Who is the Antiwar Candidate -- Dean or Kucinich?

Clearly, it is Kucinich. From long before he began running for president, through all his related votes in Congress, Kucinich has been solidly, consistently, relentlessly, and unconditionally, the true antiwar candidate.

Howard Dean has notoriously wavered and waffled when it suits him best. This is typical of his cravenly opportunistic (even by typical political standards) campaign style. Dean supporters like to claim that the following quotes attributed to him are "taken out of context", the biggest dodge in the rhetoric handbook.

Contrast Kucinich's statements with Dean's. No waffles on the menu at Dennis's place:

Sept 21, 2002, KUCINICH -- "Leader of the Opposition"
The NY Times runs a news story about how "a small group of Democratic die-hards in the House is trying to rally opposition to military action." The piece refers to "two dozen or so mainly liberal lawmakers...though they may be viewed as outside the mainstream of even their own party, they are raising their voices against an invasion, even if their leadership is not." The piece accurately calls Rep. Kucinich a "leader of the opposition" and ends by quoting him: "This is an attempt to start a serious debate inside the party."

Sept. 23, 2002, DEAN -- Might Endorse Pre-Emptive Strike
Dean gives a waffling endorsement of President Bush's pre-emptive war:
"Pre-emption is not off the table, but the moral high ground does matter," he says, as quoted in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The paper reports that Dean "also said he would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them."

Sept. 25, 2002, KUCINICH -- Denounces Pre-Emption
Introduced by anchor Judy Woodruff on CNN as "one of the most active House opponents to President Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq," Kucinich denounces Bush's policy of pre-emptive war: "Since when do we equate patriotism with going to war? Since when do we equate patriotism with preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?...America's always been a nation that's worked with other nations. And after September 11 of last year, we had the entire world community working with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating ourselves from the world community because we want to go it alone."

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"
On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

Sept. 29, 2002, KUCINICH: "There Is No Imminent Threat"
On the same CBS "Face the Nation": "At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States." Kucinich adds: "There's no imminent threat. If I thought there was an imminent threat to this country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action. But I have to tell you, there is no imminent threat."

Oct. 10, 2002, WAR RESOLUTION -- Dean at 1%
Thanks heavily to Kucinich's leadership, nearly 2/3 of House Democrats vote "No" on the war resolution. But the four men in Congress then running for president all vote "Yes": Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman. Dean is at 1 percent in polls (Marist College poll, Oct. 9-10).

February 2003, DEAN -- "Democratic Wing of Democratic Party"
First reference in news media (according to Nexis Database) of Dean using the Paul Wellstone-line: "I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

(Personal note: Dean's ripping off of the late great Wellstone for his own aggrandizement officially turned me 100% against his candidacy, and was what made me decide to go publicly on the offensive. If Dean were truly from the Wellstone wing, I'd have far, far less trouble with him. Craven ass-kissing at its worst when he uttered these words.)

February 19, 2003 DEAN -- Unilateral Action Is...Unavoidable Choice
Salon's Jake Tapper summarizes Dean's oft-repeated position on attacking Iraq: "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

March 19, 2003, WAR BEGINS

March 20, 2003: DEAN (Muted Remarks) vs. KUCINICH (Pulled No Punches)
Dean and Kucinich address press groups in Washington D.C. AP reports on their respective comments:

Dean: "'I'm not going to back off my criticism of the president's policy, but I'm certainly going to change the tone,' Dean said between the speeches. 'There won't be the kind of red meat remarks that you make in front of partisan Democratic audiences.'"

Kucinich: "Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took his presidential campaign to the same newspaper audiences, but he pulled no punches in assailing the president for starting the war. He urged Bush to bring the troops home and focus on problems in America's cities, including unemployment, pollution and failing schools. 'This is a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq,' he said. 'These are offensive, not defensive attacks, and they are in violation of international law.'"

May 2, 2003, BUSH DECLARES END OF "MAJOR COMBAT" IN IRAQ

August 12, 2003, DEAN -- "We Cannot Leave Iraq"
"I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq" (Buchanan & Press, MSNBC)

September 7, 2003, KUCINICH -- Get U.S. Out and U.N. In
"The Bush Administration's arrogant occupation of Iraq has harmed the United States' position in the world community, caused the deaths of 289 American soldiers at last count, and diverted tens of billions of dollars from domestic needs. Now the President is asking for another $87 billion. We must allow the UN to take over peacekeeping operations in the country. The UN must take over management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton."


