Now, EVERY candidate is Pro-Iraq War except Dennis Kucinich

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Moseley-Braun just said at the debates that she wanted the United States to continue to occupy Iraq, and it seems every candidate wants us to continue the war for "years".

If your big issue is the War in Iraq, if you were brought into politics to end the war - Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who wants to end the war.

It's all public now.

[LiberalBushFan]

1. and laRouche! n/m

[JI7]

2. we don't know about sharpton

yet

[Dolphyn]

56. Sharpton's First Act

Rev. Al Sharpton, describing his first act as President:

"First, I would immediately move to bring the troops home by appealing to Kofi Annan and the United Nations to convene as a world body to oversee, without United States control, the redevelopment and rebuilding of Iraq and would submit to that as a partner but not as a dominant force in terms of our contractors or in terms of military. And secondly I would move to repeal the Bush tax cuts."

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/04/politics1422EST0517.DTL

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

65. Okay, my apologies to Al

I should have specified those who are at the debate. Carol surprised me - twice she sold out progressives at the debate tonight - one, her swipe at "protectionism" was underhanded, and two she agreed with the centrists who want to "stay in Iraq for years".

I wonder what they offered her?

[redqueen]

68. Is this out of character for her?

She voted with republicans to overturn Clinton's veto of a key piece of legislation (Lieberman and Feinstein also voted with repubs on this).

She's said many times she believes we shouldn't 'cut and run' and that we need to continue the Iraq occupation for years.

This is not news, and it's not even out of character.

Al's been consistently anti-occupation though, as has Dennis.

[JI7]

89. braun has always said she is different

i remember her on cspan answering questions. she said something about how she is different from others and can't really be put into a category of liberal, moderate etc as some can. she said this made her unique among the others running. this is also why i usually don't include braun with sharpton and kucinich when talking about the most liberals.

[MysticMind]

3. end the war?

Oh you mean abandon Iraq and let Baathists take back over?

[MuseRider]

5. Deleted

Sorry, not nice.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. I mean leave Iraq alone and let them rule themselves?

The UN can go in and hold elections. Or, we can talk about how we'll eventually get out years and years from now, sometime in the future. Becuase the reason we invaded was to free the Iraqi people from the Baathists right?

[OhioStateProgressive]

11. leave Iraq and let Iraqis figure it out

which is how EVERY country has self developed

[Turkw]

42. I'm sure Iran, Syria, Al Quada, not to mention Russia, and Europe will all

let them develop on their own. The only way to do it right NOW that we are in the situation is give as much control as we can to the people of Iraq, and bring in as many outside countries to help. This will keep any one country from having too much control

[OhioStateProgressive]

44. we have to power to leave, and maintain integrity for Iraq

I mean, we have all this power, do we use it in the form of bombs?

or do we use it in thru the United Nations, guaranteeing a situation that will allow Iraq to self develop?

I say because of the "power" we have to throw around, we can guarantee it

[Terwilliger]

12. the Baathists we helped to power in the first place?

the US government was the problem...not the Baathists

[arcane1]

29. correct. Why does everyone assume the Baathists will take right over...

without our help? :shrug:


I have a feeling that most of the people chanting the "let the Baathists take over?" mantra wouldn't be happy with any government put in place by the Iraqis themselves.

and besides, I thought it was Saddam was so evil, now his entire party is forbidden?

can we follow this example, and forbid the Repubes from ever taking power again..?

:evilgrin:

[Powerlock]

18. Spoken like someone who knows NOTHING about Kucinich

His plan is to work with the international community (something bush does NOT do) and get the UN in. He has continually said US OUT UN IN.

Baathists won't take over again with an international force in place.

[MysticMind]

48. the UN was chased out of Iraq

When its compound was attacked.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. You have to admit this

we are there, crying over what happened over the IWR (as much as I hate it) is not going to do us any good

Until Bush is out of the WH, we are STUCK, because NOBODY will aide the US.

Whether they will help us AFTER the WH is taken by a Democrat, is still questionable

Leaving, just leaving, is not an option due to the further destbalilization of the area.

Now what ifs or whats I want the troops out ASAP, and I want us out of there ASAP, but I realize that we cannot get out of there ASAP... not as long as George is there, and after George leaves it really depends, whether we get the help that is, on how badly those bridges to the world were burned by George

Yes Wolfowitz planned this trap well

[Dookus]

6. There's a huge difference

between being "pro-war" and realizing that abandoning our obligations at this point would be unwise.

[Terwilliger]

13. who said anything about abandoning our obligations?

our obligations are to help Iraq...that will be done by getting out of there

[Dookus]

16. Seriously, please tell me...

what you think would happen in Iraq if we pulled our troops out tomorrow?

[Powerlock]

21. No one is suggesting we do so

you are misrepresenting Kucinich and you know it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. just like they misrepresent on trade

Kucinich is pro-trade, and wants bilateral trade agreements, but they will still call him anti-trade. It's so consistent.

[Dookus]

26. this is NOT a Kucinich bash...

I love kucinich. I disagree with him that we should unilaterally withdraw from our treaties.

