Kucinich on Saddam Hussein - Accountability

[G_j]

http://kucinich.us/node/1515


Saddam Hussein - Accountability
Submitted by Dennis Kucinich on December 30, 2006 - 04:51. Iraq

The punishment of Saddam Hussein for the deaths of 148 persons, albeit in a manner that civil society ought to find repugnant, raises compelling questions:

Who will be held accountable for sending 3,000 US troops to their deaths in Iraq, for a war based on lies?

Who will be held accountable for the deaths of over 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians during the course of this illegal war?

Where is the two trillion dollars that this war is going to cost coming from?

When will Congress be held accountable for having voted to go to war?

When will Congress be held accountable for continuing to fund a war, and for abandoning our troops to a conflict that cannot be won militarily?

[malaise]

1. I love this man

Thanks Dennis:yourock:

[Cleita]

14. Yep, he's my guy in 2008. n/t

[Gregory_Wonderwheel]

64. Dennis Kucinich is the Blackest Candidate in the Ring

According to this editorial from the Black Agenda Report, compared to Barack Obama and others right now Dennis Kucinich is "the blackest candidate in the ring."

Is Dennis Kucinich the Black Candidate?
by BAR managing Editor Bruce Dixon


Conclusion of the article:

The 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of the Rev. Jesse Jackson were breakthrough moments not because the candidate's face was black, but because Jackson brought to the American table the real and pertinent concerns of the era's black consensus – poverty, joblessness, education, and in foreign policy, opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa. Twenty years down the road, black Democrats in presidential primaries are nothing new. Even Republicans now throw up their own black candidates to try to peel off ten, twenty or thirty percent of the black vote. It didn't work in Pennsylvania or Ohio. It almost succeeded in Maryland, and will be attempted again.

“He's the blackest candidate in the ring.”

A lot has changed in twenty years. A whole cohort of corporate black Democrats, trained to evoke the sizzle of black aspirations without calling for the steak of real change are being unleashed upon us. The only credentials Barack Obama, this season's black Democratic presidential candidate can show black America are the color of his skin, his insider status, and the love corporate media have for him. How or whether this translates into addressing joblessness, mass incarceration, health care and the other issues black voters care about is uncertain. The awesome power of corporate media is however, not to be discounted. Most Bush voters in 2000 thought the man was an environmentalist, and most Bush voters in 2004 believed Saddam possessed nukes and committed 9-11.

It was ultimately corporate media and not Democratic voters that put an end to Kucinich's last presidential campaign. With a full 11 months till the election, ABC News exec Ted Koppel, in his role as “moderator” of a New Hampshire presidential debate labeled the candidacies of Carole Moseley-Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich “vanity” operations and called for them to fold their campaigns. The next day ABC News withdrew its reporters from all three operations. For the rest of the campaign, a corporate media whiteout rendered the Ohio Democrat's candidacy virtually invisible to voters.

While there is no reason to expect the media to behave any differently this time, there is plenty of cause for African American voters to take a long look at Dennis Kucinich. For our money right now, he's the blackest candidate in the ring.

BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixon can be reached at Bruce.Dixon (at) BlackAgendaReport.com.
####

Is there any progressive Democrat who doesn't think Kucinich really is the one who is right on the most issues most of the time? Isn't that the most we can ask of any candidate?

Voting for someone because you think the person has the best chance of winning only demeans and damages democracy because it gives a false picture of what the people really believe in.

This country would change directions overnight if only people voted for the person they really agreed with and not the person who they thought the media or other people liked more.

[pberq]

81. Thanks for posting - excellent article!

[G_j]

104. interesting article

Thanks!

[hootinholler]

2. And so much more Dennis. n/t

[Solly Mack]

3. Yes - Who will be?

America isn't exactly big on holding itself accountable is it?

America never commits crimes - only "mistakes"

America doesn't lie - it "misleads" ...but it's never America's fault ...it's "bad intelligence"

America has good intentions doncha know...so golly gee, if someone gets tortured, it can't be America's fault....must be a case of "bad apples" and most certainly not policy.

America would never create a law that stripped people of basic rights or that protected the guilty from charges for the torture that isn't happening in the first place.

America doesn't water-board ...it "aggressively interrogates"

America would never couch her crimes in Orwellian language either.

America will never admit to being a war crime nation...though that's exactly what America is

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Great points

ones that the 110th need to consider--seriously.

[LWolf]

5. I would like an entire congress, wh, and supreme court

who could think like this, and who would have the courage to publicly ask these questions and expect accountability.

At the very least, give me a ballot-full of candidates who will all do this.

Accountability, in reality, is for those without power. The powerful are not accountable, as long as there is someone with less power to delegate the blame to.

[mzmolly]

6. The first three statements are great.

The last two are questionable. "Congress" was lied to, remember?

BUSH should be held accountable for this war, Mr. Kucinich. Nearly 140 of your Democratic counterparts did NOT vote to authorize the "disarming of Saddam Hussein" in spite of the dog and pony show put on by the once respected Colin Powell.

Mr. Kucinich you should be held accountable for political posturing at every turn.