More at: http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php


So folks, there you have it. Not content to soil Paul Wellstone's legacy for his own betterment, he also damages the credibility of his campaign with the American people because he wavers, flip-flops, waffles, and makes a mockery of the term "antiwar candidate". He dserves neither the mantle of Wellstone, nor lends credible authority to any of his statements since the above about Iraq and its continuing occupation.

I have a lot of respect for someone like kucinich who stands by his position and says what he thinks without pandering to the masses with what he thinks they want to hear.

I think I will start a pool on when I will get my first "you took Dean's statements out of context!" protest post.

He made the statements as is, and the context is plenty clear.

I remember all the times Bush, Newt, DeLay, et al would put their foot in their mouths, and you'd have some spokesman come on the talk shows and say "The Democrats and liberal media are just taking their statements out of context!" And this is the guy some tout as a Harry Truman-style straight shooter?

It's a dodge. They cannot defend the indefensible, so they hedge their bets that people will fall for the "context" argument. It's desperate and last ditch, and completely destroys he credibility of the defender.

He was fighting in the house against the war before the vote, during the vote and after the vote.

:)

Kucinich is running way behind Sharpton in the polls.

That HE ALONE is the only MAJOR anti-war candidate.

Kucinich is running second only to Dean in a large number of polls, both on and offline, thanks.

would have made it clear by now if they were anti-war. I don't remember them coming out against Afghanistan.

But DK is in Congress, and could actually vote on it, which bolsters his consistent stance by having a voting record to match his rhetoric. That doesn't degrade CMB or Sharpton's views though.

Dean is the target here because he has had the luxury of not having a voting record on the war, and had made comments that run down both sides of the aisle.

but he did testify before Congress and wasn't an advocate for the direction we were heading.

Neither did he advocate it in his book... or in his political analysis on CNN... or his speeches.

But things are very different when you have to caste a vote and be held accountable by your consituents.

Though his past good words about Bush and his regime (which I know were made in a gentleman's sense, but still...) make me cringe, I have never made an issue of his positions on Iraq.

I have some disagreements with him on Iraq, but that would be getting off topic. :-)

Your man DK has been strong on his anti-war stance all along, has not waffled once. He is a true American Patriot. :)

I do find it amusing that many who make such a deal about Howard Dean not being a pure antiwar candidate have no issue with Wesley Clark. The man's a retired four star general for crying out loud.

Like I said, I have issues with Clark, and I find it more than a tad ironic that a general who has fought in, and waged war, is held in such high esteem by many self-proclaimed pacifists. I have a healthy appreciation of irony.

But keep my larger point in mind: This thread is about DK's views versus that of the alleged front-runner. Clark is off-topic, but that doesn't mean I am privately giving him a pass. :-)

Post #19 "I have no issue with Clark" or Post#32 "Like I said, I have issues with Clark".

I'll chalk it up to irony I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=30404#30527

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=30404#30603

while CMB is closer to Dean. It's a pretty even split- "Come home with honor" vs. "Come home NOW."

I still want to know how you get "honor" from destroying any semblance of stability in an entire region without provocation. Anyone?

Anyone else who tries to claim the anti-war mantle is being hypocritical IMO.

and neither was Clark or Dean.

I am certain that Kerry and Clark wouldn't have taken us into Iraq.

Dean I am NOT certain because I don't think he'd have had the wherewithall to withstand an onslaught from the Neo Cons.

I am not 100% certain about Edwards either for some odd reason. Maybe cause Shelton is advising hims.

Interestingly, however, Clinton said that Gore was the person in his cabinet most eager to go after Hussein on any pretext. So, you have to wonder what Gore would have done had he cared enough to be president.

I flat out don't like the way even supposed liberals are dismissing minority candidates as if they don't exist.