But THIS discussion is about Iraq. The person I replied to said removing the troops would be best for Iraq. I'm asking for an explanation of what exactly WOULD happen in Iraq if we did withdraw?

Personally, I think it wouldn't be all that advantageous to the Iraqi people.

[Dookus]

23. actually..

I know no such thing. Can you please explain?

[Powerlock]

28. Yes I can

Kucinich wants the US out and the UN in. He is not suggesting that the day he comes in to office he is going to order all US troops out as some people like to suggest.

He will attempt to get the UN in as fast as realisticly possible (and at the same time be taking steps to restore international respect for the US bush has destroyed). AFTER that is done US forces will be pulled out ASAP, except for any that would be part of a UN force.

[Terwilliger]

24. who said we were going to do that?

Kucinich's plan involves getting the UN troops in in a timely manner.

[Dookus]

27. fair enough...

the same approach as many of the other candidates.

[Terwilliger]

30. not really

the other candidates arew not interested in getting US troops out quickly...in fact, they want to keep them there as long as possible, AND they also want to keep the American plan of oil control in place...so they don't actually want Iraqis to be self-determining

[Nederland]

73. Kucinich is naive...

...if he thinks he can get the other nations of the UN to replace 130,000 US troops in a "timely" manner. I mean really, what country wants to walk into the mess that exists there today? Anyone who thinks that US troops are going to be replaced by an international force anytime soon is either playing politics or extremely ignorant of foreign affairs.

[Nadienne]

76. Replace "quagmire" with "business opportunity"

and then you'll see why we went to Iraq in the first place.

And you'll see why the UN is reluctant to help us right now.

The UN probably does not want to pitch in and help to protect American corporations and Bush's buddies. And I think Kucinich understands this, and this is what he is basing his "90 days" on.

[Nederland]

90. Nonsense

The other nations of the UN don't want to send in troops because they don't want to see them killed. Plain and simple.

[Nadienne]

99. It's that simple

Just like the news tells us. And the UN are the cowards for not negotiating with us on Bush's terms.

How easy it is to call someone else a coward.

I'll admit that Kucinich's plan does involve guts. But even if it doesn't work they way he says it will, at least I know he is committed to ending this mess. The other candidates (with the exception of Al Sharpton, of course) don't seem interested in making that commitment.

[Terwilliger]

145. factually, there are so many problems in Iraq today because...

of the American attitude and American actions...you could turn the situation around tomorrow if we had the balls to treat Iraqis like people and let them truly make their own decisions.

I think attitudes like yours simply exacerbate the problem, and insure that the only solution is to keep US troops in there indefeinitely. It's still a catch-22 since our continued presence will only incite more problems than it solves.

[arcane1]

33. no more Americans would die

nor would they kill any more innocent Iraqis, prompting the survivors to sympathize w/Osama

are those people so pitiful and mindless that they can't take care of themselves? They need the big strong white man to tell them how to be civilized..?

people talk about the Baathists taking over, but who would rule? Do you have a name? Does this hypothetical person have a record we can look at, to compare it to Saddam's?

there is WAY too much oversimplification going on with this topic...

[Dookus]

38. If you'll read what I wrote....

I never said a word about what would happen. I'm asking the "pull-out" supporters to explain what they think would happen.

[reachout]

136. If we pull out there will be a civil war in Iraq,

If we don't pull out there will be a civil war in Iraq.

The nation of Iraq has never really existed in the hearts of the Kurds and and the Shia. They accepted it on an intellectual level, but not at the core of their being the way people think of themselves as "American" or "French". The colonial construct that is Iraq has only ever been maintained through foreign supported brutal dictators who kept various elements from rebelling and/or breaking away.

Real self-determination for Iraqis may well result in the pulling apart of Iraq. The longer we stay there, the more that process will be dominated by the most radicalized elements. Political clout will be held by those who managed to spill the most foreign blood under the occupation. The longer we are there, the worse the long-term results will be.

The world is going to have to accept a degree of chaos in the region. We made that inevitable when we toppled their government. The question now is what it will all look like when the dust clears. "Peaceful transition to a stable government" is a neocon pipe dream with no grounding in the political or social reality on the ground.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Oh I admit it

in fact if we pulled out NOW

We woudl leave Iraq either in the trongs of a civil war, which is going on parallel to the war against us

Or worst a failed state

I think everybody in the campaign, and outside of the campaign understands this

But until Bush is out, nothing can be done to improve the situation

And yes that includes pulling OUR troops out... once a mechanism to
ensure that the area is not further destabilized

ALL the candidates (yes even DK, and I have heard his longer policy answer) understand this... the difference between them, once you look under the hood, are not that great when it comes to this issue.

They all realize the trap that Wolfowitz and PNAC laid on us.

[TeacherCreature]

7. bull

it is not pro-war to want to get the UN in before we leave. Do you really want to leave those people in the hands of the various religios war lord factions?

[Powerlock]

19. Kucinich will not leave before the UN is in

he has stated this before.

Those of you who believe the day he gets in to office he is going to pull all forces out are not in reality. He will get them out, but it will be done in a well thought out manner.

[Nadienne]

78. Dean pointed this out at the debate:

He didn't think Kucinich was talking about abandoning Iraq.

