Kucinich misspoke about war votes...should he apologize?

[madfloridian]

In his Open Letter to Howard Dean, he says Wellstone was the only Democrat who voted for the IWR.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich

"Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed? "

Not true at all:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

"Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution."

Also he referred to Howard Dean and said he "recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed? "

That is also not true. I suppose now I will have to do a search all by myself on the words "I am not anti-war" and then something like I am against this Iraq war. He further says Bush did not prove his case. Howard Dean never said he was anti-war, but he most definitely spoke out against this one. I am appalled when congressmen speak out against fellow Democrats without doing the research first.

It is hard to search on quotes, but I will do so if necessary. He said it frequently, and since everyone seems determined to misquote him, I will do their research for them.

[Don Claybrook]

1. apologize?

Maybe he could apologize to the other 20 Senate Democrats, but not to Howard Dean, for this was not a sleight to Howard Dean.

Even if he got the number of Senators wrong, his message is still right. And I LOVE Howard Dean, but I won't mindlessly defend him no matter what he says or does. That's what automatons and Freepers do.

Dean still comes out ahead in the calculus, but he's wrong on this one.

thanks.

[madfloridian]

3. Read my post, please. He misquoted Howard Dean.

I will do the research for Kucinich, but it is hard to search on those words. But I will do it, since he did not.

PDA apparently did not either. Howard Dean frequently said "I am not anti-war", but then he would always say he was against this war in Iraq, using various words.

I hate it when I have to do all the research. Yes, he did call him anti-war, and in his own words, he was not.

[Don Claybrook]

7. He was most certainly anti Iraq war

I never imagined Howard Dean to be a pacifist, but he was completely against the Iraq war. And is that not what Kucinich was referring to?

[madfloridian]

12. When you are writing a letter for public consumption.....

you need to be careful.

Here is what Kucinich said:
"Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?"

He said Dean campaigned on an anti-war theme...no, he never did. I am tired of people misquoting and misleading.

[ultraist]

43. "...who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme."

Put it in context, he is referring to what was said during the campaign. Dean DID bring his opposition to the Iraq war into his campaign platform.

I like Dean and I donated to the DNC when he was elected Chair, but Dennis is doing his job---he is pushing the Democrats to stand up AGAINST the war.

I believe Dennis was the only candidate that talked about an exit strategy during the campaign. The fact is, SOMEONE needs to start talking about this.

Supporting Bush in this FAILURE of a war, that 67% of Americans now feel should not have been waged, is a mistake. MANY, MANY, MANY Americans feel as Dennis does, that we need to develop an exit strategy. I for one, am grateful to Dennis for being vocal about this.

[Eloriel]

100. No, Dennis did NOT talk about an exit strategy during campaign

I know because his position was one that I strongly disagreed with and cosnidered frankly irresponsible, however "attractive" and pie-in-the-sky impractical it was. DK talked about picking up our marbles and going home, exiting en masse. NO "exit strategy" or plan for leaving anything in place or taking care of things whatsoever, just leave.

Hmmm, as a result of your post and mine, I'm wondering if this isn't some fancy camouflage DK has dreamed up to confuse the issue AND hide his former untenable, irresponsible position. Make it "disappear" behind a nearly equally irresponsible (untrue) attack on Dean.

[goodhue]

124. Actually, Dennis consistently talked about his exit plan.

His plan was shorthanded as "UN in, US out" and sometimes incorrectly characterized as cut and run. In fact, his plan was pretty fleshed out as to the conditions of the transition. See, e.g., this Dec 03 post . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x10913#98877

The plan became a 10 point plan which Dennis repeatedly talked about, but which was entirely ignored by the other candidates and the media.

For reference, here is that plan, still on his web site . . .

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

The Kucinich Plan to Bring Our Troops Home
Dennis Kucinich:

"The war in Iraq is over and the occupation has turned into a quagmire. The United States troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to kill Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $155 billion to pay for it, and there is no end in sight. The United Nations is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq as a U.S. folly. Under these circumstances, the UN is unlikely to help. And UN assistance with a U.S. occupation would not allow the establishment of an Iraqi government that was acceptable to the Iraqi people.

"U.S. military casualties in Iraq have now exceeded 500, and the media has begun comparing the figure to the number of U.S. dead in Vietnam in 1965 prior to the significant expansion of U.S. operations there.

"Other Democrats join the Bush Administration in explaining that 'We can't cut and run.' I say we can't continue the damage we are causing and cannot begin repairing it until we withdraw our occupying army. We must pay for what we destroyed. We must pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians we killed and injured. But we must work through the United Nations. We must allow the United Nations to facilitate the creation of a democratic government that will be acceptable to the Iraqi people. No government created by the United States will be. It is better that we recognize this now than after the next 500 deaths.

"If we stay the course it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in and it's wrong to stay in. The demands of an occupation are overstretching our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces makes us vulnerable at home. The reserve call-ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for hometown security. Americans are asking, is there a way out? I say there is. This is my plan to get the UN in ... and the U.S. out of Iraq! This plan will bring our troops home within 90 days of UN approval, and strengthen American security.

"The following is my detailed plan to quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq:

1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.


"I am working tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action, bring all U.S. troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the UN community to participate. Such a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan.

"The President should go to the UN and announce America's intention to abide by this plan if approved by the UN.

"He should ask the UN Security Council to ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my plan that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first U.S. troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeping troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the U.S. In place of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by U.S. invasion. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person, one-vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. By the end of month three, all U.S. troops will have returned home.

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

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

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

"The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price America has paid is the loss of our moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost us our credibility and done serious harm to America's standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

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

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

[saracat]

129. Yes, he did. He wasn't my candidate but he was the ONLY

candidate that called for withdrawal. I used to be quite irked and had many disagreements on DU about the fact that Dean would refer to himself, I was present when he did it, as the only anti-war candidate. He said in in a primary debate. He didn't acknowledge Kucinich and Graham as though they didn't count. He did finally acknowlege Kucinich in another debate.

[XanaDUer]

144. Yes, I remember that, as well.

And being irked that he ignored the very fine Graham.

[MuseRider]

138. Yes he did

and I was always very impressed with the thought that was put into it. Everytime he got a chance to talk about it he would say, "Get the UN in and the US out" and they would go on without ever letting him say much more. Thanks for posting this, I did not save it from the website but I would guess I could find it here if I searched for it.

[genius]

130. DEnnis has nothing for which to apologize. Dean should apologize

He's pro-occupation now and that is not in keeping with the wishes of the American public.

It's pretty bad when people pretend Dennis said something different than what he said.

[Larkspur]

143. No, Dean is not pro-occupation. Dean wants the troops out but he

doesn't want to create another terrorist base, a la Afghanistan.

Pro-occupation are those who want our troops there to guard the oil, turn Iraq into a privatization labatory, and use Iraq to launch further strikes against those that dare to oppose us.

Dean's view is not about guarding the oil for corporations to steal, or privatizing Iraq's public sector, or using Iraq as a gunboat, but to prevent Iraq from becoming a worse security issue than it is now. Yes, it could get worse.

[madfloridian]

2. Senate site says 23 voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[paineinthearse]

4. Call it what you want, but all letters and speeches should be fact checked

Not that * ever does that before spewing lies.

Being on the progressive left, Dennis should be much more careful, else he is an easy target for rethug and centerist retribution.

[madfloridian]

5. Well, now I have to do the research...they all claim Dean was anti-war.

Nope, he never claimed to be. In fact he often said he was not.

But these guys refuse to do the research, and instead they try to marginalize me.

On my way to the databases to look it up.

[madfloridian]

14. On 2nd thought, I won't do it. Thunderstorms moving in here.

And I am too tired to fight both sides of the spectrum any more. Let people do what they have to do. The corporations have control anyway. Doesn't matter anymore.

While the right in the guise of the DLC called us "fringe activists" and told us to forget about Vietnam (Good Night, Vietnam), the left is building a stealth attack.

Those of us who have a little of the middle in us are worn out from the attacks.

[Eloriel]

106. I can verify -- he repeatedly said he was not anti-war, that in fact

he had SUPPORTED the first Gulf War AND the Afghanistan war. He said this during the campaign, and I've heard him say it since.

He NEVER, ever represented himself as "anti-war," and in fact went out of his way to make sure that no one could misinterpret him as representing himself as blanket anti-war.

Madfloridian, I hope you'll take a look at my previous post to this thread. I am increasingly unhappy with Kucinich, ever since he got all mad at Dean when Dean failed to consider him a mainstream candidate during the primaries (IMO no one can justifiably claim he was) and DK has taken every opportunity since then -- and it appears his little campaign is revved up once again -- to provoke problems for Dean. Too bad that this time it's the Dem Party itself that loses. I think DK just continues to show himself a petty little man. Now think, if you will, back to that post by Kevin of PDAmerica (did you keep a link to that?). Innocent? I'm not so sure, especially since IIRC Kevin NEVER quite backed off completely nor seemed at all interested in correcting the record with PDA members (as opposed to buying into this Kucinich delusion and fantasy as outlined here). I'm not at all comfortable with what's going on here. Not at all. Let me know what you think, by PM if necessary.

