pullout could endanger the United States in any of three ways, Dean said: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. "That's where Al Qaida will set up," he said."

I do agree with you that Democrats need to LOUDLY call for an exit strategy and a timeline for withdrawl.

There is serious local dissatisfaction with the clerics of Iran, and if we stick our oars in they will never find their own way. It is precisely our intervention that strengthens fundamentalism.

How is Iran a threat to us, anyway? The fundamentalists of Pakistan are far more hostile to us, and are only just barely held in line by a military dictator. They already have nukes.

quote......
Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 "enduring" bases across the country—long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely
end quote......

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/03/enduring_bases_iraq.html

I dunt know....is enduring mean permanent(sarcasm) ....what do you thinK. Do you honestly think we spent $300 BILLION to get Saddam when the CIA could have done it.....almost for FREE? WE NEED THEIR OIL!Many Americans need their gas guzzeling SUV's

"NO PERMANENT MILITARY BASES"

Exactly!

And I love Howard Dean to death, but I'll always stand with the ideal, not with the personality. Howard Dean got this one wrong, and I commend Dennis Kucinich for speaking the truth, even if it catches him some (more) flack.

I think, but who will ever know that whoever becomes the next decent president and wants to do the right thing would pretty much have the same practical exit strategy? However it does matter, maybe to relieve the knots in the stomach to have the words that in NO uncertain terms does not accept the Bush bill of goods that showed up at our national door like ten boxes of cold, stale, anchovy pizzas.

It is good for Kucinich beat down the signs of any future President to get mired in the "so long as we are there with all the blood and money spent". Make no mistake. One big reason Bush got his war vote was that something of this order had been very palatable to Democrats wanting certain things in the Middle East(peace being high on the list whereas it is completely missing in the Bushista brain) in conjunction with the Israeli wish list.

Some Democrats still act like light from a star bent off course by a gravity well, in imminent danger of being swallowed up. Dean has not always had, I would say at least, the personal confidence in foreign policy theory. It is OK not to go the other way- maybe- and get committed to a disastrous immediate pullout. But being out of power makes treading the line a thing of vision and principles and words people have to believe. MAYBE the same result would occur if Kucinich or Clark were President. Maybe dealing with the war criminals AFTER would also be the same.

For now, it is the Democrats getting their act together and leading, not confirming moral confusion based on still unconfronted lies by the truck full. Conyers I think is still beginning to get up steam, a tremendous slow take by our party leadership that DOES erode confidence in them ever reversing the madness that besets both the national mind and national policy. Trust is tricky when all you have is promises and a fogged over record. And remember these are two GOOD men conducting the only kind of public debate that is constructive, unlike the bizarro RW demagoguery and the Democrat victimhood trap.

Se. Reid's use of the word "miracle", already abused by the hypocritical tyrants of the right, sparked an oversized debate as well for similar reasons. Sure criticism can be overdone, but it is a;ways part of what is really right unlike the oxymoronic screamers of the insecure RW. Our leaders listen and intend to act for common human interests. We all share the same tightrope out in the cold too as we toe the line- therefore, no frantic bouncing.

because he is a straight-up FDR style populist that does not kiss corporate ass. DK and John Conyers are the very best we have.

Kucinich/Conyers '08

To tell us how Kucinich and the Left are trying to destroy the Democratic Party by opposing the occupation.

and try desperately to find ways for it to continue ad infinitum.

:eyes: I wonder how many DUers who're dead set against the immediate withdrawal position would change their minds if it was them or theirs being sent over to maintain the occupation force?

Strange. I'm one of the few who believe we should have a Universal National Service Act ... and who also firmly believes we should vacate Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. The longer we're there ... the more it'll be like our abandonment of Vietnam. That's the kind of "stabilization" and "Vietnamization" we're pretending again.

which has been infiltrated with Republicans with Democratic buttons!!!

Prime example our 2000 Vice President Liberman who was given that kiss by Bush!!!

Look at your ranks and see the group

what about the other senators...Wellstone (bless him) wasn't the only one...

"Feingold was one of only 23 Senators to vote against authorizing the President to attack Iraq. When the Senate approved a large increase in the military budget in 2002 by a vote of 93 - 1, he was the lone holdout."

Voted for DK and still love to tell people at my workplace-- you want something sharp? There are scissors in my Dennis Kucinich lunchbox! *heehee*

oh, yeah: yep, we need more outrage, no complacency.

DK! You still da man, no shit. :thumbsup:

there's your real anti-War candidate.

dp

What exactly is success? Minimizing American casualties or building up a stable country to minimize Iraqi casualties?

If my man Dean wants us to stay in Iraq to complete this mission, then he must have a very good reason. This isn't "flip-flopping" or "repug-lite". In his heart, he believes the consequences of leaving now will kill more people than if we finish rebuilding and training their security forces and providing aid. Chairman Dean's heart is in the right place.

Kucinich's heart is also in the right place. He wants us out because of the pictures of the dead American soldiers and Iraqi victims of car-bombs are heart-breaking. Only the most heartless bastard wouldn't feel something after seeing that.

I found DU because I was so militantly against the war, but once it started I had to support my country and hope for success so it wouldn't be for nothing. Our president (selected or not) made this mess so we as a country have some responsibility in fixing it.

It's no secret that I'm backing Dean 100% on whatever he does, but I understand where Kucinich is coming from.

If what Dean means by success is leaving the place and the Iraqis taking on their own rebuilding program (financed by us) and not getting into a civil war, then who could object to that?

That is goddam well NOT what Bush et al. mean by success. They want a permanent occupation which is to be the centerpiece of US domination of the entire region by force, and a puppet government which gives their campaign donors free access to all of Iraq's resources for pennies on the dollar. I fawking well do NOT want that plan to succeed.

That's the first rule of project management. Then we need a viable plan of exit. "UN in, US out" is a great catch phrase but is not a plan. I'm hoping CONGRESSMAN Kucinich will draft some sort of "Iraq Exit Act" or something and pass it. DNC CHAIRMAN Dean doesn't have that sort of power.