[arikara]

7. Lied to or not

they should have had smarts enough to realize it. Most of us here at DU knew it was all a farce.

[mzmolly]

9. If I had a quarter

for every time I've heard that here, I'd be rich. I knew as well but most people in congress don't read DU, or even leftist blogs. They live in a bubble. However, if they learn from their "mistakes" and admit them, I personally can forgive.

[G_j]

13. although it was common sense that actually dictated this view

unfortunately common sense is a rare commodity in DC

[mzmolly]

20. Common sense is a rare commodity

period. ;)

[G_j]

103. Then I suppose it would follow

that DU had a rare abundance of folks with common sense at the time before the war.

[arikara]

16. No, I don't suppose many of them read DU

and I didn't mean to imply that they did. However they are supposed to be intelligent people and smart enough not be taken in by blatant obvious lies. Probably not too many of the millions of people over the world that marched on the streets during the build up to the invasion read DU either and they figured it out.

IMHO the "Bush lied" excuse is nothing more than a sucky cop out and they should be ashamed to use it.

[mzmolly]

19. I think even intelligent people can be mislead.

For example Dennis Kucinich was mislead on "choice" before he was enlightened.

Also, I was one of those who marched in the streets, and I did so before finding DU. ;) That doesn't mean that some smart folks were not taken in by the Bush admins lies. Especially the lies of Colin Powell. You see, in order for me to believe that "they" knew what they were voting for was incorrect, I'd have to believe that they were ok with history proving them wrong. Playing that scenario through, doesn't make as much sense as "they believed the bullshit" does.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. DUers didn't know anything, they just believed that the Bush admin lies about everything

It's the same way that DUers believe that the government is responsible for 9/11. It's based on the idea that they don't believe that the Bush administration or the media could possibly be telling the truth. When you believe that every word that comes out of person's mouth is a lie, you're likely to be right a certain percentage of the time.

Senators and Congressmen can't just believe that the President of the United States is a complete liar for no reason, their job requires them to assess the situation rationally and in 2002, the Bush administration had credibility (at least a lot more than they have now).

That being said, they still should have voted NO and here is why.

The proper way to handle Iraq assuming the WMD lies were true is that we should have built a coalition and gotten UN approval to disarm Saddam. The Democrats, save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, pretty much unanimously agreed that this was the proper way to address this threat. Yet the Bush administration wanted unilateral authority to go to war and Congress shouldn't have given it to him, period. They should have demanded that he build a coalition and get UN approval and THEN come back to congress for war authorization.

Had they demanded a proposal similar to Carl Levin's that demanded a coalition and UN approval and then come back to congress for war approval then they would have absolutely nothing to apologize for. They would have made the best decision with the evidence that they had.

[tavalon]

45. People here weren't just saying the Bush administration lied

they were laying out the exact places where they lied complete with bullet points and footnotes. There's a big difference.

Sure there are some folks here who are just kneejerk Bush haters but there are many more here who are highly intelligent governmental wonks and they knew so Congress knew too, but they were covering their sorry asses politically. It was political expedience over the welfare of the people both American and Iraqi. All the people who are now switching to the side of "We were lied to and now we know better" are also playing political posturing games. Different day, same bullshit.

[sendero]

51. Simply not true..

... I believed Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. There was plenty of evidence, plus garden-variety common sense that indicated that Saddam could not possibly have hidden any significant weapons program from the inspection teams, nor could he have had much of a means to develop such programs while his country was virtually under siege from sanctions, flyovers, and everything else we could throw at them.

You had to be some kind of True Believer to think Saddam had any serious weapons, and that is a fact.

[Radical Activist]

21. Some were smart enough to not believe the lies.

A majority of Congressional Democrats had the same foresight as Kucinich. "I'm an easily fooled dupe" is not an acceptable excuse.

[mzmolly]

22. What's Kucinich's excuse for being fooled on "choice?"

Perhaps his lack of perfection is because .... he's human?

[LWolf]

23. I don't believe he ever said he was "fooled."

As I recall, he described it as a journey; an evolution of perspective (my words, not his). I know he never said he was "misled" about abortion. He went through the same process that many devout catholics do, trying to reconcile church teachings, personal values, and the greater good.

As a woman who has had an abortion, and is an only child because of my mom's botched illegal abortion, one who has lived both sides of "choice," and lived the consequences of "choice," I fully support the right to choose. I also know better than to judge another's journey on that issue.

If you harbor a dislike of the good Congressman, and feel the need to campaign against him, I guess you can fall back on these things:

He's short.
He "looks like an elf."
He's too liberal.
He's too honest.
He's imperfect. He voted against flag burning, and he was, many years back, "pro-life." Of course, according to NARAL-Ohio, he's "100%" pro-choice."

Those are sure to weigh heavily against his opposition to the Bush administration at every turn, his advocacy for universal-single-payer-not-for-profit health care, his advocacy for labor and environmental issues, his advocacy for paper ballots, election reform, his opposition to the war in Iraq, to the Patriot Act, and more.

You really have nothing to worry about. The American electorate prefers form over substance.

[mzmolly]

26. So he's the only one allowed a journey toward truth?

Is it not possible that those he critiques on the war had a journey of their own?

