I have to say this.

[LWolf]

Dennis has been right all along.

We know John Kerry will be the nominee. Yesterday, I was listening to some talking heads on NPR; sorry, I don't remember which program. I was in the car and turned it on in the middle. They were saying that John Kerry doesn't have a clear cut plan for Iraq that is substantially different than GWB. That his plan lacks specifics. They did mention that Kerry doesn't think we ought to honor the June deadline for removing our troops. These commentators, whoever they were, said that Bush is extremely vulnerable in Iraq, and that Kerry hasn't made good use of that opportunity. Whether or not Kerry actually has specific plans, this is what is floating across the airwaves to the public. And if this is on NPR, I'll guess that other media outlets are less forgiving. (I can't be sure, since I generally don't watch or listen to them).

I think it's time for John Kerry to listen to Dennis. He has a detailed plan. With plenty of specifics. He's had it all along. And America is waking up to the notion that we need to get out; that things are getting progressively worse, not better.

A snip from the plan:

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

"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."

And, more recently on March 16th, Dennis said:

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome-talksabout.php

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:

When we look at events in Spain, we see that the government in Spain went down because of its support of the Iraq war. This war in Iraq is still a vital issue in this country. The administration is talking about extending the tour of duty for our men and women who have served. They are talking about sending troops on a second rotation. They have National Guardsmen and Guardswomen and reservists who will soon constitute 40% of the people who have served in Iraq.

Right now, neither the leading Democrat nor the Republican Administration is willing to commit to a plan to bring our troops home. And I say it's time that we take a strong stand and say that we need to bring in U.N. peacekeepers and bring our troops home and end this sorry adventure in Iraq.

Soon it will be the one year anniversary of the invasion. Last year, I stood on First Avenue in New York and looked out at a half a million people who were protesting what was then the prospective involvement of the United States in Iraq. Since then, we have seen that there has been nothing but a trail of lies that led the United States into its involvement in Iraq. That Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda's role in 9/11, nor with the Anthrax attack upon this country. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States.

Iraq was not trying to get uranium from Niger. In fact, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in, it is wrong to stay in. We need to get the U.N. involved and bring in U.N. peacekeepers. We need to turn over to the U.N. control of the oil to be handled on behalf of the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people are self-governing, control of the contracts so there will be no more Halliburton sweetheart deals, no more privatization of Iraq, and no trying to run the government of Iraq by remote control. We need to help rebuild Iraq to the extent that we destroyed it, pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians and noncombatants who have lost their lives, help to rebuild Iraq, help to pay for a U.N. peacekeeping mission, and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME. BRING THEM HOME!

This is the reason why Dennis is still in the race. This is the reason why people are still contributing, and still voting/caucusing for him, even when Kerry has the nomination locked up. We want John Kerry to hear us. We want him to include us.

Dennis Kucinich and his supporters can and will be movers and shakers for the Kerry campaign after the convention. If John Kerry wants us, or thinks he might need us. The choice is his. And the choice is his supporters. As a Kerry supporter, do you wish DK and his crew would go away and/or fall in line, or do you encourage your candidate to include us with letters to the campaign?

[peachy]

1. Kerry won't do it

Kerry is part of the same team that Bush is on, they are in control at the top of both parties and they have done everything they can to marginalize Dennis. I now believe that were Dennis ever able to overcome the media blackouts and smear campaigns used against him and get elected - he would be assassinated before he could do anything.

I'm sorry - but the more I see and read about Kerry the more I want to Ralph. Kerry could throw us a bone like single payer health care or an enlightened energy policy but I'm losing hope even in that happening.

[mobuto]

5. Oh bullshit

There's no grand conspiracy to hide Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich and Kerry are on the same team, the Democratic team.

I'm sorry - but the more I see and read about Kerry the more I want to Ralph.

So you want four more years of Bush?

Kerry could throw us a bone like single payer health care

Right. Kerry has an ambitious health care plan. But single payer? Exactly how would he get that through Congress? Kerry doesn't have the luxury of living in a fantasy land that fringe candidates enjoy. He has to find real, workable solutions to real problems. By making the best the enemy of the good, you're helping to ensure that no health care plan, single payer or otherwise is passed. That's what you'll get if Bush is reelected.

an enlightened energy policy

I don't know what an enlightened energy policy means, if you're not referring to Kerry. Kerry has spent twenty years fighting for a sane energy policy. He has led the fight for higher CAFE standards, he has fought to vastly increase funding for alternative energy research, he has promised to do whatever he can to make America independent of foreign oil, he has fought against drilling ANWR, etc. He has won the complete support of every leading environmental organization. And its really hard to think of any elected politican - and this would include Dennis Kucinich - who has come even close to equalling Kerry's record on energy and the environment, let alone surpassing it.

The choice is Kerry or Bush. And Kerry's a damn fine choice.

[JohnKleeb]

7. Even when I was a Kucinich supporter only, I liked Kerry

Kerry and Kucinich are both phenominal on the environment, and I honestly would say Kerry is better, no offense to Dennis but a 97 in 20 years is no easy accomplishment, I will argue that both have good environmental policy though. Kerry's health care plan isnt Dennis's but it is pretty good I think. I wish Kerry wouldnt act so damn moderate because he is in fact a liberal democrat, who votes with liberal icon Senator Kennedy 90-100% of the time, Kennedy did the same thing though. I just wish he would show it, and maybe that would give people more hope in him.

[mobuto]

8. Kerry "acts" moderate

just as Bush will soon start "acting" moderate, because that's what politicians always do as election day approaches. But since I care about substance more than I care about rhetoric, it doesn't bother me.

Kerry isn't a radical, he's a dedicated liberal Democrat with a record to be proud of. He's easily the most liberal candidate since McGovern, and very likely the most liberal with a chance of actually winning since FDR.

[JohnKleeb]

12. he does, just saying

I know hes no radical, and I agree the most lib since McGovern. He will be a great president, I always had him high before I supported him.

[CabalBuster]

40. Those who support Kerry have unrealistic expectations

He is Bush-lite, and if he gets elected he'll prove me right.

He has NEVER hinted or said he'll pull troops out of Iraq, he's a pro-war imperialist and he'll stay the course (like Bush); continue with the Patriot Act (like Bush ) give another tax break to the rich (like Bush), will not provide medical insurance to the uninsured (like Bush). These two are puppets of the same master and things won't change much.

It's time to wake up from the illusion that Kerry will save America.

[mobuto]

48. So give me the chance to prove my expectations aren't unrealistic

Vote for Kerry. If you're right, the country won't be any worse off than it is under Bush. And if you're wrong, as I think you are, it will be a lot better off.

So gamble.

What do you have to lose? Its not like someone other than Bush or Kerry will be the next President anyway. So prove me wrong. Vote for Kerry.

He has NEVER hinted or said he'll pull troops out of Iraq

Nor should he. He has, however, vowed to end Bush's unilateral foreign policy. He'll bring in NATO, he'll seek a UN mandate, and he'll generally try to make the best of George W. Bush's mess. What's wrong with that?

continue with the Patriot Act

That's simply not true. Kerry's called for the repeal of much of the Patriot Act.

give another tax break to the rich

That's just bogus. Kerry's tax cut is targeted to the middle class. In fact, he's called for the repeal of Bush's taxcuts to those earning over $200,000 - they'll be back to paying more.

will not provide medical insurance to the uninsured (like Bush).