Are Sharpton and CMB strong candidates? Maybe not. It's a point that can be debated. However, to "disappear" them from the discussion is just wrong.

favorite indulgence or some damned goody for you! LOL

I do not and will not dismiss CMB or Sharpton as if they haven't palyed a major role in this race. I love them both for different reasons. Al Sharpton has a tongue that slices as neatly as a scalpel any day of the week, and I adore him for it!

CMB is a strong woman who knows what she intends and usually does a fine job articulating it, and I love her for that, as a woman myself. Best candidates? No, not by my own criteria. Damned good candidates? Hell YES any day! Dismissable as unimportant? Not even close!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

to say this is a poop thread & clearly Dean is.

There are four candidates in this race who oppose this particular war. They are Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, and Braun. There is no "one" antiwar candidate.

Kucinich has the most consistent pro-peace position of the four but right now it's a matter of supporting the one of those four with the best chance of winning both the Democratic nomination and the White House. It's a matter of making sure that one of the candidates who voted for the IWR does not get the nomination. Every less vote that Dean gets makes it more likely that Kerry, Lieberman, or Gephardt will be the Democratic nominee, and therefore more likely that a strong Green Party candidate will throw the election to Bush again.

If Kucinich ever shows any signs of moving above 2% in the polls I might support him. Please let me know when Kucinich moves above 2% in the polls. I am finished throwing away my time, money, and votes on candidates who get 2% of the vote, which I've done too many times in the past.

If fewer people were slaves to the polls, and gave their time, money, and votes to people no matter what the polls and media said, you wouldn't put yourself in the position of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. By dismissing a candidate because he or she supposedly polls at 2%, you are ensuring he or she stays at 2%, if the polls do come to pass.

You know, the old saying, 'if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem'.

Also, we have a fundamental disagreement about 'wasted votes'. I firmly hold that there is no such thing, unless you LIKE denigrating your role in a participatory democracy.

Sorry things didn't work out for you in the past supporting of 2%ers. You should not regret it if you truly voted your conscience and did what you felt was right. Instead, you seem resigned to the "head of the pack" model of voting. Which is your right, and I wish you well.

All that being said, there is plenty of evidence that Dean is not an antiwar candidate, which is okay for people who don't care, but dishonest when his supporters bandy about that label.

Me and a few others voting our conscience does no good if 90% of the other liberal voters don't.

Yes, I was one of those hated Nader voters in 1996 (<1%) and 2000 (2%). And I voted for the independent candidate for governor last election (7%), for the Green in the last Senate election (8% with no Democrat even in the race), and for the Democrat furthest to the left in the last congressional primary (2%, dead last out of all the candidates), etc etc. I volunteered for their campaigns and sent them money. For what?

Politics is the art of compromise, strategic voting, and choosing the lesser of evils in many cases. I'm going to leave the ideological purity to somebody else from now on. We have too much at stake this election.

I don't hold you as "evil" or responsible for 2000. Also, it is the primaries which afford us the chance to vote our ideals, or at least vote for the person you feel comes closest to representing them. Come election time, I am a hardcore pragmatist. Because of that, I have been accused of being a centrist and other vile labels, but I let'em roll right off of me.

I don't vote for ideological purity in any event, or I'd vote Socialist rather than Democratic. ;-)

Of the four so-called "anti-war" candidates, TWO of them (Dean and CMB) believe we should stay in Iraq, indefinately, with no firm plan to get us out.

ONLY Dennis Kucinich has a plan that would turn over control of Iraq to a true multilateral coalition (the UN) and get the US (as a conquering military presence) out of Iraq.

As long as the US stays in Iraq in its present role, the attacks will continue. More of our soldiers will come home in body bags, or in wheelchairs, missing their limbs.

Just because it was a mistake to invade Iraq DOES NOT mean that we have to stay there as a conquering army. It will do us, the Iraqis and the world no good to continue the present situation. We need to get the UN in and the US out of the decision-making process in Iraq-- let the Iraqi people decide what kind of government they want.

In March 2003, it may have been about invasion. But it's almost January 2004, and it's about prolonging an unjust, illegal occupation.