Obviously Dean wants the first part of your post. As for "then who could object to that?", corporate conservatives will object to the most sensible plans because their judgment is clouded by their insatiable lust for more money. They're telling the truth when they say it's not about oil. It's about money and power.

You say you don't know? Apparently.

You say, "I found DU because I was so militantly against the war, but once it started I had to support my country and hope for success so it wouldn't be for nothing."

Are you kidding? The war isn't for nothing. It is so gigantic global corporations and the elites who stand to profit from them can loot. You call that supporting your country?

His version of success does NOT include that, I'm quite sure.

He wants U.S. troops out, but he also wants a reasonably self-governing, safe, secure and stable Iraq that doesn't dissolve into anarchy (more anarchy). He doesn't think, and neither do I, that that's achievable by simply pulling out.

But then he's never taken that position, UNLIKE KUCINICH WHO HAS when he was a candidate. Nor is he in favor of "permanent occupation" as some here seem to think.

The criticism of Dean is completely unjustified because what Dean has always wanted for Iraq, given the fact of the war he was against, is not at all inconsistent or in opposition to what Kucinich and PDAmerica are calling on him to support.

It's ridiculous -- it begins to remind me of Repuglican tactics -- like maybe they'll get him to agree on what he's always agreed on anyway, and somehow claim THEY were successful in getting Dean to adopt that position. Meanwhile, I suppose it makes it look like Kucnich DIDN'T once upon a time call for unilateraly, (IMO) irresponsible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (during the primaries), or at least distracts from and/or confuses the issue.

"UN in, US out." That is not unilateral withdrawal. The only reason the UN currently wants no part of the occupation is that Bush et al refuse to give up their goal of permanent conquest--no other country is going to be a party to those conditions under any cirumstances. Why do you or Dean or anyone think that we can achieve a self-governing, safe, secure and stable Iraq by staying there? Just making the statement that Kucinich is the one who is unrealistic doesn't make it true.

Though he may not favor permanent occupation, a public statement of support for the Bush agenda amounts to a de facto statement in favor of permanent occupation, so he contradicted his own position with that statement.

Et tu, dude?

the revelations from the British MEMO that PROVES that bush* and the NoeCons LIED and MANIPULATED intelligence in order to TRICK congress into supporting his WAR!!!

Congress DID NOT have the SAME intelligence that bush* had!!!!

EVERY DEMOCRAT can now SAY:" It is NOW painfully obvious that George bush* LIED to us. After the recent revelations, I have no choice but to change my mind. I can no longer support a policy that was BASED ON LIES AND WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATIONS."

EVERY single Democrat can NOW safely change their position on the Iraq War. Every single Democrat SHOULD change his/her position. It is becoming undeniable that the Invasion and War on the Iraqi People was and is grossly and obscenely ILLEGAL!


Thank You, Dennis Kucinich....One of the few REAL DEMOCRATS.

DK speaks for ME!!!

Perhaps Congressman Kucinich's intentions are good, however it looks a little grand standish to me.

The fact that the letter just came on the heels of Mr. Hayden's is a little needling and divisionary. There are enough concerns over the divisions with DLC democrats to have a fellow Democratic leader doing this to another Democratic leader.

Seems to me it would be more effective for Kucinich to schedule some time with Governor Dean to discuss his concerns.

Just my observation.

America can't just pack up and leave Iraq. There would be a massive power vacuum. Chances are, there would be a huge civil war ending in the Sunnis and Kurds getting axed, and a Shiite theocracy would be in place. Now that we have made such a mess in Iraq, we have an obligation to fix it.

I think that we need to try put a democratic government in place with a strong military to defend the country from becoming a straight-up theocracy. I was against the war in the first place, but I think that we have a responsibility while we are there to fix the infrastructure that we destroyed, and try our best to ensure that there will be no dictatorial takeover.

--then it isn't 'democratic,' is it. I don't like the idea of a theocracy either, but that's the direction in which the US and European powers have been shoving all possibilities for dissent for the last 60 years. Iran USED TO HAVE a secular democracy, way back in 1953. People in democracies will always vote to control their resources for their benefit first, and that was not acceptable to the US and Britain. All subsequent resistance after the coup then became religious fundie, because there was no place else for it to go.

On what grounds can you show that anything you have proposed is even possible for us to do, short of really large-scale mass murder of most of the population by us?

I admit that forcing a democracy is fairly hypocritical. But the elections had great turnout. I think that given the choice, people will vote. Whether or not they vote for a religious conservative is another issue entirely. As long as the religious conservatives they elect don't destroy the elections and start cutting off hands for petty theft.

The winning slate demanded a US timetable for withdrawal.

good turn out..the biggest group of iraqi;s voting were here in the usa voting here!!

its a crock that there was a good turn out...

fly

--the result was that the slate with the largest number of votes wants the US out.

and if you think that we are putting a 'democratic gov' in place you are either extremely naive or not paying attention.

we RAPED that country and now you want to enable the rapist to care for it's victim?

if the people want a "straight-up theocracy" thats THEIR business. how arrogant of you to think you can impose your ideas on other people at the point of a gun.

best to ensure their is no "dictatorial takeover" well that is what you are endorsing right now.

peace

The idiot pResident said "Mission Accomplished" over a year ago....meanwhile kids are dying every day. We are NOT going to wait 5 years (like Vietnam) to oppose this war. I was against it before and I against it NOW. Please understand I support my country, I support the troops...what I don't support is this idiot administration that will keep getting rubber stamped checked from Frist to continue this nightmare.

Dean said as the DNC chair - and tie it into his position as a candidate. Dean doesn't speak for himself as chair, he speaks for the party.

even then Dean's job is not to set policy. He's out there building up our party into a formidable grass-roots juggernaut that will steamroll the corporate-backed assclowns in the near future.

Traditionally, the presidential nominee, John Kerry, is our party's leader. Kucinich is welcome to speak for himself and I would love to see him draft a plan to get out of Iraq. I bet it would pass. But we need someone to draft the plan.

was part of his platform for presidency.

I'm not suprised many didn't read it or know of it, as they were too absorbed by his looks or some other non-essential element of his personality (he's single! omg) to pay attention to his policy.

