Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kucinich on the war in '02

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:39 PM
Original message
Kucinich on the war in '02
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 01:50 PM by MOB
Well ok, Kucinich was right about the war in '02. But so was Bob Graham. In fact, Bob Graham was even *more* correct about his criticism on Hezbollah. So where are the accolodes for Bob?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. link?
please explain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Here's a great link to DK's 2002 stance:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Pat...

Can't get much more accurate than that.
:headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. And don't forget Hezbollah!
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 03:05 PM by MOB
Exactly what Graham said, in 2002:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/12/se.03.ht...


BLITZER: When you say, attack their headquarters in the Middle East, could you be more specific, and tell us precisely what you mean? Military action?

GRAHAM: If necessary, absolutely. And let me say, I'm concerned that every time we talk about this, we talk about al Qaeda as being the enemy. Frankly, al Qaeda is not only not the only international terrorist group, it's not the most competent international terrorist group. The most competent is Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is operating training camps in Iran, in Syria, and in the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon, where they are pouring out the next generation of terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Graham also wanted to invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq
As a response to 9-11, that would have made more sense theoretically (though as in Iraq, it probably would have made a bad situation worse) and he called for naming Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which it is.

However, he has his head up his ass about Hezbollah, which is a local movement that Syria and Iran are supporting for their own obvious reasons. Graham needs to read Robert Pape's study of Hezbollah, which actually looked at the personal history of Hezbollah suicide bombers. Three of 38 were Christian, one a college-educated woman. They have no interest in anything other than Lebanon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. I appreciated Graham, and said so at the time.
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 01:49 PM by LWolf
What's your point? Is Graham currently serving, or running for office somewhere? Aren't those the factors bringing accolades for Kucinich?

Or, since his record as Cleveland's mayor didn't get the response you wanted, you are looking for another anti-Kucinich propaganda strategy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. There were other ways to be anti-war
I think it takes away from Kucinich's claim of being "propehtic." There were different ways of opposing the Iraq war, and I thought that Bob Graham never got the credit he deserved in the '03/'04 primaries for his leadership. I don't like it when Kucinich tries to take all the credit and attention for the anti-war movement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. I'm not anti-war.
I'm pro-peace. I don't think Kucinich was "prophetic." I think there were plenty of people who knew better than to give Bush any license at all was a bad idea, and that the reasons for going into Iraq are spurious. He's the only one so far planning to run in '08.

While I didn't support Graham's bid in '04, it wasn't because of Iraq. I supported and appreciated the good work he did. Kucinich doesn't try to take "all the credit and attention;" he often points out the number of people in congress who opposed the war. In '04, many more people heard about, and discussed, Graham than they did Kucinich, at least until he dropped out. He gets the credit in the current run-up to the '08 primary because the other "front-runners" that he will be competing against decided that Iraq was a bad idea in hind-sight, or supported the war and just wanted to wage it differently.

Iraq is not the only reason why Kucinich gets my support. No one else then, or now, has a better record on or plan for NAFTA/CAFTA, paper ballots, universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, and other issues that determine my support.

I notice that supporters of other candidates often get frustrated with campaigning against DK; their candidates can't beat him on issues or record, so they are left with personal attacks on his looks, huge leaps of illogic, patronization, and the so-far reliable "unelectable" mantra.

To that, I reply: if the media gave him equal coverage, I guarantee that he would be "electable." You apparently agree; if he were so "unelectable," you probably wouldn't find him so threatening to whomever you are supporting that you need to look for ways to campaign against him. You'd just be patting him on the head and talking about how great he is, too bad he can never win, like the rest do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is a fantastic thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Meaning?
So you don't think that there are other ways to be anti-war? Kucinich's way is the only way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Meaning how can we discuss a person when there's another person.
You've nailed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. An Inconvenient Truth @ Kucinich
Meaning, back to Kucinich, to me Kucinich's stance, which is a perfectly valid stance and one that I happen to agree with, doesn't tell the public the full story about our party's complex stance on the war and does more to confuse people than to persuade people to vote for our candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I have an idea:
If you want to start a Bob Graham thread, start a Bob Graham thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:26 PM
Original message
But this about kucinich
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 02:31 PM by MOB
but this thread is about calling out kucinich for taking the sole credit on an issue that is far more complex than his simplistic stance allows him to express

Does anyone here want to attempt arguing that Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad HAS NOT been emboldened by Iraq? I will assume that silence means agreement with this assertion. Incidentally, this was precisely Bob Graham's position/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. But this about kucinich
but this thread is about calling out kucinich for taking the sole credit on an issue that is far more complex than his simplistic stance allows him to express
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. And the award for "Dumbest Thread of the Week" goes to....
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Why not just defend Kucinich?
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 02:13 PM by MOB
The Bob Graham stance on the war isn't welcome in the party? He was right too, you know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. Well, I was anti-war in '02, and I predicted all of what has happened
Where are my accolades? What difference does it make that I'm not a famous politician? I still should have people lining up to tell me I was right.