I like Dennis Kucinich, I almost supported him in the primaries in the last election. However, I quickly came to realize that he has a counter productive messianic complex that is, at times damaging to progressive causes. In spite of that I still respect him when he "tells it like it is" but he should practice a bit more humility in doing so IMHO.

[LWolf]

29. It's possible. That's fine.

For those that had a journey of their own, more power to them. That doesn't mean I think they are the best choice for commander in chief. Nearly 3,000 Americans and many more Iraqis have died because their journey didn't bring them to enlightenment before their vote was cast. I see that more as political expediency, myself. A reason for people to overlook their short-sightedness.

Has anyone died because Dennis Kucinich was pro life before he was pro choice? He did not undermine Roe v Wade.

[mzmolly]

30. Has anyone died because of a lack of choice?

Yes, many. Too many to count have died because choice was not an option. One could say that Dennis had the benefit of hindsight before he voted against choice on many an occasion.

He voted to criminalize partial birth abortions, to deny American servicewoman the right even to pay for their own abortions overseas, to prevent Washington, D.C. from funding abortions for poor women with non-federal dollars, against research on RU-486, even against health coverage of basic contraception for federal employees. In 1996 he told Planned Parenthood that he did not support the substance of Roe v. Wade. He received a a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from N.A.R.A.L.

http://www.realchange.org/kucinich.htm

However, those who voted for the Iraq resolution were told war was "a last resort" and the purpose was "inspections" to prevent another 911. There was no history to prove them wrong.

[LWolf]

34. That's not my question.

Plenty of people have died because of lack of choice, but that's not what I asked, is it?

[mzmolly]

36. Yes in my opinion it is what you asked, and it's as valid as blaming

those who voted for "war as a last resort" for the actions of one man, George W. Bush.

[U4ikLefty]

38. So now you get to determine the question asked to you???

That is classic...LOL!!!

[mzmolly]

39. No, I determine how I answer said questions.

Just like Dennis Kucinich and his "followers" get to determine what issues of life/death one is allowed to err on.

[LWolf]

74. Well, I'd say your opinion doesn't count for much,

when it was MY question to begin with. I'd say I probably know a little more about what I'm asking than you do, lol. You can't give my thoughts or words that politically orwellian twist when I'm here to call bullshit.

Did DK's stance on "choice" cause any deaths? Did anyone die? Was any woman refused "choice" because of it? NO.

Did anyone die when Congress gave GWB approval for Iraq? Yes. Were there people who knew better, and who withheld their support? Yes. Did any thinking person who knew the history of the Bush family really believe that Bush wouldn't wage war unless it was a "last resort?" Which is worse? Politically cynical self-serving votes, deliberate gullibility, or outright blind ignorance? Is it nice that some have seen their "mistake" in hindsight? Sure. At least, it is if it prevents them from approving any more of the Bush admin's agenda. It sure doesn't restore life to the dead.

Is there a difference between the 2? Obviously. While all reps are human, none perfect, and I could pick apart each and every one on at least one issue, this one is a no-brainer. One enabled death and destruction; the other did not.

I can take DK to task on at least 2.5 issues that I don't agree with him on. The "choice" issue is the .5, since it has been corrected long since and no longer offers any threat. Still, none of those issues have allowed GWB to rain death and destruction on anyone, and he has a stellar record (imo, of course) on the rest.

Whoever ends up with the nomination in '08, that person will not get my vote with a record of supporting the Bush admin's agenda. THAT has nothing to do with Kucinich, and trying to defend such a candidate by attacking Kucinich's former stance on choice is a sign of weakness. Again, in my opinion.

[mzmolly]

75. "Did DK's stance on "choice" cause any deaths? Did anyone die?"

YES!!! People have died being denied safe legal abortions that is a matter of FACT. I've answered your question previously. However you have not answered mine. Is Dennis Kucinich the only member of the house allowed a personal/professional/political "journey?"

As for my opinion not mattering > if Dennis Kucinich wants to get more than 2% of the primary vote in the coming elecion, he best listen to someone besides his own ego. My opinion on Mr. Kucinich is obviously shared by many.

Just as you say my opinion doesn't matter, I obviously don't care what your personal ranking system is on progressive issues, I find the issue of choice (safe & legal medical care) highly important. Further your asking "which is worse" obviously a matter of debate. Mr. Kucinch clearly knew that women died having botched abortions. Those who voted for the "last resort option" did not KNOW that Bush would abuse his authority. It's hard to measure which is worse, frankly.

I'm off to entertain company, I shall check in later.

[LWolf]

78. You still didn't answer the question.

The question was whether those deaths happened because DK took some action against "choice" during his time in office. Of course, deaths have happened when women were denied safe, legal, abortions. My mom was nearly one of them, and I'm an only child because she was never able to conceive again. In addition, she endured decades of excrutiating pain from scar tissue interfering with her cycles, and finally a life-saving hysterectomy just a few years ago. I don't need anyone to point out the consequences of overturning Roe V. Wade, thank you very much.


Was DK in office when Roe V Wade passed? Did he vote against it? Did one piece of legislation that he wrote or voted on in office affect Roe v Wade?