(And that comment heightened my opinion of Dean, by the way.)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. Dean wants us to occupy Iraq for YEARS

Do you understand what that means? If it's not Vietnam now, Dean is going to make it one.

[Powerlock]

25. Yup

it would actually be BETTER for democrats in the long run to have bush in office in that case.

Why? Well, who do you think americans are going to support after Iraq turns in to vietnam? One party will be ruined over this. I'd prefer it to be the pubs.

I am hoping, however, that Dean is just trying to get certain votes on this one. Unfortunately he may also be loosing a lot of others.

[eileen_d]

9. Does being against the Iraq war

mean denying that it was started and is still going on?

[kalian]

10. This continues to be my point....

what will change IF a dem gets elected? :shrug:
It'll be like the cold war, no matter who was in power...things will
continue...you know, business as usual.

I don't foresee ANY future president make the changes that will
take the States back to its former glory. No apologies to the world
community...troops will remain in Iraq...and be sent to other
countries as well. NOTHING will change...

[michaelbmoore]

17. Wouldn't throwing Bush out of the WH. . .

be almost like an apology?

[Jerseycoa]

14. She's been saying that all along. nt

[Powerlock]

15. Kucinich is awesome

he has my vote.

He's using humor well today as well.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Bringing the UN to Iraq is not

PRO war. That's disingenuous. We cannot just pick up and leave the hornets nest that the "mindless wonder" has created. That would be stupid. We must stay until Iraq is stabilized... now that we are there. :( I think we should NEVER have gone in there to begin with.

[arcane1]

34. as long as we (Americans) are there...

Iraq will NEVER be stabilized. It's that simple.

Meanwhile, the longer we are occupying, the more recruits Osama gets

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. "the longer we occupy Iraq, the more recruits Osama gets"

I wish people would understand this!

[Terwilliger]

40. but our presence is the greatest destabilizng factor

unless we change our Iraq policy (and a lot of the horrible crimes perpetrated daily) Iraqis will never give us half a chance to help them

[goodhue]

112. exactly right

Continued US occupation is not consistent with stability and security. Only DK (and perhaps Sharpton) has acknowledged this reality. The rest including Dean continue in the myopic delusion that US presence is improving conditions in Iraq.

[Powerlock]

36. For those who don't understand the position Dennis has

he just explained it. Again he is NOT advocating an immediate pull out. UN forces MUST be in.

A big part of his plan is to NOT steal Iraqi oil. And to make sure HAL stops profiteering.

He also said starting today he running constant TV ads in Iowa stating the above.

[Dookus]

39. and I've heard

other candidates say bringing the UN in is the key to getting out.

How does DK's stand differ?

[Padraig18]

37. pure sophistry.

That's spin woprthy of KKKarl rove himself. They all want out, but it's a question of how to do it responsibly! :eyes:

[Powerlock]

41. Then explain Dean

Apparently Deans position of staying in for YEARS is responsible? Yet Dennis wanting the UN in and the US out is not? Interesting. I think you should examine the consequences of US occupation for YEARS vs UN in and US out. I think you'll find Deans position to be FAR worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Ok examine the brigdes to the world

I fear that they are burned to the point that not even a Demo will
be able to rebuilt them brigdes for at least a year after the swear in.

That is something that I fear not even DK can do... because we are now
a ROGUE STATE, do you understand what that means?

And yes I like DK, and his position when he actually bothers to fully explain it... for that you need to ask him... I have... and it is not that different than the rest

[Padraig18]

45. I thjnk you should examine what Dean SAID.

Dean and DK BOTH want the UN to take over--they just disagree on how quickly that can be done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Both are correct

But I fear DK has not realized just how badly the
bridges are burned

Dean does.. and once everybody cares to look under the hood,
the differences in policy are NOT THAT GREAT...

You have looked under the hood I take it... just as I have

[Padraig18]

47. Yes, I have.

:hi:

[Tinoire]

60. Difference Padraig / Dean's allows US companies profit from that oil

KOPPEL: I just want to make sure that I understand Governor Dean correctly. In other words, you're saying, given where we are today, a continuing presence of some number of U.S. troops is going to be essential over a period of, what, years?

DEAN: Over a period of a few years, until the Iraqis really are able to have a democracy which is strong enough <snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A50859-2003Dec9¬Found=true

You can pump an awful lot of oil in a few years! Dean's plan allows for that and Kucinich's does not. There's a huge difference in the two, just as there's a huge difference in their support of this war.

Is there one good reason why US troops should remain there potecting US oil companies? Or does Dean's plan call for the US oil companies to totally leave so the US troops can miraculously go from brutal attackers to benevolent helpers?

The U.S. must abandon its plan to confiscate what's left of the Iraqi economy. Dean supported the $87 Billion for the occupation and even went as far as saying he would bring in an additional 50,000 troops to defend the US occupation. Only since the capture of Saddam Hussein has he suddenly started mentioning the UN.

"bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out." Dean would impose a "hybrid" constitution, "American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say."
http://www.unemployedfordean.org/blogs/econ/articles/A40299-2003Aug24.html

In Afghanistan, Dean wants to send in 30,000-40,000 more troops because "losing the peace is not an option" and "pulling out early would be a disaster." Five times the current level of troops are needed, he said. "Imagine making deals with warlords to promote democracy. What are these people thinking?"
http://www.unemployedfordean.org/blogs/econ/articles/A40299-2003Aug24.html

Cutting through all their crap Padraig, because that's really what I try to do with these guys, I see a huge difference between their positions. Dean's approach does not respect the people of Iraq's right to self-determination because he wants control to remain in the hands of the US as long as possible. The sooner the US and its henchman Chalabi are out of there, the better for the people of Iraq.

Kucinich wants the US' control to come to an immediate end which means all the US companies OUT, contracts yanked from under their feet, and the Iraqis controlling their own fate and resources.

I don't trust the US ONE bit. Never have and never will. We're waaaay too oil hungry and have a long record that does not support any sudden benevolence on our part.

Do you trust us? And bear in mind that no matter how much you trust Dean, you have to trust all the US Oil & Service companies, all the politicians in office if you buy onto a US occupation. So yes, do you trust us? I sure don't.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

64. The oil is the only reason the UN wouldn't help

Bush made it clear that with or without UN help and authorization, his administration would control the oil and pass out contracts. Of course the UN didn't go along. This was open and obvious and we discussed it on DU everyday before the war.

Kucinich addresses this, Dean ignore it.

[diamondsoul]

142. Indeed. Tell me which entity

is the source of Dean's missing confidence, himself or the UN? Both, perhaps? Because Kucinich's position implies a great deal of confidence, both in himself and in the UN member nations.

[revcarol]

49. Staying in IRAQ for several years is just setting us up for

more guerilla warfare, with us as the targets.Saddam is gone along with many of his cohorts, and others have been de-fanged.

Why do we need to stay indefinitely? or, as Dean says, for a couple of more years?

The UN could gradually take over policing, drafting the Constitution and the voting process.They could set up decent contracts for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and allocate moneys to employ Iraqis.

The money from all natural resources should go to IRAQ and Iraqis, to be used for THEIR country. Nothing should be privatized( given to greedy American companies.)

For the life of me, I DO NOT see why all the candidates except DK don't "get it."

Continued occupation is continued war on the Iraqi people.

We will NEVER get a smidgen of the world's respect back if we don't work through the U. N.

[askew]

50. Dean's plan is not that different from DK's

Dean's plan is simply more realistic and more flexible. DK's plan to pull out troops in 90 days and replace with UN troops is unrealistic. Why would other countries want anything to do with this mess? We are going to have to build some bridges back with our allies and try to get some sort of control of the mess in Iraq. Part of building this bridge would be agreeing to keep a portion of our troops in Iraq as part of the UN coalition, which is what Dean wants to do. Dean wants to bring in troops from countries within the region to build the UN coalition who will have a better time stabilizing Iraq, but we need to be part of the coalition. We made this mess, we owe it to Iraq and the world to be a part of fixing the mess. Also, setting up 90 days deadline is just silly. We have no idea how long it would take to convince any other country to send their troops into this mess. And unless I am mistaken, Clark's position is very similar to Dean's on Iraq also.

[revcarol]

52. Didn't you hear Dean say that we had to stay in Iraq because now al Qaeda

was in Iraq? No shit.It was in today's debate. Pull out the al Qaeda fear to make us stay in Iraq.EVIDENCE?? Don't let a little thing like evidence get in your way, Mr. Dean.

The UN itself said they could get in half the number of troops necessary in 30 days!!We could be pulling out 60,000 troops after they arrive and get on their feet. The U. S. and the Brits could stay as a minor part of any UN mission.Troops from around the region would, of course, be part of any force, if they so chose.

So what's your point. 60-90 days is reasonable, NOT a couple of YEARS.
And France, Germany, etc. have said they would pony up a LOT more money if the UN is in charge, and if the Iraqis get to keep their own money.

DK's plan to make alternative energy 20% of our nation's needs by 2010 is just a bonus for the world.

[Tinoire]

51. Occupation is war. War until we have pumped out every drop of oil

There is no moral excuse for us to remain there under the "pretense" of "helping" the Iraqi people. And this latest garbage about Al-Queda being there is just that- garbage! Al-Queda & terrorism about poor us is going to be nothing more than our excuse to go wherever we need to and do whatever we want. I part ways with any Democrat who justifies the occupation.

There weren't 2 Gulf wars, one under each Bush- there was exactly ONE WAR that lasted 12 years. Clinton's 8 years of incessant daily bombings and sanctions that killed over 500,000 innocent children and starved the population of Iraq denying them even medicine IS considered war by anyone with any sense of morality.

The Iraqis know perfectly well why we installed Saddaam and started our war; those who didn't have certainly caught on between January 1991 and now.

It's delusional to think that there's any such thing as a kind occupation. The Israelis tried that crap & it doesn't fool anyone- certainly not the natives who tend to resist by all means at their disposal. It's delusional to think that attacks under our soldiers will abate, that you can turn the rapist into the comforter now and that the victim won't recoil, disgusted, before clawing his eyes out when that rapist reaches out to comfort her.