Like it or not, Kucinich was right. I don't know about Graham; if he had the same statements then he was right. But that doesn't take away from Kucinich, so why pretend it does?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. but still Kucinich is the only anti-war voice!
these assertions:

1. we should pull out immediately of Iraq

and

2. we should protect Israel by taking the battle to Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad instead of invading Iraq

are, at this point, probably mutually exclusive due to the mess that now exists in Iraq.

The problem is that this party only represents viewpoint #1!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. So you wrote all of this nonsense to say that Americans
should die for Israel.

Is that what you're doing here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. You're smarter than that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Look, Mr. Mob. Nobody knows what this thread is about.
Would you like to share?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. why Kucinich is a poor candidate

how about reading the thread?

it's about why Kucinich is a poor candidate

Why Kucinich is hurting the party

why the Democratic Party is failing to communicate with the public about Iraq

How the Democratic Party is failing to represent diverse opinions about Iraq


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. BTW if you want a party that fails to have diverse opinion about Iraq
You don't have to look any further than the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I read the thread. It's like looking at random words.
You haven't offered any evidence that Kucinich is a poor candidate.

You haven't offered any evidence that Kucinich is hurting the Party.

You haven't said anything about the Democratic Party failing to communicate with the public on Iraq.

You haven't said anything about the Democratic Party failing to represent diverse opinions about Iraq.

You just keep applying meaningless words to Kucinich and Graham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I didn't want to get into that, but good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. If you feel that way
then start bringing up the #2 issue. It will get you farther than calling out Kucinich. start making the point that Graham feels this way, rather than just pouncing on Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. But Graham isn't running!
Graham isn't running! Kucinich is! Kucinich is running for *president*. He's a darkhorse candidate, but as a presidential candidate he ought to be accountable for his views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Again, so what?
It's early. You can get your opinions out there to be picked up by a candidate still. Yet your post really reads like an attack on Kucinich rather than a discussion of the issues.

Flies like honey is all I'm saying...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Again, you're not defending Kucinich
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 02:55 PM by MOB
Apparently you don't find Kucinich to be a serious candidate because you're not even bothering to defend him. Where are all the Kucinich lovers who so strongly agree with him on everything he says?

And apparently you don't take seriously his views on Iraq either, because you're not trying to defend that stance either.

The problem is, as I've said above (try reading them) is that this view, the view that so many of us here don't seem to take seriously enough to defend, does not sufficiently respond to the complex situation in Iraq. A situation that has emboldened and entrenched real terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. And, despite this insufficiency, this is the only view that Democrats will express, and apparently *can* express.

IMO, that's wrong headed and short sighted. We piss off mainstream voters that see us as the party of Dennis Kucinich and lose races beaeuse of it. Sure, we have candidates who can and will express a more complete and accurate description of the reality on the ground. But they get shunned.

And lets go even further with this. Sure we all chuckle when Jon Stewart says that Democrats find ways to lose elections. But no one blames themselves. Might this be an example!? I think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyForKucinich Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. As a Kucinich supporter
I find this topic so ridiculous it's not even worth responding to. Now...I'll let it sink to the bottom to where it belongs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MOB Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. ummm kay
well no kidding you dont find this to be a serious topic, you support a candidate who isn't serious.

What would be a serious way to criticize Kucinich's stance on Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I don't think ANYONE is a serious candidate yet! It's 2006!
Let things play out. It's way too early and there's way too much time to go yet. It is likely at this point that someone that we've all never heard of will come from behind for 2008 still. I'll wait for that to happen.

After rereading your posts as you suggested, I still think the only thing this post is about is to beat up on Kucinich supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. How was Graham on the drug war? On the death penalty
I don't remember Graham saying anything against the chimp and his war.
I remember Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun opposing the war.
I remember Graham touting that he was from "the electable wing" of the dem party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Graham voted against the IWR
He was the only Senator running for President that did so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
32. Because, Graham is retired from politics?
I loved him.
But when we are talking about 2008, Bob Graham is not relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 22nd 2017, 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC