Reading this reinforces my considerable contempt for Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich Denounces U.S. Tactics in Afghanistan

By Edward Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 20, 2003

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich said yesterday that U.S. military action against Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was not justified and has proved to be a "disaster" and a "nightmare."

Kucinich, a four-term House member from Cleveland and a former mayor of that city, made the assertion in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Post. But two hours later, he called a reporter to clarify his remarks.

So much for always shooting straight and knowing where he stands on an issue. He can't even remember voting for an invasion that he now calls unjustified and "a nightmare"? And DK supporters honestly think the American people would vote for this guy to serve as commander-in-chief?

He said that he had voted for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in response to the attacks. "On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes," Kucinich said. "The record on that is clear. . . . I misspoke."

Kucinich said his disagreement with Bush was over "tactics" and he believes that Bush should have involved "the intelligence agencies of other countries" and the United Nations in the hunt for the terrorist suspects. Asked whether he still considered the outcome of U.S. military action in Afghanistan to be a disaster and a nightmare, he said: "I see the Taliban regaining strength and all these conflicts with warlords. The question is: What have we won? Where's the victory?"

What have we won??? Um, how about the defeat of the Taliban and the denial of Afghanistan as a place where al Qaeda could train and organize openly? Are they completely wiped out? No. Is Afghanistan now a functioning democracy like Germany or Japan? No. But it is indisputably a better place to live than it was three years ago, courtesy of the U.S. military. I'd like to hear Kucinich tell a bunch of Afghan women that they haven't won anything since the U.S. invasion.

<snip>

Asked in what ways today the United States is a positive force in the world, Kucinich paused for 15 seconds before answering.

Ah, that's what I look for in a president. Someone who is so consumed with American misdeeds in the world that it takes him a full 15 seconds to think of a SINGLE positive thing to say about his own country.

"I think the mythic dimensions of America that speak to freedom and an open society and a kind of optimism are part of an ever-present awareness that occurs around the world," he said. "There's a lot of pain associated with the world seeing America being disconnected from its policies."

Typical New Age pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63537-2003Nov19?language=printer

That is disputable. The 5,000+ civilians we've killed in the process, the poppy growers who are living large, the warlords who are back in action, all might lead to a rejoinder to your 'indisputable' premise. Just sayin'. :)

"Typical New Age pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea."

Come on. That's high-minded discourse, yo.

:)

I'm just explaining why I think the guy is a joke. So let me get this straight, DK supporters can slobber all over him all day long and that's not against the rules, but if someone dares bring up reasons to criticize him, it's "flamebait?"

Why can't you take criticism of your candidate?

:silly:

entire basis for the criticism is your own considerable dislike for the man and apparent overlooking of the facts surrounding the events you're criticzing, not to mention posting the criticism in terminology virtually gauaranteed to inflame his supporters, I'd say your OP qualifies as "flame bait".

On edit: sorry for the HUGE red sig there! I didn't notice the end bold wasn't complete.

outside Kabul.

...has never been proven, and much evidence indicates that the real number is far smaller. But either way, many thousands of people were dying per year in the war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, which has ceased. So you have to take into account how many lives the US invasion saved, which is to say MANY.

the Taliban fell but - thanks to coalition policy - things did not get better"

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/isabel.htm

The Guardian (London) , July 31, 2003
BY Isabel Hilton



Diehard defenders of military intervention in Iraq argue that it's too soon to carp, that time is required to restore order and prosperity to a country ravaged by every type of misfortune. Time, certainly, is needed, but is time enough? If the example of Afghanistan is anything to go by, time makes things worse rather than better. More than 18 months after the collapse of the Taliban regime, there is a remarkable consensus among aid workers, NGOs and UN officials that the situation is deteriorating.

There is a further point of consensus: that the deterioration is a direct consequence of "coalition" policy. Some 60 aid agencies have issued a joint statement pleading with the international community to deploy forces across Afghanistan to bring some order. While waiting for the elusive international cavalry, they have been forced to reduce operations in the north, where the warlords fight each other, and in the south, where the "coalition" forces try to fight the Taliban. Privately, many aid workers fear that it is too late. Even if the political will existed, foreign troops may no longer be in a position to restore order. To do so would require going to war with the warlords themselves. The warlords, of course, as friends of the "coalition", are also part of the government. They have private armies, raise private funds, pursue private interests and control private treasuries. None of these do they wish to give up. All of them threaten the long- term future of Afghanistan, the short-term prospects of holding elections, the immediate possibilities of reconstruction and the threadbare credibility of Hamid Karzai's government.

It is not Karzai's fault. He is a prisoner within his own government: a respected, liberal Pashtun who nominally heads a government in which former Northern Alliance commanders - and figures like the Tajik defence minister Mohammed Fahim - hold the real power.

In the country that is fantasy Afghanistan - or the Afghanistan of western promise - a national army is being created which represents all ethnic groups, and elections next year will produce a representative, democratic government. In real Afghanistan, Fahim does not want to admit other ethnic groups to his army, which could create the conditions for a future civil war.

5,000 doesnt come close to what happened. Im glad to see your rhetoric matches your position, and Im thrilled to be in opposition.

Where is the sympathy for OUR casualities?

does not rule out sympathy for another.

Wherefore this jingoistic trend at DU?

I must be in the wrong place. :(

rah rah rah!

Yeah, PPI and all. :grr:

DU has turned into bizarro DU recently. I keep waiting for my bizarro double to appear like in that Seinfeld episode :)
Scott

At least then I'd understand it. :(

Would s/he be named "binkymoodle"?

Instead of a Frank Zappa avatar, would s/he have a Wayne Newton avatar?

Would s/he be a Liebermann/DLCer? Or just a Republican?

The possibilities are endless...

:hi:

He would be binkymoodle for sure
His avator would be... the guy from Creed
He would be a big big Ayn Rand Repub...
and he would be evil........ pure evil..
:bounce:
Scott

Where is the sympathy for OUR casualities?

I didn't realize that we were still operating under the rule that any mention of civilian casualties as a result of US military operations in the post-9/11 era had to be qualified by a preface expressing sympathy for our casualties.

Otherwise, one must automatically assume that you are expressing glee over the American loss of life. :eyes:

How's this, smart guy? The killing of close to 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 was reprehensible. Likewise, the continued civilian deaths of people in Afghanistan who have had to live side-by-side with war on a daily basis for the past 20 years in a way that none of us will EVER know is also reprehensible.

Clear enough for ya?

But we are not the world's policemen, sure we responded to Aghanistan after 9/11, but Bush seems to make the argument that we are somehow SAFER with an unstable Iraq.

We haven't made the middle east ANY safer.

I have told you before - America is wrong in ALL it does. If you speak about America in a positive way, the Far Left Thinkspeak Mafia at DU will come after you with all guns blazing. They hate your avatar, but their own silly cartoony avatars are sooo mature. Brad, it's okay to love your country and still recognize there are problems. But we all wonder where the "Leftists Hate America" thing got started? Just read some of these threads. They are so far out in left field as to be comical. I saw we had one poster saying that your asking about sympathy for OUR victims --- is "jingoistic"!! Wow. That says more than anything I could possibly say. Don't let the fringe leftists, no matter their numbers on this board, stop you from advocating sane, positive, and liberal ideals that happen to be too traditional for the Far Left Mafia that insist on leftist purity.
edit: spelling

But I'm not giving up, maybe some will get the message :)

How dare you? This means WAR!!!!!!!

:silly:

God forbid I try to ask a question many had been asking.

If you can't take the heat, don't post FLAMEBAIT!

:cry:

ironic...

"the far left think mafia"...

sorta like ridiculing those who think differently than you by calling them "the far left think mafia"...

am I the only one who sees this irony?

BIG Irony?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=555602

and the resultant E-X-C-U-U-U-U-S-E M-E tantrum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=558790

Maybe two people are using that member name?

:crazy:

Many had asked a question:

"What do so many of you think is far-left?"

So, I gave MY OPINION. Look where it got me.

Yes, I think there is very much a group of intolerant people on this board who expect everyone to think alike - all the time on every issue.

There is nothing ironic about this - it proves my point in "that other" thread. INTOLERANT thought-policing board thuggery.

we are progressive... and left... (but we are 'toons' ... characitures...) even rather contradictory in and of themselves...

does add a rather interesting perspective/spin and dose of irony to the current post at hand. LOL.

btw, charlie... it is great to see you again... seems that you had been away for awhile... (or maybe our schedules just crossed...) :hi:

Thank you! :hi:

Yes, I left for a month and a half. Spent the time like the good old days -- cruising the net for interesting stuff w/o a single thought about GeeDubya. It was something I sorely needed after 3 years of Bush fatigue.

I woke up and saw the light. A trip to Cuba might do it for you, too.

:D

what a freak. :eyes:

revenge.

and horror at what happened does NOT justify doing whatever we want whenever we want to whoever we want in response. That is what the Bushistas want us to believe and why they've been manipulating one of our greatest and worst national tragedies ever for their own benefit. There are plenty of family members of those killed on 9/11 who are against what we are doing in the name of their dead loved ones, they even formed their own group.

I support Afghanistan but oppose Iraq.

:wow:

Bush's considerable business skills certainly are paying off in that respect.

without a ready supply of heroin. I mean, what's the point in being unemployed if you can't have smack?

:)

you are on a roll in this thread Will..

Because IF another terrorist attack happened, I don't even know if I could trust him to defend us.

Look the Iraq War NEVER had to happen, but Afghanistan???? That is another story. We were attacked, if you just sit there and take it, they will gladly do it again.

right after 9-11, bushco said evidence would be presented

it NEVER was

Until he speaks of a belief that 9/11 was not the product of Bin Laden then he doesn't support LIHOP or MIHOP.

Yeah, Kucinich would sit back and do nothing. Wow, did you come to that opinion by looking at his history and issues, base that opinion of the facts and actions of a really great leader. Enjoy your Bush vs Kerry election...You really deserve it.

:-)

That's an extra $5.00 for Dennis at the end of March. (March tally beginning)

I've seen the "circumstantial evidence" and as much as I have contempt for Bush LOOK AT HIM do you think HE could ever pull that off?? LMAO

Besides I first heard of Bin Laden in 1998 making quotes about "we should kill all Americans". Al Qaeda tried to blow up the WTC in 1994 so it comes as no suprise that they would try again in 2001.

Nobody believes the chimp was the mastermind. Sheesh!

And whether it was or was not Al Qaeda, there was obviously some reason why warnings were ignored, requests for FISA (?) warrants were turned down, and SOP was not followed on 9/11.

There were OPEN INVESTIGATIONS on these terrorists. Why weren't their names on watch lists?

Of course bin laden and his gang will keep trying. The question is why didn't our govt agencies follow their own procedures?!

If 9/11 was an inside job or had U.S.G. orchestration, then "he" would certainly not have been the one to pull it off.

The "al-Qaeda" connection to WTC Classic (which was in 1993) is a recent propaganda add-on. The blind sheikh Rahman who supposedly inspired it was let in by the CIA against the wishes of the INS. The informant who turned the crew in for $1 million, Emad Salem, in court presented tapes of his talks with the FBI in which he asked why they had not let him stop the bombing in advance?

"Qaeda" is in quotes because no one, including Bin Laden, ever referred to this loose network of Afghan mujahedeen veterans by that name before 9/11, it is a CIA designation.

And if you so dislike the Taliban (double that for me), don't you think it would have been best not to have supported their rise in the first place? Not to have provided them with $140 million in aid in the year prior to 9/11? Perhaps not to have negotiated with them in hopes of a pipeline deal until June 2001?

Perhaps I could take the Afghan war more seriously as self-defense had it not been planned and prepared well in advance, with force deployments underway by Sept. 11 and a planned invasion start date of mid-Oct. 2001.

All that was missing was the casus belli. Presto - it arrived right on schedule, curiously on the same day NORAD and the CIA had both planned exercises involving the simulation of multiple hijackings and kamikaze crashes in the United States.

Weird, eh?

Al Qaeda =/= Afgahnistan.

We have terrorists- yes, KNOWN terrorists residing in the US right now. Does that mean our Government condones their terrorist activities?

Here's another surprise, you don't respond to criminal acts by launching all out war on another nation. That is Kucinich's true position.

If you honestly dohn't believe Kucinich would do anything to defend this country in the event of another attack, you didn't read the OP very well. He voted in favor of the Resolution Bush used to justify attacking Afghanistan. Bush's claim was that the Afghani Government- the Taliban were aware of and condoned the actions of Al Qaeda- I haven't seen the evidence, have you?

It also doesn't explain why needed troops were pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden to go after Hussein- a brutal dictator, to be sure, but one who was completely contained and incapable of attacking the United States.

"Our freedoms" has already been discounted ;)

those responsible for 9/11 were highly organized and funded and as such make excellent targets for counter-terrorism operations. Fighting terrorism is an extention of law enforcement, crushing it and an entire country(without even rebuilding it)by military force is not effective.

Great statement!

you're free to go

It is widely reported that 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers were SAUDIS.
If you really believe that a country that can't string together 15 miles of railroad led that attack from a cave then you will fall for anything.

Yes they were of Saudi descent but they were members of Al Qaeda. A puppet government (The Taliban) harbored and gave refuge to Al Qaeda, thus we go for the root of the problem.

(Reuters) - A wave of suicide bombings and mortar attacks on vast crowds of Shi'ite worshippers killed at least 170 people in Baghdad and Kerbala on Tuesday, Iraq's bloodiest day since Saddam Hussein's fall. Leaders of the country's 60 percent Shi'ite majority said the bloodbaths were intended to ignite civil war. The Iraqi Governing Council blamed a Jordanian who Washington says is working for al Qaeda and trying to fuel chaos in Iraq. More...
<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=5&u=/nm/20040302/ts_nm/iraq_dc_13

Yeah , I guess we showed them !!!

We went into Iraq for NO REASON NO WMDS, that just shows even more why we are just causing more trouble than its worth.

war is not the answer. A few fat rich guys get fatter and richer at the expense of many.

Maybe you meant to say Saudi Royals who persist in aiding their disgraced member?

He'd probably respond to another attack by asking the terrorists what we did to offend them and then apologizing for it and sending flowers.

in information about the man or his policies. My suggestion is that you discontinue your attempts at discrediting him until you know what you are talking about. Shooting your mouth (fingers?) off without knowledge to back it up makes you, not him, look stupid.

"I am running for president of the United States to enable the goddess of peace to encircle within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of the world."

Who talks like that? Burned out, Patchouli-smelling weirdos, that's who.

"Burned out, Patchouli-smelling weirdos"

Yesterday it was 'delusional'

Who talks like that?

but I found that phrase hilarious... I think I could nominate it for the most assinine description of a candidate one does not like... and there have been MANY to contend with.

Burned out, Patchouli-smelling weirdos, that's who... LOL

I am a 50 year old farmer/rancher. I live in work clothes and love my feed store. I appreciate someone who shows me that he can look at the planet and his immediate world and see poetry where I see shit. Taken out of context that does sound loony but in the framework of the speech it was a lovely sentiment and perfect for what he was talking about. So if you insist in misrepresenting the man all I can do is ignore you because frankly, I do not have the time to listen to it. You just show your own ignorance and spin by doing this. I mean, just sayin, you are on a political board where even the least informed of us know better than to listen to that kind of crap.

One other thing. You owe this man your respect, he has served your country for a long time and has not made himself wealthy doing it. He speaks for all of us and that includes you when he attempts to stop this maladministration from doing its worst. I can tolerate policy disagreements but this blatant lack of respect reflects on you, not on him.

As a matter of fact, the Taliban were ready to turn over Bin Laden and his cronies to us, if we would produce evidence that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Guess what: we did NOT.

But that would mean we wouldn't get to use our big war toys against a population who had already been bombed back to the stone age at least once in the previous decade.

Now we have a military occupation of Afghanistan AND Iraq, and still no Bin Laden. Do you honestly feel we're "safer" now because of this?

:shrug:

www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0WDQ/2001_Oct_22/80338926/p1/article.jhtm...

Bush rejects Taliban's offer on handing over bin Laden.

Asian Political News, Oct 22, 2001
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 Kyodo

President George W. Bush on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to discuss turning over Islamic militant Osama bin Laden if the United States stops air strikes against Afghanistan.

''There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty,'' Bush told reporters as he returned to the White House from his Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.
''Turn him over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostage they hold over, destroy all the terrorist camps. There's no need to negotiate...I told them exactly what they need to do,'' Bush said.

The Bush administration believes bin Laden masterminded the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. It accuses the Taliban of providing shelter to the Saudi fugitive and his al-Qaida network of terrorist groups.

At a news conference in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on Sunday, Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir said the Taliban would be willing to discuss handing over bin Laden to a third country, or putting him on trial in Afghanistan, if the U.S. military ends bombing and provides evidence of his involvement in the attacks on the U.S
..more..

or did blanket terminology (Axis of Evil; harboring terrorists; let's roll) attack Afghan aka the Taliban who had not been cooperative in oil deliberations because Bush-Cheney Co., needed somebody to attack?

so, 911 is all solved now? no, it was Saddam who did it, wasn't it?

carpet bombing a country because Bush-Cheney* & Co., say so

the 911 commission hasn't even published the cover up yet, and we're bombing countries

shoot first, ask questions later (if ever)

I never knew that. I thought it was supposedly 20 Saudi loonies. Is there a memo or something that didn't get as far as me?

I think you should learn the difference between 'defend', 'inflict reprisals', and 'attack without provocation'. Really, I do.

the government of Nicaragua requested the turnover of Ronald Reagan for his state terrorism there, but Bush refused?

Would you be okay with a coalition of Latin American nations invading the US in response?

...

...

Oh by the way, yes, I'm voting for him.

