Kucinich: 'Stunning admission' by Clinton, Obama, Edwards is tantamount to permanent occupation

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27269

'Stunning admission' by Clinton, Obama, Edwards is tantamount to a permanent occupation of Iraq, Kucinich says
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-09-29 02:14. Elections

From Kucinich for President

DOVER, NH - The stunning admission by Democratic frontrunners Clinton, Obama, and Edwards that they might keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2013 "is tantamount to an announcement of a permanent occupation that could cost U.S. taxpayers $5 trillion and bankrupt any opportunity to address health care reform, education, jobs, or any other domestic policy initiatives," Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

In remarks prepared for a speech in New Hampshire tonight, Kucinich is expected to challenge the credibility, motives, and fitness of the Democratic frontrunners to serve as President "when they either voted to go to war or voted to continue the war. They took us into this war, and, with every vote for continued funding, they have kept us there. Now, they're telling us we may be there forever, diverting trillions of dollars from desperate domestic needs to financing an illegal, immoral, and endless war. It is time to end this war, and it is time to expose their hypocrisy."

Kucinich noted that "Senators Clinton and Edwards were among the most outspoken advocates in 2002 for giving President Bush the authorization he wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. And, until he announced his candidacy this year, Senator Obama supported the war every time he voted to continue funding it. Whatever they say on the campaign trail, they have all voted in support of this war - repeatedly."

"It is absolutely astonishing that these candidates have the audacity to portray themselves as pro-peace and anti-war when their statements, their actions, and their votes reveal just the opposite. They must be held accountable and answerable for their roles in this illegal, immoral, and disastrous war, and, that's what I intend to do."

Kucinich will be the keynote speaker tonight (Friday) at the North Grafton County Democratic Party Annual John F Kennedy Dinner at the Peabody Lodge in Franconia, NH. Tomorrow, he will be in Durham, NH for an afternoon "Conversation/Dialogue" with students and faculty at the University of New Hampshire.

Kucinich is the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the war authorization in 2002 and every supplemental funding appropriation since then.

In October 2002, eight days before the House and Senate approved the war-authorization resolution, Kucinich released his own analysis of intelligence and information that accurately predicted subsequent events, discoveries, and consequences. It pointed out that there was no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11 and that there was no credible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He led the fight in the House against the war and rallied more than 120 other Congressman to oppose the resolution. Kucinich's analysis also argued:

"This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States."
"A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all over the world."
"Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism."
In an interview today, Kucinich said, "Any candidate willing to continue risking the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, continue destroying the lives of millions and innocent Iraqis, and continue embracing the corrupt foreign policy that led us into Iraq and keeps us there is not fit to serve as President of the United States of America."

# # #

this time around.

Kick 'em! :kick:

These candidates shouldn't be able to slime their way out of their support for war and death. This war is a war without end no matter what front runner from either party gets in. I think the only difference will be that the Democrats will remove many of our troops and leave 20-30k there to protect our "interests" ( a permanent embassy to threaten their gov. and the oil). None of the front runners will pull out of Iraq completely until US oil companies secure contracts. I can also see Democrats splitting the country and pitting the different regions against one another. they will kill eachother while we raid the cookie jar.

He couldn't herd them 4 years ago, and I doubt if he's figured out a way to do it since.

I have a lot of Respect for Feral Cats, they can survive on their own, where as sheep are at the Mercy of the Shepperd,,which one do we eat today?

After Master kicks them in the face, they lick his boot.
Democrats in general are cats, but those of us on the left are feral, as in "Cross me just once on one of my issues and I'll claw your face to shreds. And don't even THINK about bothering me with that 'Heeerre kitty kitty' bullshit during election years."

Kucinich is telling a bald-faced lie! There was no "stunning admission." What Clinton, Obama and Edwards actually said was they could not predict what sort of mess they would encounter upon taking office, making it impossible to "guarantee" (they were acked by Russert for a guarantee) that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term.

This lying little weasel, Kucinich, is deliberately spinning this to his advantage. How pathetic!

Just saying...

TC

They may be going to Iraq.

But at least your school aged kids will be able to tell them what it's like.

I originally thought bush was unelectable too. The more some say that somebody is unelectable should say something to those out there trying to make up their minds that you are being pushed and coerced by these types of nay sayers into thinking you can't vote for DK or anybody else down the road they feel like knocking out of the race for their candidate. If you say I am wrong, then prove it and tell us all what dark secrets you know that would overide my choice or anyone else's choice in who they vote for that would prevent them from being elected.
People like this try to predetermine the election in giving us an impression that they know something that they don't. It is a cheap shot at knocking out competition so their candidate has a better shot at winning. Don't anybody listen to it and you vote for whom you prefer after reviewing ads, facts, and debates and let those playing mind games wonder what happened when their plan didn't work.

This is off of the subject, but wasn't it you that was on the thread with myself making bush jokes? If it was you could you restate your way of saying the joke as I have forgotten it. It was along the lines of 'bush is so dumb............how dumb is he? etc'.

resign themselves to that fact. There have been instances where some movements caught hold just because people find out others are thinking the same thing as them. There is always hope which I think is better than simply resigning yourself to defeat.