[CWebster]

6. Though if you google Wellstone-lone vote

You come up with stuff like this:

Fast-forward to 2002: Wellstone is running for reelection to the Senate while suffering from multiple sclerosis. Despite being in a tough race, he courageously casts the lone vote in the Senate against attacking Iraq.

It's one thing to profess to having beliefs, something else to stand up for them.

As Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) put it during a memorial service for Wellstone, "He may have had a bad back, but he had a spine of steel."


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1126-07.htm

[goodhue]

36. Indeed

Perhaps it is common mistake? Or was there some other vote?

[LizW]

8. the answer to Kucinich's question is pretty simple

We went to war, invaded a country, killed a shit-load of it's citizens, devastated it's infrastructure, and made it a haven for terrorists. That's one thing that changed.

The other thing that changed is that Howard Dean campaigned as a candidate against the Iraq war. He's no longer a candidate, he's the chairman of the party. His position doesn't include the power to dictate policy based on his personal views.

Kucinich carelessly mistated the voting record of a number of his Democrats on an important issue. He owes those Senators an apology.

[CWebster]

9. Okay, who dictates policy then?

Interesting that we automatically assume that it aligns with the DLC as official policy as opposed to the majority of the base.

The question then becomes which version of the Democratic party does Dean now represent? The base who put him there--or the Insider club he is no a member of?

[Eloriel]

135. To be technical, neither / all

If you're talking policy, both Pelosi and Reid told Dean in no uncertain terms that he was NOT to be involved in setting policy for the party. Therefore, anything he says that has even the smallest policy character about it, is his own personal opinion and beliefs.

The question then becomes which version of the Democratic party does Dean now represent? The base who put him there--or the Insider club he is no a member of?

His job is to run the party from an organizational point of view, not policy. He has gone to all sorts of local events, held fundraisers for state party organizations, etc., etc., etc. That's his job, not policy.

Get it? Policy-wise, he represents NO ONE BUT HIMSELF.

[tinanator]

45. against the invasion but not the war/occupation

BIG difference, you try to subsume Kucinich's posture, but in reality are nowhere near it. Thats a long running deception that you Dean fans owe everyone an apology for. How many times did this spineless poser claim HE was the only anti-war candidate?
You should try evaluating things a little more honestly I think.

[Eloriel]

140. He did say he was the only anti-war candidate -- that's why DK is

so mad at him -- DK was mad because the comment from Dean DURING the primaries ignored DK as a candidate. Dean qualified his remark later by saying that he was talking about "among the mainstream candidates" but that probably made DK all the madder.

Another factor, not well understood, is that Dean was speaking in shorthand, as he often does even now -- a bad habit of his. Anyone who followed him KNEW what he was saying -- "I'm the only one against THIS war among the top tier candidates" (which DK NEVER was), but that's not how it came out of his mouth. DK took exception to it and went on to poison his own supporters against Dean by misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Dean in just this way. Dean could be accused of misrepresenting and mischaracterizing as well, but in Dean's case it was inadvertent; in DK's case it was quite purposeful.

How many times did this spineless poser claim HE was the only anti-war candidate?

Never -- at least not in the way you mean, that's how many times. Of course, if you absolutely, positively require rigid perfection in all the words that come out of someone's mouth and simply canNOT take someone at what they actually mean (based on ALL their other pronouncements), then you can't handle Dean. But don't try to pretend that he's a liar and a cheat and a poser -- he's not. He is instead THE most honest and principled candidate for any office I've seen in at least a generation and possibly much longer.

[MuseRider]

141. Never got that memo.

Nobody from his campaign ever sent me poison mail against Dean nor did I ever hear it spoken except possibly here and who are most of us anyway? How did that top tier candidacy work for him after all? I never cared for the man so it was not Kucinch or any of his staff or supporters who poisoned my opinion of him. OK, I am done with the primary fighting. This is simply stupid. I stand by my candidate, you stand by yours and that is OK but we should all be open to criticism and we should all question every last one of them. If DK did or said something wrong he will explain or apologize. If not we should find out why.

[tinanator]

150. there were no clumsy oversights it was pure political posturing

He made those misstatements at crucial times, and his whole base of support mistook early Bush criticism for sincere opposition. He was one of the first "mainstream(sez who?)candidates" to criticize Bush rather than attempt to align with perceived popular/discreet corporate overlord support for Bush foreign policy aka aggressive imperial fascism.

once again how amusing that Dean has forgivable lapses in speech, yet Kucinich eats babies.

[saracat]

166. Wow. If Dean mispeaks its inadvertant and we should forgive him, but

if DK does it it is deliberate and he should be castigated? I don't see any reason at all to treat Dean differently or hold him to different standards of speech. That is just wild! And to think that some excuse Dean dissing Kucinch as though that was okay. It is NOT okay . And I wasn't a DK supporter. Wrong is wrong no matter who says it. Dean isn't any more exempt from criticism tham any other politician. And that is all he is a politician.He isn't a saint!

[welshTerrier2]

10. admit it: Dean is failing to unify the Party

Kucinich's statement should be corrected to read that Wellstone was the only Senator to consistently vote against the war ... to that extent, Kucinich was in error ...

But the MUCH GREATER POINT is that Dean's number one job right now is to bring the factions of the Party together so that we're stronger in 2006 ... would someone like to make a case that he's off to a good start ??????

the recent vote in which all Dem Senators (all but one?) voted to continue bush's occupation and the obviously failed policy in Iraq was handled very, very badly from a political perspective ... the point here is not whether I agreed with the vote; i didn't ... the point is that it was shoved down the throats of the very large segment of the Democratic Party who is not buying bush's bullshit ...

no negotiations; no dialog; no "we'll push for a timetable"; no "we'll hold hearings"; no "we need to reform our Party"; no "we have to take our Party back"; no "we have to take our country back" ... no "we'll demand no permanent military bases" ... just "here's another check, George ... do whatever you think is best with it" ...

don't give me all the lame arguments that Dean isn't responsible for setting policy ... Dean is responsible for making the Party stronger ... failing to show any fucking sensitivity whatsoever to those Democrats who are sick and tired of being stepped on by the establishment elitists in the Party is carving out a gaping wound that may not heal before the next election cycle ... Dean used to talk about party reform ... perhaps that stepping stone has faded from his memory already ...

and don't give me the "he's only been there four months argument" either ... the measure is not whether all necessary changes have already been successfully implemented ... the Party is being ripped apart, think 1968, by the occupation and the establishment Democrats' support of bush's policies ... Dean should have shown an awareness and a sensitivity that many in the Party were going to be alienated by the Party's strong support for bush's occupation ... it is his failure to have done so that is his measure ...

[cestpaspossible]

44. Kucinich errs, but it's Dean's fault

:rofl:

[ultraist]

47. "admit it: Dean is failing to unify the Party"

That is a premature judgement and totally unfair after only a short time on the job. Get real.

Uniting the party does NOT mean that there will be no degrees in how strongly one supports or doesn't support a policy. Dennis is far left on many issues yet supports the party in general.

We NEED some diversity in the party, people like Dennis and those who are a bit more conservative, as long as they don't cross the line into Republican lite, as DEAN stated.

[Larkspur]

92. Dean has been doing a great job as DNC chair..

he's been helping states, especially "Red" states setup a statewide infrastructure to get the Dem message out and help find Dem candidates to challenge Repukes.

What has Kucinich done to help Dems develop a strategy and team to defeat Repukes nationwide? Oh, that's right, Kucinich only represents his little district in Ohio and that's all that matters to him. Kucinich doesn't even seem to have enough influence to help turn the Buckeye state "blue" let alone the rest of the nation.

Regarding Dean and policy -- the Hill Dems -- Sen. Reid and Rep Pelosi -- warned Dean not to set policy. He's pretty well done that. The confusion in the Dem ranks has to do with the Congressional leadership, not Dean per se.

What Dean has been saying regarding Iraq is on par with what he has said during the Primary campaign. He was never totally anti-war and he said so publicly. Only Kucinich and his supporters tried to falsely claim that Dean was totally anti-war and then reneged on it.

During the primary campaign, Dean said that the President takes a solemn oath to defend this nation and that defense may require the use of the military. Dean also said that he would send in troops to help with humanitarian crises, but he would never lie to the American people why he would send troops into conflict. He was very consistant and adamant about that. Dean said that he had supported the 1991 Iraq war because Saddam had invaded Kuwait but he opposed the 2003 Iraq war because Bush never proved his case that Saddam was an imminent threat.