That's also not true. Kerry's proposed an ambitious health care plan that would cover 96% of adults and 99% of children who are presently uninsured.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Even if that were all true, he will not appoint 4 more Scalias...

to the SCOTUS like Bush will.

[LWolf]

10. You nailed it, John.

It's not that I don't respect Kerry's 20 years as a liberal democrat, it's the perceived shift during the Bush administration, and during his campaign. Which Kerry are we going to end up with?

It could be that the "acting moderate" is an election strategy; or it could be an honest shift over the course of his career. Time will tell.

I like John Kerry's lifetime record, and appreciate his 20 years of service. I just want to know: which Kerry are we electing?

[JohnKleeb]

14. Actually Ive done some reading

Kerry really hasnt become like Bush tho his records from the past few years are more moderate than the past, he is still pretty liberal. I think its campaign strategy honest. I wish he would show the side that some say is even more liberal than Kennedy. I know you acknowledge he has a liberal record but what I want people to realize is that hes been fighting for liberal values all along, I admit he could have been better these last few years, I dont like some of the votes but on many issues he's great, I really sincerely do think its electoral stragety, I hope so.

[LWolf]

17. I'll hope with you.

It's better to hope than to fear. ;-)

[JohnKleeb]

19. either way he'll be better than Bush

its funny the way I played with my head, one moment I would be stauchly ABB the next I would only support DK as the nom, funny isnt it.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Kerry is not going to be Jesus Christ but he will be liberal

If we want to fix the problems of this country, we need a way to actually start reforms even if they may be small ones. We can't do this will the senate fillibuster and a few liberal judges.

[Kanary]

18. John, I gotta say it

It's all this praising the "environment" crap that has me, and other poor folk, seething.

That's all you see, and not all the cuts that will continue to be made under Kerry, and the people who will die RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY, because to most of you, it's the environment that counts, and not people's lives.

Dennis is the ONLY ONE who actually cares about people's lives, yet you think Kerry is just dandy. Several people have told you that Kerry USED to be a liberal, but...... that has gone by the wayside. No way do we trust our lives to him.

So, you can keep justifying him, or you can actually hear that Kerry is no longer a liberal, and use your considerable energy to hold his damned feet to the fire.

PEOPLE are part of the environment, too.

Kanary

[mobuto]

24. ???

it's the environment that counts, and not people's lives.

The environment is "people's lives". If we don't keep arsenic out of our drinking water, or mercury out of the fish we eat, if we don't keep carcinogenic compounds out of our cars' exhaust fumes, if we don't do what we can to forestall climate change, then people will die. According to one estimate, by the World Health Organization, in the next few years 8 million people will die because of air pollution. This isn't an Ivory Tower yuppie feel-good issue, the health of the environment is a question of life or death. And the effects of environmental degradation disproportionately affect the poor as they're the ones least able to get adequate medical care, the ones most likely to come into contact with hazardous compounds in a work environment, the ones least likely to be able to remove lead paint or asbestos from their homes, etc.

Dennis is the ONLY ONE who actually cares about people's lives

You're saying John Kerry doesn't care about people's lives? You really believe that?

[Kanary]

36. You got it

I really believe it.

There are people who are going to die from CUTS (which Kerry will support!) in the very near future, not 10 or 20 years down the road, as with the environmental threats.

You see, things look different depending on whether you are middle class, or poor. Since there are often calls here for poor people to vote, it might be a good thing to understand how it looks from that perspective.

Just a suggestion.

Kanary

[mobuto]

38. What are you talking about?

Care to discuss specifics? Cuts in what?

not 10 or 20 years down the road, as with the environmental threats.


No, tens of thousands of Americans are estimated to die each year because of pollution. More Americans die because of air pollution than car accidents.

[no name no slogan]

9. Waitaminute

Kerry could throw us a bone like single payer health care

Right. Kerry has an ambitious health care plan. But single payer? Exactly how would he get that through Congress? Kerry doesn't have the luxury of living in a fantasy land that fringe candidates enjoy. He has to find real, workable solutions to real problems. By making the best the enemy of the good, you're helping to ensure that no health care plan, single payer or otherwise is passed. That's what you'll get if Bush is reelected.

Two assumptions here:

1) "Ambitious" healthcare plan? One that does not cover mental health or dental? How would his plan help someone like me, who is being treated for a mental illness, whose prescriptions alone cost over $300 a month? NONE.

As polls have shown over and over, most Americans favor a single-payer, universal health care plan that covers EVERYONE for EVERYTHING essential. Pew Research has shown that over 70% of Americans and over 50% of Republicans favor higher taxes to provide a single-payer universal healthcare plan.

Yet all Kerry can come up with is a half-baked Hillary Clinton-lite plan that would throw more of our hard-earned tax dollars at for-profit insurance companies and HMOs, and STILL leave some without coverage.

2) "How would he get it through congress?" That one phrase aptly illustrates the problem of a Kerry candidacy-- he has almost no coattail effect. He does not excite people, he does not inspire people (like the "other" JFK); hell, he barely keeps their attention.

With that one statement, you've all but conceded that Kerry is a weak candidate, who will have a difficult enough time getting the liberals out the door to support him, much less provide long enough coattails to take back the Senate or House. And it's no wonder, really: he never won a contested primary with over 50% of the vote.

His vision makes Michael Dukakis look inspired. His only direction is the wrong one, only not as fast as GeeDubya. People like me will still get screwed, only with a John Kerry administration we'll get the benefit of the reach-around-- some consolation.

John Kerry better start acting like the man he was in 1986, instead of the man he was in 2003. Or this party's in deeper trouble than I thought.

[mobuto]

15. Wrong, Wrong and Wrong

"Ambitious" healthcare plan? One that does not cover mental health or dental? How would his plan help someone like me, who is being treated for a mental illness, whose prescriptions alone cost over $300 a month? NONE.

That's just wrong. Kerry has long pushed for mental health parity legislation which would require insurers to cover mental health care, including your prescriptions. I can cite speech after speech after speech in which he has talked about just that.

And if you don't have medical insurance in the first place, Kerry's plan would get you insurance. I am not sure of his position on dental care, but if you're going to dump the Democratic Party and help reelect Bush because you don't think Kerry adequately addresses toothaches, then I really can't help you. You can't make the best the enemy of the good.

Pew Research has shown that over 70% of Americans and over 50% of Republicans favor higher taxes to provide a single-payer universal healthcare plan.

And I agree that that's the best solution. But that isn't politically possible in Washington. It just isn't. If Clinton, who made it his signature campaign issue, couldn't even bring it to a vote in a Democratic Congress, John Kerry sure as hell can't get it through a Republican Congress. Kerry's plan isn't perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than what we have now, and infinitely better than you'd get under Bush. Moreover, it can actually get passed.

He does not excite people, he does not inspire people (like the "other" JFK); hell, he barely keeps their attention.

Really? I think we've had a little too much excitement these last three years as it is. I for one would enjoy a return to quiet normality. But your argument seems just a tad tautogical: You're not inspired to support Kerry because Kerry doesn't inspire people. Huh?

And while Kerry may not have broken 50%, so what? You think its an accident that he's won almost every primary? He may not have won a resounding mandate, but he has a hell of a lot more of one than any other Democratic candidate. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that a candidate who never broke 5% in any contested primary is more "exciting" than one stuck with 45% support?