He speaks for me and many others who agree with him. I hope he continues.

dp

:shrug: Don't you think it would pass? I think any exit plan would pass. But we need someone like a congressman to submit it.

He might have something in the works. I'll post any news of such here.

Really nitty-gritty operational details can't be addressed by legislation, but stating goals is a start.

http://www.woolsey.house.gov/newsarticle.asp?RecordID=395

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today, led 24 Members of Congress in introducing a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives calling on President Bush to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Earlier this month, Woolsey led 15 Members of Congress in sending a letter to President Bush requesting the return of U.S. troops from Iraq.

“We got ourselves into this mess,” said Rep. Woolsey. “Now it’s time to support American troops by bringing them home.”

Continues Woolsey, “While the initial invasion of Iraq may have occurred with minimal troop deaths, the subsequent occupation of the country has been anything but successful -- American soldiers and Iraqi civilians continue to die in staggering numbers, American taxpayers continue to spend millions of dollars every day on a losing effort, and Iraq is no closer to becoming a stable democracy than it was two years ago.

“In fact, the presence of nearly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is a rallying point for anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. Even worse, the U.S. military presence in Iraq is nothing short of stifling to the prospect of democracy. How can democracy possibly take root if forced upon the Iraqi people by the barrel of a gun?

“We should not abandon Iraq; there is still a critical role for the United States in providing the development aid that can help create a civil society, support education and rebuild Iraq’s economic infrastructure. But the military option is clearly not working.”

The resolution that Rep. Woolsey will introduce later today calls on the President to take the following action:

1. Develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq;

2. Develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq’s civil and economic infrastructure;

3. Convene an emergency meeting of Iraq’s leadership, Iraq’s neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and

4. Take all necessary steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to completely control their internal affairs.

The following are the original co-sponsors of Rep. Lynn Woosley’s resolution: Reps. Xavier Becerra, John Conyers, Danny Davis, Lane Evans, Sam Farr, Raul Grijalva, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dennis Kucinich, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Gwen Moore, Grace Napolitano, Major Owens, Ed Pastor, Charlie Rangel, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, and Diane Watson.

she has not given a plan for those 4 goals. She is asking the asshole who created this mess to "develop and implement" plans to accomplish those goals. I trust Bush and his cronies as far as I can sling a piano. I have no confidence in them. It's going to take some Democrats to develop a viable plan.

Bear in mind that anything anyone might come up with could be rendered irrelevant by changing facts on the ground.

because of his position as a candidate and his platform.

If he's abandoned his stance that he proposed as a candidate then it's a good thing we've learned of it at this point...

I hope he doesn't 'change' his outlook on other issues as well.

dp

I remember Dennis's stance very well, and I also remember Dean's. They always disagreed on that point.

I'm not interested in raking Dean's primary speeches and positions over the coals. All I want him to do is to advocate making NO PERMANENT BASES the official policy of the Dem party right now. That was good enough for Kerry on the campaign trail, after all.

We don't need a lot of detail on the specifics of withdrawal, since there is room for plenty of disagreement on that. All we need is a clear statement that eventual withdrawal is our policy.

He's not a candidate anymore ... anyone who voted for him as chair didn't understand the role of the chair in the party.

I'm really surprised at DK - this is such a cheap shot.

--he should expect other Dems to notice that and respond if they disagree. Disagreement isn't a 'cheap shot'--it's how a democracy is supposed to hash out public policy.

Howard Dean works for the Democratic party and it's elected representatives, who are chosen by us, the voters.

If enough of us say it's get out now time, and the reps voice our concern, it's his JOB to heed it and work on it from his position.

what part of his 'role of the chair of the party' did i miss?

dp

and uses it to attack him for something he said as party chair?

If Kucinich's position was the majority one within the party, then perhaps Kucinich's letter would be justified. But, it's not. Most Democrats don't support an immediate withdrawal. Maybe, in time, they will - but until then, Kucinich's efforts would be better directed toward convincing voters that his plans are best. And directing his ire at Bush, rather than Dean.

We are talking about specifically disavowing PERMANENT MILITARY PRESENCE as a policy goal. That's very different.

Everybody wants something different from Dean.

Ridiculous.

ANd while I'm at it, the whole thing is SO damned disingenuous (does Kucinich realize what an ass he's making of himself?):

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.

That is SUCH a misunderstanding of everything Dean has ever been that it takes my breath away. Dean was the one repeatedly -- then AND now -- saying we can't be Republican Lite, and various versions of that same thought.

Ridiculous in the extreme. Just a cheap stunt by both Kucinich AND PDAmerica.

for Bush aligns him with the Dems who support the war, even if that statement is inconsistent with his other policy statements.

BTW, Kucinich is wrong about the war being the main issue which will defeat us--it's the computerized voting which will do us in. (And I'm bugging him constantly by email and fax on the subject, just like I'm bugging Dean about the war. It is my right and my duty to make my opinions known when I disagree with people that I usually support.)

"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. (et tu HD?)

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. "

----------------

and you should be questioning Howard Dean remarks, not Kucinich's. Aiming ire at Bush might just smack up on HD in the process...
Should we just give ol' Terry Mac a call and get his input too?
Dean has (had?) the coattails of the grassroots behind him. Or is that out of his grasp now?

dp

It was his stance as a candidate, too. People read into Dean what they wanted to see in him. It's too bad, because the guy's got an awful lot of work to do, that there is this disappointment over what folks misperceived during his campaign.

I'm concerned about what the Democratic party is advocating now. I don't want to be part of a party that advocates conquest of other countries by force. This is wrong, period. And if Kerry could promise NO PERMANENT BASES during his campaign, that ought to be good enough for the rest of the party, IMO. There is plenty of room for disagreement about when and how we leave.

the problem is they aren't speaking up enough.

go DK :toast:

peace

Thanks for the clarity:-)

The party's job, at the national level, is to represent the majority of it's members. The majority are not represented by Kucinich's position.

It's YOUR job to try and convince them otherwise.

What, are we entering a Trotskyist phase now?

Sectarianism rules!

;-)

of the party when she stood up and objected to the election results in the Senate?

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

with the role of the DNC chair?