Kucinich never said anything about what the oath of President meant in regards to defense except to promote a Department of Peace that in reality would ended up be gutted by the following President. The Executive Office already has a Peace committee that Bush neutered quickly.

[Eloriel]

147. Definitely bears repeating:

He was never totally anti-war and he said so publicly. Only Kucinich and his supporters tried to falsely claim that Dean was totally anti-war and then reneged on it.

MuseRider says she "never got the memo," but there were DK's public pronouncements, including lots and lots of personal campaign stops and appearances -- and at least ONE televised debate I remember where he totally misrepresented Dean.

Altho, now that I think about it, perhaps the DK supporters here at DU who all seemed to have the same anti-Dean rhetoric (very heated, very anti-Dean, very resentful and vitriolic, etc.) were organized? Maybe DK wasn't quite as responsible for all the anti-Dean rhetoric by his supporters as people (including volunteers) in his campaign -- a bit like the Clarkies? Worth considering. It doesn't get him off the hook, tho. I heard enough of DK's misrepresentations of Dean myself to not let him off the hook.

[Larkspur]

137. Here's an example of Dean helping to unify the Dem Party

Dean: The Chairman's Colorful Cabinet http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9647

Question: What do Branch Rickey, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Howard Dean have in common?

Answer: Each of them made a decision to break the color barrier by picking African Americans for key spots on their teams. Rickey, of course, signed Jackie Robinson to the Dodgers. Clinton appointed Ron Brown as the first African American to head the Commerce Department and Franklin Raines as the first black Office of Management and Budget Director (among others). Bush has followed in that tradition by naming African Americans as national-security adviser and twice as secretary of state -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Rice again, respectively.

And Dean?

Dean recently joined this notable list when he brought Cornell Belcher on as the first African American to serve as polling director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Not sure hiring Belcher is as significant as recruiting Robinson, Brown, Raines, Powell, or Rice? Well, consider this: There are five indispensable people in any campaign organization -- the campaign manager, who vets all decisions; the finance director, who figures out how to pay for the enterprise; and the media adviser, the research director, and the pollster, who decide what the campaign will talk about, what its vulnerabilities are, and how to defend against them. Political director and field director are also key positions, but it is the “Indispensable Five” who typically gather to make most of the major decisions of any campaign organization. Inexplicably, despite the necessity of African American support for Democratic victories, almost none of these senior decision-makers are ever black.

WesDen's thread on this American Propect article at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=132x1762476

[LittleClarkie]

145. You mean he's NOT God?

It's been what, 4 months?

We give football coaches more time to build a team than we're willing to give our Chairman.

Geez louise, give the man a honeymoon, already!

And IF he's failing to unify the party, it's because there are forces that are working against that unification, acting as if Dean and his war stance is a flip/flop. It was not. He has never been a step or two away from Kerry or Edwards or most of our previous nominees. He framed it differently than they did, and was more plain speaking about his stance. But what you see is what he is, and always has been.

It is a false issue and divisive.

[Eloriel]

148. Thank you VERY much -- also bears repeating, big time

And IF he's failing to unify the party, it's because there are forces that are working against that unification, acting as if Dean and his war stance is a flip/flop.

Pretty good plan, eh? Create a conflict, make it something that lionizes you among the hardcore liberal base while demonizing your arch rival -- no matter if it's a lie, it's a lie you've gotten away with before among your own supporters who are all just too damn eager to not only believe it but REPEAT it -- and then get your minions to spin it as a failure of Dean's to unify the party. IOW, destabilize the base with your lies about Dean and then blame the disunity on Dean.

Dear God, the Republicans could hardly do as well at creating wedge issues for Dems.

Why is Dennis Kucinich doing this? Why are his supporters joining in?

[LittleClarkie]

167. I suspect Kucinich's intentions are honest enough

For the life of me, I can't picture our former lawn gnome of a candidate having minions. It just doesn't compute.

I suspect some of his, shall we say, "greener" supporters might feel different about Democratic Party unity however.

[welshTerrier2]

152. a popular form of argument

is to exaggerate your adversary's point to push his arguments over the edge ... no one called for Dean to be "God" ... no one demanded "perfection" from Dean ... no one said that he should have every little problem solved in just four short months ...

my post acknowledged that he's only been in this role a short time ... your post did not acknowledge my acknowledgment ...

i wrote: and don't give me the "he's only been there four months argument" either ... the measure is not whether all necessary changes have already been successfully implemented ... the Party is being ripped apart, think 1968, by the occupation and the establishment Democrats' support of bush's policies ... Dean should have shown an awareness and a sensitivity that many in the Party were going to be alienated by the Party's strong support for bush's occupation ... it is his failure to have done so that is his measure ...

what was called for in my post was that Dean, right at the time the fucking Senate Dems sold many of us down the river by giving bush exactly what he wanted, should have shown "an awareness and a sensitivity" to the millions of moderate and left-wing Democrats who realize bush only wants to prolong this "war" ... that doesn't require some kind of long-term master plan ... it requires the courtesy of an acknowledgment that many feel alienated by the vote cast by the Senate Dems ... perhaps Dean should have offered to meet with those who oppose the Party's current position ... perhaps he should have encouraged all Senate Dems to return to their districts to explain why they were going to vote to give bush more money ... perhaps Dean should have supported Kerry's campaign position about no more military bases ...

the point is if he wants to heal the rift, which appears to be growing very wide very quickly, he should have said something other than "we're stuck in Iraq" ... it didn't take him too long to open his mouth to say that ...

[LittleClarkie]

171. 1. You're not my adversary

2. I may occasionally use sarcasm or humor on occasion to make a point. My mind doesn't work in the way that you describe. And I don't argue by using tactics and strategies. I just state my point of view, and try to make it as clear as possible

3. I still think some folks had an unrealistic idea of what Howard was going to be able to do, and how fast. I think he's doing fine. And I still think that this is much ado about something that is old news.

[Boo Boo]

11. Boy, talk about making an ass out of yourself

This is a pretty embarrassing graf:

"Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?"

He ought to know off-hand, if not the precise number, then at least that it was more than one. Of course, there's always the Internet... And it certainly isn't the first time he's played fast and loose with his characterizations of other's positions. Not sure if he should apologize, though, unless he feels bad for trying to undermine the DNC Chairman, which is frankly pretty fucking stupid. Ever hear of a telephone, Dennis? Still playin' to the peanut gallery?

On the other hand, Dean still has a little room for improvement when it comes to choice of words. "I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." is perhaps a tad over the top, eh? I mean, it's not too hard to think of aspects of Bush's Iraq policy that I won't support under any circumstances. There's got to be a better way of positioning the Dems on this issue.

In any case, I have a hard time accepting that a Congressman should resort to open letters in order to communicate with the Chairman of the DNC. It'd be a little tough to swallow even if he did get his facts straight.

[madfloridian]

13. Dean was using hyperbole.

I can not believe that folks on the left did not pick up on that as an exaggerated statement.

:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

15. yeah, the left never should take Dean literally

hyperbole??? are you serious ???

Dean said: "I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now."

i suppose, if i had "picked up on it", that i'd understand that Dean actually meant "I hope the President is somewhat successful with his policy now."

or if i were a really high functioning lefty, i would have understood Dean to mean that "I hope the President is a teensy weensy bit successful with his policy now."

or if I were a Dean groupie and held the left in the highest disdain, perhaps I would have understood Dean's "hyperbole" to have actually meant: "I hope the President fails miserably with his policy now."

please have mercy on us lefties; we often fall into the trap of thinking that when a national spokesperson for the Party talks on the national stage and says he hopes the President is "incredibly successful", he's doing it to send exactly that message to the American people ... he's apparently very clever to be saying one thing but actually meaning something else ... thanks for clearing that up ...

[Capn Sunshine]

23. How cavalier you are with the lives of our troops

Why WOULDN'T you hope for the best outcome, once committed?

Why are you implying this makes you pro war?

If you fly your plane into a thunderstorm, even though a lot of people wished you wouldn't does expressing hope for a safe trip mean you are pro plane crash?

Your house of mirrors logic belongs at the carnival where much of the argument for this line of thought seeems to have sprung, courtesy of those meth smoking carnies who will be leaving town on Monday.

[welshTerrier2]

29. ahhh, the lives of the troops ...

let's see ... bush's policy is clearly to prolong the occupation ... democrats in the Senate just voted to give him the funds so he could do that ... the troops have to remain in a hostile country where polls recently showed a heavy majority of Iraqis want the US out (if you want to see the poll i'll go look for it) ...

now, first of all, you didn't really state your position about whether you agree with Dean that "we're stuck in Iraq" ... i guess you like to just attack others without stating your own thoughts on the issue ... or should i infer that because you're critical of my position, you take the opposite view?

you, sir, are the one with the cavalier attitude about the troops ... the truth is, and i doubt you'll admit this, if Dean had called for withdrawal you would now be peddling that position ... wouldn't you? or are you honestly going to maintain that you would be on here questioning Dean's judgment? sorry, captain, that's just not credible ... the problem with those who blindly follow leaders is that they are blind ...

to suggest that i have a cavalier attitude about the troops is nonsense ... there's nothing cavalier about wanting to bring the troops home!!! there's plenty cavalier about keeping them in a hostile occupation to further bush's corporate agenda solely for perceived political gain ...