[no name no slogan]

23. Not quite.

I happen to live in a state (MN) where we have a health insurance plan similar to the one John Kerry (and even Howard Dean) campaigned on. We have a very high level of covering the hard-to-insure, and even our insurance companies are not-for-profit by law, but we STILL do not cover every uninsured person in the state.

My coverage under the state-sponsored plan would cost me about $400/month-- which is over 35% of my unemployment allotment per month. And I still have an $800 mortgage on a 1000 sq ft house, and other bills to pay, too.

More "insurance" is NOT what we need. COVERAGE is what people like me (and others in the same predicament) need.

And I have serious doubts about Kerry's plan getting passed. It's very similar to the same Frankenstein that Clinton foisted on us in 1993-- which was neither Universal NOR Single-Payer. The Clinton plan would only concentrate more power into the hands of the five biggest commercial insurance companies in the country-- and STILL give them the power to set rates and coverage.

And Clinton's plan was not only opposed by universal single-payer advocates, but by medium-sized insurers and doctors as well. The medium-sized insurers would have been cut out of the market, and the doctors would still be limited to providing care that the insurance company permitted. In other words, Clinton's plan was DOA.

Even though I'm active in my local party and know many Kerry supporters, I do not know a SINGLE ONE who has been energized by Kerry's campaign alone. Most of it is anti-Bush, which will only go so far.

People want a reason to vote FOR somebody-- we already have plenty of reasons to vote AGAINST the Shrub. John Kerry is the safe, media-endorsed choice. He probably won't change much, or even try to change much, because "it won't pass" or "it's too difficult".

Hell, even Rupert Murdoch likes Kerry, and for good reason. One of Kerry's top ten contributors is JFK's brother's law firm, whose bread and butter is representing Big Media against the FCC and government regulations. Rupe even went to the trouble of arranging a meeting with several Kerry advisors, just so they'd know what Rupe was expecting if Kerry got elected.

If you're on the wrong path, you turn the hell around and go a different way. You don't just slow down.

[mobuto]

27. The Kerry plan is pragmatic

You seem to forget that Kerry's plan also calls for an expansion and reform of Medicaid, so that it will cover far more Americans than it does now. That alone makes your criticism of the Minnesota plan irrelevent - the whole point is to eliminate the huge gaps in coverage that exist today.

It's very similar to the same Frankenstein that Clinton foisted on us in 1993-- which was neither Universal NOR Single-Payer.

Really? I don't see any similarities at all.

And Clinton's plan was not only opposed by universal single-payer advocates, but by medium-sized insurers and doctors as well. The medium-sized insurers would have been cut out of the market, and the doctors would still be limited to providing care that the insurance company permitted. In other words, Clinton's plan was DOA.

Clinton's plan was DOA for two reasons:

1. It was all stick and no carrot.
2. The way in which it was developed was amateurish.

Kerry's learned a lot from Clinton's failure - and there's no reason at all to believe that the insurance industry would mount anything like the campaign against Kerry's proposal that it mounted against Clinton's.

Hell, even Rupert Murdoch likes Kerry, and for good reason

Oh that's bullshit. Murdoch's never given a dime to Kerry in his life. That's about as substance-devoid a comment as that of the Republicans who say that Osama bin Laden would vote for Kerry. Its just complete bullshit, of the absolute lowest common denominator. You should know better.

But what about mental health parity legislation? Don't have a response?

[no name no slogan]

77. The Murdoch Connection

Murdoch and Fox have hired Kerry's brothers' firm to work for them on numerous occassions-- as the firm specializes in defending big-media companies from the public interest.

Kerry's brothers' firm is his 9th-largest campaign contributor. Kerry is funded by big media's money. So I seriously doubt there will be any seriously needed reform in the media during a Kerry presidency.

As far as Kerry's "pragmatic" approach to healthcare......."pragmatic" is what you should become AFTER you've fought for what you truly want. "Pragmatic" is what you become when you've exhausted all options available to you, and you have nowhere else to go.

You sure as hell don't throw in the towel before the starting bell has sounded.

If any union negotiator walked up to the bargaining table and started with a "pragmatic" approach, he'd be shown the door immediately. You don't go into a fight by telling your opponent you'd settle for the lowest common denominator, and hoping and praying he accepts it as is.

No way. You go in and demand the impossible, knowing full well you probably won't get that. After your opponent counters, THEN you can become "pragmatic".

If the founding fathers had been "pragmatic", we'd probably still have the Queen on our money, and would speak with a Canadian accent.

As far as mental health parity laws, hell yes I'm all for them. But "parity" when you have nothing is still nothing.

[mobuto]

79. Um, Kerry's brother has been an communications lawyer

forever. And you're shocked that Cam Kerry supports his brother's Presidential race? Kerry's brother was hired by Murdoch, not because of the election, but because he's one of the nation's leading FCC lawyers. But hell, if you were right - which you're not - and if Murdoch really did support Kerry's candidacy, my response would be Great! We need all the support we can get. If Richard Nixon's corpse wants to send a letter of recommendation to its old enemy as well, then all power to it.

As far as Kerry's "pragmatic" approach to healthcare......."pragmatic" is what you should become AFTER you've fought for what you truly want.

No, pragmatic is what you say when you're trying to win what's bound to be the toughest and most hotly contested election in world history.

If any union negotiator walked up to the bargaining table and started with a "pragmatic" approach, he'd be shown the door immediately.

Don't talk to me about organized labor, "no name no slogan." Union negotiators aren't running for elective office. And every single labor union in the United States has already or soon will endorse John Kerry. Not Dennis Kucinich. Not Ralph Nader. Because real labor negotiators understand that winning is everything. If you have a great plan but you can't get it through, you might as well have no plan.

You go in and demand the impossible, knowing full well you probably won't get that. After your opponent counters, THEN you can become "pragmatic".

Ok my friend - run for elective office and prove that your scenario works.


As far as mental health parity laws, hell yes I'm all for them. But "parity" when you have nothing is still nothing.

I think the facts are clear - you completely misstated Kerry's position, singling out mental health care as a problem that Kerry has not addressed, when in fact he has done so repeatedly and consistently and for a great many years.

On Edit: Corrected spelling mistakes.

[freeforall]

83. True, nonamenoslogan!

"If the founding fathers had been "pragmatic", we'd probably still have the Queen on our money, and would speak with a Canadian accent."

LOL, you'd also have universal healthcare.

[mike_c]

2. I will never vote for John Kerry while Dennis Kucinich walks...

...the earth. This has got nothing to do with "my candidate, your candidate" squabling. Kucinich gets it right on every issue that matters to me. Kerry effectively agrees with Bush on those issues. If I wanted to vote for endless war I'd vote for Bush.

[Zomby Woof]

3. Without Dennis's input on these matters

I could go insane reading the headlines and listening to the spin on the EveningPropaganda shows. He reminds me that I am not imagining this insanity after all.

[LWolf]

13. Yes.

I've gone one step further. No evening propaganda shows. I can get a general feel for where media is going by reading morning headlines, and a few articles, and spare myself the insanity. Besides, I can get whatever they're saying by listening to the people around me, who repeat what they hear pretty accurately. I wish I could say I hear them questioning what they watch.

[no name no slogan]

4. For Kerry's own sake, he better listen

otherwise, there's going to be a lot of anti-war voters who will just sit this one out come November.

The sad thing is, these anti-war folk are Democratic votes for the asking. All they want is a definate plan to get us out of this mess, and let the Iraqis choose their own destiny.

Getting rid of one dictator and putting another one in place is NOT the right way to do things. It won't "finish the job", and we'll be back in the same place eventually.

Get rid of US control. No more Halliburton sweetheart deals. It's the only chance for a truly democratic Iraq.

[peachy]

21. Kerry makes my point for me...

Really - this statement could have been written by the PNAC itself:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319d.html
Kerry Statement on Venezuela
March 19, 2004

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I hope Kerry adapts Kucinich's plan too

Kennedy was right, it is turning in to Vietnam. I am a "slash" meaning I support Kerry and Kucinich with ethauism, so the answer to your question, is that I encourage you do to the latter write to the campaign, we have to get them home, its getting worse and worse by the day. Kucinich is the unsung hero of this whole presidential campaign, it is no concidence that he was the first politican I ever shook hands with, actually Kerry is the official nominee I believe but hopefully those DK delegates can influence. I just hope the platform is good, its really turning in to hell and worse in Iraq, and the possiblity of a draft looms over the air, I hope Kerry listens to Dennis who really is a brave soul.

[LWolf]

11. Good point, John.

It isn't just Kerry supporters that need to contact him. DK's people are democrats and voters, too. We can contact him to let him know where we stand.

I'll make that my next project, as soon as I'm done cleaning my office!

[JohnKleeb]

16. yep

We need every vote we can get, I dont believe in alienating, Kerry and Kucinich both are fine democrats, we need to listen to each other to win.

[zulchzulu]

20. So the US out in 90 days and the UN in... let's live in a fantasy world

I find it rather disingenuous for Kucinich fans to say with such a broad brush or for Kucinich to lie about Kerry's position with trite simplifications like "neither the leading Democrat nor the Republican Administration is willing to commit to a plan to bring our troops home."

That's bullshit. Pure and simple.

Learn about Kerry's position on the Iraq war. Do your homework.

Kerry's plan deals with the reality of the situation and doesn't pander to people that don't understand either the IWR vote that Kerry voted for that wanted the UN to continue inspections and use war as a last resort with a multinational UN force nor the reality that pulling our troops out in 90 days is not going to do anything except show that we cut and run and leave a country in ruins, ripe for genocidal civil war and human disaster.

Do your homework before dissing Kerry:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

As for Kucinich not really wanting to unite behind the Democratic party and continuing to run a vanity campaign that is dead last, who cares.

Either you want change in the White House or you want to allow Bush to get another four more disastrous years to fuck up this country. Period.

[no name no slogan]

22. Vanity campaign my ass....

this campaign is about what direction the Democratic party should go in.

Should we continue being the party of not-quite-as-bad-as-Bush, or should we stand up, in stark contrast, to the right-wing neo-cons on the Republican side?

Do we stand for medical insurance access, or universal, single-payer medical coverage for ALL?

Do we stand for enforcing so-called "side regulations" on human rights in our trade agreements, or do we stand for repealing them, and replacing them with agreements based on the rights of people first, and corporations second?

Do we stand for an end to pre-emptive war, or do we reserve the right to invade whoever, whenever we want, as long as it serves "our interests" (whatever that may be)?

Do we stand for "strongarming" OPEC into producing more oil, or do we put teeth in our environmental laws and regulations to cut down on the use of fossil fuels?

Do we stand up for true democracy and the right of self-determination for ALL countries and people, or do we just continue supporting the corrupt leaders of oppressive regimes, because they happen to be "acceptible" to big business?

Do we continue schooling new right-wing terror squads through the SOA, or do we say NO to violence and terror as a means of control?

These are just a few of the reasons why Dennis Kucinich is still in the race. He's raising the issues that Kerry and the party establishment are TOO AFRAID to talk about.

And Dennis Kucinich is a man of his word. He made a promise to his supporters that he would stay in the race until the convention, and would even continue to lead on these issues AFTER the convention, too.

For John Kerry and his supporters, the race may end on November 2. But for many of us, the real work will just be beginning.

[mobuto]

28. Vanity campaign completely

There's no way in hell the UN can ensure stability in Iraq. And the UN would be the first to admit that - as they have, repeatedly. They cannot provide security anywhere where their presence is anything but symbolic. They learned that in Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia.

That Kucinich would suggest that the UN replace US forces is the surest sign that his campaign isn't serious. The UN needs to be involved, and the US needs to get a UN mandate. But Kucinich's proposal is a joke.

[peachy]

33. What should become apparent to you

is that the US can do no better. The US has lost any claim to legitimacy that it might have ever had in Iraq. Yes the UN would have a very difficult job cleaning up after US there, but there is simply no-one else.

[mobuto]

41. Well, the US can do better, the question is

how much better. I think the evidence is becoming clear that the US can't deal with Iraq alone. We need to form a broad international coalition, probably under the aegis of NATO, and with a UN mandate. But the UN cannot have control - because that's just a recipe for disaster. I don't think Bush can do that - but I think Kerry can. Which is why we need to do whatever we can to elect John Kerry.

[zulchzulu]

50. "But for many of us, the real work will just be beginning." Ah,sanctimony

How nauseating.

Do you think "Kerry supporters" and John Kerry haven't been working for a better environment, civil rights, women's rights and other issues?

I bet I volunteer for more causes than you. But I won't play the nose-up-in-the-air "sanctimony card".

Sheesh.

[no name no slogan]

78. One man's sanctimony is another man's humility

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty certain that if Kerry wins we will not have:

* an end to US involvement in running Iraq,
* universal, single-payer healthcare for everyone,
* a reduction in the wasteful Pentagon budget,
* an end to US imperialism abroad,
* withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO,
* free public education pre-K through college.

As long as those issues (and many others) are out there, I will still be fighting. I don't call that sanctimony-- I call that working for a better world.

John Kerry is just like Bill Clinton, except without the charisma. The soccer moms and nascar dads will do alright (just barely), the rich will continue to control everything, and the rest of us will continue to be screwed, because we can't afford to buy a politician of our own.

[MadHound]

25. Yes, we've all taken a close look at Kerry's position vis a vis Iraq

And while much of it is promise and hot air("As President, John Kerry will immediately lay out a concrete plan for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people. This plan will provide a reasonable timetable for a rapid turnover of power to Iraqi authorities." My question here is why doesn't he do this now?), what little solid plans he does present indicate that he is going to continue his war-mongering ways("Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army. Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills," ie, he wants more fighters, and more troops skilled in occupation:eyes:)

As far as Kerry's IWR vote goes, first off, the Bushco's wording of UN inspectors and multinational colition didn't fool millions of anti war protestors, nor those few brave souls who voted against the IWR. We realized from the get go what this was, a face saving move, a little sugarcoating to make the bitter pill of war go down easier. So Kerry is either a fool who is easily tricked by one of the dumbest Presidents ever to hold office, or an opportunistic cynical war-monger who didn't wish to appear "soft on terra" since he was already aware that he would be running for office. Either way, it doesn't paint Kerry in a flattering light. Personally, I think it is the latter, that Kerry wasn't wishing to appear "soft on terra" while running for the Presidentcy. And having done this manuever once, I think we can rest assured he will continue to do it. In other words he will continue the Iraqi war, not wishing to appear as "soft on terra", especially since he will be hankering after re-election. So once again, as in Vietnam, a beaten down third world country will be held hostage to the whims of a President trying to be tough and macho. And like Vietnam, we will eventually be forced out of Iraq through the dent of public opinion, leaving behind chaos, ruin and death. Damn, don't we ever learn the lessons of history?

