Kucinich To Investigate "a narrow portion" of 9/11

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=575248&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=LOCAL&newsdate=3/26/2007

Kucinich brings hard-nosed arguments

Presidential candidate touts his consistent anti-war stance as an advantage over fellow Democrats

By DAN HIGGINS

Monday, March 26, 2007

ALBANY -- Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich predicted Sunday that by the time the New Hampshire primary arrives early next year, so many Americans will have tired of the war in Iraq that his peace platform will make him the choice for the Democratic nomination.

"They all voted for (war funding)," Kucinich said of his fellow Democratic opponents -- former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. He said he is the only Democrat who can boast he's always been against the war, which, he told a packed house Sunday evening in Albany, "was based on lies."

(...)

He ran down his platform of hot topics among progressive voters: ending the occupation of Iraq, canceling the North American Free Trade Agreement and working toward a universal, single-payer system of health care.

He also said that as chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch an investigation of "a narrow portion" of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record." The 9/11 Commission that published its final report in 2004 never resolved some conflicting facts, Kucinich said. He announced his own look at 9/11 in answer to a question from an audience member. The man complained that the 9/11 Commission was too tied to the Bush administration to offer an unbiased report, and Kucinich agreed.

Continued...
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=575248&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=LOCAL&newsdate=3/26/2007

I don't think things are going to go the way he thinks they will.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I think he's motivated by political considerations like other politicians, and I gotta ask: Why do you thin he directed his delegates to Edwards in Iowa in '04? The only other anti-war candidate was Dean. Edwards was not anti-war at the time and he'd voted for the IWR. What kind of principle does that demonstrate?

The democratic leadership many say must not seek impeachment or must not seek a quick end to the Iraq debacle or that declarative measures that to a bill that requires bush to go to congress before any force is used against Iran must be removed, etc. are saying these compromises are necessary for a bill to pass. Also, that we must be careful because dems from the south come from conservative areas and we must calculate that into the equation. So if all that is needed to be politically viable, then why is he doing it for selfish or self promotion reasons? Under that reasoning, he's committing political suicide, right?

They not only expect him to vote against anything other then immediate and full withdrawal, they expect him to blast any other proposal. So no, it's not political suicide within his base. And he's not viable outside that base no matter what he does. And I don't wholly agree with your explanation about the leadership's reasoning.

But again, if Kucinich is so principled, how come he didn't throw his delegates and his support to the ONLY other anti-war dem in the race in 2004? How come he threw his delegates to Edwards instead of Dean?

So with his very narrow extreme base, he can still win his seat in Ohio with impunity? What you indicate is that he has no character. I will have to disagree with you. We share no common ground on that.

I haven't the foggiest why he went to Edwards. Although I'd love to hear the reason, the story, of how that came to be. I don't find it sinister, though.

Look, show me another person in this race with such clearly defined solutions to a number of progressive issues and I'll take a look at them.

Right now, i'm working to get Kucinich to the convention with as many delegates as possible. I think the left needs someone who will talk new ideas and new solutions to the failed policies we've seen since Reagan.

I'm sick of privitization. I'm mad that the fairness doctrine was tossed and the Telecommunications bill that Clinton signed accelerated corporate consolidatiion over the media. I know we already spend more than enough money on our rip off health care non-system to cover every person in America with not for profit health insurance. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was hanged, why are we building permanant bases in Iraq? Why are we still pressing an expensive, racist, inefficient war on drugs? Hasn't anybody noticed it's not working?

So I want answers to these questions. Dennis is more than willing to deal with these questions. I don't see a lot of our other candidates really pushing for liberal change. So if and until that changes, I have no choice but to get Dennis one more delegate out of my area. I don't want a candidate who is better at administering Repo ideas than the Repos are. I want a candidate who fights for liberal ideas, promotes liberal ideas, and is willing to stand up to the entrench monied powers and demand they consider liberal ideas, and demand they accept liberal solutions.

We need to force debate on these issues and more, because our farther right bretherin and sisterin run from these debates. Anything I can do to get Dennis out there talking about these issues, promoting debate on these issues, instigating thought and action on these issues, is good. For instance, we need to think about and talk about impeachment. Which candidate actually broached the subject? Dennis did. Where do the other candidates stand on impeachment? i haven't the foggiest. Does Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Richardson believe if bush, as the unitary president, attacks Iran that he should be impeached? I haven't the foggiest.

Dennis shouldn't count on keeping the Chairmenship of that subcommittee, or doing too much for his district. He's marginalizing himself, and just like in 2004, he'll finish at the bottom.

Dems appreciate Kucinich when he supports them which is often. I don't get the impression that they are as punitive over basic philosophical disagreements as to punish Dennis for standing up for his beliefs.

If you want the oil companies to split up Iraq's oil wealth, then that portion of the bill that was passed is great. It's all an illusion though because what ever the Senate passes or doesn't, then what gets worked out in joint committee, and then what maybe gets signed or vetoed by bush may or may not look like anything the way it does now. We will see.

So in terms of real world what was accomplished is still unknown. The House passed a bill which funds the surge and then asks the president to consider pulling out some troops by 08. It also funds a number of other areas from troop health care, to children's health care, to Katrina rebuilding, and funds the spinach and peanut industries. It ratifies the Multi-national oil companies right to profit from Iraqi oil.

I think Kucinich has a perfect right to ask if this bill is what America wanted. Not if we are lucky to get it, but is it what we wanted? Or are we just lucky to get anything, even something we don't want?

Where it all goes we will see. But I think your premonition of future difficulties between The Speaker and Kucinich is self serving poppycock designed to divide and conquer. In fact, I look forward to warm and cordial relations between the Speaker and Congressman Kucinich. They both exhibit far more class and sense than you give them credit for.

I stand by Bob McIlvaine and the Jersey Girls!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x152190

LOL, look where they put this topic and locked it !

That's always been the thing I can't wrap my head around.

It is quite easy... it was pulled!

Sure logically it was "pulled" but I can tell that you know exactly what I mean. I can grasp a concept intellectually but emotionally? That's the part that isn't easy. Most people can't handle the possibility of the gov't being involved or negligent. It's too frightening. If it was "pulled" as was described that day, with enough warning that some media outlets reported it before it collapsed, the implication is horrific.

I want to believe the official story because it is so hard to accept the alternative but no one can explain Building 7 reasonably. This is the thread that if they pull (no pun intended) will unravel the whole tapestry of the official 9/11 story.

...and on and on and on... towards inevitable victory.

Narrow is only narrow until something comes up. It will. It's time. The truth is on the way.

I'm tired of these weak ass folks who won't talk about our national security, the real security of
knowing what really happened. How else do you defend yourself.

And this, priceless, of his opponents, "They all voted for war funding." Subtle;)

--the question of why there were so many military exercises mimicing the actual attack on the same day.