Don't try to spin it as if it did. It's false, and it's dishonorable.

Your question: Is DK the only one in congress allowed a "journey?" Of course not. I hope they all are on one long continuous journey, becoming more evolved as they go. I just don't think that those who are so far behind others on the journey that their votes helped send 3,000 Americans to needless, unjustified deaths need to be in the WH. I think there are others further along that journey who are more worthy.

I'm sure that we can both find plenty of people who share different perspectives about Congressman Kucinich, as well as any other politician, or any other human being, for that matter. If, in a free and fair election with equal coverage, a candidate I don't support gets the most votes, then the majority get what they want. I don't think I was disputing that with you.

I believe I responded to your post to point out that Kucinich never said, as you stated, that he was "fooled" about choice. I stand by that. It was a false statement, with several posts trying to make a false point with increasingly desperate falsehoods, and a ridiculous comparison to a vote supporting gwb's war. Simple as that. I'm not asking you to vote for the man. If you want to go on the attack, go right ahead. Just try to stick to the truth when you do so.

This statement makes my point:

Those who voted for the "last resort option" did not KNOW that Bush would abuse his authority.

Anyone who did not know that gwb could not be trusted not to abuse his authority is not qualified to be commander in chief. In my opinion, of course.

As far as this:

Mr. Kucinch clearly knew that women died having botched abortions.

I'm sure you are correct. I hope that's why he supports Roe v Wade, and has for some years now.

[mzmolly]

79. Bush was going to war regardless of the vote. He said as much when

he declared that he had authority via previous UN sanctions. So, it could be reasoned that no deaths happened BECAUSE of the vote in question as well. Bush would have invaded Iraq regardless of the formality he engaged in, in 2002.

As for whether or not anyone died as a result of Kucinich's voting record, again I say - YES.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37967-2004Apr23?language=printer

Regarding who is suitable for commander and chief, I don't feel that Dennis Kucinich is suitable for many reasons, and again, I'm not alone.

You said:

Your question: Is DK the only one in congress allowed a "journey?" Of course not. I hope they all are on one long continuous journey, becoming more evolved as they go. I just don't think that those who are so far behind others on the journey that their votes helped send 3,000 Americans to needless, unjustified deaths need to be in the WH. I think there are others further along that journey who are more worthy.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing who is suitable for the WH. I don't think that DK is suitable for a number of reasons. >

A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that would ban mind control weapons in space. Among the weapons that would be banned by the new measure are “psychotronic” devices that are “directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of ... mood management, or mind control.”

"In our soul's Magnificent, we become conscious of the cosmos within us. We hear the music of peace, we hear the music of cooperation, we hear music of love. In our soul's forgetting, we become unconscious of our cosmic birthright, blighted with disharmony, disunity, torn asunder from the stars in a disaster ..." :crazy: ~ Dennis Kucinich

As for him supporting Roe V. Wade (currently) ~ many Democrats who voted for the resolution we are discussing are now against the war and have been for "many years." The bottom line here, is that there is no perfect progressive and Mr. K should step down of his high horse and admit that he, too, is human.

[LWolf]

82. We can do this all year, if you like.

As long as you continue to push false information. Your link, btw, has nothing to do with anything DK is responsible for. It's about a death 40 years ago. As a matter of fact, as I have repeatedly stated, Roe v Wade was already in effect when DK was elected to Congress. He did not cast a vote that affected it. A personal opinion or stance is not the same thing as a vote that enables the killing of others. You can't spin it any other way, because it just isn't true.

Good job trying to find something else to back your position, even though you "didn't know we were discussing that." :eyes:

Really, all we've been discussing is your need to attack Kucinich for being right on Iraq. And if that won't work, why not throw in choice or government population management. I'm sure you can think of something else to respond with to this post. It won't negate the fact that Kucinich never said he was "fooled" about choice, that his previous stance didn't enable any deaths, and that comparing that to the IWR vote is a non sequitur.

That's why I responded; for no other reason. I'm sure your desperation to find some reason to excuse the IWR vote has NOTHING to do with any possible '08 candidate who voted for the IWR. :eyes:

Again, it doesn't matter if the repubs had a majority, and if Bush would have gone forward. Going forward knowing that a large number of people are in opposition is quite a bit different than going forward with a "mandate." Which is what Bush was able to claim after the IWR vote.

Besides the fact, of course, that a person with integrity is not going to say, "I can't stop you from committing atrocities, so please do so with my permission." :eyes:

[mzmolly]

84. The bottom line >

a lack of choice kills women all over the world. Why does that point fail you? Kucinich voted to refuse prisoners choice he voted to refuse military personnel choice, he voted to refuse poor women choice. These votes were not 40 years ago, they were before he decided to "journey" so he could run for the Democratic Nomination. These votes are on the record, and were not simply a matter of "personal opinion." Personal opinion need not enter into ones voting record. There are representatives who are "pro-life" personally speaking, but vote to afford others choice.

I've posted more than one link by the way >

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt

In case you missed it the first time:

He voted specifically against allowing Washington, DC, to fund abortions for poor women with non-federal dollars and against permitting female soldiers and military dependents to have an abortion in overseas military facilities even if they paid for it themselves. Similarly, although Kucinich told me he was not in favor of "criminalizing" abortion, he voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who performed them, except to save the woman's life. What's that, if not criminalization?

Your "no on has died" stance is BS. A lack of choice kills almost 70,000 women each year, to this day.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT8t4Z7BZySk&refer=home

Nineteen million unsafe abortions occur worldwide each year, leading to the deaths of about 68,000 women, as governments resist tackling threats to sexual and reproductive health, the World Health Organization said.

If you'd like to "do this all day" that's fine with me.

Again, it doesn't matter if the repubs had a majority, and if Bush would have gone forward. Going forward knowing that a large number of people are in opposition is quite a bit different than going forward with a "mandate." Which is what Bush was able to claim after the IWR vote.

You're point about "death because of one vote" is moot given the fact that Bush was responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

Those who voted "yea" do deserve our scrutiny, but they also deserve as much understanding as Mr. Kucinich gets for his imperfect voting record.

> BTW, I'd like to know how DK feels we should hold "congress accountable?" Any thoughts on that? :shrug:

[LWolf]

86. The point doesn't fail me, obviously.

I think I've made that perfectly clear. The bottom line? The bottom line is that you made a claim of "fooled" about choice for DK, and it's false. That's what I responded to, and why I bothered to respond at all. The rest has nothing to do with that "bottom line."

Is it so difficult to acknowledge a misstatement, or a deliberate false "spin" to make a political point, that you must drag off-point "talking points" repeatedly into a bottom line that they don't fit?

Nowhere did you, or will you, find me arguing the merits of "choice."

Your personal opinion about Congressman Kucinich's former stance on "choice" is fine. I don't need to argue with you about it. It really has nothing to do with other Dem's IWR vote, either. It's the connecting of the two that I'm rebutting, and I will continue to rebut.

I have no interest in reading anything else you might have posted; this one post, and your illogical contortions to justify it, is tiresome enough. I have an idea; we can keep this argument going for all 365 days of 2007:

You just keep posting reams of unrelated bullshit designed to avoid the point, or change the point, or move off of the point, and I will just keep responding with this:

Your original point was false. n/t

Or you can acknowledge that the original point was false, and I will happily let it die. I won't hold my breath for that, though. I'll settle for you taking your little war on Kucinich to a thread all its own, without the pretense of being "fooled." I'll join you there, or not, depending on the tone and substance of the debate. Or, if you like, I can repeat this for the rest of the year. Just once a day, though, as there are many more important ways to spend time.

Your original point was false. n/t

[mzmolly]

88. He was either "fooled" about choice, or he did not care about the consequences

of limiting it. I thought that "fooled" was the best scenario, frankly. You think he made an educated decision to risk the lives of women, fine.

It's the connecting of the two that I'm rebutting, and I will continue to rebut.

Well given you've said that "choice" isn't that important to you, I'm not surprised at your disconnect. However, I'm not connecting "choice" to the Iraq war specifically, I'm connecting a lack of progressive perfection, with a lack of progressive perfection. I'm connecting matters of life and death, with matters of life and death. I'm connecting voting records with voting records, "journeys" with "journeys" and so on. ;)

On edit, you failed to address my question about holding "congress accountable." How does Dennis K think we should proceed on that suggestion? I am truly curious about this.

[LWolf]

91. Your original point is false. n/t

[mzmolly]

92. So, I'll accept the fact that DK did not care about the consequences

of limiting choice.

:hi:

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

98. Wow,

how profound, I hadn't heard that talking point before. :sarcasm:

[LWolf]

101. Your original point is false, and so is that.

Statements about what another person cares about, without direct testimony, is not fact. When stated as if it were fact, it's false. If you indicated that you had some sort of psychic abilities to enter into another's mind, heart, and soul, and experience what they are feeling, you might be working for that government mind control program you referenced. Otherwise, it's speculation. Spurious speculation for the purposes of politically smearing someone, in my opinion. If it were a Republican doing it, it might be called "swift boating."

It might be more I accurate to say, "I don't think he cared about the consequences."

:hi:

[mzmolly]

102. Actually saying that you don't think a reasonable person could have "really" believed

Colin Powell, is professing to enter into another's mind, heart, and soul, and experience what they are feeling

None of us can know what anyone else thinks feels, thus we are left with their explanations for acting in a particular manner.

Peace LW, thanks for the discussion :hug:

[LWolf]

105. Peace back to you. n/t

[ecstatic]

32. No. I agree with all of his questions. The people who died

deserve to have these questions answered. And I don't care if you're Dem or Rep--if you voted for this war, then you should face some consequences--and future presidency should be out of the question.

[mzmolly]

37. Do those who died due to a lack of choice deserve the same answers/respect?

:shrug:

[tavalon]

44. Why is it that DU was fed the same lies as Congress

and yet we were able to call bullshit what it is, bullshit rather than fertilizer, which is what Congress chose to call it?

[mzmolly]

53. Because intelligent people differ at times.

Many said that Colin Powell convinced them. I've addressed that question already though, if you read the thread.