Why couldn't Kerry have simply done his damn job, you know, representing the will of his constituents? Is that too fucking much to ask? Messages to the members of Congress were running 280 to 1 against the IWR, polls showed that the majority of people wished to let the inspectors complete their work before deciding whether or not to invade Iraq. Millions upon millions, both in this country and abroad were vehemntly making their opinions against the IWR known. Is it too much to ask, when considering an issue of this magnitude, for Kerry to put his personal political ambitions aside and do the goddamn job he was hired by the people to do?

But hey, if your blind hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see the evil in both parties, I understand. But I do have a question for you. If Kerry wins the Presidentcy and continues this illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign country, will you be out there in the streets with us protesting Kerry's actions? Or will you continue to take the politically pragmatic route of prizing a Dem win above all else? I really hope that you choose the former course, because it is those who chose the latter in regards to Vietnam that contributed to that nightmare's twenty year reign of destruction. Do you really want that on your conscience?

[The Magistrate]

26. But Who Will You Be Voting For, Mr. Hound, In November?

Enquiring minds want to know....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MadHound]

29. Well Magistrate, it's like this

My first choice is for the Green party. I think it is imperative that we build a progressive party that isn't beholden to the corporate interests that have corrupted the big two. Failing that, I will either vote for Nader or Kerry, something I will have to decide before I enter the voting booth.

Now please, please forego the standard knee jerk reaction that I will be helping Bush. We both know that little meme is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. Besides, it gets tiring after the 1000th repetition.

However, if you feel some need to flame me so that you can feel all warm and self righteous inside, go for it. It won't be the first time, nor probably the last.

[mobuto]

31. How come?

Now please, please forego the standard knee jerk reaction that I will be helping Bush. We both know that little meme is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. Besides, it gets tiring after the 1000th repetition.


You're a progressive. You can either vote for the only candidate who has a chance of beating Bush, John Kerry, or you can vote for someone else. If you don't vote for Kerry, that means he'll have one fewer vote for defeating Bush. I don't see how that's even remotely disingenuous; rather it seems painfully obvious. You can't make the essential problem go away by just ignoring it.

Small parties work in a number of countries. They do not work in American presidential politics. They never have, and they never will.
Blame the Framers of the Constitution, if you like, but that's a reality.

[peachy]

37. How long

do you suggest we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils? I've been doing it since 1980 and I don't see that that strategy is getting us anywhere. I will not give my vote to Kerry just because he's not Bush. And I submit that if he runs that campaign then he will not win.

How long will you continue to believe that the Democrats as anointed by the rich and powerful are going to do anything to change the status quo in this country? It's true that Bush has done extreme damage in all sorts of ways but does that make it okay to vote for Kerry because he'll do a little less? If Kerry the candidate is afraid to say that we need to advance an alternative fuel strategy and instead equivocates with Bush about OPEC arm twisting what can I expect of Kerry the President?

[mobuto]

39. Well, I can't answer because I don't think Kerry is evil

I think he's an absolutely terrific candidate. If you don't like the way the Democratic Party works, then work within it to change it. Or work with a liberal advocacy group - not a third party - to promote issues that you don't feel are being adequately addressed. But voting for a candidate who has no chance in a million years of winning is nothing but a sign of the most profound pessimism.


not 10 or 20 years down the road, as with the environmental threats.


Annointed by the rich and powerful? WTF?

It's true that Bush has done extreme damage in all sorts of ways but does that make it okay to vote for Kerry because he'll do a little less?

What damage exactly will Kerry do?

If Kerry the candidate is afraid to say that we need to advance an alternative fuel strategy and instead equivocates with Bush about OPEC arm twisting what can I expect of Kerry the President?

We are talking about John Kerry, right? The Junior Senator from Massachusetts? If you don't think that John Kerry has an alternative fuel strategy, you just haven't been paying attention. What do you think he's spent the last TWENTY years talking about? What exactly do you think he's referring to when he says he won't send any Americans to die for foreign oil?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/long_enviro.pdf
Have you read this?

[MadHound]

43. I'll try to make a long answer relatively short

I'm taking the long view of our country's future, not the short view of who wins the next election.

During my thirty+ years of shedding blood sweat and tears for the Democratic party, I've have watched two congruent trends with alarm. The first is the radical rightward shift of the Democratic party, away from it's standard leftist base. The party has increasingly embraced the ideals of the DLC/New Dems, with it's lessening emphasis on representation of the common man, and gravitation towards big money. In tandem with this, corporate corruption has taken root in the party, to the point that even a supposed "liberal" like Clinton feel that it is imperative to reward his corporate masters with such entitlements as NAFTA and the '96 Telecom act, while rewarding its base with programs like welfare "reform". This is no longer the Democratic party of our parents and grandparents. This is a cynical money hungry Democratic party that is willing to sell out whomever whenever just to make a buck. If you wish to find out more on this phenomenon, I suggest the book "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips.

I voted for Gore in '00 with great trepidation, and the actions of congressional Dems has truly disgusted me the past three years. Therefore I've come to the conclusion that it is time to back another party, and the Greens are the closest to my views, both in platform and in spirit. They take no corporate cash, and are out there fighting for the common man. Building up a party is a long term project, therefore it is incumbemnt upon us to start now. A good goal to shoot for this election cycle is that magical number of five percent. No, we won't win the Presidency, but we have a good chance in many local races. However, any party needs the national exposure that a presidential run brings, so therefore we have to run for the top spot, in addition to filling the slate in state and local elections.

This strategy will produce one of two results. The first is that the Democrats recognize the threat from the left, and shift their focus back towards their progressive base. If this happens(a big if in my opinion), then I will be more than happy to rejoin the Democratic fold. This does have precidence in our history, back in the thirtie the Socialist party was gaining power and forced FDR to co-opt some of their planks, notably old age insurance(Social Security) and unemployment insurance. So there is some hope for that result.

But in my opinion, the second result is much more likely. The Democrats simply swinging ever further rightward in pursuit of the Holy Grail, the Reagan Dems, the NASCAR dads, etc. and in the process becoming a hollow shell of themselves, with more in common with the Republicans than with their constituency. In tandem with this they will become even more beholden to their corporate masters, selling out their base, and our country all for the almighty corporate dollar.

This is the most likely outcome in my opinion, and if it comes about, more and more people will flee the party in disgust. It is imparitive that there is a truly progressive party in place to help these people, thus we need to start building the Greens now, so that safety net is in place. And once it becomes obvious that the two major parties have become the Republicrats, the Greens will be able to pick up the pieces and give government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people.

Think this is all pretty far fetched? Well, it has already occurred once in our history, I suggest you research that period known as the Gilded Age, when party didn't matter, just so long as you had the money. And by all measurable indications, the Second Gilded Age that we are in now is going to end even more spectacularly than the finale of the First Gilded Age, which was the Great Depression. We have got to turn our country back from the cliffedge we are approaching. The Dems and 'Pugs are too preoccupied with money to do anything useful, so it is up to you and me. Are you ready?