[Capn Sunshine]

34. No. I'm there now

I favor complete unilateral withdrawal of our troops. So does Howard Dean. To imply as you do that he supports Bush's War is disingenuous. It verges on lyigg except I'm sure you wouldn't intentionally lie about such an important issue. It was Kerry, among others who just voted that funding into place. So I'd say the insiders in DC would be the problem, precisely why we sent Howard Dean there to try to fix this. But besides being anti- Dean in the snidest of ways, what's YOUR plan for complete withdrawal? It would Do you care about the effects of doing this badly? It would seem not. The difference is, Howard Dean has a PLAN to effect this, while most of the dancing monkeys around Karl Roves hurdy-gurdy just want to get another peanut.

[welshTerrier2]

63. Dean sets the same condition bush sets

Howard Dean "CONDITIONALLY" favors the "unilateral withdrawal of our troops" ... you are the one being disingenuous ... Howard Dean refuses (feel free to correct this point) to call for any sort of timetable for withdrawal ... isn't bush's stated position that we have to stabilize Iraq and then we can leave ... isn't Dean's call for the "unilateral withdrawal of our troops" predicated completely on meeting bush's stated objective??? how long is Dean willing to wait? one year? five? ten?

and so i ask you again to clarify your own position ... i ask you again because you didn't state whether your call for "complete unilateral withdrawal" was conditional ... are you calling for immediate withdrawal? are you calling for near-term withdrawal? are you calling for no longer than one year withdrawal? or are you saying that after we "win" we can leave ... because if it's the last choice, i call that supporting the continued occupation of Iraq ...

you stated: It was Kerry, among others who just voted that funding into place. So I'd say the insiders in DC would be the problem, precisely why we sent Howard Dean there to try to fix this. ... well, if i gave the impression, or worse yet stated, that i thought the whole thing was Dean's fault, i profusely apologize ... i am disgusted by every Democrat who has empowered and funded bush to continue his criminal occupation of Iraq ... and that most certainly includes Senator Kerry ...

you asked about my plan for complete withdrawal ... the primary view i hold is, that with bush in office, anything the US does in Iraq will be done solely for the benefit of his corporate friends ... and it's not just about oil; it's about colonial power ... bush is building an empire to help his corporate friends exploit every country in the world ... given this view, whether you agree with it or not, absolutely no fucking good will come from anything that our military is being used for ... i have no quibble with those who value stability and democracy in Iraq; both are honorable goals ... neither will occur with bush in power ... that's the problem i see ... you just can't get there from here ... so what's my plan?

we should push as hard as we can to convince the public (many of whom already believe this) that the occupation of Iraq is not right ... democracy cannot be achieved by military means ... and stability could take another ten years or more if US troops remain in Iraq ... and if the masses demand withdrawal, we should push for a UN-supported regional negotiation among all interested parties in Iraq ... dialog is not possible with the overbearing presence of the US military ...

[CWebster]

35. No, but you might want to fly out of the storm.

You know what I mean, Capt?:hi:

[Eloriel]

149. Oh, I get it.

You are firmly in the "no way Dean can win in my eyes, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" camp.

No, what Dean meant is that he hopes Bush is successful -- that we can manage to create soemthing approaching a democracy (cough, sputter), that we can get Iraq propped up to manage itself, and get the hell OUT of there. That's what he meant.

Sheesh.

[welshTerrier2]

153. no, you don't get it ...

what bush is trying to do in Iraq is establish a permanent US presence in the Middle East ... what bush is trying to do in Iraq is trying to provide a source of colonial revenues to his corporate friends ... what bush is doing in Iraq is trying to establish a puppet government that will bend to his will ...

if Dean, and you, believe that bush is trying to achieve the noble goals you outlined (democracy, self-management - and i would add a rebuilt infrastructure), someone does not "get it" at all ...

[Boo Boo]

16. Well, I suppose if I was there, and he was

making a funny face or something, but I can't really tell from the quote there that Dean is being sarcastic.

Although, I don't have trouble believing that he would be! :)

[madfloridian]

17. Hyperbole: definition of

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/general/glossary.htm#h

hyperbole (hi-per-bo-lee): an extravagant exaggeration. From the Greek for "overcasting," hyperbole is a figure of speech that is a grossly exaggerated description or statement. In literature, such exaggeration is used for emphasis or vivid descriptions. In drama, hyperbole is quite common, especially in heroic drama. Hyperbole is a fundamental part of both burlesque writing and the “tall tales” from Western America. The conscious overstatements of these tales are forms of hyperbole. Many other examples of hyperbole can be found in the romance fiction and comedy genres. Hyperbole is even a part of our day-to-day speech: ‘You’ve grown like a bean sprout’ or ‘I’m older than the hills.’ Hyperbole is used to increase the effect of a description, whether it is metaphoric or comic. In poetry, hyperbole can emphasize or dramatize a person’s opinions or emotions.

[welshTerrier2]

18. ahhh, i see ... so the left failed to understand that ...

when Dean stated he hoped bush's policy was "incredibly successful", he was using either "romantic fiction" or a "comedy genre" ...

well, that certainly clears things up ...

thanks for providing the definition ...

[Eloriel]

151. No, you keep trying to make Dean a liar, don't you? It won't work

hyperbole does NOT mean that the spoken words meant the opposite. Read the definition again:

hyperbole (hi-per-bo-lee): an extravagant exaggeration. From the Greek for "overcasting," hyperbole is a figure of speech that is a grossly exaggerated description or statement. In literature, such exaggeration is used for emphasis or vivid descriptions. In drama, hyperbole is quite common, especially in heroic drama. Hyperbole is a fundamental part of both burlesque writing and the “tall tales” from Western America. The conscious overstatements of these tales are forms of hyperbole. Many other examples of hyperbole can be FOUND in the romance fiction and comedy genres. Hyperbole is even a part of our day-to-day speech: ‘You’ve grown like a bean sprout’ or ‘I’m older than the hills.’ Hyperbole is used to increase the effect of a description, whether it is metaphoric or comic. In poetry, hyperbole can emphasize or dramatize a person’s opinions or emotions.



Edited to make the point of some of my added emphasis above a little clearer. This sentence:

Many other examples of hyperbole can be FOUND in the romance fiction and comedy genres.

does NOT mean that the hyperbolic statement or descriptions ARE "fiction or comedy" but that hyperbole is often found in the literary genres known as romance fiction and comedy. (No wonder you're having problems understanding what Dean says and means.)

[welshTerrier2]

155. Dean a liar ???

i have neither said, nor implied, nor do i think that Dean is a liar ...

the BP'er indicated that Dean's statement that he hopes bush is "incredibly successful" in Iraq was hyperbole; my statement was that i took Dr. Dean at his word ...

i think Dean meant exactly what he said; your suggesting that i'm calling him a liar is absurd ...

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[dweller]

160. she is following the definition given above by

mf explaining HD's 'hyperbole'.

is mf calling HD a liar also?

:shrug:

dp

[welshTerrier2]

163. i believe it was another poster who said Dean used "hyperbole"

one might consider hyperbole an "intentional distortion of the truth" ... isn't that sort of the point of using "hyperbole" ...

i did not provide the definition of "hyperbole" that included the phrase you highlighted ... the BP'er did ... to say that it is i who suggested Dr. Dean is lying seems a wee bit disingenuous to me ... i think you'd better take up your allegation with the BP'er ...

[goodhue]

19. Oct 11, 2002

Not sure an apology is in order, but
the record should be corrected.
Oct 11, 2002 vote was indeed 77-23.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
However, doesn't really alter point of letter.

Dean did campaign on an "antiwar theme" broadly speaking in that he campaigned against vote for war in iraq, and he was certainly reported as antiwar. He did not advocate troop withdrawal, however.

[madfloridian]

20. Not true: Dean campaigned on an "anti-Iraq-war" theme.

Don't make me do your research. He always said he was not anti-war if the country's security was at stake.

Do your homework.