[guyton]

46. gullibility

having been lied to is a pretty lame excuse for voting for an illegal war.

last time I checked, gullibility is not a valid defense for murder.

[mzmolly]

54. So was Kucinich gullible when he voted against women having safe legal

abortions?

Additionally, Bush is the murderer, people voted to give him the authority "as a last resort" to "disarm Saddam Hussein." He of course, abused that authority, kicked out weapons inspectors, inserted Halliburton and the rest is history.

[guyton]

80. just wrong ...

not gullible. He knew the facts and voted the wrong way - no real excuse there. I'm still searching for a candidate (with any kind of record) that I could support 100%. At least (I gather that) he's pro-choice now.

Re last resort -- check out all the 'Whereas" clauses in the law that got us into this mess. It's full of enormous lies and half-truths that Congress didn't bother to verify before using as a basis of this disaster. And I really don't believe anyone at the time was fooled into thinking this was anything but a green-light for a war that W had obviously been desiring for a long time.

Congress has the authority to declare war. They abdicated their duty and the result was this criminal action. I hold them just as culpable as the get-away car driver in a death from an armed robbery gone awry.

H.J. Res 114

[mzmolly]

85. How on earth does a single member of congress/the senate

verify statements such as these on their own?

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

They had to rely on the federal government to provide them with this information.

Also interesting to note that Bush reiterated his "prior authorization" mumbo jumbo here:


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

I agree fully with this "I'm still searching for a candidate (with any kind of record) that I could support 100%." There is no such candidate, which is why Kucinich's "preacher" persona irks me.

WELCOME! :hi:

[guyton]

87. re: How on earth does a single member of congress/the senate

You ask ...

How on earth does a single member of congress/the senate ... verify statements such as these on their own? ... They had to rely on the federal government to provide them with this information.

The point is that congress is an equal branch of the federal government and not a lapdog of the administration. The fact that the republicans controlled congress doesn't absolve the minority from their constitutional requirements (i.e. oversight). If they were prevented from doing their job, they needed to make a lot bigger stink about it and not passively allow the administration to go "forward".

Frankly, even if every single Whereas was correct, it would still be an illegal "preemptive" war. Think "Soviet Union" instead of "Iraq" when reading the war resolution and shudder to think what W would have done during the cold war.

Btw, my take on accountability: War crimes trials for all?

Re finding a candidate I could support ... my wish list would be something like this quiz:

World's Smallest Political Quiz

that would help me pick a candidate based on issues and record on not on charisma or personal speaking abilities. Obviously we can't trust the media to accurately summarize a candidate's qualities (and failings).

Cheers!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

90. I was against the war from the beginning.

I too have felt disgust for those who "didn't know better." But, I have considered the possibility that they believed Bush's assurances that he would not misuse his authority. Unfortunately, congress did not have access to the CIA directly, they had to rely on the federal government to interpret available intelligence.

That said, I have not, will not support anyone for the Presidency who voted to authorize "the war." I will vote for the 2008 Democratic Nominee, regardless however.

My score:

The political description that
fits you best is... LIBERAL


LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

:toast: to you as well. :)

[Zhade]

94. Um, b*s* took office in 2000 after LOSING...

...yet he was somehow even the least bit trustworthy?

Please. Elected officials aren't that stupid.

[mzmolly]

97. "Your point is false."

"So stop lying it doesn't help your argument." :eyes:

[pberq]

49. Calling BS.

Yes, Congress was lied to, but anyone with an Internet connection back in 2002 could easily find out that the Bush admin statements about Iraq were lies.

As just one example, Scott Ritter was doing everything he could to warn Democrats and anyone else who would listen that there were no WMDs.

the Dems went along out of what seemed to be political expediency.

[mzmolly]

55. Just because we believed Scott Ritter and some believed Colin Powell

doesn't make my statement BS. I kinda doubt that members of the Senate spend lots of time on the internet?

[pberq]

62. Are you kidding me?

A member of the U.S. Senate has a staff that is there (among other things) to help the Senator make decisions based on the available information.

To suggest that members of the U.S. Senate didn't have access to information the the Bush admin. was lying is rediculous.

If I and many other DUers knew that the Bush admin. was lying back in 2002, there is no excuse for a U.S. Senator with a staff to claim that they didn't have this information.

[mzmolly]

69. I am aware that they have staff people.

I am also aware that they examined both sides of the issue and came to the conclusion (after Bush's assurances) that the vote was for "war as a last resort." The difference between "our" position, and theirs is that we did not trust Bush. There wasn't much but opinion to guide that particular decision.

[Zhade]

95. Another false statement - it wasn't just opinion and distrust.

If you followed Blix and Ritter's reports, you'd know that we KNEW there was no nuclear program.

Niger - false, debunked. So many more lies debunked here on DU in real time.

Not just opinion, no matter how fervently you may wish that to be true.

[mzmolly]

99. Blix filed his reports AFTER the vote in question.

He was in the country BECAUSE of the vote. Again, a reasonable President would have taken the information gathered by the UN and used it wisely.

Regarding Ritter: In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials, and Ritter was accused by Iraq of being a spy for the CIA. He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998. Shortly thereafter, he spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

"I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program." ~ Scott Ritter (January 1998)

Using Scott Ritter cuts both ways. You're point on Blix is invalid, care to try again?

[confludemocrat]

50. No, the Congress should be held accountable

Also, your motif on Kucinich and abortion doesn't fly for reasons explained above. Give it up. The Congress acted failed us including many Dems. So what if you would be rich for all the times it's been said that DUers knew this whole Iraq thing was BS from the get-go, it's still a vaild point and true.

[mzmolly]

56. Sorry, "reasons explained above?"

What reasons? He had a "journey" :eyes: Also, some DUers actually believed Colin Powell as well, in spite of all they "read" on the internet.

BUSH DECIDED TO INVADE IRAQ, period. The war was his call. A reasonable man with the same authority would have used his authority in a sane manner.

[confludemocrat]

65. OK, since maybe you didn't read this in a post ABOVE mine

OK here it is from a post ABOVE mine:

As I recall, he described it as a journey; an evolution of perspective (my words, not his). I know he never said he was "misled" about abortion. He went through the same process that many devout catholics do, trying to reconcile church teachings, personal values, and the greater good.

That person shot you down in the thin reasoning you were attempting.

[mzmolly]

67. As I said "journeys" are not limited to the abortion issue.

Would you prefer I say Congress had an uhm, "journey?" Kucinich had the benefit of hindsight and history when he was wrong on abortion.

[Zorra]

60. Right. Here is a clear example of Rep. Kucinich's political posturing

at every turn:

The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive magazine, November 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
snip---
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
snip---
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Path.html

As I recall, this was an extremely unpopular political position to take at the time that this was written. DK, as is his wont, did not give a flying f*** if it was an unpopular position to take. He spoke the plain truth as he saw it - and he saw it pretty darn clearly, IMO.

And now, maybe as of this exact moment, the 3000th American soldier has been killed in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. We have been forced to finance this wholesale slaughter to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and our national reputation, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So if speaking the truth is political posturing, then I'd like to encourage all our leaders:

Posture at will.

[mzmolly]

61. Here's another example:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt

.......................

One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

When I spoke with Kucinich by phone, he seemed to be looking for a way to put some space between himself and his record. "I believe life begins at conception"--Kucinich was raised as a Catholic--"and that it doesn't end at birth." He said he favored neither a Human Life Amendment that would constitutionally protect "life" from the moment of conception, nor the overturning of Roe v. Wade (when asked by Planned Parenthood in 1996 whether he supported the substance of Roe, however, he told them he did not). He spoke of his wish to see abortion made rare by providing women with more social supports and better health care, by requiring more responsibility from men and so on. He presented his votes as votes not against abortion per se but against federal funding of the procedure. Unfortunately, his record does not easily lend itself to this reading: He voted specifically against allowing Washington, DC, to fund abortions for poor women with non-federal dollars and against permitting female soldiers and military dependents to have an abortion in overseas military facilities even if they paid for it themselves. Similarly, although Kucinich told me he was not in favor of "criminalizing" abortion, he voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who performed them, except to save the woman's life. What's that, if not criminalization?

"I haven't been a leader on this," Kucinich said. "These are issues I would not have chosen to bring up." But if he plans to run for President, Kucinich will have to change his stance, and prove it, or kiss the votes of pro-choice women and men goodbye. It won't be enough to present himself as low profile or, worse, focused elsewhere (he voted to take away abortion rights inadvertently? in a fog? thinking about something more "important" than whether women should be forced to give birth against their will?). "I can't tell you I don't have anything to learn," Kucinich told me. OK, but shouldn't he have started his education before he cast a vote barring funds for abortions for women in prison? (When I told him the inhumanity of this particular vote made me feel like throwing up--you're not only in jail, you have to have a baby too?--he interjected, "but there's a rape exception!") Kucinich says he wants to "create a dialogue" and "build bridges" between pro-choicers and anti-choicers, but how can he "heal divisions" when he's so far on one side? The funding issue must also be squarely faced: As a progressive, Kucinich has to understand that denying abortion funding to poor women is as much a class issue as denying them any other kind of healthcare.

That a solidly anti-choice politician could become a standard- bearer for progressivism, the subject of hagiographic profiles in The Nation and elsewhere, speaks volumes about the low priority of women's rights to the self-described economic left, forever chasing the white male working-class vote. Supporting an anti-choice Congressman may have seemed pragmatic; trying to make him President would be political suicide. Pregnant prisoners may not vote, but millions of pro-choice women do.

.........................

[Zorra]

63. Just like Al Gore, Dennis changed his position on this issue. The fact

that Al Gore, before he became "enlightened" on this subject, consistently voted anti-choice for well over a decade did not stop me from gladly supporting and voting for him in 2000. Nor did it stop me from respecting him for his being able to gather more information on a subject and then change positions based on that new information.

And if Al Gore, or Dennis Kucinich, are nominated for President in 2008, I'll gladly support and vote for either one of them, despite the fact that they once voted anti-choice some time in their past.

