Kucinich sees 'fake debate' over Iraq war
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press
DES MOINES, Iowa - Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio criticized fellow Democratic presidential candidates on Thursday for waging a "fake debate" over the war in Iraq, saying they are masking their support for the war.
"You cannot claim you are for peace and vote to fund the war," Kucinich said told The Associated Press. "It's totally contradictory."
The Cleveland Democrat was at the Iowa Statehouse where he met with House and Senate Democrats. He conceded his long-shot status but said public anger about the war in Iraq could work to his advantage.
"I'm certainly a long shot in this race and I understand that," he said. "I'm in a singular position. All these other Democrats have voted to keep the war going."
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina are considered the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, but all have voted at one time or another to continue the war, said Kucinich, scheduled to speak at a meeting of the Iowa State Education Association in Ames later in the day.
Kucinich said Democrats are missing the point of the last election, where they grabbed control of both chambers of Congress.
"The Democrats were elected to end the war," Kucinich said.
While the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are seeking to draw distinctions over the war, he said none of them have taken steps to end it.
"We've got a fake debate going on inside the Democratic Party right now on the war," Kucinich said. "People are saying they are for peace and they are voting to keep the war going."
The leading candidates have defended their votes for funding the war by arguing they won't abandon troops who are in harm's way, even while saying they don't support the decision to go to war.
"I'm the only candidate in this race who has a consistent record in not only opposing the war from the beginning ... and voting against each and every appropriation," Kucinich said.
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
- Spotlight this page
www.VelvetRevolution.us
learn the truth
.We all need to find the truth out to make a informed decision the main stream media is not going to give it to us. we need to search what the candidates said about Iraq in the past and we need to check how they voted for the war or its funding. Kucinich has held the same position since before the war started. The only one not fooled by Bush I think that says a lot about the others. They all saw the same intel.I'm voting for Kucinich and urge everyone to pick the thing that matters most to them and just check his position on it.
Kucinch
sees the whole, like none of the other candidates. What's troubling is that the primaries may swing toward a "who can win" calculation and we either end up with a "not ready for prime time" Obama, or a war hawk wantabe like Hillary; and Edwards with his domestic populist positions is ready to hop on the intervention train with the rest of them.
I'm all for Kucinch making a break with a third party run if money trumps quality. We can't afford the continuation of Republican/Republican-lite rule.
Vote Or Bet?
Max Shield says:
"What's troubling is that the primaries may swing toward a "who can win" calculation..."
So what, Max? It ultimately comes down INDIVIDUAL responsibility. You are ALONE in the voting booth; it's up to you to excercise your conscientious good judgement as to who would serve best in the office.
You have a COMPELLING moral obligation to vote for that candidate, with NO REGARD to the question of "who can win".
Just control what you can control; Id est, your one vote. Leave each of your fellow citizens to their own individual responsibilities.
If you want to dwell on "who can win", then go place a wager. There, it's appropriate.
The voting booth is a place for finalizing moral issues; hardly the place for odds-making.
There's nothing wrong with voting for someone you don't realistically expect to win. In the last Presidential election, I voted for this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik
I didn't harbor any illusions that he would win. But if he had, today you would'nt be able to FIND any U.S. troops in Iraq. Or any other foreign countries, for that matter.
But he didn't win. You know who NOT to blame for that.
---The Bikemessenger
P.S.--- Warmonger's worst nightmare:
http://kucinich.us/
VS
http://www.ronpaul.org/
Yes, and on PRINCIPLE Kucinich needs to "commit suicide"
Kucinich is talking a good game - and if he really never did vote for war funding (which I thought he just did), then that's certainly to his credit, too. But why isn't he aggressively sponsoring Articles of Impeachment? (Apologies for my ignorance if he has.) The common "wisdom" has it that doing so is tantamount to committing political suicide.
If that's the case, then suicide is the only honorable option.
Kucinich needs to create a huge flap in Congress by submitting and demanding consideration of Articles of Impeachment and then - when the fascist riposte from Democratic Party and Corporate Media comes - he needs to use that publicity to make a very high-visibility and principled switch - taking a ton of popular support with him - to a third party.
A Peace and Justice party; one who's primary campaign plank will be: End the War by Prosecuting Justice!
That Kucinich - in that party, I would vote for.
Semper Fi,
-Matty
Hitting Stride
Kuchinich may not have a lot in common with Libertarians. But he hits perfect stride with us on this issue, unlike his party's "elite"
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=375
Don't be fooled by fake "libertarians"
http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com/
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/02/leftist-libertarians-o...
Real Libertarians are anti-war, as a matter of fundamental principle:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10517
---The Bikemessenger
In the words of the Pretender-in-Chief:
"Fool me once, shame on...shame on you...fool me...uh...we can't get fooled again.."
Or can we?
It should be pretty obvious by now to anybody who doesn't live under a rock that the "prominent" Democrats (that is, the ones that "damn liberal" MSM is trying to shove down our throats as the front running presidential candidates) are actually not the least bit interested in ending the Iraq disaster. Why? Gee, I don't know....could it be because there is just too much money at stake for their corporate paymaster/war profiteer pimps, and that actually ending the war would stop the endless flow of blood money into their campaign war chests?
As I say often, "It's not exactly rocket science, especially if I can figure it out."
All we need to do is pay attention and live up to our responsibility as citizens.
"The Troop Funding Lie" - Latest video commentary @
johnperryonline.com
Demanding Truth, Accountability and Justice.