[welshTerrier2]

24. more word games ...

this is the new little "toy" i see being employed by the right-wing of the Democratic Party ...

the poster very clearly stated: "Dean did campaign on an "antiwar theme" broadly speaking in that he campaigned against vote for war in iraq"

the new little game from the Party's right-wing is to play word games with the term "anti-war" ... there was no intent whatsoever from this poster to convey the idea that Dean opposes ALL WARS ... we are currently fighting a "war" (well, actually an occupation) in Iraq ... that was the CONTEXT OF THE POST ... to twist that and chastise the poster "don't make me do your research" and "do your homework" is demeaning when it was you who clearly twisted the poster's intent ...

perhaps the poster was just using "hyperbole" ... that seems to make everything OK with you, doesn't it ???

[Eloriel]

156. You're the one playing word games here

The whole point of this ENTIRE thread is that Dean's position has been misrepresented by Dennis Kucinich, and I am more and more believing that DK knows exactly what he's doing, but in any case he SHOULD know better. DK is chastising Dean for changing his position when Dean has NOT changed his position. The whole argument rests on the meaning of the term "anti-war." DK is charging Dean represented himself as "anti-war" but now has changed, when in fact Dean has ALWAYS represented himself as anti-Iraq-war.

Madfloridian responded to a poster who, while technically accurate in his statement, is unfortunately confusing the issue unnecessarily by blending and conflating the two meanings of "anti-war," which has the unfortunate effect of making DK's LIE about Dean not seem like a lie, or perhaps not that egregious a lie.

And so here YOU come, you who are doing poorly in this debate, piling on wanting to confuse the issue and conflate the two meanings of "anti-war." Sorry, not going to let you get away with that.

[ultraist]

32. That's how I interpreted the statement as well.

Put the statement in context, it was referring to "during the campaign" as noted. Dean DID campaign on an anti-war theme. The ONLY war that was really being talked about during the campaign was the Iraq war and Dean talked a lot about it.

What did Dean say PRIOR to the Iraq war?

Byrd nailed it early on:

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

Dennis DOES need to correct his statement about only one Senator voting against the IWR but I'm not so sure he owes Dean an apology.

As far as wishing the President success with his policy, why didn't Dean say, "the President's policy is NOT WORKING and it needs to be changed?"

WHO and WHEN is someone going to start talking about an EXIT STRATEGY? 67% of Americans feel that going to war in Iraq was a MISTAKE. Congress needs to WAKE UP and LISTEN to their constituents.

[goodhue]

33. But what of 1991 vote?

Can anyone find that roll call?

[madfloridian]

41. He was anti-Iraq war.

No, he did not campaign as anti-war. That is just being disingenous.

This is childish to say this. I guess I will have to go back through some transcripts of public appearances.

I will get back to you soon on this. I am tired of his position being questioned when he was perfectly honest about it all along.

I should not have to do the homework for Kucinich or for his supporters who are denying the reality of what it is about.

You guys should do your own homework.

[Totally Committed]

21. Kucinich has always been a man of integrity...

and honor. If he feels the right thing to do is apologize, I'm sure he'll do it.

TC

[madfloridian]

22. Howard Dean has always been a man of integrity and honor.

He does not deserve this.

[Totally Committed]

31. I totally agree, madfloridian...

that's why I think Kucinich will step up to the plate and correct his miss-speak ASAP. I really do.

TC

[Capn Sunshine]

25. Not to start a primary war

But what kind of integrity was shown in Iowa when they lined up D's troops for pro-war Edwards to stick the shiv in Howard Dean?

Not a lot. It broke my heart to see politics as usual from someone who I thought was above that.

[ultraist]

37. WHAT are you talking about?

Edwards was NOT "pro war." He voted for the IWR, which I do believe was a MISTAKE and he as much said that. He stated that had he had ALL of the info, which they did not, since Bush fucking LIED, he would have considered it differently. During the NY primary debate, he AND Kerry explained their votes when asked if they regretted their votes.

Furthermore, Edwards didn't do anything negative toward Dean during the primaries. THAT accusation is total BS.

[Larkspur]

86. I don't recall Edwards ever apologizing for the war and Edwards excuse for

voting for it is more hollow than Kerry's. Two thirds of the House Dems voted against it and 23 senators, including a couple Repukes, voted against IWR, so what info was Edwards looking for?

[Eloriel]

159. I definitely want a link for that -- it's the ONE THING keeping me from

thinking positively about Edwards. Everything else about him would make him my number 2 choice behind Dean. If you have links, it will make a HUGE difference in how I and I'm sure many others thinks about Edwards.

Furthermore, Edwards didn't do anything negative toward Dean during the primaries. THAT accusation is total BS.

Uhhhh, he made a deal with Kucinich to trade Iowa caucus voters instead of letting them go to Dean. IMO, that's pretty negative towards Dean. (I keep wondering what kind of smooth talking from that silver tongue trial lawyer got Dennis to agree to something like that -- or what kind of promise.) BTW, I also consider such a deal profoundly anti-democratic. I kind of a really old fashioned attitude about such things: if it's a vote that The People are supposed to have, I want those votes pure and un-manipulated.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. When someone you like does it they are 'misspeaking'

When someone you don't like does it, they are lying.

[ultraist]

53. LOL!

Yes, but is that really so unreasonable? Usually, we LIKE people that we can trust and give those we trust the benefit of the doubt.

Had such a statement come from Bush, I would assume he was lying because he has a long track record of lying. Dennis doesn't.

[Eloriel]

161. Dennis DOES have a track record of misrepresenting Dean

tho.

[saracat]

170. And Dean misrepresents DK as well! Big deal.

These are grown men. Let them fight their own battles. Howard doesn't need anyone to defend him, and neither does Dennis! Neither of these guys are perfect or saints.They are politicains and no better than any other pols. Let them fix this for themselves.It isn't anyone's business.I am positive Dean could care less and Dk has probably already fixed his facts on the vote.Other than that, you can't censor an opinion.

[tishaLA]

27. Rep. Kucinich made a mistake

about the number of Senators who voted against IWR. If I were one of the other twenty senators who voted against it, I'd wish Mr. Kucinich had remembered my vote, but I don't think his statement was meant to slight anyone. I'm sure he and/or The Nation will acknowledge his error and try to correct it. But there is no need to apologize.

[MikeDuffy]

28. Wellstone was the only senator to vote against 1st Iraq war n/t

[goodhue]

30. good point

no correction necessary

[KoKo]

49. Not Correct....John Kerry voted against Gulf War I....here's the snip:

Senate's Role In Wars With Iraq

Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.”

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nOPQzOuzrVgJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml+John+Kerry+voted+against+Gulf+War&hl=en

[MikeDuffy]

97. My mistake, I should have remembered it was a close vote

rather than relying on a quick (and unverified) Google search. It was Senate Joint Resolution 2, passed 52-47. For details:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00002

[welshTerrier2]

38. did Kucinich REALLY SAY THIS ???

the link provided in the BP (repeated below) does not contain the text provided in the BP ... the words: the only senator to vote against the war are not shown at the link provided !!!!

check it out for yourself here ==> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich

1. Kucinich said the words but acknowledged his error and the story was changed
2. the words were reported (by the reporter) in error and the story was corrected
3. you shouldn't believe everything that gets posted on DU

take your pick folks ...

the bottom line is that the Party is tearing apart, the hostilities are getting worse, the leadership seems to be unable to get the rift under control and bush's occupation rages on with the full support of both parties ... if there is going to be a Democratic tide in 2006, this shit better start getting patched up soon ... the current direction doesn't hold much promise ... the Party's "here's our vote and tough shit if you don't like it" strategy seems to have alienated a few people, doesn't it ???

[goodhue]

42. You're right, the statement is not in the letter as published!

eom

[KoKo]

52. It's not on the Nation site....that quote.

[goodhue]

39. Anna Quindlen on Wellstone vote

http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=4599&catID=7

" last major legislative act was to vote against the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. He was the sole Democrat in the Senate facing a significant election challenge to do so. . ."

[goodhue]

40. sole Democrat in the Senate facing a significant election challenge

!

[Larkspur]

111. That's a far different statement than saying that Wellstone was the only

senator to vote against IWR. True, Wellstone was facing a tight race and his courage to vote against IWR helped turn the tide and polls showed him with a double digit lead over Coleman about a week before his untimely and tragic death.

[cestpaspossible]

46. WTF? follow the link and the offending statement is not there!

madfloridian, where did you get this supposed quote?

[goodhue]

50. Indeed

eom

[CWebster]

54. It has been excised. I printed it out earlier.

Madfloridian is correct, though there must've been another vote on Iraq where Wellstone stood alone (as he often did) because there are other search references to it.

[CWebster]

48. Even if he said it

It is a blatant attempt to steer the point and not see the forest for the trees.

[KoKo]

51. MF....the Kuchinich letter is not as you quoted it in your post. "Nation"

site does not include this quote: "Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war,"

I don't know the text of his original letter but what the "Nation" has up does not say that.