[mzmolly]

66. Al Gore isn't self rightous.

Kucinich is.

[U4ikLefty]

68. He just did a freakin movie about his pet issue. Talk about reaching. n/t

[mzmolly]

70. So doing a movie makes one self rightous?

Interesting.

[confludemocrat]

71. Getting pummelled here Mz Molly? Almost out of ammo and & firing wildly.

Losing badly in and lacking any backing for declarations you make, you now declare Kucinich self-righteous. So that was your fallback point, having been beaten on all others?

[mzmolly]

72. LOL

You're funny! :)

[Zhade]

96. But YOU'RE hysterical!

Especially the way you laugh at someone for accurately representing the utter failure of your conservative-tinged flailing about Kucinich's past, 100%-repudiated anti-choice stance, as if it has ANYTHING to do with the IWR.

The best you can come up with is "he's self-righteous", which is merely your opinion and is accorded as much value as anyone might assign to it (in my case, none, because it's a stupid fucking non sequitor).

"LOL" indeed - your argument has been soundly defeated.

[mzmolly]

100. I guess if you say it enough it becomes true huh?

Bush does that too. "We're winning the war in Iraq." ~ George W.
"Your argument has been soundly defeated." Desperate DU-ers.

Thankfully, I know bullshit when I see it whether it's a DU-er or a Bushie spewing it.

So sorry if my point is above your level of understanding, but there isn't a thing I can do about that.

[smirkymonkey]

8. K&R!

:kick:

[leftchick]

10. thank you Gj!

:hi:

[G_j]

12. I'm ready for a bumper sticker

:hi:

[otohara]

11. Kucinich Kick

this man rocks!

[Ms. Clio]

17. and another!

:dem:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Dennis, please! People don't want to ask those questions.

And, the vast majority of politicians certainly don't want to answer them.

[rman]

47. I'm pretty sure many if not most people do want to ask those questions

It's a majority of politicians who don't want these questions asked.

[NightOwwl]

18. Dennis - please stay out of small planes...

until further notified.

[helderheid]

24. I love you, Kooch.

[WiseButAngrySara]

25. Go Kooch! Tell it like it is... ....n/t

[Vidar]

27. Adding my recommendation for Kucinich.

[Nutmegger]

28. DK speaks TRUTH. The TRUTH that nobody wants to hear.

:kick: for DK.

[ecstatic]

31. OMG. Bold. Too bad he doesn't get air time nt

[Pastiche423]

35. One of the reasons he doesn't get air time

is because of his request for accountability.


But the biggest reason he doesn't get air time, is because he stands boldly for our Constitution and We,the People.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Gawd but I love that man. He alone could restore honor to America.

He didn't mention the fact that George W. bUsh himself has signed 152 death warrants, compared to the 148 Hussein signed & was convicted & executed for.

But yeah, who will be held accountable for GEORGE W. bUSH's CAUSING THE DEATHS OF MORE US CITIZENS THAN KILLED BY OBL?

Not to even mention the 655,000-900,000 (so far & no end in sight) Iraqis?

Not George W. bUsh, of course. Never been held accountable for anything in his rich useless little life; the buck stops everywhere else, with little rich fratboy bush.

[lovuian]

40. Dennis is telling them all Warning someday like Saddam

We are going to be accountable

[Say_What]

41. This comment's the best: "We have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqis because Saddam killed 148."

Sums it up just fine.

[StrictlyRockers]

43. Kucinich is right.

[madokie]

48. Thanks Dennis, may you always be speaking for me

I wish Al would pick Dennis as his VP candidate

[sendero]

52. I think..

... exactly like Mr. Kucinich. And at some future date, after it is way too late to benefit the country, most Americans will as well.

[lostnotforgotten]

57. My Man Dennis - Voted For Him Once, Will Do It Again!

The rest of the dems can go to hell - Except Gore.

[SpongeBob]

58. Go, Dennis!

A beaut!

[The Count]

59. But, but some want to get our vote for POTUS merely for saying "oops"

Surely Dennis doesn't mean accountability for voting for war (sponsoring IWR) would mean denying them their chosen career? How harsh can he be? I mean, our best candidates sponsored the IWR - we are now left bereft....
:sarcasm:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3012797&mesg_id=3012797

[Jack Rabbit]

73. I definitely believe war criminals should be held accountable

And, although Saddam was denied one, I believe that any war crimes defendant deserves a fair trial before hanging.

I hope the Iraqis saved the rope.

[hijinx87]

76. Kucinich is going to be a problem

in the primaries. he has said he is going after the democratic "establishment"
as hard as the rethugs.

the following comments are aimed at the incoming democratic Congressional majority.

When will Congress be held accountable for having voted to go to war?

When will Congress be held accountable for continuing to fund a war, and for abandoning our troops to a conflict that cannot be won militarily?

especially the latter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. He was smart not to condemn the execution itself

[WritersBlock]

83. I'm really starting to like this guy. n/t

[mdmc]

89. I fucking LOVE this MAN!

God Bless!
:patriot:

[bluewave]

106. What an honorable person. A man with a conscience

so rare today.

[mdmc]

107. DK

uber alles!