[LWolf]

30. Well, I can agree with you on one thing.

You're certainly an authority on bullshit.

Let's review:

1. I did not "dis" Kerry. Please do your homework on my original post.

2. I've seen Kerry's position on the Iraq war. Before you so kindly linked to it for me. I'm not impressed. And my personal opinion was not really the point of this thread; check the original post. I'm not the one spreading lack of confidence through the airwaves. The bottom line? Deennis is right. He did not lie.

3. I do not understand the IWR vote or the patriot act vote. Why don't I understand? Because, from my perspective, there are few options that make sense. Either he couldn't see and understand what the rest of us saw and understood, or he is willing to undermine our civil liberties and is willing to spend our blood unnecessarily. Or he has shifted politically over the course of his career. Those options cast a shadow of doubt. Not a shadow I am happy to proclaim; one I would be glad to lay to rest. Telling me that the issues that I personally value are valueless will not lay anything to rest, by the way.

4. Let's bounce this back at ya: do your own homework. Your ignorance as to Dennis Kucinich's motivations and efforts is blinding.

5. I personally want significant, comprehensive, systemic change in the WH and in my country. Not just a change of the name of the man or party that resides there. And the whole point of this thread is to point out that Kerry needs to offer just that to avoid another 4 years of Bush.

Do you consider yourself "disingenuous" to paint "reality" with the brush of your own perspective, and consider it more "real" than another's?

[Kanary]

35. Wholly agree with your #5

and want it ........yesterday.

Kanary

[zulchzulu]

52. I've looked at Kucinich's policies and I try not to laugh too hard

Getting out of NAFTA and the WTO?

Thanks, Dennis! Let's have a global depression and a trade war! Woo hoo!

Leave Iraq in 90 days and hand over the quagmire to the UN?

Thanks, Dennis! Let's watch the neato genocide on TV and watch the Middle East erupt as well as imply to our allies that we just cut and run.

Demand universal healthcare and go against the pharmaceutical industries!

Thanks, Dennis! The Congress and the Senate will destroy the idea like they did with Hillary in the early '90s. So that means the same policies in place! Woo hoo!

Let's start a Department of Peace that goes around the World and tells people how beautiful and peaceful we are. Instead of using good diplomacy and foreign policy we can be proud of, let's make another department and bloat the government even more.

I could go on. It's pot party parlor talk for the most part. No wonder Kucinich is in last place.

Hey, enjoy the vanity campaign!

When you grow up and want to face reality that we have to beat Bush at all costs this November, you know where to go.

[eridani]

53. The joke is on you

All you are saying to all the non-voters out there is "Don't bother participating in politics--realists know that public institutions have no prayer of stopping corporations from screwing you, so just go back to sleep."

Amazing how much trading went on in the world before there was ever such a thing as WTO. No one could possibly strike any mutually agreeable deals without agreements made by corporations with no appeals by public interests aloud.

And universal health care is so non-mainstream that 51% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats are for it. But we shouldn't even bother to bring it up, because we are just absolutely and for all time helpless in the face of corporate power and what the public thinks means jackshit.

[LWolf]

55. You're not trying that hard.

You aren't even trying too hard to have a respectful discourse. I've been grown up for several decades now. I haven't engaged in pot party parlor talk since the 70s. And it has nothing to do with vanity. Dennis is leagues more humble and graceful in his interactions than, let's see...you, for instance.

Your misrepresentations of his positions highlight a weakness on issues, and a weakness in the ability to engage others with civility.

Of course, I've never said that we didn't have to beat * in November. I have said frequently over the last several months, that I am disappointed at the cost. As an adult, I don't need permission to be disappointed, or to express that disappointment in a civil manner.

And you, of course, are free to be as brash as you like. It's a sign of maturity to express disagreement with courtesy. Courtesy...or not. The choice is yours.

[zulchzulu]

58. Kucinich is in last place for a reason

His candidacy is a failure. His message is warped and convoluted. He is simply running a vanity campaign for attention and maybe to get a date.

I personally don't care about whether the Kerry campaign uses any of Kucinich's policies. They don't work and would be a drag on the ultimate strategy of beating Bush.

If you want to vote for Nader or anybody else out of spite that your candidate was an absolute failure to connect with voters, so be it.

[LWolf]

60. A model of incivility, thanks.

I don't do spite.
I don't do Nader.

The long impressive list of public figures supporting Dennis Kucinich:

http://kucinich.us/endorsements/

And of course, there are the polls showing support for his message:

http://www.kucinich.us/poll_support.php

And, just on his site alone, 10 pages of people testifying to their support. A small fraction of us.

http://www.kucinich.us/i-switched7.php

There are plenty of us out here; happily, an agressive lack of basic manners on the part of a Kerry supporter here or there won't dissuade us.



http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:fpKUxJT5dBYJ:

[goodhue]

44. you don't understand the plan

UN takes charge 90 days after a new UN resolution. US troops then rotated out. But even Dennis concedes that US may likely contribute to UN peacekeeping force.

The US occupation is inconsistent with security and stability. The UN will take control. Its only a matter of time. Dennis was/is right. Kerry and a lot of democrats are in denial.

[Hav]

51. With all due respect to Kucinich,

did he ask the UN? :)
I agree that the current situation is a desaster.
I also think that it is unfortunately a kind of an illusion to believe that those who kill Americans now and those who have already proved that they neither care for the innocent civilians or other foreigners, will stop their attacks for the case the UN takes over.
As a matter of fact, Bush fucked up Iraq, he was warned of consequences of invading Iraq but he did it against the will of those states who are now supposed to clean up the mess.
I agree that they should help and I believe they will help but I am somehow surprised, and this doesn't concern specifically you, but it amazes me how some people ask how many more Americans have to die and as a solution propose, that the countries who opposed this desaster should send their kids to die instead.

[rinsd]

32. List of UN sucesses minus US troop commitment in hot zones

[mobuto]

34. Even the UN admits it cannot provide security.

except where its presence is symbolic. The UN does a lot of things well - but peacekeeping in a warzone is not one of them.

Just ask the Srebrenicans.

[rinsd]

42. Well....

I take it you go my point.

"peacekeeping in a warzone is not one of them."

We are in agreement.

[goodhue]

47. UN peacekeepers . . .

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml

[MoonRiver]

45. Kerry will pay NO political price for Iraq. That's a bush* baby.

Right from the beginning of this hideous and absurd war I predicted that it would be little emperor's downfall. My insight is proving 100% correct. Kerry's going to be the next US president unless Diebold rigs a huge number of votes.

[Desertrose]

46. I agree with you LWolf....no surprise of course

as I am a DK supporter til I no longer draw breath on this world.

I hope that Kerry & his supporters really and truly listen to what Dennis Kucinich and his supporters have to say.....

Dennis is right and this fact will become more & more obvious as time goes on....most likely before Nov -possibly at the convention.

Peaced & :hug:
DR

[sandnsea]

49. He has a plan

To be respectful of other nations, humble about our abilities to handle this on our own, share the decision making and reconstruction process, and internationalize this effort. Iraq cannot become a failed state. He has a plan. But the fact is he has to be careful how much he says because Bush's plan is the one being implemented and the troops and Iraqi people don't need to have Bush's plan undermined and make the situation in Iraq even worse. If they think they can commit more acts of terrorism and scare us off, that's what they'll do. So it just isn't responsible for Kerry to run off at the mouth too much. Which most level-headed people understand, which is part of that thing called "electability".