Is that an honest question or what you feel is some kind of clever riposte?

ninety some percent of whom wanted anti-war language in the platform. They didn't get it.

You mean like the majority of Democrats who oppose the war?

Respecting the chain of command and the party line while at the same time observing the destruction of the world?

If you can explain that perhaps that would help me understand why Kucinich feels his efforts are better spent attacking Democrats than Republicans.

ask a question...

Reframe it. That's what I did.

--and advocating that the Dems take the opposite stance. What's the problem with that?

Might as well be Kucinich.


(Of course Boxer has been out there on the front lines, also).

Even though I was pulling for Dean, the democrats need to pull their heads out.
This war is/was a disaster for this country. There is no easy way out, but some start to a pullout may help Iraq pull themselves together. Anything we try to do there is not wanted by them. They don't want our gov't, our oil manipulators or our security.
Remember if we hadn't blown the sh*t out of everything, they could still have water, elect and sewer systems. And the country would be much freer of bombed out vehicles and depleted uranium laced soil.

WE SUCK!

We really truly messed up. Forget the bases and spend all this fighting money on replacement energy sources. Cripes, I wonder how much of the precious oil and gas we burned in this God forsaken war.

excerpt from letter:

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.

:applause:

Bush has screwed up since he took office. I can't see how he can recover.

morally right - the invasion was illegal and based on lies. The occupation perpetuates that.

The majority of Americans see the invasion/occupation as not worth the cost. So politically, the right place to be is opposed to it's continuance.

Any talk of hoping Bush policies succeed is self-destructive to both the Democratic party and the US as a nation. "Success" in Bush's vernacular would only encourage them to invade another oil-rich nation.

I don't know the best way out of Iraq, except to say that it must be based on the quickest way out.

....a little 'heat' to Howard could be a good thing, in a friendly sort of way....the party chairman should be aware that many have not signed on to this war/occupation and never will....his 'voice' needs to take that into account....

....this is the 'war pickle' the repugs always put us in, why?....because we can't articulate what a legitimate/just use of military power is, to ourseleves, or the country....and pretending we don't know what the repugs are going do when they get their corporate hands on the military, is incredulous....

....without pressure, does anyone truly believe we're going to leave Iraq one second before the last drop of oil is pumped?....

Clear, outspoken, succinct, never wavered on it. Sounds like the progressive groups picked him because they thought he was closest to them in thought. Could be, more likely than not.

Now I see organized letter writing to him, which of course is fine. But why aren't these same groups writing letters to the congressmen who got us into war. I think that is a fair question.

Here are two instances of what he said in 2003.
Comments by Howard Dean in an interview in August 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40299-2003Aug24
"Now that we're there, we're stuck," he said. Bush took an "enormous risk" that through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the "small danger" he presented to the United States with something better and safer. The gamble was "foolish" and "wrong." But whoever will be elected in 2004 has to live with it. "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."

And "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out." Dean would impose a "hybrid" constitution, "American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say." Women's rights must be guaranteed at all levels. "
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An interview of Howard Dean by Bob Edwards, July 2, 2003
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/transcripts/dean_trans.html

EDWARDS: What would you be doing differently in post-war Iraq?

DEAN: "Now that we're there, we can't leave. We cannot allow chaos or a fundamentalist regime in Iraq because it could be fertile ground for al Qaeda. First thing I would do is bring in 40,000 to 50,000 other troops. I'd look to Arab countries, Islamic allies, countries, Islamic countries who are our allies, NATO, the United Nations. Gen. Shinseki, before we went in, said that we did not have enough troops. The administration ignored that advice. It turned out to be true. It was a good thing that Shinseki made us give us that advice. It was a bad thing the administration ignored their own military expertise. We need those troops, we're not keeping order in Iraq. And it seems to me that what we need is some expertise from people who know how to police countries that are in some chaos and who understand how to administer and build the institutions of democracy. We're gonna be there for a long time in Iraq. We can't leave, because if we do before there's established democracy, many worse things will happen to both the Iraqi people and to America if the terrorists move in."

--happens to override his being wrong about Iraq then and now. It is possible to want him to be the party chair for his position on how the party should be run and to still disagree with him on policy issues. And if we really have the power, we have the right and the obligation to let him know about it.

If Iraq is going to have a democracy, it can't be crammed down their throats. Whatever happens, if Iraqis have any real say in how to run their country, we probably aren't going to like it. But what's the price of making it non-fundie? Mass murder of half the population? Bringing Islamic allies in? Like the Saudis, who financed the 9-11 attacks? Pakistan, whose fundie majority is held in check by a military dictator and whose intelligence agency invented the Taliban? Uzbekistan, where we send prisoners to be boiled alive by our good pal Karimov? Tiny little mini-statelets that exist only because the Brits wanted to put a big chunk of the oil in the ME under the control of a handful of royal families and keep it away from major population centers?

And how do more US troops make Iraq safer? Particularly since none have any relevant training whatsoever about peacekeeping in an unfamiliar culture.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050205X.shtml

He said: "Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads."

Mr. Delgado said he had witnessed incidents in which an Army sergeant lashed a group of children with a steel Humvee antenna, and a Marine corporal planted a vicious kick in the chest of a kid about 6 years old. There were many occasions, he said, when soldiers or marines would yell and curse and point their guns at Iraqis who had done nothing wrong.

The hypocrisy is enormous here. I want us out of Iraq, but common sense says be careful.

It was the organized attempt on the internet and here that was a turn-off.

He will meet with your groups I imagine. However I can almost see him saying the very same things he has said since 2003. It is what he believes.

--not Dean and party members. What in bleeding hell is wrong with organizing on the Internet to advocate a policy you believe in?

And, as the big cheese now, he's accountable for what he advocates in the name of the party.

PDA and Kucinich do not hold the party stance. I am being realistic here. The party stance is to not leave now. I am not sure we should.

I don't like to be called a "lover of the occupation" because I feel we owe the Iraqis a debt for what we have done.

I don't like being attacked from the left anymore than I liked being attacked by the DLC folks here. But I will take it if need be to get my points across. I am very used to it now.

That is what we want Dean to clarify here. Bottom line, no PERMANENT military bases. When we leave is subject to debate. We can pay our debt to the Iraqis by giving them money and getting out of their faces.