Dean embraced Jesus AND the death penalty, almost in the same breath.
Whew, what a bummer. I don't trust him at all.
So what do you think: New Zealand or Canada.

but i dont support him

i am not antiwar, i am anti bullshit war - same as dean

Dean showed through his comments above that he isn't even consistently against a bullshit war - not until it started getting him some donations, double-digit polling numbers, and major press coverage anyway.

deans quote in context reveal his consistant position against the iraq war

he was opposed to the war in the fashion it went down

it doesnt take a rocket scientist to decifer that

:)
Zomby someone brought up context!

Here is a good Dean one in context.

'My opponents...', '... they supported the war'..(From Dean's N.H. TV ad a couple months ago.) He pretty much lost me on that lie. He was still in my top 3-4 choices when that zinger was heard.

TWL

Oh! You mean "decipher"!

You are pretty much admitting that Dean only opposed THIS version of the war, but hey, others would have been okay! Fuck that. NO WAR, IN ANY FORM, was EVER necessary, with Iraq, period.

Dean has NO RIGHT to be called an anti-war candidate, in any way, shape, or form, just because he opposed (allegedly, in context of course) THIS one.

You lose.

run down any candidate except Joe on this.
But I have been impressed by Dennis's outspoken leadership on this issue.

This is an important issue for me, so it gives me a strong reason to support him.

But I look at the America Dennis wants to build, and I am
in utter admiration for him. Further, I believe
that he will be a devastating contrast to Dub-ya.

Joe has been as consistent in his support of the war as DK has been against it. I despise Lieberman on many levels, but one thing I give him his due on - he doesn't pander for a chosen audience, which Dean all too often does.

If I were forced to rank my support, Dean would be 9th, after Joe in 8th place.

I am a die-hard peace activist, but I also abhor hypocrisy and deceit enough to make it even odds that Dean would be even worse as president than Unholy Joe.

it's definitely Kucinich at #1, Lieberman at #8, and Dean # 9 for me.

If Dean gets the nomination, it will be a disaster for the party and the country, ensuring four more years of Bush and the neo-cons. He's got a sizable corps of loyal supporters but their feelings for him are not transferable to a large enough segment of the electorate.

Dennis Kucinich is THE peace candidate, because he has been articulating a consistent position for nearly two years (since February, 2002.) Sharpton has been pretty good AFAIK, CMB has said we can't cut and run on the occupation of Iraq, Dean has said we need to send more troops over there. Only DK is calling for immediate withdrawal. Of course immediate means after UN troops get in to police the country. Clark has been muddled in his statements, too. Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt all voted for the war. We might have to vote for one of them but I won't let any of them present themselves as "the peace candidate" when that title rightfully belongs to Dennis J. Kucinich. Let everyone else get their own niche.

he is clear, consistent, hard-hitting and correct, on every issue that matters.

and has been the most out spoken anti war and pro peace candidate with a national campaign, and has had a history back to I believe 98' of proposing and supporting a Department of Peace. He also is the only national campaign firmly stating and proposing a plan to end the occupation and turn political and physical reconstruction, oil and other contracts, over to the UN to oversee interim Iraqi governing moving toward self determination.

All fine points, and right on! :-)

eom.

at least he should score a nice lady for all this!

and despite the gag contest, I've heard nothing to make me think he's parted company with her. A joke is a joke, and if people knew a bit more of Dennis they'd know a joke when they saw it.*sigh*

*Note, not a personal attack, just a minor gripe.

Dennis Kucinich is all about real grassroots populism, with the record to back it up. Dean is more about what's good for Dean at any given moment, as far as I can tell. Dean's campaign may look like populism, but campaigning isn't governing. If Dean does get the nomination and beat Bush in 2004, I predict the mother of all rude awakenings for some of his supporters.

As for Clark, his candidacy may have establishment ties, but at least he's not pretending to be what he's not. Clark has a mix of grassroots and establishment support, which I think is a winning combination. If nominated, and elected, Clark will turn the country around and hopefully pave the way for a Kucinich presidency.

My election theories in a nutshell.

Whether or not you support Sharpton, you are wrong to dismiss him out of hand. Sharpton and Sharpton's supporters deserve better than that.

Read all of the comments in this thread I have made. The point of this thread is to contrast the statements and votes of a real antiwar candidate - one who put his principles into practice with a vote - with someone professing to be antiwar, but has no votes to support it, and waffling rhetoric to muddle his message.

This was an exercise in CONTRASTS, not comparisons.