Justifying occupation is justifying war.

Justifying THIS occupation, under which every single drop of Iraqi oil will be pumped dry, is to justify everything that the US did from 1991 to the present day which is to justify Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and all the people we hate the most whose only crime would then be how they got us to the point of occupation.

George Bush IS defending our way of life. It's time to expose & face our hypocrisy. If we don't like people like Bush Inc., then we need to change our way of life and the way we deal with the world because otherwise they remain an evil necessity. Deep down, the main reason we're so disgusted right now is because the bogey-man is out of the closet where we can see him and not in the back-ground where we could protect our sensitive eyes. And as much as I despise a Clark candidacy within our party because the same machinery behind him is the one behind Bush, he too is out to protect our way of life. So what do we want? Our way of life which comes at a price of endless wars under endless pretexts (right now we're waging war on nouns... we went from D for drugs to T for terrorism in a flash- I hope we're at least going alphabetically).

We dominate the world militarily and economically. Ever since Europe introduced the Euro, the dollar has been threatened. Our dollar is worthless if it's not the currency in which oil is traded. It's control of that oil that has makes the dollar worth anything. And what do we use as our final tool when we can't bully oil-producing countries economically with our dollar (economic sanctions)? We send in the Army which ironically enough can't run without oil.

If we don't control the oil and keep that oil on the dollar, our entire US system will come to a grinding halt. Venezuela, from which we get more oil than the Gulf has a Democratically-elected, beloved and populist President in charge who doesn't want to use the dollar for his oil deals so we're going after him now too. Our last ludicrous attempt was captured on film for the entire world to watch. It and our modern wars have totally exposed our lies but in the US you can barely see this film.

We've been fighting for oil, for our continued, non-productive, cushy "way of life" from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan to Venezuela. Got oil? We're THERE! Never mind the pretext but we're there! And for good too! Talk about dumping the dollar as your oil currency? And you're dead!

As more countries dump the dollar, it won't matter how quickly Greenspan prints more- our money will be worthless, we'll have to start selling our services/goods for what they're really worth and not what we simply proclaim it's worth by using the threat of economic destabilization & military intervention. Unless we can appropriate/control the major oil fields of the world and keep them on the dollar, the Euro wins hands down and America as we know it is finished.

This is why basically decent people like Kerry and Gephardt signed on to the Iraq war while we wail and wring our hands calling them every single name in the book because we don't want to face our own hypocrisy. This is why Republicans call us absolute hypocrites for launching our own oil war in the Balkans.


Democrats should really be asking themselves why George Soros, who's part of the Bush/Bin-Laden Carlyle cabal, is sooooo eager to give the Democratic Party $10 million. $10 million is a cheap investment for billions of dollars worth of oil- make that probably billions of Euros worth of oil. If we had any self-respect we'd REFUSE their blood/insurance money and totally do it our way- real grass-roots.

So far the only candidate who has a clue about all of this is Kucinich.

Sad times coming for America. We're not fooling anyone. Just maybe ourselves.

No to occupation. No to any and all of this. Yes to Kucinch and a new direction for America because otherwise we're dead. People are fooling themselves if they think that we can go backwards in time.

This is the Moment . . . The Time is Now! - Video (QuickTime | Windows Media Player | RealPlayer)

[Desertrose]

53. well said as always Tinoire...

the simple and obvious fact seems to be this...

if we wanted to truly free and help the Iraqi people we would do what is best for them...we would have other countries come in- no matter what it would take ..... and I am talking about the US giving up their greedy ways and allowing companies other than bush approved ones to help rebuild what the US destroyed. We would get our occupying forces out of their country and let them heal...with the help of an international group of PEACEKEEPERS.

The longer we stay, the harder it will be to rebuild and heal.

The longer we stay in we lose more and kill more...for what? Isn't the lie they spin us that we are trying to help these people when in all truth , the US govt(bushco) doesn't give a rats ass about Iraqi or American lives as long as they make their billions.

The longer we stay in, the more hated we will become and the less safer we will be.....

seems pretty clear to me...

Dennis is the only one who sees that...he has never said "cut and run"....he wants to get help and stability for the Iraq people and protect our troops as well....our remaining there will not forward that goal...and then, how easy it will be to move onto other countries in the area.....no it has to stop now.

Bless you Dennis!
Peace
DR

[Tinoire]

57. Yes... If our intent were really to help

Since the new Euro was introduced, the dollar collapsed by over 50%. We're near total bankruptcy (all hastened of course by Bush's catastrophic policies but others share the blame too). Kucinich has it right- we need to stop this thieving charade and take care of business in our own home.

I sigh when I hear people say that we need to stay in Iraq as they tick off the reasons why. Near the top is always that we need to re-write their constitution.

What for? Is something wrong with their 1958 constitution that we raved about for so long? Are we so sure they are going to be grateful for people like Chalabi who personally looted $300 million from Jordan with his private Bank of Batra’a and was sentenced, in absentia, to 22 years in prison with hard labor for fraud and embezzlement? The occupation, with its re-written constitution is just to seal his place as our "new friend" in Iraq. That's the question they should have asked all the pro-occupation candidates- "Where does Chalabi fit into your occupation? Where do US oil companies fit into your kinder, gentler occupations?"