:shrug:

[ultraist]

56. LMAO!!! HOW fucking ironic!

This part of Dennis' letter is right on target:

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

:applause:

[Larkspur]

139. And Dean said the same thing about Bush using lies and distortions

to get us into war, which is why Dean opposed it and why Dean opposed the rush to pass IWR. Dean had said that defeating Saddam militarily was the easy part, but managing post-Saddam Iraq was the real nightmare. Kucinich is preaching to the choir. He needs to go to Faux News and make this statement about Bush to the Neocon audience. Why hasn't Kucinich done that?

[Eloriel]

164. WHY WASN'T THIS SENT TO PELOSI & REID instead of Dean?

HOW FUCKING DISINGENOUS of Dennis Kucinich. It's all a lie, folks -- this has NO business going to Dean. None whatsoever. (Edited to add/clarify: "It's all a lie" means the whole silly game of sending this to Dean instead of Reid and Pelosi and a BUNCH of other Dems in Congress -- it's a stunt. Now we need to figure out WHY.)

Dean is out there raising money, trying to help build ORGANIZATIONS (not policy), and DK wants to distract him from that, divide the party unnecessarily, and do God knows what other harm.

WHY?

This is all VERY strange on DK's part. Is he delusional? Naive and ill-informed about what Dean's role is, according to Pelosi and Reid? And as someone else posted, why the hell doesn't he just pick up the phone and talk to Dean personally instead of make it some public argument and debate?

I have NO respect for this man left either. None. Nothing but pity and disgust.

[Larkspur]

87. It's posted on Commondreams.org now with that Kucinich quote

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-21.htm

[madfloridian]

90. Thank you, I saved that to computer as well.

I have never seen anything like this. The Nation and Yahoo edited all at once, yet not the Indy media sites and not Common Dreams.

I guess we need to find the common thread to show how that would happen.

I won't forget what I was accused of.

[Larkspur]

93. They just corrected Kucinich's letter on Commondreams

Don't lose your copy of the original.

[madfloridian]

94. I guess they edit Indy Media as well. Did they say correction?

I sure do have my copies on my hard drive. I also say thanks for your post elsewhere....so I guess I am covered from anyone saying I slandered or libeled.

I hope some others saved to their computers as well.

I don't like mass editing without their using the word Correction

[Larkspur]

95. Nope. Commondreams didn't put "Correction" on that page.

The new version is published as if it was the original copy.

[madfloridian]

99. If right wing media did that we would be irate.

That is The Nation, Yahoo, and Commondreams that have edited at this late date, and I am still getting blamed for posting the truth.

[Larkspur]

105. I posted a reply on the Indy media site which still has the error

Here's what I posted
Kucinich, fact check your letters before publishing them!
by Larkspur
"the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war,"

Kucinich needs to fact check his letters before he publishes them on the Internet. This error was on The Nation and Commondreams before a revised version overlayed this erroneous one without mentioning that a correction was being made. Guess that is Leftwing censorship. (I'm a moderate Democrat and secretary of my town's Dem Committee.)

Wellstone was 1 of 23 senators who voted against IWR and a couple of those senators were Republicans. Also two thirds of the House Democrats voted against IWR.

In regards to Dean and anti-war. During the primaries, Howard Dean never said that he was totally anti-war. He was against this Iraq war but supported the 1991 war. Dean also said that the President takes a solemn oath to protect this nation and part of that protection may mean using the military. Kucinich, as always, intentionally takes Howard Dean out of context.

In regards to Dean and Iraq, Dean's position is based upon the experience of Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal. Remember that Reagan and Bush I abandoned Afghanistan and by the following decade it had become a failed state and home base for Islamic terrorists, some of whom attacked this nation on 9-11-2001. What Dean is warning against is abandoning Iraq, like Reagon and Bush I did Afghanistan because Iraq is much closer to Europe and the Middle East than Afghanistan is. Again Kucinich shows his myopic vision.

[Larkspur]

117. They just corrected Kucinich's letter on Indy. New URL to new letter

New URL http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149374/index.php

And at least my comment is still there showing that there was a change to the letter.

[madfloridian]

132. It still says the same.

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there , we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?

I am exhausted. Heading out for while then to Meet-up tonight.

Can't keep up.

[Eloriel]

165. Good point. I guess poor journalism is now in vogue on the left too

Nobody to trust anymore.

[madfloridian]

115. Now it is back with the original. Magic

But I am still the bad guy. What a shame.

This is called manipulating.

[goodhue]

55. To be fair to madfloridian, looks like it may have been in earlier version

See version posted yesterday in Kucinich supporters group . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=272x507
I'm guessing the mistake was caught and corrected.

[ultraist]

60. Good catch! I'm glad they corrected the mistake.

I think Dennis' letter kicked ass!

[KoKo]

62. Thanks. What's going on here? Did Kucinich make the mistake or was

it typed wrong by someone? Did he say Wellstone was the only one who voted against it or not?

I hate to see this start up bad feelings between Dean and Kucinich supporters on this board.

I gave money to both of them. Because I thought they both had good ideas for the failing Democratic Party. I still think that.

[madfloridian]

64. I was accused unjustly of putting false data.

They edited it at The Nation.

I just posted it above. I am stunned.

[goodhue]

68. It was also edited in yahoo version . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/thenation/20050503/cm_thenation/20050516kucinich_1

You were indeed accused unjustly. I apologize for any role I played.
Statement clearly was in the e-mail distributed last night.
Not clear when it was corrected.

[KoKo]

71. Both Yahoo and the "Nation" misquoted the Kucinich letter????

This sounds intentional. But, were they quoting Kucinich's actual letter with the wrong info in it, or was it a tactic by someone to misquote his letter and it got picked up by both. I just can't believe the "Nation" would pick up a misquote and print it. That's a professional organization there...whereas Yahoo relies on AP, etc. and can easily be manipulated by whomever picks up a quote from the wires.

I think Madfloridian deserves and answer as well as the rest of us if this misquote is going around in what's supposed to be an actual Kucinich letter. If he made the mistake we should know that too. :shrug:

[goodhue]

74. I'm not entirely sure statement ever made Nation or Yahoo

But it clearly was in version distributed last night by e-mail.
It very well could have been corrected prior to publication.

[MuseRider]

75. E mail from

who? I did not get anything last night so I was wondering where it came from and if we can find out how this happened. K is always reliable to not make those kinds of mistakes and if anything does get through he is always there to correct it and I have not heard anything at all.

[goodhue]

83. Appeared in posts here on DU,

As well as in other forums. The posts were coming from Kucinich and/or PDA supporters.

See these DU posts . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3592698&mesg_id=3592698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=272x507


Also, e-mail with statement came across Kucinich 4 Prez yahoo group . . .

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kucinich4President/message/41782

Date: Tue May 3, 2005 4:09 pm
Subject: An Open Letter to Howard Dean from Dennis Kucinich

An Open Letter to Howard Dean Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich
1 hour, 20 minutes ago

Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state
of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you
were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're
there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly
successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from
the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the
Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar
theme? What's changed?

* * *

[MuseRider]

84. Thanks.

I appreciate it.

[welshTerrier2]

88. the Yahoo link is nonsense ...

if you look at the full URL, it points directly back to the Nation's website ...

also, all the links being posted by MF as alternate sources, e.g. Indy media, also post directly back to the Nation's website if you follow the chain of links back to the source article ...

so far, it appears the only source for the article is the Nation's website ... other listed websites do not prove that multiple sources have confirmed the original text of the letter ...

what we don't know is why the Nation edited their site ... it was either a reporting error or Kucinich misspoke ...

what we do know is that the BP has failed to acknowledge that Kucinich is speaking for millions of Democrats disgusted with the Party's support for bush's continued occupation ... if the Party's right-wing wants to continue to bury their heads in the Iraqi sands, I fear we are going to be suffering at the ballot box in 2006 ... and that is Dr. Dean's primary mission, isn't it ???

[KoKo]

69. MF...don't take it personally, fgs. But, when folks linked to the article

it didn't say what you quoted. Some felt it was worth pointing out. What I want to know was did he say that in his original letter, or not. And why would Nation put it up on the site then take it down. They aren't a blog site where typo's can be made and it wasn't a typo but totally wrong info about Senate Iraq Res. Vote.

I just want to get to the bottom of it.

:hug:

[madfloridian]

70. I would like to get to the bottom of it too.

All apologies accepted.

[madfloridian]

72. Well, I don't start things.

But this time he wrote a letter leaving out the wonderful NO votes of the 22 still living senators. And he again said Howard Dean pretended to be anti-war.

Yet, it is amazing that I am the bad guy here.

[tinanator]

57. shouldnt you apologize? yes you should

apologize. apologize... apologize!! APOLOGIZE!!!!
all this talk of apologies im gonna have to watch
A fish called Wanda!

[MuseRider]

58. LOL. n/t

[madfloridian]

73. I am waiting for yours.

Shame on you for thinking I would do that.