My country right or wrong never sat very well with me.

Don't want the other windows feeling too lonely :) Without all those flags people could confuse you for a communist or something! Wouldn't want that happening to you especially since Ashcroft has been given special powers these days.

Darn that Kucinich for not voting for the Patriot Act!

because they can't prove it with their actions

need to ridicule those who DO have flags so they feel better about their own far-out views. Whoever thought a person would have to justify to ANYONE a goddamned American flag!!!

but not flags - hey, I own one!

:boring:

in my opinion, is a desecration of the flag.

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/kill11.htm
>
US helicopter fires on house in Afghan village, killing 11, officials say

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - A U.S. helicopter bombed a house in a village in southern Afghanistan killing 11 people, four of them children, Afghan officials said Monday.

The U.S. military confirmed a weekend raid in the area, but said only that it had killed five armed militants. Abdul Rahman, chief of Char Chino district in Uruzgan province, said the attack occurred at around 9 p.m. Sunday in Saghatho, a village where U.S. forces hunting for Taliban insurgents had carried out searches the day before.

"They were simple villagers, they were not Taliban," Raham told an Associated Press reporter by telephone in the southern city of Kandahar. "I don't know why the U.S. bombed this home. We have informed our authorities."

The governor of Uruzgan, Jan Mohammed Khan, confirmed Rahman's account that four men, four children and three women were killed in a U.S. bombing.



http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/tvban.htm
Afghanistan's Supreme Court protests women singing on TV

KABUL, Jan 15 (Reuters) - In an embarrassing setback for moderates in Afghanistan's U.S.-backed government, authorities have reimposed a ban on women singing on state television just days after it was lifted.

The decision to restore the ban followed a protest from the Supreme Court, which is dominated by religious conservatives, officials said on Thursday.

On Monday, Kabul Television featured old footage of Parasto, a well-known singer who now lives in the West, performing without a headscarf.

Officials said the move was in line with a newly approved constitution giving equal rights to women.


http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/f-hang.htm
Taliban-style public hangings
in "liberated" Afghanistan

On January 2, 2004, a clash took place between government army and robbers in western province of Farah in Afghanistan. 2 robbers were killed, one wounded and 2 others were arrested. The next day on January 3, 2004, government officials of Farah decided to hang the dead bodies in two different locations in the city of Farah. The dead bodies were hanged in a crowded square of city for over 8 hours and thousands of people including children watched the horrible scenes which reminded the era of terror under Taliban.

The officials of Farah, mainly warlords belonging to fundamentalist groups of the Northern Alliance, demonstrated their real nature that there is not much difference between them and the medieval-minded Taliban who were largely criticized for this kind of brutal punishments under their rule.



You can look for more information if you care.

That doesn't mean that a relatively small number of accidental deaths overshadows the freedom we brought to millions of people who suffered under an utterly medieval theocracy.

or the Prime Directive.

Things are NOT BETTER there!

You seem to think they are. Well the women of RAWA have some enlightening articles for you, if you do.

could've fooled me... we replaced one oppressor with another, one who has the same tactics and beliefs as the old, except the new guys approve of opium cultivation

besides, giving 'freedom' to Afghanistan has nothing to do with capturing those responsible for 9/11.

sounds to me like you are having trouble distinguishing rhetoric from fact...

and if America followed DK's vision, we would've never been attacked in the first place!

..in 1944 for fear of killing a single innocent in our effort to overthrow Hitler?

Perhaps you can explain it to me. All I ever hear about is that the deaths of innocents effectively means the war was not justified. If that's true, war is never justified, even against people like Hitler, because innocents are ALWAYS going to die in war.

Plus, I'd rather focus my energies on those fellow posters with whom I might share some convergence of thought, as opposed to wasting my time on those who are primarily interested in flame bait and ad hominem.

No substance, just name-calling.

the same revisionist history taught in our public schools perhaps, but revisionist none-the-less.

We didn't "invade Europe" as you put it. We responded to an attack on Pearl Harbor which was claimed by the Japanese. We went after Japan. Since they were Hitler's allies, the Germans then came after us in defense of their ally. THAT'S how we got into WWII, and there was nothing "humanitarian" about it.

All I'm saying is that you can't call a military action immoral or unjustified just because a few innocents are inadvertantly killed. If that rationale had carried the day, we never would have responded to the Pearl Harbor attacks out of fear of killing Japanese civilians.

One was claimed as the act of another Nations' own Government(Pearl Harbor) and military, the other was NEVER put forth as such(the WTC attacks) by anyone including the US Government and intelligence sources.

Also if you don't think it was humanitarian why would we need to remove a Democratically elected leader of another nation?! The Germans loved Hitler until he started making some of them disappear!

I said that deaths are not small when they are someone you love.

In response to your question, I'm glad we actually declared war on the people who attacked us in WWII.

This administration is using a horrible tragedy to do what they planned to do long before they were even appointed to office.

go back to the drawing board and try again.

verbal diarrhea is true but whose?

What if his ideas start to gain some currency and popularity among Democrats? This could present a serious problem for some people.

Should I vote for G.W.B?

While all of us are capable of ad hominem from time to time, I'm not about to waste my time with someone who deals solely in those areas.

First you express contempt for all Kucinich supporters, and now it's Kucinich himself. Whatever, dude. :eyes:

...his supporters almost never produce rational defenses. They merely dismiss the author of the criticism, say they won't bother to waste their time on such nonsense, etc.

How about being a grown up and explaining why a member of Congress and presidential candidate could call an invasion "unjustified" when he voted for it?

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

he approved of going in and taking care of al Qaeda, but dis-approved of the TACTICS involved.

it's really quite simple, all I had to do was read the damned thing...

:eyes:

UNJUSTIFIED. That means he didn't think we had a moral justification for going in. But, oops, he voted for the invasion.

"On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes,"

Kucinich said his disagreement with Bush was over "tactics" and he believes that Bush should have involved "the intelligence agencies of other countries" and the United Nations in the hunt for the terrorist suspects.
---------------------


I guess if you have a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us worldview, distinctions such as these are effectively invilible to you.

But, I'll give you credit, you had to dig really hard to find this pitiful "example"

Let me repeat that...he said it was unjustified. Then he had to call back and correct himself, which is when he said it was justified. Get that??

this is starting to get pitiful. This is all you have????

:evilgrin:

You just call names like a child. Please explain to me why it's not a contradiction to call the war unjustified in one breath and then call back two hours later to say that's justified.

If you can't do that, pick up your Lincoln Logs and your PB & J and go home.

That's what I thought.

You first.

Let's have a look at the compelling arguments in your original post, shall we?

So much for always shooting straight and knowing where he stands on an issue. He can't even remember voting for an invasion that he now calls unjustified and "a nightmare"? And DK supporters honestly think the American people would vote for this guy to serve as commander-in-chief?

What have we won??? Um, how about the defeat of the Taliban and the denial of Afghanistan as a place where al Qaeda could train and organize openly? Are they completely wiped out? No. Is Afghanistan now a functioning democracy like Germany or Japan? No. But it is indisputably a better place to live than it was three years ago, courtesy of the U.S. military. I'd like to hear Kucinich tell a bunch of Afghan women that they haven't won anything since the U.S.

Ah, that's what I look for in a president. Someone who is so consumed with American misdeeds in the world that it takes him a full 15 seconds to think of a SINGLE positive thing to say about his own country.


Your post is completely devoid of fact, and instead only engages in ad hominem attack against Dennis Kucinich (Typical New Age pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea.) coupled with outright strawmen (He can't even remember voting for an invasion that he now calls unjustified and "a nightmare"?). As such, you do not present yourself as open for any kind of "debate" -- but rather only interested in senseless argument.

In short, I see nothing in your post that is worth responding to.

You can't post anything that is not acceptable to certain leftist posters. You get cursed and portrayed as a Freeper. Isn't disgusting to see what "tolerance" means to some of these people. Don't worry, all of DU isn't like this sad display of anger and immaturity.

:boring:

Well that explains it.

I won't bother with posting any more facts, then. Thanks.

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

...without some counter-balance.

I guess you have some kind of problem with people advocating for a great man and a great candiate.

Nice to see at least your motives are meaningful and well-intentioned.

:crazy:

I've really always wanted to be the guy who comes in dead last in every single race.

:D

:yourock:

Thanks. Can't blame a guy for being jealous of that, now, can we?

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

Criticize Dennis Kucinich and you work for the RNC. The Thinkspeak Mafia at DU is alive and well.

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

Anything to the right of Karl Marx is right-wing to some here at DU. Being "liberal" isn't even good enough. Welcome to DU.

Thinkspeak Mafia... :boring:

with a strong military component. He believes in a multilateral approach to foreign affairs, working with our partners and establishing new relationships to make the world a more peaceful place. http://www.dennisforamerica.org/ontheissues.htm

What you have presented here is a sorry mischaracterization of his views. The result there is a disaster. We have installed a corporatist hack along with an envoy there who was a consultant to Unacol, and have succeeded in nothing more than reprisal murders of Taliban and civilians alike who may or may not have had involvement in 9-11. Where is the evidence linking the dead to 9-11? Meanwhile Osama bin Laden, who has openly confessed to the crime is running free, taunting the U.S. as he gloats about the success of his operatives around the world.