At the heart of the opposition of any candidate saying they're appalled with this war but quibbling over terms like "unilateral attack without UN backing" is the idea that US interests would have been better served if the UN had backed the war. This view does not respect the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination any more than the excuses for a lucrative occupation. None of them really have a problem with invading a sovereign country for the benefit of our oil and arms industries. It seems to me their major issue is for Bush's lack of proper planning- in other words, they'll plan our wars better than Bush did.

We waged a 13 year war against Iraq with not one person on today's stage speaking up against that except Kucinich (who went after Clinton on both Iraq and Yugoslavia) and now everyone's wailing and wringing their hands about how we need to help them :shrug:

It's hard to not notice that hypocrisy when you think about it. How come no one up there (except for Kucinich again) has officially expressed one word of concern about the children of Afghanistan?

[IndianaGreen]

58. There are 58,000 names on the Vietnam Memorial wall

Most of which are for those killed long after everyone realized that Vietnam was a mistake, but the politicians were too cowardly to admit they made a mistake and did not bring the troops home ASAP for fear of losing face.

[Tinoire]

61. Excellent point

Think of that 58,000 young men and women.

How many for the occupation of Iraq?

[Desertrose]

62. How many years? How many lives? How many...

times do we have to repeat such a huge mistake??
All in the name if GREED?

Not one of those who have fought or died will ever reap any benefits from this war...none of them !

None of us at home will either...it is all for bush/cheney PNAC cronies.
and the sheople will go along with the idea that we need a draft to keep our people there!

None of this makes any sense...how have we become such a brainwashed mind controlled country? Believing the lies that we have to stay there in Iraq for the sake of the people of Iraq....when the evidence to the contrary is there to be seen in front of our eyes.


Peace
DR

[revcarol]

63. Kerry said something about:

how would you like your son to be the last one killed in a wrong war?....or something like that...oh, these senior moments

Just because Bush got away with invading doesn't mean we should stay there. Hey, I don't want my son-in-law or ANYONE killed...including Iraqis that we have decimated enough.

The U. N. is experienced at peacekeeping, something our soldiers know nothing about.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

66. exactly!

When we will start building one for this war?

[IrateCitizen]

87. I WANT YOU! -- to die for a lifestyle that will ultimately destroy...

the earth.

That's the saying on a poster in a local activist office depicting GHW Bush as Uncle Sam.

You said it perfectly, Tinoire. Our "way of life" is destroying the very planet upon which we all depend for our survival... yet, we can't bear to part from it, because we are all addicted to it.

It would take FIVE earths to support the "American way of life" for every citizen of the planet. What that tells me is that "the American way of life" is ultimately dependent on denying it to everyone else -- and even THEN it is unsustainable.

Dennis is the only candidate even approaching these deeper, underlying issues. All the others are still stuck with their heads in the clouds, living the "American dream". It's just too bad that our system awards those who whistle while we destroy ourselves while penalizing those who dare to acknowledge such a basic truth and propose doing something about it.

[Tinoire]

109. The more we cling to the American Dream

the faster it will become the American Nightmare.

"the American way of life" is ultimately dependent on denying it to everyone else -- and even THEN it is unsustainable.

Well said.

We are everlasting debtors to known and unknown men and women.... When we arise in the morning, we go into the bathroom where we reach for a sponge provided for us by a Pacific Islander. We reach for soap that is created for us by a Frenchman. The towel is provided by a Turk. Then at the table we drink coffee which is provided for us by a South American, or tea by a Chinese, or cocoa by a West African. Before we leave for our jobs, we are beholden to more than half the world. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

[mandyky]

54. Hopefully the media also got it

They have been saying Dean was anti-war, which his is not - he was against the invasion. Personally, I think we have to stay too, and that the draft should be reinstated. We cannot keep deploying our NG and Reserves like we have the last 2 + years.

[Paulie]

55. Here's Dennis' plan

It's on his site, but for completeness sake:


--------

UN in, US out
Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home


The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can’t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.


People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home in 90 days, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.


The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.

The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources.

The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.



Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home in 90 days, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person, one-vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during that period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home.

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


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


The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the US invasion. The US 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, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top-shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration’s reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.


The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America’s 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 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 in most of the world’s countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.


All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US 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 US casualties, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for 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 over the Administration’s occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will 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 this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America.


Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

[Nederland]

82. And here's why it won't work

From DK's "plan":

The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN.

What does DK expect? That France, Germany, Russia and all the rest of the UN is going to respond to this proposal by saying: "Gee, thanks for creating a horrible mess and, sure, we'd love to send thousands of our own troops into Iraq to get shot at instead of yours. How many would you like President Kucinich? You need them in 90 days? No problem. You just give us the order and well send them out right away."

The man is clueless about how other countries view this mess.

[Nadienne]

96. And here's where you're wrong

The sweetheart deals in Iraq (you remember them, I'm sure - the no-bid contracts to Bush's buddies) will be over, which means two things:

1) The UN won't be in Iraq defending US interests,
2) Other nations stand to gain with contracts to companies in their own nations.