I thought that made it obvious that I don't myself believe DK is unelectable. Obviously, I was wrong.

thanks for pointing that out.

Leaders don't make wild ass assumptions like they'll keep us there forever spending trillions of dollars. Either you are desperate for attention or you've gone off the deep end. :crazy:

I can't take the man seriously

because I agree with some of his positions. I just can't take him seriously nor do I believe he is serious about trying to win the nomination (at least he's never given me any reason to believe).

Look at the country we are leaving the 16 year olds, maybe they have more stake in the future of the country.

Rich old people seem to enjoy the status quo, maybe we should take their voting rights away.

think a 16yr old can get away from his iPod long enough to vote

People in this country are so stinking ignorant politically.

Maybe if they get a chance to vote when they are younger, they will be that much better informed.

If they're not going to vote, why is it such a bad thing that they have the right? I know plenty of 18-24s that can't get away from their ipods long enough to vote. What's the difference?

may actually care what happens in this country and to them. Some of them may be going into the military in a couple of years without knowing it's not a chance to further yourself while lying on the beach somewhere, like many recruiters make it seem, as their lives are on the line and the direction of this country may also be on the line, but at least for those of that age that do know and want a change then I say let them vote if they wish too. If they actually are too busy on their ipods or even cell phones then they are doing nothing different than that of many older adults. Many of the oldest adults we may have to substitute some of the mindless tv for the ipod. We can call it a cinderella voter's license (requirement is to have passed civics class) and instead of recruiters in school we could have candidates there with real discussions and is as good of a place as the town hall for such discussions. Maybe we would have more people who know the constitution, the bill of rights, etc. as well as real adult world concerns these future generations would be thinking of before they even graduate.

For example, you're old enough to be in the military at 18. Adult priveleges and responsibilities need to go together.

adults not being responcible including many of our elected officials, so the 16yr olds couldn't do any worse.

Most 16 year olds think people over 55 are too senile to vote responsibly, and I tend to agree.

And I would have been very informed as to my candidates and their positions.

I couldn't wait to turn 18 and vote, and voted in my first Presidential Election at that age.

Just because you think the majority of 16 year olds are stupid and lazy doesn't mean they all are.

To let them vote would change the political landscape, most likely for the better.

I've thought that a 16 year old is old enough to drive, and quit school, and even get married in some states. It is not so far fetched that they should be allowed to vote.

Their interest in politics is also high at that age. They have their future constantly in the front of their minds and care deeply at that age about community.

I thought that is was wacky and wondered where that came from, but then I put in into perspective and realized that a younger electorate would probably stop wars. Teens would not be so easily dismissed and cars would probably get better gas mileage.
:think:
Obviously,I need to think about this some more,but I have not thrown it out.

assure anyone we won't be in Iraq beyond 2013. He's not making 'wild ass assumptions'.

Like it or not, 100% extraction from the Iraq mess is going to be tough and complicated. No serious leader knowing all the issues would promise otherwise. If they did, I'd be worried about them.

However, that is a HUGE leap to assuming we'll be there at current levels indefinitely and spending $5 trillion dollars...that my friend is a "wild ass assumption".

to elaborate on his plan, he has said that he would rally an international peacekeeping force first. It's not like he is saying just walk away and leave these poor people in chaos. He's saying our military aren't the right ones to help them. I tend to agree.

So, we aren't really leaving immediately, right?

Did he promise when this international peacekeeping force (which we are still part of) will be out of Iraq?

plus how else do you expect us to steal the oil? we can't take it all at once.

The three "first tier" candidates DO NOT have the nerve to make a definitive statement about Iraq. They are stuck in the muck and are proof positive that Senators make terrible presidential candidates. Their insidious establishment insider mentality CANNOT ALLOW them to do anything bold on Iraq. Hillary will foolishly keep us in there for years, and Obama and Edwards would struggle to get us out.

But WHY it should be/is that way has much 'higher' :eyes:/complex reasons behind it all.

Responsible candidates cannot make on the spot snap commitments just because some blowhard trys to corner them into it.

have come up with any solution other than just leaving our troops there. He has a different plan entirely, hence his visit to Syria over the break.

So, what exactly is he promising? How is he going to get agreements from other countries to spend money and lives in the US made mess in Iraq? When is that force getting out?

We know she's a raving militarist.

Hell, she tried to join the freakin' Marines!

That's what being a hawk means.

It means wanting the occupation to go on forever.

It means wanting Iraqis to be permanently impoverished by losing their oil wealth(which is what privatizing the oil distribution network HAS to mean, since privatization never benefits the workers or the poor).

No one who isn't elected on a CLEAR pullout platform will pull out, and you know it.

Hawks never go dove after the election.

We have no reason to "just trust" HRC. And we don't have to settle for a triangulated fudger.

If only there were some way to get back to you in say, ten years...

I think he'll be lucky to break 5% in any one primary.