BTW, The Taliban is still alive and kicking.

Where is the evidence linking the dead to 9-11?

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr010914.htm

For the record, here is Kucinich's statement from September 14, 2001, regarding his vote of that date:

For Immediate Release Contact: Kathie Scarrah
September 14, 2001

Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Kucinich Statement On Authorizing Force On Those Responsible For Recent Terrorist Acts Against The U.S.

On Friday, September 14, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) spoke on the House floor explaining his reasons for supporting the resolution authorizing the President to use force on those responsible for the recent terrorist acts against the United States. Following is the text of his statement:

I will support this resolution authorizing the President to defend our country. Whatever forms of action we choose must reflect our democratic principles and distinguish us from the mentality of terrorists and destructive violence. Our actions must pursue a path towards reducing violence, not escalating violence. Launching weapons of mass destruction or collateral attacks against innocent civilians would be no different than the terror we have already had brought upon us. An eye for an eye mentality is unacceptable. We are a nation with civil and moral values and we must show the world that. These terrorist attacks were clearly a crime against humanity. What does a democracy do to punish criminals? We put them on trial, if found guilty, we imprison them.

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles.

...and which he opposes.

You made your sorry point. What do you hope to accomplish with this? Have you had your fill yet of digging at his supporters?

Instead of using your time tearing at Rep. Kucinich you would be better served presenting your candidate's views and actions regarding Afghanistan and foreign affairs. Try it. I'll listen.

...I shouldn't be appalled at the things he said in this interview.

Indeed, most haven't even tried to defend him. They never do. They just hurl insults at anyone who dares criticize the man.

Look, DK called an invasion that freed the long-suffering Afghan people a "nightmare" and "unjustified." And then he couldn't even remember that he had voted for the very invasion he was criticizing. Talk about a morally bankrupt position to argue before the WaPo editorial board. I don't think the Bush admin. has handled Afghanistan right AT ALL, but for Christ's sake, the only people who didn't think we should go in there are spacy, incense-burning freaks like Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon.

My candidate - John Edwards - never would have launched into some asinine criticism of the Afghanistan invasion, which I think anyone serious person will acknowledge has dramatically improved the lives of the Afghan people.

You, Chief have a problem believing in peace.

"Peace, if it ever exists will not be based on the fear of war, but on the love of peace. It will not be the adstaining from an act, but the coming of a state of mind."-Herman Wouk


At Edwardsville, Illinois, on September 11, 1858, President Abraham Lincoln said:

"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoast, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not the reliance against the resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle."

If you happen to be a warlord on the anti-Taliban side or you live in Kabul, I'm sure life HAS gotten better for you.

However, most other Afghanis would have a hard time supporting your claim that life is "better" for them now than it was under the Taliban.

That is, if you bothered to ask them how they feel about their "liberation".

Just because DK called WP to explain his Sept 14 does not mean DK had in fact forgotten about his Sept 14 vote. Certainly, it would have played better had he explained vote in the context of the interview but the fact that he called to revisit issue does not mean DK can't remember vote (WP's insinuations not withstanding).

He would not have called it "unjustified" if he had remembered voting for it. I think you know this. The verbal gymnastics you guys perform defending your guy's indefensible positions is really something.

I have seen Dennis speak on this issue several times and he rightly criticizes bombing of Afghanistan as unjustified while at the same time acknowledging his vote. As his statement of September 14 makes clear, his vote did not imply that bombing Afghanistan would be justified. Rather he supports bringing those allegedly responsible before a court. A good idea methinks, but that would require arresting them, which despite bombing campaigns remains elusive.

Nowhere in that statement does he ever say he approves of any war.

NOWHERE in the resolution he voted for is Afghanistan named, nor is any other nation. The SOLE question put to the House of Representatives in that resolution was *Are the events of Sept. 11th severe enough to warrant a military response?* (my own paraphrase after having read the entire bill months ago when my attention was drawn to my candidates vote). Show me a single individual besides the LONE Congresswoman who actually DID vote no, who would have ever said such a thing a mere 2 days after the attacks occurred.

Dennis Kucinich stood on the House floor and urged restraint, reason and the application of Democratic principles while undeniably accepting the need for the US Government to defend its people and its shores. What have you done about the situation?

Lydia or revcarol, can either of you help me out here?

This is the first $5.00 for March. :-)

but I'll go $5.00 for March.

chief Joseph, you still havent answered those who objected to your "they're better off" arguments:
1) status of women
2) warlords in the north and south operating under coalition endorsement
3) opium crop now encouraged
4)ordinary services like water, power, etc. not restored after bombing...well, there are so many. Get busy...will watch for ANSWERS.

CROWLEY: Congressman Kucinich, I'm going to give you a chance to sort of expand on this just a little.

When President Clinton was in office, you were critical of the bombing in Kosovo. You have been critical of the bombing and the invasion in Afghanistan. You opposed the war in Iraq.

If you were commander-in-chief, what criteria would you use to justify the use of force? Is anything worth fighting for? And what is that?

KUCINICH: Well, as a matter of fact, it's a foundational principle of our country that we have an obligation to provide for the common defense. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq, our involvement in Iraq was based on lies. This administration tried to tell the American people that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, with Al Qaida's role in 9/11, with the anthrax attack, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had the intention and the ability to attack this nation. All of those things are not true. So I think that the cause of defending this country must first and foremost be true.

I want to comment as the only person on this stage who actually voted against the war in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to say that Governor Dean's answer was incomplete before, because he told CNBC two weeks ago that we have no choice about funding the $87 billion. And this morning in the New York Times, he wouldn't take a position on the $87 billion, and the governor says that he's still for keeping 70,000 troops in Iraq.

Now, he's either right or wrong. If we're wrong to be there, as I believe we are, we should get our troops out. I have a plan to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out, and that's one of the things I want to talk about tonight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9

Conspicuously absent from Dennis's answer is anything that addresses the question:
If you were commander-in-chief, what criteria would you use to justify the use of force? Is anything worth fighting for? And what is that?


So we are left wondering: What criteria would DK use to justify the use of force?

The current administration's national security doctrine, with its reliance on preventive war as a standard instrument of policy, is making the world more dangerous. We must reject this approach, and develop and communicate to the American people our own vision of national security. National security policy must contribute to broader foreign policy objectives, and complement our domestic priorities.

Since the 1970s, the Democratic Party, especially its progressive wing, has been put on the rhetorical and political defensive on national security issues. Conservatives have sought to portray their opponents as weak on defense, and have denigrated legitimate differences of opinion as naiveté or disloyalty.

The attacks of September 11 and the consequent "War on Terror" have allowed the Bush administration to frame the national security debate as it sees fit. The attack on Iraq was portrayed as a part of this war, despite a lack of any credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. At the same time, budgets for defense programs across the board have been greatly increased, with no reference to, or debate regarding, their relevance to the war against those who attacked us. The perception of an ongoing emergency has made many Democrats hesitant to take on the administration, in an area that effectively has been surrendered to the Republicans.

The current administration clearly believes that international terrorism can be defeated solely through military, law enforcement, and intelligence actions, without addressing the underlying foreign policy issues that, while in no way justifying the attacks on us, certainly contribute to explaining them. This is a prescription for war without end, for exacerbating anti-Americanism and winning more recruits to al Qaeda, and for continuing to alienate our friends and allies worldwide. The reluctance of Congress and the public to criticize the President during wartime (which, given the nature of terrorism, could be defined by the White House as lasting indefinitely) also facilitates the accomplishment of this administration's domestic agenda, including the erosion of civil liberties and economic policies blatantly favoring the wealthiest among us.

My vision of national security ties together not only military but diplomatic, economic, and human rights polices, and views the use of military force as a last resort. Building the link between domestic and defense issues, I believe that this country is more secure when the largest possible number of its citizens have a stake in its success, when decent education, healthcare, and housing contribute to productive lives for everyone.

The U.S. military is the strongest in the world by far, and will remain so. We need to recognize the accomplishments of, and hardships experienced by, our men and women in uniform. My position on pay and benefits, for both active duty military and retired veterans, reflects this recognition. The Kucinich approach to national security is anti-militarist, not anti-military.

National security must be defined in terms much broader than size of the defense budget, or number of carrier battle groups, fighter aircraft, or infantry divisions. Unfortunately, the response of many Democrats has been to paint their canvas in a Republican frame, to accept the need for vastly higher budgets and assertive use of military force, with minor fine-tuning. It is time to redefine the argument, to convey to the public that effective multilateral institutions, appropriate economic aid, principled foreign policy, and support for arms control regimes buy us more real security than launching preventive attacks or further increasing the Pentagon budget.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/national_security.php

There is a lot of criticism of Bush, which I agree with. But I still don't see anything about when military action is justified - only that it is a last resort. Which still begs the quesion, when should that last resort be undertaken? What are the criteria again?