Kucinich's plan has a chance. The question is, do we want to fix this? Do we want to commit to a solution? Or is it all for show?

[Nederland]

98. Irrelevant

1) The killing of foreign occupiers will continue so long as foreign occupiers are present, regardless of nationality.

2) By the time the winner of the 2004 election takes office, the contract money will already be awarded.

[Nadienne]

100. You missed my point a little, I think.

I agree the killing will continue so long as there are foreign occupiers in Iraq. BUT the UN is more likely to commit troops IF those troops are NOT protecting US interests. While we have our corporations there, the UN is going to say, "Tough sh*t."

As for already giving those corporations the money, here's what I think (and my opinion does not reflect the official Kucinich campaign): kick them out of Iraq, investigate why the contracts were no-bid, and fine the living crap out of the Bush administrations and its corporate friends.

[Nederland]

103. Response

As for already giving those corporations the money, here's what I think (and my opinion does not reflect the official Kucinich campaign): kick them out of Iraq, investigate why the contracts were no-bid, and fine the living crap out of the Bush administrations and its corporate friends.

What you are describing is not an executive action, but a legal one. You can't simply cancel a contract and kick out a corporation out of the country simply because it is your political belief that the original contract was given improperly. Any new administration would have to make the case that the contract was granted improperly in a court of law, where the standard of proof is extremely high. The likelihood of bringing such a case before the court, having all the evidence considered and ruled upon, and dealing with all the inevitable appeals in less than 90 days is zero. Zero. The reality of that fact is apparently lost on DK and DK supporters who seemingly live in a fantasy world where the winner of an election gets to magically enact his/her desires immediately and without opposition.

[Nadienne]

104. I'll have to think about this a while...

I don't believe Kucinich is a fool. He probably has more political experience than, for instance, you or me. There might be some loophole that would allow us to end the contracts, or rewrite them. I'll look into it, and see what I find out.

As for that "enacting desires without opposition" jab, as far as I know Kucinich is the only candidate to point out that in order to get things done, we're going to have to give the next democratic president a congress he (or she) can work with.

He shoots for the moon, there's no doubt about that. But, like the saying goes, if you aim high, even if you don't accomplish your goal, you will still have gotten something positive done.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

105. Oh, yes we can

"You can't simply cancel a contract and kick out a corporation out of the country"

We certainly can, and not only that, but we can revoke their corporate charter if they act anti-socially as well. Corporations don't have a right to exist.

[Nederland]

106. Fantasy Land

We certainly can, and not only that, but we can revoke their corporate charter if they act anti-socially as well.

Give me a recent historical example of this happening.

Corporations don't have a right to exist.

Maybe in your socialist fantasy land they don't, but here in the good old capitalist USA they certainly do.

[Nederland]

107. Answered My Own Question

The last time a corporate charter was revoked was in 1976.

Regardless, the process for revoking a corporate charter is a legal action, not an executive one. A US President has no authority to revoke corporate charters at will, he can only order the Department of Justice to initiate such a process and let the case work its way through the courts. As a result, the end process looks exactly what I originally claimed: a lengthly legal battle that has zero chance of happening in under 90 days.

Link: http://www.corporate3strikes.org/Pages/Corp_Revocation%20Sheet.pdf

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

118. the 90 days is to get the troops home

"he can only order the Department of Justice to initiate such a process and let the case work its way through the courts"

Yes, that's what Kucinich would do. He has a plan for getting the troops home in 90 days, and if did it in 180 days I'd be happy too.

I don't want the United States the occupy Iraq for YEARS, like Dean and Kerry and Lieberman want to do.

[Nadienne]

134. Exactly

Kucinich is willing to commit to this. He has a concise goal. It is a priority of his.

Besides, under what authority did those corporations get those no-bid contracts? Seems to me that if a president initiated it, a president can reverse it. Do the other candidates have a plan to get those corporations out? Is it something they are addressing?

And once legal proceedings have begun, can't a president issue an executive order for the corporations to cease what they are doing and leave Iraq?

[Nederland]

137. It would years anyway

That's how long these types of cases take. Heck, DK's term would be over before the legal issues were resolved. To think that you can simply revoke a corporate charter and re-award the contracts to other foreign companies in an effort to get them to commit troops to a complete and utter quagmire in 90 or even 180 days is naive. And even if you succeeded, you'd have to explain to the American people why billions of US taxpayer dollars was going into the pockets of foreign corporations. I'm sure DK's union pals would just love that idea.

[Nadienne]

138. The billions of tax dollars going to corporations

is what legal proceedings would try to recover.

Here is a link to a paper titled: "Damages for Breach of Contract: Should the Government Get Special Treatment?"

http://reo.nii.ac.jp/journal/HtmlIndicate/Contents/SUP0000003000/JOU0003000122/ISS0000017008/ART0000202503/ART0000202503.pdf

I haven't gotten very far in reading it, but something 3 pages in caught my eye:

"The firm's (refering to who the government makes a contract with) bargaining power is based on its outside option. In this case, the outside option comes about when the new government chooses to breach the original contract (thus cancelling the project entirely) rather than renegotiate it or honor it as written."