The following is a statement of the Bush and neocon goal for Iraq. It is very different from saying "We can't leave right away." Anyone who endorses it is, IMO, not worthy of being a Democrat.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0221-01.htm

Asked how long U.S. troops might remain in Iraq, Garner replied, ''I hope they're there a long time'', and then compared U.S. goals in Iraq to U.S. military bases in the Philippines between 1898 and 1992.

"One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with (the Iraqi authorities)", he said. "And I think we'll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south ... we'd want to keep at least a brigade".

"Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East", Garner added.

We invaded their country, killed thousands of their people, and now continue to kill them because we "owe" them?

Kind of like the mafia paying it's debts by burning down a business that it stole by torching it for the insurance.

cause? His grandchildren's lives?

Is Bush's colossal Iraq mistake worth that price to him?

I seriously doubt that it is. And therefore, if this is the case, he should not be asking other people to sacrifice their lives or the lives of their children for a colossal mistake, or a deliberate deception.

Anyone that thinks that we must stay in Iraq past tomorrow really needs to ask themselves these questions:

Is the occupation of Iraq worth having my daughter or son killed right at this very moment? Is the occupation of Iraq worth a lifetime of pain, grief and loss?

How about you? Because this is the bleak, nasty, horrible reality. We can discuss how much we need to stay in Iraq until the next Presidential election. In the meantime, kids are dying and being maimed and psychologically mangled while their families are being shattered by the most overwhelming grief imaginable.

Dean acknowledges that invading and occupying Iraq was a mistake; and he is correct - it was, and it is.

His children, and our children, should never have to sacrifice their lives for a mistake or a lie.

And this is why Howard Dean is flat-out dead wrong in this instance.

Dean's position has not changed.

prevent the US from invading Iraq. If anyone cannot be held responsible for the war in Iraq, it would be him.

November 2002
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip----
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
snip---
We have the power to do this. We must have the will to do this. It must be the will of the American people expressed through the direct action of peaceful insistence.

If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

Regardless of how long Howard Dean has supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he is still wrong, just like he was wrong back when we reached the infamous milestone of 500 dead troops, and $82 billion spent on the war. Or when the number of dead US soldiers hit 1000, and we had spent $120 billion on the war. Or when the number of dead soldiers hit 1,500, and we had spent $200 billion on the war.

Just as he will still be wrong when the number of dead American troops hits 2,000, and we have spent $300 billion on the war. And so on, and so on.

Not to mention all that have been permanently maimed, and will be permanently maimed. And the 100,000 Iraqis that have been killed, and the 200,000 that have been maimed. And there are a whole lot more casualties coming if we don't get out of Iraq right now.

It is definitely NOT an attack.

Maybe Eloriel does not realize that most Kucinich supporters were strongly in favor of Dean for Chair of the DNC. We signed petitions and wrote letters.

I see Dennis' letter NOT as a challenge or an attack. He is asking for clarification from Howard Dean and gently reminding him that his base of support for the DNC Chair job comes from the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party which encompasses Dean's own supporters as well as most of the supporters of several other presidential candidates from the Primaries of 2004, including even many supporters of John Kerry. He is telling Dean that the quoted remarks about the most important issue of all can be seen as a real let-down to all of those supporters.

We must hang on to those Progressives if we are going to save the Democratic Party. A remark like Dean made could succeed in pushing those people to leave the party, join a third party or just become independents -- if they thought the remark he made meant he supported the BushCo position.

I realize the Chair of the DNC does not set Democratic Party policy. That role is (unfortunately) played by the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC). The DNC Chair's job is party membership building (not unbuilding) and fundraising. Dennis Kucinich knows these things too.

So, perhaps Dennis' letter can be seen as a Caution even more than asking for clarification.

Of course it also provided an opportunity to restate the progressive position which is so fervently felt and needs restating often. Nothing wrong with that.

(the details of how Iraq withdrawal is done are not nearly as important as the withdrawal principle itself)

Mainly she referred as I did to an unfortunate evening here a while back. A very painful one.

However, I am just stunned that Kucinich people and Greens and others did not know his stance on this. It has been the same. Why should he need to clarify it? Over and over he said the same thing..

"Now that we are there".....do a search or read my other post that just keeps dropping and dropping.

It was done as an organized effort to make Howard Dean look kind of bad very early one. Meanwhile other groups still loyal to their own candidates from last year, are doing sort of these same thing in other ways.

Very few are thinking about the Democratic Party in what they are doing. They are thinking in lines of "candidate choice." We have got to stop that.

If the progressives did not know what he said, that is their problem not his. It was no secret, he blasted it out on every interview. I found three more tonight.

I am thinking of the Democratic party, and what I want it to stand for. I want it to stand for putting national resources into inventing the ultimately necessary replacements for oil, and firmly against the conquest of a country which was no threat to us only to steal its resources. And that means disavowing permanent presence there. I'm perfectly willing to table the issues about how we leave without causing further damage--there's quite a range of legitimate opinion here.

Kucinich's "letter" is a total misrepresentation of Dean's position on Iraq and pretty much everything Dean stands for (only a slight exaggeration there), and that makes it a big old fat LIE about Dean if if you don't want to call that an "attack" you don't have to, but I consider it at least as bad as an attack.

An incredibly self-serving one, I'm thinking more and more.

He is telling Dean that the quoted remarks about the most important issue of all can be seen as a real let-down to all of those supporters.

Better he -- and PDAmerica -- should figure out what the hell Dean is saying and what he meant (I understood it, I don't know why I have a better command of the English language than Kucinich does) and spread THAT around rather than misrepresentations. I'm thoroughly fed up with the lot of them.

Don't you people get it? There will not be anything we can call success in Iraq.

Many of us swore, especially after Vietnam, that we should never again go to war unless it was a valid issue of self-defense or even self-preservation in the face of an enemy. We have failed to live up to that goal.

The fact that we went to war with Iraq shows that we have failed to live up to that vow, that ideal. War is nothing but the failure of diplomacy and reason. The only thing left is to try and contain the damage inflicted, and ladies and gentlemen, there is a tremendous amount of damage in Iraq.