Is Dennis a pacifist?

He believes in maintaining a strong national defense. Clear enough. Maintain peaceful international relationships to effect non-proliferation of nuclear and other weaponry, Revive the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, Sign and enforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Abandon plans to build a so-called missile shield, Prohibit the introduction of weapons into outer space.

Statement by Dennis Kucinich:

"I have proposed institutionalizing America's commitment to disarmament by establishing a cabinet-level Department of Peace to mediate international conflicts, coordinate arms control, and promote nonviolence."


What nonsense do you want our soldiers to engage in? Nation building? Defense of oil? Cold war paranoia? What other use for our forces outside of working with our international partners to maintain reasonable commitments do you proscribe for our military?

than you have picked the right candidate. But you might want to temper your enthusiasm for DK with the knowledge that that's not a good enough answer for 98% of the voters in this country.

Are you telling me most americans think it's perfectly acceptable for the USA to interfere in the affairs of other Nations? That we somehow have the right to determine who runs countries more important than the wishes of the people who populate those countries?

What if the Afghani people wanted a Taliban Government? Personally I'd think they were nuts, but it ain't my country and it ain't my life. I'm also not arrogant enough to shove democracy down the throats of those who prefer socialism, communism, monarchies or parliamentary governments!

so I can't tell you 'why' it's not a good enough answer for 98% of the voters in this country. That is just what I perceive to be the political reality. I do think one of the reasons Dennis doesn't have more support it because of his perceived pacifism.

For myself the answer to 'Why not' -- why is the one word defense in the answer he gave not enough -- well it's simple. As I've stated, one of the reasons he is not more popular is because of his perceived pacifism. That's why he was asked the question and not someone else. And Dennis is not unaware of what the public perception of him is. So here was a chance for him to make clear what exactly are his criteria for using force. Just saying it's for defense is meaningless - because that's exactly what Bush says about Iraq - and he completely ignored the actual question and instead used his answer to repeat attacks on Bush that - while perfectly valid -- were nothing new and gave the voters no new information that would tell them under what circumstances DK would use military force.

In short, anyone watching who believed that Dennis was actually a pacifist who would have difficutly ordering the use of force under any circumstances -- was given little reason to change their minds.


I also want to repeat again and make perfectly clear - pacifism is a viewpoint I respect, I think the world would be a better place if we had a smaller number of militarists and a larger number of pacifists. Growing up watching the Vietnam war on TV, I basically absorbed a pretty simplistic attitude about war and peace. War is bad. Peace is good. But that doesn't change the fact that, when it comes to choosing a President, I want somebody who can give a clear answer to the question DK was asked in the Arizona debate. And in my humble opinion, he did not give a clear answer to the question.




I'm not going to address any of the specific strawman questions you raise except to say that no I'm not saying any of those things, and I would add that if you try to open your heart and mind you might find that our viewpoints are actually a lot closer than they are apart.

Some of my disgust with other posts came across in the post directed to you, and I regret that. I've never before had a major personal issue with you over disagreements and I wouldn't want to start now.

Let me say I didn't mean those questions to be "strawmen", I was honestly trying to get clear on your position, except I went about it badly.

On Kucinich's criteria for using military force, and most of his positions, really, I have a tendency to explain to those who don't see them because I "get" ALL of his positions, includng the ones I don't agree with. I've been with his campaign since March of 2003 so it's become sort of my unpaid job to know where he's coming from on just about everything. The point being, I'm trying to give you what my candidate failed to give you when he tried to answer the question.

From what I see you wanted to hear it 'from the horses mouth' and you probably aren't going to be swayed by my explanation, and I can respect that. It's a valid point and I apologize for not acknowledging that last night.

:hi:

"KUCINICH: Well, as a matter of fact, it's a foundational principle of our country that we have an obligation to provide for the common defense."

There's your answer- in defense of this country when attacked by another Nations Government or military, not by martyr criminals.

The bombing of Kosovo resulted in entirely too many civilian casualties and some reports have come forth which suggest the deliberate bombing of areas where numerous children were located. It was disastrous and probably akin to shooting an ant with an elephant gun.

The bottom line is that Kucinich doesn't believe that blowing up those you disagree with is a wise course of action, and particularly not when there are other ways to accomplish the same goal. I happen to agree-

If someone is so horrid I think they need to be removed from power, why should I not be willing to put my own life on the line to do that? WHY should the lives of American Soldiers, who in fact signed on to be soldiers voluntarily and with full knowledge their lives might be placed at risk, come before the lives of innocent civilian children?

He failed to give the tough answer of what criteria he would use to determine when the defense of our country required a military response.

I respect Dennis Kucinich, just as I respect my state's famous Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin.

I don't think Rankin could have ever been elected President, either.

his vote on the referred to resolution should answer the question. America was attacked, and had here been evidence of another Nations Government having had any part of it, he'd have approved of a military response.

His answer is clear to anyone who cares enough to listen and look- in defense of the United States and her people. Where you might have a question in all tis is if you ask whether he approved of the first "Gulf War" for the justification of defending Kuwait from a hostile invasion. And dammit, I'm already pressed for time on this stuff! Now I gotta go look just because you made me think of it!:P

It's even a principle of his. Namely: military force and killing should always be the last resort. That doesn't seem hard to understand to me Feanor. Does it you?

It should be the thing you try only when you've run out of less-drastic options to prevent the nation being molested, and even then you kill as few people as possible, you don't start by reprising Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or even Dresden or Tokyo. You just don't.

your viewpoint on war, peace or killing. I do disagree with your assessment as to whether DK gave a clear answer to Crowley's question.

I am speaking from my own personal experience -- I personally was disappointed, that's why I remember it. I thought about starting a thread about it but I didn't because I knew it would be perceived as an attack, and frankly, I didn't need any more enemies. But I don't mean it as an attack, I was just disappointed. Well, nobody's perfect.

and should have.

Sorry to take so long thinking.

And like DK, I think the administration seriously screwed it up by attacking Iraq and leaving most of Afghanistan outside Kabul a mess. The Taliban have been making a significant comeback and now control like 2/3 of some of the provinces on the Pakistani border. Bush has messed this up big time, and people in Afghanistan are suffering for it--whomever posted the Guardian/Rawa piece, I trust that source.

DK should, however, be able to say something good about the U.S. without having to take 15 seconds to come up with an answer. There's an answer right there for those of you who wonder why people think DK is unelectable: relatively few people in America are going to vote for someone who has such a hard time demonstrating a sense of patriotism: even when being critical, democratic commitment means that you have to be able to recognize the good things that your own country has done and to keep your critique immanant.

I am flabbergasted that anyone would pretend to be concerned about the people of Afghanistan and yet have no idea of what is happening there.

ChiefJoseph, you write that "is indisputably a better place to live than it was three years ago, courtesy of the U.S. military."

This assertion is very much disputable.

And if military invasion has made Afghanistan "a better place to live" then would you advise that we continue with invading Saudi Arabia and Kuwait --- two nations governed by dictatorships and where oppression of women is the law of the land, where freedom of the press is non-existent, where homosexuals are beheaded publicly?

I can appreciate and even understand you not caring for the politics of Dennis Kucinich, but I can not understand how these comments by him would merit your "contempt".

..on either side of the ideological spectrum who doesn't think it's a MUCH better place to live now than it was before we invaded. We freed the Afghan people from one of the most grotesque, oppressive regimes in modern history, and Dennis Kucinich, a man who claims to stand for social justice, rails against this great act of liberation as a "nightmare"?? Sorry, that is not just the wrong position, it is fucking laughable. Anyone who is so suspicious of the use of American power that he would denounce one of the most righteous uses of force in the last half century is someone I have deep contempt for.

We have much work left to do and the Bushies have managed to screw up much of the job, but I just don't see how you can argue that it was a better place under the Taliban and al Qaeda than it is today.



edit: spelling

Post #134: "And if military invasion has made Afghanistan 'a better place to live' then would you advise that we continue with invading Saudi Arabia and Kuwait --- two nations governed by dictatorships and where oppression of women is the law of the land, where freedom of the press is non-existent, where homosexuals are beheaded publicly?"

If you feel so righteous about our military invasion and occupation of that land, why would you not propose we do the very same thing to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

...where our intervention would improve the lives of the people. Without provocation, invasion would be illegal, which is why I opposed the Iraq war. I'm not arguing that we have a duty to invade every country with a bad government, and I think you know it. That is a really immature response from you.

Afghanistan was presided over by a fundamentalist theocracy that gave shelter and material support to a terrorist organization whose operatives killed 3,000 of our people. Invading and deposing that government and killing or arresting as many of the terrorists as we could was a perfectly justified, moral course of action.