Dean hasn't cast any votes on the war. Dean is mentioned on the thread.

You flat out ignored Sharpton. Sharpton has much more support than Kucinich.

I never knew I could offend someone by omitting a candidate from my original post. DU is truly a magical place.

Quite frankly, I don't care about a demagogue like Sharpton. He's good for some humorous soundbites. Unlike either Kucinich or Dean, he has never been accountable to the voters at any time in his career.

I was pitting MY candidate against the alleged frontrunner. If you think Sharpton was slighted in any way, start your own damn thread. :eyes:

...the more I've concluded that his "demagogue" reputation is a completely unfair caricature cooked up by right-wingers. He's a solid progressive and a solid civil rights leader, who has been unfairly maligned because the right wing want to head off the emergence of any more Jesse Jacksons or Martin Luther Kings. Ridicule is one of their most potent tools. They'll do the same to Kucinich, in fact they're already doing it.

The real demagogues are to be found on the right, spreading ridicule and distrust of liberals, progressives, and even moderates. They did it to Clinton, they did it to Sharpton, they're doing it to Dean and Kucinich. I'm calling the right wing on their BS. I've gotten so fond of Al Sharpton that he has moved up to become my second choice for president behind Dean.

Nice guy, no traction. Gravitas Lite.

at least Kucinich has been consistantly anti-war.

as are the views of his supporters. Never know DK might just throw some surprises at all of us.

most of the other candidates are echoing his positions? Spare me.

Do you mean according to the polls?

The only candidate of the five candidates in Congress to have voted no.

Dean was not consistently anti-invasion. His statements are clearly contradictory leading up to the invasion, and revealed themselves to be cravenly opportunistic as his star began to rise afterwards.

ongoing guerilla war. He supported going into Afghanistan. He has said he would have no problem ordering military action if necessary.

Kucinich is not opposed to all wars. That is, thinking idealistically, he would like to do away with war and violence. That's why he wants a Department of Peace. But being also pragmatic, he knows that war is sometimes necessary. I suspect that Sharpton's views are much the same. Neither man is a pacifist.

Dean has not previously opposed wars, unless you count his saying he didn't want to go to Viet Nam because he didn't believe in the war. Yet, there's no record of his being an anti-war protester back then; brother Charlie was the activist.

Dean and Clark are both anti-Iraq War, but not anti-war. Sharpton and Braun are not anti-war, either. I don't agree with Kucinich on pulling straight out, because I think we have a responsibility to correct some of the mess we've made over there, but he is the only anti-war (or peace) candidate.

His plan is to replace US administration and soldiers with UN/true multilateral administration and peacekeepers, who are much more suited to the job of rebuilding nations that combat troops.

Kucinich WOULD NOT simply pull out and leave Iraq high and dry without some sort of plan in place to replace the vacuum. That has never been part of his platform.

Just FYI :)

He has comprehensive plans for every issue, doesn't he? His website reads like a textbook for how to address every issue before us.

It's easy to create misinformation out of soundbites; I'd like some feed back from those who've read the plan:

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

UN in, US out
Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home
The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can’t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.

People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home in 90 days, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.

The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.
The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources.
The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.
Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home in 90 days, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person, one-vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during that period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home.

In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the US invasion. The US will also owe a contribution to the UN to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top-shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration’s reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.

The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America’s moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost our credibility and done serious harm to America’s standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment in most of the world’s countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.

All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the UN move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more US casualties, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for Americans.

We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home in 90 days, transfer authority to the UN with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and save billions over the Administration’s occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorists and criminals who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

Kucinich was antiwar, and dean was anti-Iraq war, or at least, how it was waged.

Depending on CMB and sharpton, Kucinich mayn ot be only anti-war candidate.

In no way did I pit Dean against DK because I think they are the only two candidates with any claims to the antiwar mantle.

DK is my candidate, and Dean is supposedly the frontrunner. I wanted to contrast how my candidate fared against him on the record.

If anyone else wants to take up CMB, Clark, or Sharpton, let them do their own damn thread.

..but just think its more fair to consider everyone in the running when mentioning THE antiwar candidate, as if there is only one. This is a fallacious claim in the first place when considering others, and hence, kinda defeats the purpose of the thread: that being, to find THE candidate, when THE candidate may not exist (only a grouping of a few).