You cannot define "success" anymore than you can define that image of that last helicopter taking out the last American off the roof of the US embassy in Saigon in 1975. All you have is pain, sadness, and loss. That's ALL you have. You simply cannot define "success" out of that, just the thought that "My God, we finally came out of it; the war has ended."

We have failed, and there will be a heavy price to pay, and I fear it will be more than we can bear.

America has lost the war.

It should quit NOW.

The Iraqis are sensible enough to solve their own problems.

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

and the longer we stay there, the worse it will get.

Seems to me that the Iraqi people managed quite well without us for thousands of years before the US interferred.

Since we have stuck our nose in their business, their lives have become so much worse....and now after all we have done to these people, Americans think we need to remain to "fix" what we have destroyed? That has to be the height of arrogance IMO.

WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE....we are now the destroyer, not the savior. The sooner we get our faces out of theirs, the sooner they can put the broken stuff in some semblance of order.

I don't know what the deal was with what went on about Dean, but I have always & will always be very grateful that Kucinich speaks out about what he sees as wrong and if that steps on some political toes, then maybe those toes need to be steppped on. We are talking about millions of human lives. Screw political correctness. The dems better well learn to stand for something instead of worrying about what the repubs will say. Give me a break.

Too much propaganda and distraction and exhaustion and mad cow disease on this side of the pond.

On the one hand, Kooch is (of course) correct. We had no business starting this war and it will not get any better by staying there waiting for it not to end.

On the other hand, we alienated the UN in this debacle and what little international support we have is dropping faster than the President's approval ratings.

International support is an important part of Kucinich's exit strategy and I simply don't think we have enough of that. Everybody knows its going to get worse before it gets better.

Leaving Iraq to its own devices is not an option. I am sure everybody can agree to that. The only chance on preventing a full blown civil war is by armed foreign presence.

IF I had the slightest confidence that this Administration was indeed trying to export some of our better values to a region that desperately needs some 21st century enlightenment, I would whole heartedly agree with Dean.
As it stands, I am still not sure of what we are even trying to achieve.

One thing is for sure. Dean is not consistent with his campaign promises. I applaud Kucinich for reminding the Chairman of this fact.

The only chance on preventing a full blown civil war is by armed foreign presence.

I haven't seen any evidence of it. In fact, by hiring Kurds and Shias to help obliterate Fallujah, we are doing the exact opposite of preventing a civil war.

Now we are in the prevention business?
flexible strategies anyone?

Whether or not we contributed to ethnical grudges is irrelevant. The only reason they are not out establishing their own territory is because nobody will supply them with sufficient arms as long as we are there.

We're in. We broke it. We need to fix it. Turning tail now would not only be irresponsible, but it would also be an even more devastating blow to our international standing.

I disagreed vehemently with the decision to invade. But once we became committed, I supported our troops, and I hoped the outcome would be as positive as possible for all. And I don't see anything wrong with hoping Bush's occupation succeeds in establishing a peaceful and stable democracy in Iraq, however unlikely that may be.

DTH

The election they just had (against the wishes of the Bush administration, but they couldn't stop Sistani from getting his way) saw voters approve the platform of setting a timetable for UD withdrawal. We broke it, so we give them the money to fix it and get out of their faces.

Oh, and I don't see anything wrong with hoping that Bush's pouring gasoline on the fire succeeds in putting it out. Yes, that's stupid, but it's the logical equivalent of what you are saying.

Is utterly worthless. Iraq will dissolve into chaos without security, and the Iraqi forces are not yet up to the job.

The invasion was a catastrophe, and the chances of the PNAC goal of a democratic Middle East via domino theory of succeeding are slim to none. I will still hope that Iraq will somehow transition into a peaceful democracy, however, just as I'll hope for a cure for cancer and world peace.

DTH

--Iraqi forces will never be up to the job. Their survival rate would probably be better if they didn't have to be seen with US troops. Are the following people providing security for Iraq, or something else?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050205X.shtml

The officer's comment was a harbinger of the gratuitous violence that, according to Mr. Delgado, is routinely inflicted by American soldiers on ordinary Iraqis. He said: "Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads."


Mr. Delgado said he had witnessed incidents in which an Army sergeant lashed a group of children with a steel Humvee antenna, and a Marine corporal planted a vicious kick in the chest of a kid about 6 years old. There were many occasions, he said, when soldiers or marines would yell and curse and point their guns at Iraqis who had done nothing wrong.

Besides which, where in bleeding hell did you ever get the idea that the PNAC wanted democracy anywhere in the Middle East? What they want is permanent domination by the US military, which no democratic society there would tolerate under any cirumstances.

So push him to do it right.

Doing it right means leaving eventually.

And, wishing for it is collaboration.

I'm getting the feeling that the pull-out position is coming from a place in our hearts more concerned with seeing Bush fail than seeing the Iraqis get a decent government up and running.

The slate that won the most votes had setting a timetable for US withdrawal as its main platform plank. If they aren't allowed to choose a government that we don't like, it isn't a democracy, period. We need to let Iraqis define what a 'decent' government is.

Success for Bush means permanent military bases in Iraq which will rule the entire region by force. This project absolutely must fail, and Democrats must advocate the failure of this policy.

I'm totally for that. We need to get out of there A.S.A.P.- with the emphasis on the "P."

You guys aren't saying that, though. "Out NOW!" I believe is the way you're putting it, with total disregard for getting the Iraqi government up and running and the police trained.

In that respect, we have to support Bush's "policy," at least in the way that he explains it to the public.

What is really going on over there, if it doesn't set them down this road, needs to be exposed and dealt with.

I'm presuming his 'quick' is the same as your 'ASAP,' correct? What either means is practice is not a simple thing, and I don't think Kucinich is saying that it is.

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.


And no, we DON'T have to support the policy that Bush profers to the public. What we have to do is call it on the obscurantist lie that it is. Bottom line: he wants permanent bases there, and the Dems should come out strongly against that. Why can't we have our own definition of success?