[LWolf]

54. Now that's what I need to hear.

At least partly. I understand the politics behind a cautious public position and working behind the scenes for a man who wants to be elected.

I understand it even if I don't like it. I don't consider being frank and open "running off at the mouth."

And I've never bought the "electability" rhetoric. It results in too much compromise and too much mediocrity, IMO.

But I see the current reality, and hope that Kerry really does have the plan that you envision. If so, I'll gladly support it.

[David Dunham]

56. Kerry can withdraw troops after he wins. But won't win if he says it now

If Kerry before the election calls for the withdrawl of US troops from Iraqw, Bush will be able to convince the sheeple that Kerry is a far left pacifist and anti-US interests.

[LWolf]

57. ok, let's explore this.

Let me say that I find your theory a likely possibility, and I hope it is true. Is there any indication in Kerry's positions or statements that lead us to believe that he would withdraw troops, or that he would consider it, or make it a goal? Or do we just take it on blind faith?

I am willing to hope; willing to give him some benefit of the doubt. I would like some indication that my hopes are not misplaced or unfounded.

He'll have my vote anyway; but I'd like to spend my vote with hope and enthusiasm rather than with reservations. I think it would get the next administration off to a good start if progressives could give Kerry a true vote of confidence.

[zulchzulu]

59. Please read and understand this about Kerry's Iraq War plan

Kerry said this:

First, we need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government – including the absorbing of the Coalition Provisional Authority. This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable to securing both troops and financial commitments from other countries.

Second, we need a new UN Security Council resolution authorizing a multi-national force under US command – a command that properly should be ours because we are the largest troop presence. We will not put 130,000 American troops under foreign command. But internationalizing the force and placing it under a UN umbrella will spread the burden globally, reduce the risks to our soldiers, and remove the specter of American occupation.

Third, the resolution must include a reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government – for transferring political power and the responsibility for reconstruction to the people of Iraq. Their participation in rebuilding their country and shaping their new institutions is fundamental to the cause of a stable, peaceful, and independent Iraq that contributes to the world instead of threatening it.

Fourth, the Administration must accelerate efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces –border, police, military, and civil defense– so that Iraq will have the capacity to provide for its own security over time. To do this we will need assistance from our allies and others to train and equip the forces as quickly as possible, to monitor their progress as they take to the field, and to serve as interim security personnel while the process is ongoing.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/brookings.html

[LWolf]

61. A good start.

A moderate, sensible plan, as far as it goes.

After this week, I don't think we ought to have a troop presence. All along, I assumed that if we called the UN in with a multi-national security force, we would be a part of that force. At this point, after Falluja, I think the troop presence ought not to include American faces. I think the situation can be defused more easily without an American presence on the spot. Behind the scenes, in partnership with allies, yes. On site, no.

Thank you for the link and the thought.

[zulchzulu]

62. Agreed

My apologies for seeming arrogant or whatever with Kucinich's issues and such.

I do feel though that if you look closely at Kerry's plans and issues, they aren't perfect but are at least progressive or moderate and even "liberal" in many cases. And mostly, they are doable or at least more doable than trying to leapfrog too quickly for the electorate and Congress in the next few years.

Like you, I was against the war and protested in the streets against Bush's unilateral madness. But we have to deal with "now". It sucks, but unfortunately we can't wave a magic wand and make it all go away.

I have a feeling that the last week in Iraq is going to be historically seen as the beginning of a long, bloody civil war or worse.

And like what Kerry says, we need to take the target of American troops' backs and get a more multinational force in there, take away the Halliburton treasonous war profiteering and incrementally pull our troops out within a reasonable timetable.

[LWolf]

64. accepted.

I love it when people can listen and find points of agreement.

I like Kerry's long record, and his plans are, for the most part, acceptable. Unless you compare them with the current resident; then they really shine. I think that was partly the point of this thread; apparently, according to the radio I was listening to, the public isn't hearing or seeing the "shine."

It's a fine line for Kerry to walk; not too far in any direction for fear of alienating factions, yet still showcasing his policies.

The best outcomes happen (IMO) when idealism and pragmatism join forces.

:toast:

[genius]

63. Thank you for posting this

Dennis is absolutely right.

[LWolf]

65. You're welcome!

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Despite what some think, Kerry will listen to Kucinich supporters...

He may not take as many liberal positions as they would like but he will listen and take into consideration what they have to say.

[LWolf]

73. I hope so.

I'm looking for some indications that that may be so. I guess I'll start with hoping for a response to letters!

[Doomsayer13]

69. has anybody asked the UN?

Kucinich seems to assume that the UN will willfully throw their troops into a hot zone to bail out the US. That's a pipe dream. The UN is one of the most self-intersted and unmanagable institutions there is. Why the hell would UN countries, many of whom have constituents who want nothing to do with Iraq, willfully invest their young men and women into to the most unstable region in the world? Kucinich believes that the UN is some sort of benevolent institution. They're not.

We have to face the facts... we broke it, we bought it. Iraq is our problem and nobody elses, and we need to fix it. If we withdraw troops, we may set off the greatest human rights disaster of the 21st century, and that's not an acceptable option. I opposed this war, but now that we're on the ground, we have no choice but to see it through, hard as that may be.

[LWolf]

72. We've already set off

the greatest human rights disaster in the very young 21st century.

Bringing in allies is the first start to "fixing" it. It involves admitting that you were wrong. It involves cooperation. You have to "work well with others." It also defuses the current climate of fear, anger, resentment, and anti-US sentiment.

Kucinich "believes" in working with the rest of the world. A novel concept. While the UN has no reason to meet GWB halfway, the rest of the world has only good to gain by welcoming his replacement and working to establish or re-establish cooperative relationships with the US.

Kucinich "believes" in international cooperation. Therefore, he includes it in his overall plans and solutions, not just for Iraq.

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


International Cooperation (revised 3-25-04)

<snip>

In the past three years, the U.S. has subjected the world community to a doctrine of preventive, unilateral, and illegal first strikes against "forces of evil" that haven't attacked us. America has maintained into perpetuity an obsession with overwhelming U.S. military superiority. We have insisted that everyone else adhere to rules of international order that we have no intention of following ourselves. We have demonstrated a contempt for international organizations and any multilateral constraints whatsoever on the employment of American power.

All of this has estranged and frightened our allies and provoked enduring enmity in the councils of other governments and the hearts of citizens around the world. George Bush's foreign policies have made us new foreign enemies. George Bush's defense policies have weakened our defenses. George Bush's responses to 9/11 have made future 9/11s more likely to occur.

In the America of my dreams, the America I see taking root and flourishing under my administration, other nations will encounter an America that abides by Lincoln's precept: "The only lasting way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend." We will accommodate rather than alienate, make friends instead of enemies, and employ carrots far more often than sticks. We must create an Administration that will drain the swamps of hopelessness, exploitation, and humiliation that cause vulnerable individuals to head down the terrorist road. We need a president who will be both tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror.

and <snip>

As president, I would seek to re-engage the world by collaborating with the world's nations on our most intractable common challenges. The Bush Administration has squandered opportunities to cooperatively address environmental degradation, persistent hunger, ignorance and illiteracy, safe water, the AIDS pandemic, the degrading status of women in so many places, failed states, cultural obliteration, transnational governance of exploitative transnational corporations, and perhaps most important of all, the desperate grinding poverty of two billion souls -- fully one-third of the planet. We need a president who will work to bridge the chasm between the rich and the poor -- around the block and around the world.