DK & Dean...it does NOT defeat the purpose . He is comparing the two candidates here.

If you want to do all the candidates......by all means go for it!

Peace
DR

.....great thread!!

I wonder sometimes if Dean supporters have selective memories, ignore what he says or flat out don't care what he says. Too bad at any rate.

Kucinich is my candidate...never did much like waffles....

:hi: Zombyson

:loveya:
Desertmom

As long as I don't have to put any Vermont maple syrup on them. :evilgrin:

:loveya:

ZombySon

oh, good one!!!

I like maple syrup from Canada better anyhow!

:bounce:


:loveya:
Dmom

NOT! :evilgrin: No question, without a doubt, KUCINICH!

Huh?

dean is oppertunistic (imho)

Kucinich or Bush/Dean/Clark/Kerry et all

Easy.

Today's quote:

"What if government had the balance of ballet? What if it had the grace?" Kucinich asked the crowd of about 30 people gathered to hear him speak on Friday, Dec. 19.


"What we have now is a very heavy-handed approach to government. Like an elephant in a tutu, but this elephant is on a rampage."

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10707408&BRD=2041&PAG=461&dept_id=338010&rfi=6

"What if govennment had the balance of ballet? What if it had the grace?"

Such beautiful, whimsical words.

Anyone listening to Kucinich's story about picking up photos of soldiers who had died in Vietnam from their families for the newspaper, realizes his anti-war belief is deep-rooted and profoundly personal.

How in world has Dean stolen not only his 'anti-war platform' but 'the angry candidate' mantle too? I have never seen any candidate speak with such passion and anger as Dennis Kunicich. In fact, wasn't that the meme against Kucinich in the beginning of the campaign...he's too angry for the American public?

Guess that was before it became 'cool' to be angry.

Duh.

You know that, and I know that... but it was fun to ask. ;-)

Those of you who say he doesn't factor into this race are wrong. Kucinich will factor into this race. If he gets a good amount of votes in the primaries, that will force the eventual candidate to take a good look at some of his policies and how they themselves can appeal to the Kucinich primary supporters in the general election.

I won't even entertain a reply to anyone who cites his poll numbers anymore. Those people rate in my poll less than 1% anyway. ;-)

Yes, he is a factor, and has ideas that the others would dismiss at their peril. I watch closely to see who is 'borrowing' from him these days. :-)

Foreign Policy statement. Tell me it doesn't look strikingly similar to the same statements we've been reading on the Kucinich site since oooooh the first damned day it went up!:eyes:

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence."

...

"We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

“He needs to first make the case and he has not done that,” Dean said. “He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.”

...

"He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means," said Dean. "If we go into Iraq, we’re going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years."

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

"Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent," said Dean.

...

"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "It’s not going to Afghanistan and it’s not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we don’t stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then it’s stupid to go in there."

September 04, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"I think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think there’s a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS’ "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we’ve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a very different way."

...

While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"It’s not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell people we’re going to do what we want to do," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

...

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq."

...

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I don’t think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq.

March 9, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"I’m certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don’t see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What I’ve said is, I’m not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldn’t make any sense. I haven’t altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

If he EVER believed Iraq was a credible threat to the U.S. He used all those hedges and dodges so in case things didn't go down the way they did, he could claim he was right. Things went down another way, and he STILL claims he is right. He's a pandering waffling dumbass.

He wasn't even anti-Iraq war, as you claim - just the version Bush peddled. But you and a few others seem to think war was conceivably an option with Iraq, whuch shows that Dean and his supporters lack an imagination, and credibility. Does he really think Bush had a case, in ANY context? He must have at one time or two, based on your exhaustive catalog of Dean waffles.

Bush made a land grab for oil in the name of "fighting terrorism", and war was wrong in ALL CONTEXTS. What part of 'antiwar' do Dean and his supporters not understand?

Dean was against the invasion as it went down, and as Bush sold it.

He didn't think the threat (whatever it was) was significant enough to justify unilateral invasion.

He was right.

Every candidate would invade Iraq if the circumstances justified it. Even Kucinich.