[tinanator]

85. you apologize for calling Dean "anti-war" and admit his distortions there

"Im the only anti-war candidate" (two lies in one!) and in spite of all that, you find time to try to smear Kucinich who would probably have a difficult time telling a lie.
shame on you.

[madfloridian]

91. Oh, wait. Kucinich edits his mistake...and I should apologize?

Ok, gotcha. Makes sense to me.

There are enough copies of the original now, so I am not concerned, just angry as hell.

[CWebster]

59. Getting Dean back for claiming he was the candidate

opposing the war.

Remember that?

[madfloridian]

61. My thanks to CWebster for saying I was not lying. Shame on the rest.

I don't even know what to say anymore here.

I did not make up the quote, and it is shameful. Thank goodness CWebster printed it off and was honest enough to say so.

Anyway someone in GD had called on it as well. I just noticed.

What are we becoming? Kucinich writes a letter with a huge error, and everyone goes after me.

Go figure.

[Eloriel]

162. Well, you WERE the messenger, after all

:evilgrin:

[NoPasaran]

65. I hereby sentence everyone

To write fifty times:
I will not jump on madfloridian's case

[madfloridian]

66. Thank you.

I am stunned.

[CWebster]

67. Though have to hand it to the good Dr

Even in the most back-handed way, an issue that was disappearing into the background, is back in the public debate.

[madfloridian]

76. I saved last night's post from The Nation to my hard drive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3592698&mesg_id=3592698

I did not save the article from The Nation, but I got my link from there.

I am giving up hope for us if this is what we are becoming.

[madfloridian]

77. And again, thanks CWebster for printing it off.

"It has been excised. I printed it out earlier."


"Madfloridian is correct, though there must've been another vote on Iraq where Wellstone stood alone (as he often did) because there are other search references to it."

I am still in shock. Utter shock.

[madfloridian]

78. Has anyone else written The Nation on this?

If a right wing website did it we would be furious.

[madfloridian]

79. Not yet edited at this Indy site.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1735846.php
Dear Chairman Dean,

"Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there , we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004."

[madfloridian]

80. I also saved this to my hard drive.

Still in shock. When the right wing does this we are irate. When the left wing does it, blame Madfloridian.

I will not forget.

[Larkspur]

81. I read this letter and it sounds like Kucinich has been drinking

or maybe he is just drunk on his own ego. This letter shows real sloppy research on Kucinich's part. Makes me hesitant to believe anything he says.

[madfloridian]

82. Another unedited site.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149374/index.php

Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there , we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004."

Saved to my hard drive.
Still shocked that I was accused. I will not forget.

[killbotfactory]

89. Dean ran on an anti-pottery breaking platform!

Now that Bush has gone and broken all the pottery, Dean says we wishes the president success in rebuilding! Damn that Dean and his hypocrisy! Burn the witch!

:eyes:

[jpgray]

96. Dean also misspoke about war votes... should he apologize?

Remember his "I'm the only candidate who was against the Iraq War" schtick? I don't remember you clamoring for apologies then. If you're going to apply favoritism and double-standards based on a candidate you hero-worship, then please go away. You're not interested in the misstatement any farther than it helps you defend Dean, and if that's the case I think this thread was posted in a nasty spirit unworthy of progressives in general. It isn't just about Dean, it's about the right policy. Kucinich was wrong, and he should acknowledge it. Dean has taken a stance many activists are uncomfortable with, and he is able to deal with that. I know he won't send out a missive asking Kucinich to apologize for one misstatement that was quickly corrected.

[madfloridian]

98. This is about 22 missing senators. This is about editing at late date.

This is about editing The Nation, Yahoo, and Common Dreams without saying "Correction".

How do you get that done? This is amazing to me. I am so sorry that is all you see. He called Dean an anti-war canidate, and Dean always said he wasn't. He said one senator voted against the war, and 23 did.

But you are making it about me. And I was actually accused on this thread of making up data. Doggone glad a lot of us have proof in case I am sued.

But you go ahead if you feel better.

[MuseRider]

101. Sued?

You are kidding right? Who is going to sue you? That is seriously an odd thing to worry about. You LOVE Dean, you post about him all the time. So you are upset, nobody expects you to react any other way so why would you worry about being sued?

[madfloridian]

103. Hypebole on my part as well.

See my definition above.

Again, notice the mindset of going after me, even though the issue is very serious now. 3 liberal websites have edited without comment after nearly a day. If a right wing news site did that we would be furious.

No, I do not love Dean. I respect and support what he is doing. I LOVE my husband and my five children, and I think you are being rude.

Hyberbole for those who never heard of it. That was what Howard Dean was doing at the ACLU, and it went over heads.

But go ahead, my skin is tough. I don't think liberal websites should edit like this either without saying so.

[MuseRider]

116. Look MF

I am probably the least rude person you would ever meet. For you to say that to me is somehow OK and not to be considered rude? I did not mean anything I said as rude but if that is how you want to take it that is OK I guess. Yes I do know what hyperbole means and nothing Dean has ever said has "gone over my head" but I have been frequently called someone who just "does not get it". I get it already I simply do not agree. Good thing your skin is tough since you seem to take any difference of opinion as an attack on you or Howard. Ok, you might take that as rude, maybe it was. Perhaps you might wait on all of this for a statement? Things do not always happen in the way we think they should or as quickly as they should. I am certain that if Kucinich made a mistake he will correct it with apologies. We all know that getting any kind of statement or report from a Democrat often takes a lot of time these days so perhaps we should all just relax and let it happen or not. THEN we can get all outraged over it.

[madfloridian]

118. Wait a minute. The Nation, CommonDreams are changing data again

I wonder why? I am sorry but I always liked Kucinich. I don't like being called the bad guy when a congressman makes a huge error like that and compounds it with saying the DNC chair ran on an anti-war platform, which he did not...just anti Iraq war.

Why am I getting the flak here?

[MuseRider]

120. I am certain that

I do not know why they are doing that. MAYBE it would do us all some good to wait and get an explanation instead of flinging crap at each other over it before hand?

About the flak? Good question.

[madfloridian]

123. I am not flinging crap. I spoke the truth.

A congressman made a huge mistake about the war vote, and I am damned tired of being accused of causing trouble.

The Nation and Common Dreams are now back to the original. I have had no apologies, and I am being accused of flinging crap.

Shame.

[MuseRider]

126. Look again.

I NEVER said YOU were flinging crap. We are ALL flinging crap at each other. A huge mistake? Right. I never asked for an apology from you and I would never expect one so RELAX. Jesus, this is really stupid. Did you actually read my post or just clue in on the accusations and run with it?

[madfloridian]

128. Liberal websites have twice switched data today.

This is not about me. It is not about you. It is bigger than that.

[MuseRider]

131. THAT IS EXACTLY

what I have been trying to say. We need to wait and STOP this stupid arguing until we know what is going on. All we have to do is ask and wait. I mean really, I don't know why I am wasting my time here on this.

[welshTerrier2]

109. arrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh ....

how many times are you going to list a bunch of sources that all tie back to the original article in The Nation ?????

the Yahoo link ties right back to the Nation's website as does the reference on Common Dreams ... you make it sound like the entire national press corps is out to get you ...

one article; one edit ... that's it ...

and of course, you continue to ignore the most important aspect of the Kucinich letter ... and that is that the Party is ripping apart over the occupation issue just like it did in the 1968 election ... Dean has obviously decided to completely ignore the millions of Democrats who have had it with bush's policies ... or have you seen him take actions that reach out to this very large community of Democrats ???

[Larkspur]

122. No Dean has not intentionally decided to ignore millions of Democrats

Dean had the courage to publicly oppose the war as a Prez candidate when 70% of the American public supported it and he's not afraid to tell his supporters what they don't want to hear if he feels it is something that they should wrestle with.

It's easy to say "pull-out" now that Bush's plans are obviously floundering, but there are consequences, both short and long term, for doing so and they need to be discussed as well as alternatives to pulling out immediately versus pulling out so that a multinational force can replace our troops and provide security for ordinary Iraqis. Maybe it is too late for a strategic withdrawal back by a multinational force. Maybe not. Unfortunately, as long as Bush and Cheney are in power, that discussion won't happen.

[madfloridian]

125. Are they still making the Kucinich mistake about Dean?

Ok, that figures.

[welshTerrier2]

136. totally unresponsive

what has Dean said, since the Party's vote to give bush an additional $81 billion, to show his sensitivity to the millions of Democrats who do not think bush's occupation of Iraq should continue??

here's a hint: he said that it should continue until the country is stabilized ... but isn't that exactly what bush is saying???