We'll see who is right in say, 8 months. (bet I'm right on that one)

:eyes:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

I hope he speaks louder and louder. The more I hear, the more I like him. Sometimes the truth hurts but it has to be told.

NO beaches in Iowa? How was Hawaii?

We know, you hold the title for BKing Cleavland!

Kucinich is not running as a third party candidate.

Bush and rummy said it would take 3 weeks.

THE IRAQIS WANT US TO LEAVE. Our presence is the cause of the violence. There is no justification for staying.

Empire. And whether or not a candidate voted in favor of our invasion, you can be sure that he or she was largely in agreement with our interests in the reason. These interests are protected by both parties, regardless of which one is in power.

Kucinich and Gravel are the only candidates who are willing to rethink the empire paradigm, however much the others try to soft sell it. We'll be there a long time, yet.

to do anything about Iraq. They cannot and will not acknowledge reality. They are mired in the muck, and are so fearful and self-conscious about appearances that they all make terrible candidates for us.

I had some real hope before, but these "frontrunners" not showing me enough. That's why I've decided Richardson is our only shot.

They have a two vote majority in the Senate 51-49 and they need a 2/3 majority to override a Bush Veto. The only recourse they have, if the American people support it, is to cut the funding of the War completely. Would you support that prospect?

And funds have never been cut off until troops are gone from a war, so that isn't going to happen.
A Congress cannot stop a war. Which is why Congress must exhaust every possible option and make it as hard as possible to authorize one from the beginning. What a mess.

They can do it.. it's public outcry and the divisiveness of Bush if they do cut off funding; will Bush intentionally hurt the troops?

The others are just plain wrong.

I hope I don't have to hold my nose again and vote for one of them. It would be great to pull the lever for DK in the GE

can't keep going the WORLD won't keep paying it

Another indication of how doomed we are, is that the Iowa voters are going to vote for these guys. In effect, Iowa will be approving of war against Iran!

If you are a Democrat anyway.

And although I respect you, there are good reasons why you are at the bottom of the polls.

Your grip on reality is lacking, as is your judgment.

They are waiting for their second term.

It also means giving up on any hope of anything progressive domestically happening until at least 2013, because no government in a war will ever do anything progressive domestically while the war goes on again.

LBJ's abandonment of the Great Society after late 1965 and Bill Clinton's exact preservation of Reaganism on all important issues prove this.

They are still saying it will be us shouldering the burden in Iraq. And that 'embassy' our troops will be protecting is bigger than Vatican City. They plan getting very comfortable in Iraq, forever. Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson are right -- get an international force in there to keep the peace and join with them in a diplomatic solution in the region. That's the right way to do things.

your use of the words reality and judgment are interesting. Those candidates have already shown they lacked the proper judgment which brought us to the reality of Iraq.

Continue on in your faith, but at some point you'll have to realize that what you keep repeating is your faith in certain candidates. That faith has already been betrayed by facts and reality.

I won't fall in line with the lesser of two evils when we have the real thing up on that stage whenever they'll let him speak. A man that I don't have to re-interpret my values for as he represents the values of my old party.


FUCK THE DLC.

Remember Remember Vietnam War. We were there for how long? 15 or 16 years? John F Kennedy and L B Johnson sent more and more troops there.

Would we suspect it might be permanent occupation -- ???

And there's still lots of money to be passed on to Bush cronies -- and warprofiteers --

i hadn't yet seen such rabid anti-kucinich rhetoric on du. it rings false and desperate, too. kucinich has clearly struck a nerve--way to go! the sooner we get the democratic dirty laundry out into the open the sooner people will realize the front runners are worthless right wing shills.

to those of you who so crassly and feebly oppose kucinich, go suck eggs.

to those of you who know the real thing when you see it, donate!

My, what intelligent discource is on display by the Kucinich supporters.

...and responded appropriately. there is no discussion to be had with you likes.

:kick:

or "realistic", to continue to engage in the mass murder...

Kucinich and Kucinich supporters will not be dragged to the right by rightwing rhetoric in the form of talking points.

BTW, I just realized how many years the rw has been using sound bites to bash liberals. How long have they been using 'Tax and spend democrats'? And the term 'He's a card carrying member of the ACLU' used against Dukakis(sp?). And these days they are still acting like calling a democrat a 'liberal' is an insult. There goal is to make the dem candidates so conservative that even if the repugs lose they still win. Gawd, I hate the repugs.

If it's true that no dem candidate can say "no U.S. troops" in Iraq after 2013, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1941289&mesg_id=1941289

then how can Dennis say

"Stunning admission"

I don't like what I'm hearing or reading about the top 3 right now on their position about Iraq.. And any talk about troops being in Iraq until 2013 will change my mind about a candidate in a big hurry.. I guess I have to start looking at the other tier of candidates if the top 3 cannot get the job done!

authority on this issue as he is the only candidate with a consistent record AGAINST THIS GODDAMN WAR!

The MSM is trying to force the candidates to explain complicated issues in short sound bites and this leads to contradictory-sounding sound bites even when the candidates really haven't flip-flopped on an issue.