Kucinich knew there was never a credible threat from Iraq, and therefore, unlike Dean, never made statements giving any credence to a potential threat or how it should be handled.

If YOU think Iraq was ever a threat in any guise, then I can see why you support Dean. Makes perfect sense, actually.

There was only one Iraq war, but it seems Dean, by his comments, was prepared for several versions. I think his alleged opposition to what happened as Bush caused it was just crass opportunism on Dean's part, rather than deep conviction.

He knew he could "energize the base" if he made a few squeaks and peeps against the war, after Bush actually went ahead with his unilateralism.

I sure hope Dean never thought there were WMD's, or he doesn't have any more credibility than Bush (who knew there wasn't, and cynically manipulated public opinion). So if Dean thought there was, he is gullible (like much of America), and if he didn't, then he was just hedging his bets and made himself look a foolish opportunist in the process.

A lose-lose for the Bad Doctor.

that was damn close to the one that passed, so he is no more anti-Iraq war than those who voted for IWR. Dean just did a great job of letting the press paint him as antiwar and adopting the rhetoric of the antiwar crowd. It was Kucinich who was doing all the HEAVY lifting.

he is unwaveringly against any war, on prinicple. And, as I stated in another post, such a position could well get one impeached and removed from office based upon a basic abbrogation of an oath to protect and uphold the constitutional call for a common defense.

except when it is politically expedient for him to be against them?

I prefer pro-Peace to sometimes pro-Peace...

Short and to the most important point. Dean is playing politician. Dennis Kucinich is playing no one. He IS a voice and leader of the common person.

TWL

There are some who believe that it is unpatriotic to challenge the administration on the war. They believe it is politically wiser to debate the economy. But how can one reasonably separate war from the budget, war from America's ability to meet the needs of the people of this nation?


Not only is Kucinich "anti-war," he understands the way issues are interconnected.

and neither of them has a last name that starts with D

Neither Dean nor Kucinich are totally anti-war. And it's a good thing, because such a stance would be stupid on planet earth. It would also be grounds for impeachment of an elected official, as they all take oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the Constitition clearly states that we must provide for the common defense - which obviously means war if its necessary and justified.

Would you be anti-war if it meant fighting for your life in a true national struggle for your freedom? I would surely hope not.

The issue has been skewed. The question is not about "war" but about the current "Iraq war" which is wrong, immoral and now damaging to my country. Both Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean have taken the correct position on this imperialist military farce.

Unfortunately, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards have not.

Kucinich is anti-war...not in the pacifist sense, but much closer to that spirit

Dean is not.

Would Dennis Kucinich be anti-war if it meant fighting for our lives and freedom, in a true national struggle to repel an invasion or attack?

If the answer is "yes", then Kucinich is NOT "anti-war". And that's a compliment to him, by the way. Only a suicidal fool would refuse to defend his life or freedom.

"Kucinich- voted to use force after 9/11 (in Afghanistan) but has since been critical of our actions there which havent been so pretty"

Post #92.

I really like and admire Dennis. I think he is the least LIKELY to want to use force out of the bunch. But let's be honest. No person in political power is anti-war all the time, nor should they be. Self defense is a natural right and mandate.

read my post again

That he isnt anti war but is closer to the anti war spirit than Dean, theres no shame in admitting that. Of the 4 wars in the last decade, Kucinich supported one and has been quite critical of the ways things were done there. Dean it seems only opposed Iraq of the four wars I named.

DK voted in favor of the resolution that would allow the President to use force against a NATION that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks in September 2001.

HOWEVER, he voted AGAINST the invasion of Afghanistan because he (like many others, including myself) KNEW that the Afghani govt was not responsible for the attacks, and that invading Afghanistan would make the situaion in the country WORSE and would do more to disperse Al-Qaeda than to destroy it.

Although I consider myself a pacifist, I would fight back against another country if it were to invade the US, or pose an imminent danger to our sovereignty. Neither Afghanistan/Al-Qaeda nor Iraq passes this "smell test"; nor should they to any other rational person with a grasp of the facts of the situation.

To summarize: DK voted in favor of using force (on 9/15/2001) if it could be determined that the 9/11 attacks were made by another nation against the US. He DID NOT favor the invasion of Afghanistan, as it was not the best way to apprehend the 9/11 suspects.