I do not understand this backlash against Kucinich. When I read what Dean said, my first reaction was disappointment. More mealy-mouth appeasement from the DNC when the opposite is called for. The Repukes will never be mollified into doing the right thing. They must be forced and if the DNC wants to serve the country well they must adopt a much tougher stance. We are near the tipping point. I think people are starting to realize they have been mugged by the Repukes and any straight talk from the DNC will be welcomed. It is time for the DNC to take the gloves off and close in for the kill. The beast is bleeding badly and is ready to fall.
I am not convinced the DNC wants to win. They seem happy to go along with the dismantling of America. After all, they take bribes from the same conscienceless corporate cocksuckers as the Repukes do.
Let's not be blinded by partisan faith here. The DNC can not be trusted.

Kucinich rocks!!

has always been Dennis' strongest trait from the very beginning of his career. I admire him for it and am glad that, no matter which seat of power he is speaking it to, he is always doing it.

82% of Iraqi's want us out. Self-determination is what we exercised in the building of our nation and they want the same. Not only is our own regime spending billions of dollars building permanent bases, but an embassy like no other before it. It is a complex that will house up to 6000 people...a city unto itself. Does that sound like there is any intention of ending the occupation and allowing the Iraqi's self-determination?

In little over 2 years now, we are coming up fast on the casualty rate of the first 4 years of Vietnam. Since technology has greatly increased since that time, this should be enough to give some pause and to think about what constitutes an unwinnable situation.

Dennis isn't just trying to win an election. It hasn't ever really been about that. He is trying to save lives. This isn't about some lofty theory about what constitutes "success" in continuing this immoral conflict. It's about the lives that are being destroyed, the future that is being written in blood.

It's an easy position to stand on, this theory of needing to stay to fix it. It's safe, it's spineless. It's the abusive spouse who keeps trying to fix his/her damage out of his/her own sense of guilt but causing more because the root of the problem is not being addressed.

It's a much harder thing to speak the truth that Iraq has been a failure because it needed to fail, this tragedy of American foreign policy, just as did Vietnam. Substitute the oil in the Middle East with the tin and rubber of SE Asia that was the driving force for involvement in Vietnam and you have nothing more than the same exact conflict all over again.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when he is still the enemy of the people. This is something the meddlesome American regimes still have not learned as they continue to back repressive regimes and install puppet governments for their own short-term gains.



Dennis still speaks for me!!

There is nothing else to say.

I agree that the war cannot be 'won'. I'm not sure how quickly we should withdrawl. However we do it we need to have it well planned and thought out to go out with as little distruption as possible. I'm also concerned on what would happen when we leave.. we have already killed so many innocents over there I would worried a civil war would break out and so many more would die. That may unfortunately be ineviatble with how we have handled this.

As a candidate I found Dennis to be interesting, I enjoyed him in the debates, I applaud his honesty and that he is true to himself. However, watching him stand next to Kerry etc I realized that this man would not come off 'presidential' to Joe Average dumbass voter. He is small of stature and reminds me of the kid everyone picked on in school.. and hey I know what I'm talking about here I was that kid :lol:. I believe Karl Rove would have easily picked him apart as a over the top weak liberal ala Dukakis.

Thats just my logical take, personally I would have gladly voted for the man and I think the debates with Bush vs Dennis would have been great I just don't think he is extremely sellable.

23 Senators voted against the Iraq War Resolution (HJ Resolution 114):

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Check the current version at www.kucinich.us

we should stay there. Spend YOUR money on this hopeless bullshit Wall St. cause for Bush and the PNAC.

NOT MINE!

This war was founded on Bush's bullshit; it will never be anything but bullshit. The last thing that Bush and the PNAC want to see in Iraq is a genuine working Democracy. This war is nothing but a globalist war profit/oil/empire venture.

Kucinich is right to call Howard Dean on this. I really like Howard Dean, I always have. But he is full-on wrong in this case, and no matter how much I like him, I cannot agree with him.

now?

We just wanna pull out and let them have a civil war and let their country be taken over by the likes of people who blew up fifty civilians today?

Is this position that we're taking really the position with what the Iraqis need in mind, or is this a bitter, political position? Are we making the best of what we have now, in the position that we're in today, or are we rehashing the IWR?

Don't we want to try to make something good out of this?

We have to stay there and "help" them by killing more of their people.

The only way we can make something "good" out of the mess we created is to pull out and let the Iraqis settle their own affairs without our "help" that's already killed thousands of them.

We don't want extended military bases in Iraq. Let's just say that. That's the point, right?

We don't want them exploiting the Iraqis' oil reserves. Let's just say that! You don't have to throw out everything and hand the country over to the people terrorizing them to keep the imperialists from making money off of this.

If we pull out now, a whole lot more people are going to get killed than are getting killed now. AND (and this is the really bad part), the nasty people who are deliberately blowing up civilians would end up taking the reins of the country. I don't think that they'd govern very well, to put it mildly, and I don't think that the Iraqis want them taking over.

They have a *shot* at a representative government, here. We have to go with that. We can't abandon that! :shrug:

The Iraqis, the people that live there, the ones that have to face American guns and terrorist bombs, want us out. Out of their country. Not ours, because we broke it, or want "stabilize" it, or "democratize" it (with our guns), or pick up the white man's burden.

It's their country, dammit. The good old USofA didn't call on Britain after the revolution, and we didn't do all that well at "a represntative government" for over 80 years. And, there was no lack of horrific bloodshed in those years.

We aren't helping by being there, we're only making the chaos worse.

Out Now!

at this very moment?

Do they still get to elect representatives? Or do the people setting off bombs in crowds take over?

The winning slate calls for setting a US withdrawal timetable.

And if we pulled out this moment, Iraqi police and soldiers would instantly stop being targets for associating with US soldiers.

if we left. Those who want to fight against murderers of civilians would not be compromised and endangered by having to hang out with foreign conquerors.

And they just elected a representative government. The biggest vote-getter was the slate that called for a US withdrawal timetable.

We don't want extended military bases in Iraq. Let's just say that. That's the point, right?

We don't want them exploiting the Iraqis' oil reserves. Let's just say that!

Jeebus!! That's exactly what we are asking Dean to do on behalf of the party! Kerry was not in favor of immediate withdrawal, but he nonetheless made a commitment while campaigning to NO PERMANENT BASES. This is the point of no compromise, not the details of when and how we leave.