My question was: "And if military invasion has made Afghanistan 'a better place to live' then would you advise that we continue with invading Saudi Arabia and Kuwait --- two nations governed by dictatorships and where oppression of women is the law of the land, where freedom of the press is non-existent, where homosexuals are beheaded publicly?"

Your answer to it was: ""Obviously, we can't go invading every single country where our intervention would improve the lives of the people."

You have answered my question. I will respect your personal wish to rationalize an inconsistent standard for justification of military invasion of another country.

You can have the last word now, if you feel it is needed. And please, please, don't forget to make personal attacks against me as well. Certainly, you can muster up even more childish namecalling than just the earlier charge you made of my being "immature".

But don't strain those militaristic fingers of yours too much now by hitting the keyboard too harshly while wrapped up within your righteous excess.

They were members of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was given shelter and material support from the government of Afghanistan and had hundreds, if not thousands of fighters in that country.

The logic you're employing is so childish. By your logic, hypothetically speaking, if a country decided it wanted to attack the United States, hired mercenaries from a third country and then sent them to our shores to kill our citizens, we wouldn't be able to respond to that country because not one of the attackers was from the country in question. So, what you're saying is that anytime someone wants to attack us, they should make sure to use non-citizens do carry out the attacks and we're powerless to reciprocate.

Al Qaeda is made up of people from dozens of countries. It was largely based in Afghanistan. Invading Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda and deny terrorists the use of the country as a base was eminently justified. Most people know this to be true, which is why pacifists like Dennis Kucinich are treated with justified contempt (or ignored, as the vast majority of Dem primary voters are wisely doing).

in New York City. They marched from Union Square to Times Square, cheering the police at the beginning of the march. The list of about twelve speakers was cut to three or four by the police, and they were herded at the end into a one-lane-wide "bullpen". The New York Times buried their coverage of the march on page B12 and, after the first couple of weeks of the campaign, few protests occurred.

Many protesters felt that the attack on Afghanistan was unjustified aggression and would lead to the deaths of many innocent people by preventing humanitarian aid workers from bringing food into the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_U.S._Attack_on_Afghanistan#Protests,_demonstrations_and_rallies
_____________________________________________________________________

Los Angeles Times
January 22, 2002
By Valerie Reitman
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/afghanistan/2002/latimes012202.html

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Derrill Bodley's search for solace after his daughter's death Sept. 11 took him thousands of miles from his comfortable Stockton home--to the rubble of Afghanistan.

As he waited for hours in a chilly office in Islamabad, Pakistan, last week to secure a seat on a United Nations plane bound for Kabul, the Afghan capital, he reflected on how the events of Sept. 11 mean different things to different people.

"To me, it was a wake-up call to try to understand what the right thing is to do, and to do it," he said. By the time the 56-year-old, a music professor at Sacramento City College, flew out of Kabul on Sunday after an emotional four-day tour, he knew what the right thing was and was embarking on a new life course.

While he was in Afghanistan, Bodley found his own grief ebbing. He hugged the father of a 5-year-old girl who had been killed by an errant U.S. bomb, and tapped out, on the tiny Casio keyboard he'd brought along, an accompaniment to a haunting song sung by children at a local orphanage.

It was a trip he almost didn't make.
____________________________________________________________________

Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510052004?open&of=ENG-USA

Two years after the first inmates arrived in the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Camp X-Ray and its successor, Camp Delta, have become synonymous with a government's pursuit of unfettered executive power and disregard for the rule of law. As detainees enter their third year held in tiny cells for up to 24 hours a day without any legal process, it seems that the current US administration views human dignity as far from non-negotiable when it comes to "national security".

According to the USA's National Security Strategy, "America must stand firmly for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity", including "the rule of law" and "limits on the absolute power of the state". Its National Strategy for Combating Terrorism concludes by saying much the same thing, and adds: "We understand that a world in which these values are embraced as standards, not exceptions, will be the best antidote to the spread of terrorism. This is the world we must build today".
_____________________________________________________________________

"A Dossier on Civilian Victims of of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting"
http://www.zmag.org/herold.htm

What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties---3'767 civilian deaths in eight and a half weeks---in the U.S air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan. A legacy of the ten years of civil war during the 80s is that many military garrisons and facilities are located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them since they could be better protected there from attacks by the rural mujahideen. Successor Afghan governments inherited these emplacements. To suggest that the Taliban used 'human shields' is more revealing of the historical amnesia and racism of those making such claims, than of Taliban deeds. Anti-aircraft emplacements will naturally be placed close by ministries, garrisons, communications facilities, etc.. A heavy bombing onslaught must necessarily result in substantial numbers of civilian casualties simply by virtue of proximity to 'military targets', a reality exacerbated by the admitted occasional poor targeting, human error, equipment malfunction, and the irresponsible use of out-dated Soviet maps. But, the critical element remains the very low value put upon Afghan civilian lives by U.S military planners and the political elite, as clearly revealed by U.S willingness to bomb heavily populated regions. Current Afghan civilian lives must and will be sacrificed in order to protect future American lives. Actions speak, and words obscure: the hollowness of pious pronouncements by Rumsfeld, Rice and the servile corporate media about the great care taken to minimize collateral damage is clear for all to see. Other U.S bombing targets hit are impossible to 'explain' in terms other than the U.S seeking to inflict maximum pain upon Afghan society and perceived 'enemies': the targeted bombing of the Kajakai dam power station, the Kabul telephone exchange, the Al Jazeera Kabul office, trucks and buses filled with fleeing refugees, and the numerous attacks upon civilian trucks carrying fuel oil. Indeed, the bombing of Afghan civilian infrastructure parallels that of the Afghan civilian.

I hope people are reading it.

Again, thank you.

I agree, it certainly is disputable that Afghanistan is a better place to live in than it was 3 years ago.

I would also point out that we did not invade Afghanistan to make it a better place, but to get bin Laden and root out al Qaida. So whether or not it's a better place now, we clearly failed to achieve our objective.

I also agree that it is inappropriate to feel 'contempt' because of a disagreement with DK over policy, or because of his statements in this matter.

Kucinich was arguing that going in in the first place was unjustified and a "nightmare."

And it doesn't matter why we invaded Afghanistan, the effect is still the same. One of the most monstrous governments in history is no longer controling the lives of the Afghan people. That is an objective good.

If you live in Kabul, maybe. But the human rights abuses continue in Talibanesque proportions under the warlords allied with Karzai.

And, don't forget that we had a PEACEFUL solution to this war on the plate, that BushCo IGNORED: the Taliban were ready to hand over Al-Qaeda and OBL if we simply provided them with PROOF.

US military expansion in to central Asia was on BushCo's plate since March of 2001. The WTC attacks merely gave it an excuse to extend our imperial hand into the area.

My (military) son-in-law was in charge of a group that was to seek out and designate places for U. S. bases in the former Soviet Union countries. Started Feb. of 2001. Bush was already planning military hegemony, with permanent U. S. bases to be built by....Halliburton.

But, gee, we had to get that pesky AFghanistan out of the way.

What is so great about Afghanistan now? Warlords control the country outside Kabul, and who the hell says terrorists are not free to train there? We can't even travel in 90%+ of the country.

A war that destabilizes a region followed by cut-and-run tactics is hardly a solution. I knew the general population had a miniscule attention span, but I didn't expect a DUer to push the we-made-Afghanistan-all-safe crap argument. The original poster sounds like he watches a bit too much mainstream news, and buys into way too much of BushCo's crap.

Look for a *lot* more trouble from Afghanistan in the future. Especially if we get Osama and bail out on that country entirely. The US will never follow through on its promises to stabilize Afghanistan.

I agree that DK hasn't been clear on this, and gave contradictory statements. I agree that his perceived pacifism, whether that perception is accurate or not, is one of the reasons he draws as few votes as he does.

I totally disagree that "it doesn't matter why we invaded Afghanistan".

And I certainly do not agree that 'no serious person' doesn't think Afghanistan is a better place now than before we invaded. Labeling in advance, anyone who disagrees with you as 'not serious' is a weak and unpersuasive debate tactic.

"I agree that DK hasn't been clear on this, and gave contradictory statements."

This is probably the first intelligent, mature response to my post yet. We can disagree on whether Afghanistan is a better place, but I am tired of DK supporters who are so enchanted that they can't bring themselves to admit it when he says something stupid or contradictory.

"Labeling in advance, anyone who disagrees with you as 'not serious' is a weak and unpersuasive debate tactic."

Sorry, some positions are just too asinine to respect. Like the notion that Afghanistan was better under the Taliban, which many here evidently believe.

labeling your opponents opinions as 'asinine' is not an argument that commands respect.

This is the tactic the NeoCons are using to justify Iraq too.

Liberal: I don't support the invasion of Iraq.

NeoCon: So you think Iraq was better with Sadaam Hussein? You *like* Sadaam?

It's a stupid tactic and it makes you look stupid, Chief. I don't believe the Taliban were a good regime, but neither do I let the media spoon-feed me this ridiculous line that we have liberated Afghanistan and made it so much better post-Taliban.