We need a president who will work to replace the law of force on the world stage with the force of law. By showing such open disdain for the UN Charter and international law during the past three years, we have become in the eyes of many the primary outlaw on the world stage. If we disregard the law of nations, we're left with the law of the despot, where the only constraint on violence is the power and ruthlessness of those who would employ it. Rest assured, in that world we won't be the only ones to use it.

[no name no slogan]

75. Kofi Annan offered the UN, if the US would relinquish control

Annan already stated that the UN would be willing to take a larger roll, if only the US would relinquish control of the country-- including military, economic and governmental control.

Unfortunately, the current US government won't do it-- hence the reason for the "resistance" from the Iraqis.

The reason for the "uprisings" is because the US is seen as an imperialistic occupying force-- and will still be seen as one even after the "transfer of power" to the US-appointend Iraqi government.

We may have broke it, but that in no way makes us qualified to fix it. If your teenager takes your car and crashes it, do you make him/her fix it? Of course not! You go to the mechanic and the body shop, who have much more knowledge in fixing cars than your teenager does.

The U.S. needs to do the same: go to the U.N., get a mandate, and allow peacekeeping forces (under UN command) to handle the ground situation. It needs to turn over all rebuilding contracts to the U.N.-- no more sweetheart deals for Halliburton. It needs to let the IRAQIS decide on the government they want-- not some "governing council" made up of US appointees.

[Doomsayer13]

81. I don't buy it

Kofi may be the nominal head of the UN, but if UN countries say no, there is little to nothing he can do to stop them. Kucinich's plan calls for the complete withdrawl of US troops in 90 days. That's irresponsible. The UN may be willing to play a larger role in stabilizing the region, but they're not going to let us pass the buck to them. The UN countries and the security council has no invested interest in treating the UN like it has any sort of authority whatsoever.

You're car teenager analogy doesn't work becuase we're not even sure about whether the UN even wants to take on the responsibility of fixing Iraq. It's a good idea to bring the international community to the table, but we're can't give them full responsibility, because I don't think that they'd take it. And to do so would be irresponsible foreign policy. I agree that Iraqi's should be able to choose the government they want, but we have to ensure that things are stable before actual elections can occur. As it stands now, withdrawl will almost assuredly lead to civil war. I'm not interested in seeing another Rwanda.

[mobuto]

82. Your post is inconsistent with the facts

At no point has Kofi Annan stated that the UN is capable of securing Iraq and I defy to prove me wrong.

[Lexingtonian]

70. this is silly

The reason for there not being A Plan is most obviously: we don't know yet what kind of hell Iraq is going to be on Inauguration Day. That's why there's no point in offering some kind of detailed checklist of specific steps. There are only generalities of the kind already mentioned in this thread to emphasize.

Dennis is a good guy, but this plan of his doesn't exactly fit a state of civil war in the country, or a tripartitioning.

[LWolf]

71. LOL

Let's move some synonyms out of the way of productive conversation.

foolish, ridiculous, nonsensical, ludicrous, preposterous, etc.

Now that we're done with the adjectives, let's focus on the point of the thread.

1. Dennis was right. We wouldn't be stuck in the middle of a state of civil war in Iraq if we'd listened to him to begin with. Kerry should be listening to him now.

2. There is nothing "obvious" about the lack of a plan. What is obvious to me, listening to NPR, is that people aren't getting a clear idea of what Kerry's take on Iraq is, other than that he doesn't like GWB's. Whether or not he has a good plan or no plan, or something in between, this is what even NPR, sometimes more neutral or even friendly to progressives, is saying. It's what the public is hearing.

3. I agree with Dennis on this one; it was wrong to go in, it's wrong to stay. Staying just extends the wrong further. Thankfully, humans can recognize wrong action and choose not to engage in it any more. I wouldn't want a parent beating their child to think, "This is wrong, I shouldn't have done it, but I'd better finish." Or a rapist, or a thief, etc. I don't think withdrawal means cut and run and leave Iraq to fend for themselves in disarray. I don't think Dennis has ever suggested such a ridiculous thing.

The first part of Dennis' plan involves bringing in allies; working in partnership to fix the situation. I would say that is even more critical after this week. I would say that a non-American presence would be more likely to defuse the current state of hell after this:



Just my humble opinion, of course. I think it is ludicrous to operate under the guise of "liberators" when this is what you've done. If it were my family, my community, my country, I sure as hell wouldn't meet these "liberators" half way.

[diamondsoul]

80. That's the baby I saw yesterday-

Different photo, in the one I saw then there were two children, both smaller than my own two. I cried for a couple of hours. I kept seeing my two yr old lying there and thinking about that baby's mother.

Khoffi Annan (sp?) said months ago that the UN would provide around 90,000 reinforcements toward US withdrawal if we would let go of the contracting and control of the oil. Bush refused.

Dennis is right and now that Kerry is the presumptive nominee and the Iraq situation has gone to hell in a handcart, the media is actually covering Kucinich....BECAUSE HE WAS RIGHT!

[dweller]

74. Kucinich Says Transfer of Power Will Not Stop the Bloodshed

The June 30th transfer of power from the U.S.- led Coalition Provisional Authority to an interim Iraqi
government is "a hoax intended to deceive the American people into believing that this nightmare of death
and destruction is coming to an end," said Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

"There's not going to be any difference in our military posture on July 1st from what it is on June 30th," said
Kucinich, adding, "Those aren't my words. Those are the words of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz."
Wolfowitz made the comment to reporters last Friday, April 2, following a briefing to the House Armed
Services Committee.

"The only thing that is going to change is the level of violence aimed at our men and women in uniform,"
Kucinich said. "It will become even deadlier." At least 30 U.S. military personnel have been killed in the last
72 hours.

"On June 30th, all we will be doing is transferring power from the right hand to the left hand -- from the
Coalition Provisional Authority to a yet-unestablished interim government chosen under the terms of a
constitution written by the Bush Administration and ratified by an Iraqi Governing Council installed by the
Bush Administration," Kucinich said.

more

dp

[mr715]

76. Humbly submitted

It is so easy to define Kerry.

You listen to the propoganda and believe it.

I was hoping for Kerry to run in 2000. He would have won then, and he will win now.

To claim Kerry is anything but a liberal is nonsense. I am not a liberal. I think Kerry is too liberal for me. But capitalism isnt bad, guys...

First off, there is a difference between liberalism (government intervention into a capitalist state) and socialism. Single payer health insurance may or may not be a good thing. I am not well versed on the topic, but I'll tell you this; Kerry will not start a revolution. Do we need one?

Kucinich is a man I agree with on some issues. I think his environmental policies are spectacular. His policies, however, are virtually IDENTICAL to John Kerry's.

Look at John Kerry's record. According to voting records in the 107th congress. Thats under the Bush admin, hes the 17th most liberal member of the CONGRESS. Congress. Congress.

I love my life and I love my country. I do not need nor want a revolution. I want a president that will fight for our country, not impractical ideals.


M

[Hippo_Tron]

84. As I said, Kerry and Kucinich are actually quite close ideologically

The difference is that Kerry is politically ambitious and Kucinich is not.