But they need their government up and their police and military trained first so that they can do the job and there isn't chaos when we leave.

As for the being specific as to what we want, I am all for that. I think Dean should be nailing the Bush administration on their motives for starting this war and occupying Iraq every day. I think he is, actually, at least to a certain extent. He should be more specific, though, about the money and what's going on with the oil.

The most important thing for Dean to nail Bush on is NO PERMANENT OCCUPATION.

When we leave, the police and military people are no longer targets just because of their association with the occupation. Until then, I think it would be a very good idea to do as Will Pitt suggested on another thread, namely train them someplace else besides in Iraq.

then you have cause to stay forever.

One of the fundamental rules of war--divide and conquer. It is in our best interests to heve Iraqis opposing each other - instead of us. When trying to militarily conquer and occupy a country, target civilians--that is how you terrorize a people into submission. Next, destroy their army, and then replace it with proxy forces to do the Occupiers bidding. This is accomplished by starvation and unemployment, which gives men trying to feed their families, limited options, lured by bribes(at the US taxpayers expense)to turn against their own people--which is portrayed to the Occupiers public back home as "security" against insurgents. In truth, it is the Occupiers attempt to reinstate a police state to do their bidding--which is why the "insurgents", who we back at home have been ked to believe as the enemy, may be just ordinary Iraqis fighting against an Occupier imposed police state.

Go to this DU link to read Tom Hayden's letter to Dean.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3569514

The Hayden and Kucinich letters came after the PDA letter that's linked in my sig. We weren't taking on Dean, and I don't think the others are, either, in the sense of wanting to take him down or whatever. We want him to alter his long-stated position and join us in pushing to get out of Iraq.

Sign the Petition:

http://www.pdamerica.org/petition/iraq-exit-petition.php

excerpts:

Iraq Withdrawal Petition:
Progressive Democrats of America will deliver the following petition to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean in Washington, D.C. during the second week of May, 2005.

To Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean,

We the undersigned join grassroots Democrats from California to Vermont in calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We ask you to join us in our demand that the troops be brought home. We support efforts to repair the damage the war has inflicted on Iraq, but believe that the occupation is causing further damage, encouraging violence, hardening divisions, and failing to train or prepare Iraqis for self-governance.

We believe the United States can best help Iraq by supporting reparation efforts financially, rather than continuing to spend greater sums of money on an occupation that is aggravating the situation and making all of us less safe...CON'T

But if the elections the Iraqis are having are legitimate- and that IS a big "if"- then we need to help the people they have elected to get police, military, and any other government institutions up and running.

If you don't like Bush's motives, fight those. We have to do what we can, though, in good faith.

C'mon.

--come of the present clusterfuck? How do ignorant people who know nothing of the culture of the country stop a civil war? Seems more like they are provoking a civil war.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050205X.shtml

The officer's comment was a harbinger of the gratuitous violence that, according to Mr. Delgado, is routinely inflicted by American soldiers on ordinary Iraqis. He said: "Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads."

Also, can you explain what building a huge palatial embassy compound for 6000 people has to do with preventing civil war? Or building 14 permanent military bases? Why can't we just rent a building for the embassy? There is no room whatsoever for compromise on opposing this. However, there is a lot of room for compromise when discussing how to get out. "Out now!" is far from the only possible option.

So are you saying that you don't care if the Iraqis have their representative government in place before we leave?

--without us. They just had an election, and the winning slate sez set up some kind of timetable for withdrawal. They aren't insisting on the day after tomorrow, they just want a specific comittment to leave eventually.

It could be worse with Iraqis on their own but it might not be either.

But you know what's going to happen if we pull out.

Pulling out is a huge question mark, and you don't know any more about the consequences than I do. Though I'd suggest that anything Bush et al say about it should be taken with many grains of salt. What, exactly, is the behavior described below preventing?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050205X.shtml

The officer's comment was a harbinger of the gratuitous violence that, according to Mr. Delgado, is routinely inflicted by American soldiers on ordinary Iraqis. He said: "Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads."

Mr. Delgado said he had witnessed incidents in which an Army sergeant lashed a group of children with a steel Humvee antenna, and a Marine corporal planted a vicious kick in the chest of a kid about 6 years old. There were many occasions, he said, when soldiers or marines would yell and curse and point their guns at Iraqis who had done nothing wrong.

"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?"

Their is a post in GD Politics which shows that The Nation edited the letter, and I got blamed for it.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1735846.php

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.

Whether he did say it or not, it obviously was a mistake that now has been corrected.

I am shocked.

It is still in full form in the Kucinich forum, and at the Indy sites.

put a sock in it Dennis. :P

DK said: "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.

While we don't have a clear way to define "victory" Mr. K, Dean argues that we can create a dangerous situation if we pull out now.

DK added: "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."

Scuse me Dennis, I happen to know that YOU were aware of Dean's position on this matter in the primaries because you squaked about it then. I also happen to know that progressives who supported Dean were aware of his position, so why the long face now?

Mr. Kucinich if Democrats wanted a candidate who promoted the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq, they would have nominated YOU. They did not do so.

Additionally, it seems Mr. Kucinich left out one key phrase in Dean's quote:

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," he told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

Dennis Kucinich also failed to directly address Dean's specific concerns about a pullout right now:

"An American pullout could endanger the United States in any of three ways, Dean said: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. "That's where Al Qaida will set up," he said.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Dean_warns_of_danger_of_Iraq_pullout_04_21_2005_0901am.html

One common theme among those crying "out now" is that they don't effectively address what happens if we pack our bags now.

I am anti-war.

I'm also not sure that "out now" helps more real human beings than it hurts. After our disasterous mistake, all I care about is getting out in the least harmful way possible. That may not be "immediatel." We should have discussions about this, dialoge. But don't start telling me that either you're "out now" or you're not anti-war.

:shrug:

Edwards was as pro-war as it gets when Bush was lying to America. I respect all of our nominees, but this eating our own sh*t has got to stop.

Candidates who don't meet threshold generally negotiate with each other, not frontrunners.