Women still have very limited rights. Warlords run the country to the point that the US military can't even move in most parts of the country. It has become the world's foremost producer of heroin. And the minute we leave entirely, it's going to get a lot worse.

You just seem to buy into the lines that BushCo is feeding us...the same line they always try to feed us when they invade a country, cut-and-run, and leave before all the difficult and expensive work of reconstruction is even begun. Remember Bush telling us that we would not let Afghanistan fall into lawlessness again? Oh, wait, that was 2+ whole years ago, and you TV-attention-span folks can't remember that long ago.

Finally, your comparison of Afghanistan to WW2 is absolutely asinine. Read a history book. The Taliban are not the Nazis...Osama isn't Hitler, and even if he were, we didn't get him. So, what exactly are the fantastic results of our invasion of Afghanistan?

"So, what exactly are the fantastic results of our invasion of Afghanistan?"

The Taliban is no longer in power and al Qaeda is not openly operating terrorist training camps churning out thousands of fanatic terrorists.

For the umpteenth time, I am not suggesting that everything is rose in Afghanistan. I'm merely suggesting that it's far better than it was under the Taliban/al Qaeda.

And for the record, the only people I would accuse of wishing to have the Taliban back are those who are so blinded in their hatred of Bush or the US to recognize that many good things have been accomplished there and the Afghan people are much better off.

...then leave DK out of it, as he has nothing to do with your point.

Your original post is an O'Reilly-esque nitpicking that basically boils down to "DK misspoke and had to clarify his remarks."

Oh no! Surely he is the only candidate to have to do that. I'm sure your preferred candidate (Lieberman, perhaps?) never misspoke and then had to clarify his stance. If your candidate is Kerry, then you might as well just stop now, because DK has been far more consistent on his positions than Kerry.

I am not criticizing Kerry, BTW, but I think your original point, that DK is contemptible because he misspoke and had to then clarify his stance, is a hypocritical position regardless of which candidate you support.

edit: crazy sentence structure ;)

"I'm sure your preferred candidate...never misspoke and then had to clarify his stance."

I don't think that he ever forgot that he voted for a war that he was busy calling a "nightmare."

Look, all I'm saying is this gets to the heart of why I don't want Kucinich to be my president. He just can't be trusted to be commander-in-chief. If he thinks it's unjustified to use force in response to the murder of 3,000 Americans, he's just too weak to be President.

he might where petchulli (sp)... yeck.

Sorry that was just the funniest response earlier... it bears repeating.

...telling us why you *do* want Edwards, instead of why you *don't want DK. What good does belittling other people's candidate do you? Do you really want to alienate me and other DK supporters from your cause should Edwards be nominated? Next, someone will be posting "Edwards supporters are all jerks" or "Edwards conveniently takes currently popular stance on all issues he was not in the Senate to vote on".

Attacks just are not productive, which is why this thread has been called flamebait. Go start a thread about why you like Edwards, and let's drop these pointless attacks. In the end, we all have to pull together or face another 4 years of Bush.

was taking out angst due to the suspicion that Kucinich is a stinky petchuli (sp) wearer... *reference to one of the gazillion interesting posts above*

a "nightmare".

Kucinich was right. It WAS unjustified and it IS a nightmare. Here's a clue- you don't hunt down criminals with stealth bomber squadrons, strafing runs, and fecking cluster bombs. You hunt down criminals with investigations and law enforcement. In case you didn't know it, law enforcement exists on an international scale and there are members of that community charged specifically with this kind of situation...Ever here of Interpol? That's what they exist for!

Instead we bombed a country that was damned near already blown back to the stone-age thanks to decades of war against a Russian invasion. They won that one, but Bushco knew they were too weakened to win against us now. That's the ONLY reason he poked his needle-d*ck where it didn't belong, because he's a bully and that's what bullies do best.

Once more, there is NO evidence presented by you or anyone else that the Taliban had ANYTHING to do with Sept. 11th.

Supported Bush's War on Terror but Bush did a shitty job. It's that simple.

and I do know for a fact that Kerry criticized our conduct at Tora Bora.

Bushit will be doing more than his share starting tomorrow.

Okay, let's break it down. Kucinich got a little carried away and said that the invasion of Afghanistan was not justified when earlier he had said that it was. And then he clarified his remarks. So far nothing terribly amiss. Then he said that the present situation there is pretty much a disaster and nothing for us to brag about. Spot-on, I say. The "legitimate government" we installed just about controls Kabul, but only with the help of the U.S. military, and out in the countryside the chaos is extreme. One of the many tragedies of the Iraq invasion was that it diverted our attention from where it was needed, in Afghanistan. Again, nothing wrong with Kucinich's statement.

Then he was asked another question and he thought about it for fifteen seconds. Oh no no no!!! A candidate who thinks before he speaks!! Doom for the party and the nation!!

Or not. This is a lot of fuss about nothing. Kucinich isn't exactly poised to sweep the rest of the primaries, so I have to wonder about the motives involved in attacking him (and, by extension, his supporters) in this way at this time.

He is very quick on his feet and generally knows exactly what he believes. I think his pause was the result of not having anything especially good to say about his own country.

Now, check this out:

Asked by the Union Leader whether Cuba was a police state or a repressive regime, Kucinich took a full 20 seconds before uttering the carefully worded response: "He's had some practices in dealing with political dissidents that I don't approve of."

That's it?? That's all the criticism he has for a dictator who throws political opponents and homosexuals into concentration camps?

Don't you think it's suspicious that the two times he's had to pause for such a long time is when he's asked to say something good about his own country and bad about a tyrant?

Dennis Kucinich: a lion for human rights! Unless you live in Cuba.

Chief, just let this thread die....I'm pretty sure you lost the debate.

More importantly, you are not convincing any of us DK supporters. Your remarks serve only to be divisive. There is no good that can come of this thread, only bad sentiment. You might as well be a Republican troll for all the good threads like this do anyone.

So, let it go...

If this was on the topic of John Kerry, this thread would have been locked and closed long ago, but since it's about Kucinich, it's allowed to go on and on, without reason or history or facts or true definitions or real issues, just a great big pile of slander. America...America...Oh just forget it... I think I'll go outside and hope we get hit with an asteroid, game over.

bullshit. There was a thread just yesterday blaming Kerry for Diebold, citing an article in the New York Times that didn't even mention Kerry. It was as evil a piece of slander as you might ever care to see, and it is unlocked even as we speak. As dumb as this is, it's mild by comparison with a lot of anti-Kerry threads that have not been locked.

Perhaps you're unaware that the mods changed the rules recently on GD2004 to almost-anything-goes. Two weeks ago, this thread and the Kerry/Diebold one would both have been locked in a heartbeat.

I've had plenty of my posts locked and got warnings for auguring with the Kerry people, where I just said the facts, while they just kept screaming "Bullshit!!!" Give it up, if DU allowed it there would be real posts about Kerry, real nasty and yet full of facts and history, but we can't, so we won't, back to the Kucinich bashing.

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

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

...

There have been plenty of negative threads about Kerry, as bad as and worse than any threads about Kucinich. It is unreasonable and severely biased to claim that the moderators have a bias in favor of Kerry or against Kucinich.

have accomplished for us and for the people of Cuba!

*crickets*

Moving on. I'm not content to conclude that Kucinich never pauses before answering a question just because you have only two instances of his doing so, both of which you disapprove. As for Kucinich's Cuba answer, he said what you said (right? treatment of dissidents, right?) except that he said it more mildly.

And yet again, what's the point of all this? Trying to stop the Kucinich primary juggernaut, or what? Maybe you think you're scoring points for Edwards by pillorying Kucinich on DU? LOL.

...for Christ's sake, at least come up with something a little stronger than mild disapproval. Kucinich's response to that question is an insult to the thousands of people who have been murdered by Castro's regime.

All I'm trying to do is illustrate what a nonsensical little man Kucinich is. He's an embarrassment to the party, and his fanatical, ultra-leftist supporters are the ones who give the Democratic party the reputation of being "unpatriotic, depraved, soft on crime, irreligious, immoral, profligate and weak," in the words of Joe Conason of Salon.

Did Conason really say that stuff about Kucinich specifically, or do you mean he used those words (about something/someone else) and now you're using them to hit Kucinich over the head with?

This is the full quote:

"The subtext of every charge will be to tar Kerry with the negative vision of liberalism constructed by the right during the past three decades: unpatriotic, depraved, soft on crime, irreligious, immoral, profligate and weak."

In other words, the stereotype that Kucinich reinforces with every word he utters.

unpatriotic? the only candidate to vote AGAINST the patriot act?

irreligious? the only candidate who said that his religion had anything to do with the way he does his job?

weak? the only candidate to stand up to bush with more than rhetoric?



That stereotype, my friend, is also a good one for Kerry (I won't go into why as I'll be attacked as being 'anti-kerry). So my advice to you is stop buying into the republican crap and start being the change you wish to see. Stop copying republicans and fight them, instead.