Dean's position (yes, he's been very consistent) speaks nicely to the Party's right-wing ... what's he offered to the rest of us on the occupation issue ??? your post did not say anything about that ... if Dean's goal is to help the Party win elections, he'd better get these hostilities between the Party's right-wing and the rest of us turned around really soon ...

and as to the issue of the "war" itself, those misguided souls who ascribe to the pottery barn theory (i.e. the "we're stuck there crowd") have gotten into bed with bush and the neo-cons ... any objectives defined to benefit the Iraqis must be viewed with the understanding that bush and cheney are in power and have no intention of serving anyone but their corporate friends ... their goal is to prolong the "war" as long as necessary until they can establish control over the new government and start milking those oil wells ... and again, it's not just about oil ... it's about regional control ... they don't just want Iraqi oil; they want colonial exploitation of the entire world ...

yes, there are consequences to pulling out now ... but letting the evil bush-cheney gang have their way makes no sense at all no matter how noble the goals some Democrats may seek for the Iraqi people ...

[Larkspur]

142. And how does Kucinich plan on combatting Bush-Cheney and the Repukes

who control Congress on Iraq?

Bush and Cheney have no plans to withdraw from Iraq as long as they and Repukes in Congress are in power. So what is Kucinich's brilliant plan to counter Bush and Cheney? Wait for 2008? I don't see Kucinich running around the nation helping to rebuild the Dem Party from the grassroots up.

In regards to the Iraqi spending bills, it's kind of a catch-22 for Dems because voting against the bills further endangers our troops, so how do you explain to the families of soldiers that you voted against those spending bills? It's a good thing to make a stand saying that the wealthy who got the bulk of the tax cuts should be forced to pay more in taxeas as long as we're in Iraq and to check where the money is going, but to just vote against the bills, when the Dems, including Kucinich, have no plan and no power to withdraw troops from Iraq, plays right into Repuke jingoism.

[welshTerrier2]

146. kucinich ???

is there some reason i'm expected to defend something Kucinich did or said? i do agree with his Iraq position, however, so i'll answer for him as best i can ...

on combatting bush-cheney: well, we might start by not voting with them ... will we "win" those votes as a minority party? ... of course not ... but what kind of message do we send to the American people when both parties seem to agree that bush is doing the right thing in Iraq??? how will things ever change if the "opposition party" refuses to "oppose" ????

as for where or whether Kucinich is running around to rebuild the Party, what are you asking me for??? i voted for Kucinich during the primaries; i am an issues-based Democrat; not a candidate groupie ...

as to voting for another $81 billion on top of some $200 billion on top of 3 years worth of $400 billion Pentagon budgets, when will enough be enough? the money is NOT going to the troops ... billions have been squandered; infrastructure funds were stolen and unaccounted for; and the troops still do not have the safety equipment they need ... is spending more when there's already been more than enough going to solve that problem? ... the troops are not a priority for bush; spending more only enables his hegemony ... and it keeps the troops in harms way fighting bush's corporate empire battles ...

and what could play more into "Repuke jingoism" than voting more money for "Repuke jingoism" ???

[Eloriel]

169. I've got some REALLY bad news for you

Dean's position (yes, he's been very consistent) speaks nicely to the Party's right-wing ... what's he offered to the rest of us on the occupation issue ???

IT'S NOT HIS FUCKING JOB TO DO THAT. WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THAT OF YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES? AND REID AND PELOSI?


your post did not say anything about that ... if Dean's goal is to help the Party win elections, he'd better get these hostilities between the Party's right-wing and the rest of us turned around really soon ...

He's busy building infrastructure in the form of state party organizations and so forth. Money, too. Those are pretty essential for winning elections as well.

Further, who says these "hostilities" are any of his business, his doing, or even anything he can do anything about? I think they're all mostly in YOUR head, a great big ole straw man which, if there's anything to it, you're helping create. Is that your goal, your purpose here? I'm beginning to wonder.

You and Congressman Kucinich could use a little bit of a DNC 101 orientation, methinks.

[Larkspur]

107. He was saying that long before Kucinch eve thought about entering the

Prez race.

Dean was wrong to say that after Kucinich entered the Prez race but not before.

[Eloriel]

168. So you refuse to take Dean's explanation /clarification

for that remark, or do you just not care, or you never heard it (despite the fact that it was repeated ad infinitum right here at DU whenever the subject came up)?

Dean said he was the only anti-(Iraq)-war candidate and later explained that he meant the only top tier candidate -- which is 100% true.

It pissed DK off, and he's such a petty little man he's STILL busy trying to exact some revenge and PURPOSEFULLY misrepresent Dean in the meantime. Such a petty little man that he can't bother picking up the telephone to talk to Dean personally about the matter, but has to make it all a public brouhaha. Such a petty little man that he has to make it an issue with someone who doesn't even have anything to do with it AND IGNORE THOSE WHO DO, LIKE REID AND PELOSI.

Such a pathetic, pitiful, petty little man he's lost absolutely ALL my respect and so, btw, has PDAmerica (for floating this little stunt a few days ago) and anyone who works for PDAmerica.

[madfloridian]

102. Here is the phone # for contacting The Nation.

In case anyone cares about 3 liberal websites editing without any comment after almost a day. Just in case.

212-209-5400

[PA Mamma]

104. Why Can't we support ...

What both Dean and Kucinich are doing?

Dean's Chair of the DNC can't be a bad thing can it?

Appealing to him to listen to Us can't be bad either?

Am I just totally out of it or what? :shrug:

Because it seems that simple, to me, anyway.

Voicing our concerns is Vital. And Dissent is GOOD -- Right?

The more we fight the more they win.

[madfloridian]

108. I DID support both.

We were among the first to call Kucinich's office and ask him to run. I don't like what is happening on this thread. I don't like being accused. I don't like liberal news sites changing data without explaining after nearly a day.

[Larkspur]

110. Because Kucinich was intentionally distorting Dean's position so we have

a right to respond to Kucinich. Freedom of Speech also means that Kucinich can be criticized.

[PA Mamma]

119. Yes, that true...

we have a right to critcize (and we should - all of them,)
But we should never lose sight of holding together.

We need to keep a healthy perspective on priorites.

[saracat]

133. Kucinich might have his vote count wrong, but he isn't distoring Dean's

position. He campaigned with Dean. He knows his position better than we do! He should correct any factual errors but he doesn't have to correct his opinion.

[saracat]

112. Gag! So Kucinich is wrong on the vote count. He should correct that

but he doesn't have to apologize about Dean. Dean WAS that anti war candidate.Sheesh, all his supporters made a big deal about that and so did he. This is just like when Dean said he thought choice and abortion should be eliminated from the Democratic lexicon.Some of his supporters wouldn't acknowledge he even said it. He did. And he is catering to the red states at the expense of the others.All that is happening is that Dean is showing himself to be the moderate he always was.Dean was never a liberal.He just allowed himself to be sold that way in order to get votes!
Dean is a politician, no better or worse than the others.He shouldn't be "sainted" and people to have the right to criticize.Big deal.And there is absolutely no reason for any of us to get involved in whether Kucinich should apologize.That is not our business.That would be between Dean and Kucinich. I'll bet Dean doesn't want an apology, as it would make this more obvious. I think anyone who demands an apology in his name is presumptuous!

[jpgray]

113. I'm willing to give Dean pretty good slack on this

He's DNC chair, and his goal in my view is to change the money base from corporate to voting public--he hasn't had anything too egregious in pursuit of that so far.

[Cha]

172. You know what, saracat...it WAS a BIG DEAL

that Dean was anti-Iraq Invasion..we were estactic that someone with Dean's creditials was against bush's deadly folly!

[madfloridian]

114. It's Baaack! The Nation has it back again. It's magic.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?

Like magic.

[madfloridian]

121. And Common Dreams changed it back to how it was as well.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-21.htm

Back and forth, back and forth.

[goodhue]

127. ???

The disputed statement is not currently there.
In what sense is "it" back?

[welshTerrier2]

157. is your browser caching the old page ???

i don't see the text you posted in the base post ...

try hitting your "refresh" button to see if you have the current version of the page ...

[killbotfactory]

134. the statement is in the google cache for yahoo news

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Uuz0fqHXoUYJ:dailynews.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050503/cm_thenation/20050516kucinich

The current version has been changed.

WTF?

[KoKo]

154. Says to me somebody is trying to sabotage Kucinich or Kucinich didn't

check the letter he typed out to "challenge" Dean that would be picked up by Liberal Websites all over the Net...

What other explanation can there be? Whatever this is there's something
"odd" or "worse" going on. And, that innocent people like Madfloridian get caught up in it, or anyone else who saw the first press release with that terrible mistake that Wellstone was the only person who voted against Senate Iraq Resolution..does make one wonder who's behind it. :shrug:

(Qualify: I gave money and time to both candidates (Dean & Kucinich)...couldn't make up my mind and knew from the beginning that Kerry would be the nominee..just because I've been around politics for awhile)

[Moderator]

173. locking since the OP "quote" has been debunked n/t