|
in other places. One fellow wrote up a blog entry about all this with no supporting links to the quotes he chose to use, and put his own interpretation into all of it. Near drove me bonkers because supporters began to ask if the blogger was right.
Ok, the Iraq Liberation Act- I've read this bill through, partly because I was a bit concerned about the vote myself, and partly because I wanted to know exactly what Kucinich voted FOR. Nowhere in that piece of legislation is there any mention at all of using military force to remove Hussein from power. It's all cooperative with the UN and other Nations which would be affected by a regime change. I found it to be a well-thought out and well-written bill which calls for removal of a dictator by peaceful means.
The Sanctions against Iraq- Kucinich being a compassionate human being has always been troubled by the inclusion of humanitarian needs in sanctions. He's called for revisions to remove those needs in the past and did so because he genuinely cared about the Iraqi people who were most affected by those types of sanctions. He knew they weren't going to hurt Hussein or his family, only the poor, the old and the weak members of Iraqi society. My personal belief is that the UN endorses the use of sanctions like these to anger the people and spur them to overthrow their own fascist government. What they don't seem to understand is that people who are sick, starving and dehydrated aren't going to be in any conditon to stage a civil war.
Now, when he spoke of maintaining the sanctions in the interview, it was stated as a clear, already functioning alternative to invasion. He did not at any time say he fully supported all the sanctions in place at the time, only that he supported sanctions over war.
The Gulf War- Two factors come into play with Bush Sr.s war vs Junior's war. One, in 1991 we were ASKED to assist in repelling an invasion by Iraq into Kuwait, and we had the support of many other nations and the UN. What that tells Kucinich is that it was a cooperative effort and that nations directly affected by the situation believed this was a just cause to fight for. We already knew what kind of man Hussein was (or at least our Goverment did) because we put him in power. It was the only moral thing to do to stop him taking over an innocent neighboring country when we gave him the power to do so.
With Junior's war, we've pretty well defied international law, ignored the pleas of millions of people world-wide and acted as a vicious invading force for no reason whatsoever, and with no support. Support Bush and Co KNEW we would need in order to ever be successful to his ends and to eventually leave the country with a new, more reliable puppet regime. It was wrong to start and we must eat some crow and get out. The world deserves some humility and regret from America.
Military response to Sept. 11th- First things first, there was NO target country named in that legislation anywhere. Number two, the vote was called for a mere 3 days after the attacks took place. Most of the country was still in a state of shock, and we had barely begun hearing suggestions about Bin Laden being the mastermind. The sole question posed in that bill was *Were the attacks perpetrated on Sept 11th sufficent to warrant a military response?*. Kucinich said yes, with the belief that such a response would only be carried out when the evidence was there to prove another nation or government planned or condoned those attacks. His floor speech called for the use of caution in making that decision, and that he voted merely on the grounds that the United States Government had an obligation to defend itself and its citizens.
Next, the gay marriage issue- My thinking is this, it's distinctly possible he believed in 1996 that Americans weren't accepting enough of the GLBT community to accept such legislation. Equally possible is that he opposed the bill from the concern that it could result in more hate crime against homosexual couples, and now after taking time to consider the position he's decided that risk is best left to individuals to decide. I really don't know why or when he changed his mind about same sex unions, but I do believe him to be honorable and trustworthy, and I believe he's merely had time to consider these older positions and see a different perspective. I have to say I've come to accept things as I aged and considered my positions that I previously opposed and, I see no reason to begrudge my candidate the same opportunity. This is also why I don't attack Howard Dean based on his previous decisions as a Governor. He's entitled to change his position over time and with due consideration.
Hope this helps, even without the links you asked for.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