Additionally, DK did not believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US or our allies, and therefore did not support the Iraq invasion, either.

Conflict is inevitable, but war is not. As long you and countless others indulge war as a desirable option, and remain locked into that mindset, then, yes, it will continue to be "our reality".

Some of us seek creative means of addressing conflict. Will it be easy? No. Will it occur in our lifetimes? Maybe not. But if you accept this 'reality' with resignation, without working for something better, you're stuck. You guarantee that this 'reality' will continue.

You do your shaking red fist in your sig line a disservice by capitulating to the 'reality' you espouse. You accept the status quo, which is one more reason you probably support Dean.

the decade's past wars.

Gulf War I
Dean- supported
Kucinich- unk sorry y'all
Kosovo
Dean- supported
Kucinich- one of the few democrats to oppose (btw I know many DUers supported that war, but I opposed it, and I really dont wanna get in to that)
Afghanstan
Dean- supported and to my knowledge hasnt been critical
Kucinich- voted to use force after 9/11 but has since been critical of our actions there which havent been so pretty
Gulf War II
Dean- opposed
Kucinich- opposed it and led with Nancy Pelosi the fight against the IWR in the house of representives
Conclusion
Kucinich is more anti war than Dean. Personally as a dove I prefer DK. I am not calling Dean a bad guy and what not but this is what I know and please do NOT call me a Milosevic sympathizer for my opposition to Kosovo. Also on to be anti war is illogial or whatever you said isn't true, one of the smartest people I know is that. I am not a pacifist, I am a dove though.

and just couldn't bring himself to condemn Reagan and Bush's illegal wars in Central America. Kerry put his CAREER on the line and incurred the wrath of most of DC to expose those criminal wars.

but I was giving you a synapse of the past decade of wars, and overwhelmingly DK comes out over Dean as anti war. I know DK supported Afghanstan but he has been thankfully quite critical of that, and speaking of your man, Senator Kerry, I hear he was quite critical of our action at Tora Bora.

Which means it never be entered into trivially, immorally, or any way that BushCo did.

If, however, you must war to defend your freedom and life, are you telling me with a straight face that you would not?

Are you telling me the "zomby twoof"?

I don't need faux liberals lecturing me on the "reality" of war.

I will be around to gloat when Dean gets his ass handed to him come 2004, sooner or later. It will be the likes of supporters like you that helped enable his defeat, by the sheer weight of your collective arrogance and cluelessness.

Kucinich is the unelectable anti-war candidate, whereas Dean is the moderately unelectable anti-war candidate.

But if you want to post about Joe Lieberman elsewhere, no one is stopping you.

Thanks for your effort, ZombyWoof!

Welcome to DU. :hi:

We anxiously await the Kucinich web page that will lay it all out for us.

:wtf:

Someone's personal life has nothing to do with their political strengths and weaknesses. Why should we care whether or not Kucinich is a vegan?

No wonder!

His faux ranch in Crawford shoulda been stocked with faux stock, as well.

Why I think Dennis isn't electable and Dean is, must be a flaw in my thinking, LOL!! I wish Dennis Kucinich could be where Dean is accordingly!

Hearing again and again and again and again the sentiment that if only Kucinich had polling, funds, or whatever to them indicates that the candidate is worthy of their support, then they would support him -- and you hear this despite the clear knowledge that if the people who flock to Dean due to his perceived 'electability' would just support the candidate they claim to prefer, then he WOULD have the polling, funds, whatever.

I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but I've read it more than once this morning and it really disturbs me.

This is the primaries. It's the time to support who you want. Settling for less comes later.

That's what I tried to say in these articles:

Do you support the Empire, or peace and security?

What is the true significance of political polls?

And you are correct.

This is a primary and whomever you vote for is a democrat. So why not vote the one who is best on the issues instead of the someone with Ted Koppel's favorite things, money and polls.


TWL

Remember, Kucinich voted for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action on Afghanistan. Now of course if he were anti-war, he'd not support attacks on Afghanistan. But, no sane person is 100% anti-war, so it's not really fair to call ANY of the Democratic candidates anti-war. Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton ALL were anti-Iraq war though.