...before you can think of a single good thing to say about your own country doesn't fill the average American with the notion that the individual is full of patriotism. Kucinich may be, but he spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing the United States, so it's fair to say that he reinforces the stereotype of liberals as unpatriotic.

Go ahead and buy what the whore media's sellin if you want to. God knows it's a popular choice.

he pauses all the time to think about what he's gonna say? Hang him now, the unpatriotic scumbag!

V

...but not your right to express them. You have every right to speak, even as you twist the truth.

:puke:

Ohmygosh, so sorry about that, it must've been some bad sweet & sour walnuts I had.

make up my mind. I've decided that I will caucus for Kucinich in my state in April. It looks like Kerry already has the nomination pretty well wrapped up, so he doesn't need my vote. Edwards would have to pry my caucus vote out of my cold dead fingers, but it looks like that's not going to be an issue after tonight.

I can't see anything that Dennis said there that I can really disagree with. He apparently feels that the war was justified, but Bush really handled it and the aftermath with great incompetence, and didn't involve the international community to the degree that he should have.

Sounds pretty much similar to my own thinking on the matter.

It's my understanding that outside of Kabul, people really aren't much better off now than they were before we invaded. In many places they may actually be worse off. The Taliban are out of power, but are still there and are regrouping. The warlords that run the countryside are pretty ideologically similar to the Taliban. That's my understanding of things anyway. If you have any well documented information to the contrary, I'd be glad to see it.

The only thing that seems to be going really well there right now is the cultivation of opium poppies. Not really enough for me to feel great pride in my country's accomplishments there.

Well, thank you for the information, and for the help with making my decision.:)

Thanks too to all the Kucinich supporters on this board.:yourock:

:yourock: too!

are arguably much worse off now. Before they had no rights but had security of sorts, now they no security, and de-facto have no rights either. Rapes and murder of women are up considerably since the invasion.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum, they are a function of their practical context. If I have the right to an education, but will get killed if I try to exercise it, I might as well not have the right for all the good it does me. This is the sitation now in Afganistan, outside of Kabul. Kabul is only better because of the enormous amount of foreign troops there. I repeat: outside of Kabul, personal security is probably down since the fall of the Taliban, and living standards are no better than they ever were.

I wouldn't say the country has moved much back or forward since the invasion, it has gone sideways, from one sort of shit to another. DK is right, for the most part anyway.

V

edit: spelling

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63537-2003Nov19¬Found=true

Washington Post

He said that he had voted for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in response to the attacks. "On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes," Kucinich said. "The record on that is clear. . . . I misspoke."

Kucinich said his disagreement with Bush was over "tactics" and he believes that Bush should have involved "the intelligence agencies of other countries" and the United Nations in the hunt for the terrorist suspects. Asked whether he still considered the outcome of U.S. military action in Afghanistan to be a disaster and a nightmare, he said: "I see the Taliban regaining strength and all these conflicts with warlords. The question is: What have we won? Where's the victory?

I have excerpted this quote because there is a lack of clarity on policy here--don't know whether Dennis has expounded anywhere in detail, and it isn't in a separate section on his website. I think he should say something in more detail than the generalities available in quotes to date.

US policy, summed up, was to bomb the hell out of a civilian population for the purpose of replacing one gang of thugs (the Taliban) with a marginally less nasty gang of thugs (the Northern Alliance) and an imposed ruler who puts the interests of his sponsors first and his people second. Scattering terrorists is useless, rather like thinking you have solved your wasp problem by smashing the house containing the nest with a bulldozer. They just fly away and regroup.

What were the other options? On October 27, 2001, a group of more than 1000 anti-Taliban leaders from Afghanistan met in Peshawar, with a very different strategy (see below). Also, the Loya Jirga met the following summer, only to have its overwhelming favorite, the former king, shown the door--presumably because he too thought that the bombing campaign was stupid and counter productive. Bottom line--on two significant occasions, natives of Afghanistan who disliked the Taliban and Al Qaeda far, far more than people who have not had the experience of living with them could possibly do, were consulted in the formation of plans for getting rid of those two forces. And on both occasions, official America told them to go straight to hell.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/warafghanistan.htm

We might begin with the gathering of Afghan leaders in Peshawar, some exiles, some who trekked across the border from within Afghanistan, all committed to overthrowing the Taliban regime. It was "a rare display of unity among tribal elders, Islamic scholars, fractious politicians, and former guerrilla commanders," the New York Times reported. They unanimously "urged the U.S. to stop the air raids," appealed to the international media to call for an end to the "bombing of innocent people," and "demanded an end to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan." They urged that other means be adopted to overthrow the hated Taliban regime, a goal they believed could be achieved without slaughter and destruction.(

Reported, but dismissed without further comment.

A similar message was conveyed by Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq, who condemned the air attacks as a "terrible mistake."(22) Highly regarded in Washington, Abdul Haq was considered to be "perhaps the most important leader of anti-Taliban opposition among Afghans of Pashtun nationality based in Pakistan."(23) His advice was to "avoid bloodshed as much as possible"; instead of bombing, "we should undermine the central leadership, which is a very small and closed group and which is also the only thing which holds them all together. If they are destroyed, every Taliban fighter will pick up his gun and his blanket and disappear back home, and that will be the end of the Taliban," an assessment that seems rather plausible in the light of subsequent events.

Several weeks later, Abdul Haq entered Afghanistan, apparently without U.S. support, and was captured and killed. As he was undertaking this mission "to create a revolt within the Taliban," he criticized the U.S. for refusing to aid him and others in such endeavors, and condemned the bombing as "a big setback for these efforts." He reported contacts with second-level Taliban commanders and ex-Mujahidin tribal elders, and discussed how further efforts could proceed, calling on the U.S. to assist them with funding and other support instead of undermining them with bombs.

The U.S., Abdul Haq said, is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose. And we don't like that. Because Afghans are now being made to suffer for these Arab fanatics, but we all know who brought these Arabs to Afghanistan in the 1980s, armed them and gave them a base. It was the Americans and the CIA. And the Americans who did this all got medals and good careers, while all these years Afghans suffered from these Arabs and their allies. Now, when America is attacked, instead of punishing the Americans who did this, it punishes the Afghans.

20. For review, see my Deterring Democracy (New York: Hill & Wang, 1992, 2nd edition), "Afterword."
21. Barry Bearak, "Leaders of the Old Afghanistan Prepare for the New," NYT, Oct. 25. John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari, "Traditional leaders call for peace jihad," FT, Oct. 25; "Afghan peace assembly call," FT, Oct. 26. John Burns, "Afghan Gathering in Pakistan Backs Future Role for King," NYT, Oct. 26; Indira Laskhmanan, "1,000 Afghan leaders discuss a new regime," BG, Oct. 25, 26, 2001.

22. Barry Bearak, NYT, Oct. 27, 2001.

23. Anatol Lieven, "Voices from the Region: Interview with Commander Abdul Haq," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted Oct. 15. See Lieven, Guardian, Nov. 2, 2001. Quotes below from this interview.

http://threehegemons.tripod.com/threehegemonsblog/id54.html

The Warlords Win in Kabul

By OMAR ZAKHILWAL and ADEENA NIAZI

KABUL, Afghanistan — On the final night of the loya jirga, more than 1,500 delegates gathered for the unveiling of the new cabinet. Our hearts sank when we heard President Hamid Karzai pronounce one name after another. A woman activist turned to us in disbelief: "This is worse than our worst expectations. The warlords have been promoted and the professionals kicked out. Who calls this democracy?"

Interim government ministers with civilian rather than military credentials were dismissed. Mr. Karzai did not announce the minister for women's affairs, prompting speculation that Sima Samar, the popular current minister in that post, will be removed once international attention shifts elsewhere.

As the loya jirga folded its tent, we met with frustration and anger in the streets. "Why did you legitimize an illegitimate government?" one Kabul resident asked us.

The truth is, we didn't. While the Bonn agreement and the rules of the loya jirga entitled us to choose the next government freely, we delegates were denied anything more than a symbolic role in the selection process. A small group of Northern Alliance chieftains led by the Panjshiris decided everything behind closed doors and then dispatched Mr. Karzai to give us the bad news.

This sentiment quickly grew into a grass-roots movement supporting the former king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, as head of state. The vast majority of us viewed him as the only leader with enough popular support and independence to stand up to the warlords. But our democratic effort to nominate Zahir Shah did not please the powers that be. As a result, the entire loya jirga was postponed for almost two days while the former king was strong-armed into renouncing any meaningful role in the government.

After that announcement, the atmosphere at the loya jirga changed radically. The gathering was now teeming with intelligence agents who openly threatened reform-minded delegates, especially women. Access to the microphone was controlled so that supporters of the interim government dominated the proceedings. Fundamentalist leaders branded critics of the warlords as traitors to Islam and circulated a petition denouncing Women's Affairs Minister Samar as "Afghanistan's Salman Rushdie."

For a perspective from an organization of feminists from Afghanistan, see
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/testiomny.htm