It seems to imply that a new administration can breach a contract of the previous administration. And that is what will get those corporations out of Iraq.

But I'll have to read further in the paper to be sure.

This question raises another question: is what those corporations are doing in Iraq essential for the lives of the people of Iraq? Or, are they only providing services for our military's infrastructure there?

[Nadienne]

139. Question:

Are corporate charters between one state and a corporation? Can they be between all states, the United States as one entity? I did a google search and most of what I found seemed to refer to one state...

By the way, I appreciate that you're taking the time to discuss this with me. I don't know the particulars of Kucinich's plan, but it's good for me to know how it might be possible, the steps to take to reach this goal, and the potential hurdles.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

143. Corporations are government entities

They are chartered by (one) state government. The state can revoke the charter if they want to, but rarely if ever do.

[Nadienne]

144. Ah, I see

(I think)

While being chartered, they are an extension of state government. For all practical purposes, they are the government...

Thank you. This has been an informative discussion. The benefits of diversity are the expansions in perception and knowledge... Diversity is a good, good thing.

[Dover]

59. Quote from Kucinich at Peace Rally yesterday in Austin, Tx.

---Kucinich said the United States should soon withdraw its troops and give control of Iraq's oil to the United Nations, which should help Iraq create a constitution. To restore the world's faltering faith in the United States, U.S. officials must denounce any interest in privatizing Iraq's economy, he said.

"And then we need to do a few more things," Kucinich said. "The U.S. must rebuild what we blew up in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility in this regard."

Kucinich said the United States will continue misspending its money the longer troops stay in Iraq and that the dollars should be used instead for programs to improve education and health care at home.


http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/metro_state_f37fab56a54c7143008f.html

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

67. only one who gets it

truly!

[maxr4clark]

69. None of the candidates are pro-Iraq war!

As Moseley-Braun has explained during several of the debates, there is a difference between:

1. Supporting the invasion of Iraq, which only Lieberman does, and

2. Recognizing that, now that we have killed over 20,000 of their noncombatants and destroyed most of their public buildings and destabilized their government and attracted scores of terrorist organizations into their country, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to make amends to the Iraqi people by helping them create a stable government and rebuild and defend themselves against terrorists.

Only Kucinich doesn't support living up to that responsibility. I like a lot of Kucinich's positions, but this is one I cannot agree with him on.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. The invasion is over, the occupation is not

Every candidate except for Kucinich supports an indefinite occupation, i.e., the War Against Iraq.

And you are 100% WRONG about his support of living up to our responsibilities - he has repeatedly called for reparations.

EVERYONE else wants to stay and keep the oil.

[redqueen]

72. Which candidates will turn contracting process over to the UN?

Which candidates are willing to forgo the 'spoils' of both the Oil Contracts and the Reconstruction Contracts?

This is key. This tells us which candidates are really interested in getting international cooperation and which are just telling you what you want to hear.

[goodhue]

114. Only DK

calls for turning the contracting, the security and the establishment of democracy over to the UN. He realizes that so long as the US is in charge the process is fatally flawed. The UN realizes this as well, which is why they want no part of the current mess. But if the US admitted its mistake and relinquenshed its control, then the UN would certainly step in as an authority to fill the void. It would involve a transition and the US would certainly remain responsible for the damage we caused. Representing DK's position as cut and run is inaccurate and overly simplistic.

[Tinoire]

108. Thank you for exposing our hypocrisy

• Senator Kerry, reparations? Yes we know you were lied to but this is different)
  
• Senator Edwards, reparations? Yes we know you were lied to but this is different)
  
• Congressman Gephardt, reparations? (Yes we know you were lied to but this is different)
  
• Ambassador Braun, reparations? (Whoops no, the Nigerian Ogoni are still waiting for those)
  
• General Clark, reparations? (Let's add Yugoslavia while we're at it)
  
• Governor Dean, reparations? (The Abenaki would like a few words if you say yes)
  
• Senator Lieberman, reparations? (No, not for the Palestinians, the Iraqis, but while we're at it...)
  

Wow. That leaves Kucinich and Sharpton alone on this one... AGAIN! What a shocker!

Meanwhile Halliburton will be reaping plenty in "reparations" for the inconvenience of "having" to be there.

If we do not take this course of action we will be in Iraq for years. Sooner or later the demand of the American people will become so powerful that it will not be possible to ignore. But here's my question: why should we wait for thousands more of our young men and women to die? Why should we wait for hundreds of billions of dollars - half a trillion or more - of the resources that you need for your future, why should we wait for that to be wasted?

What are we waiting for? We know full well the path we must take: not only restoring Iraq by paying for what we blew up, but also by providing reparations to those families of innocent civilian non-combatants who were killed by our action.

We also must provide money to sustain a UN peacekeeping force.

We have a way out. I want to know why the other candidates for President aren't talking about it. Why are the Democrats conceding this to President Bush? I am not going to concede a single thing to President Bush. It is time to challenge an Administration that took this country on a path of unilateralism and preemption.

From: Occupation of Iraq: Kucinich Challenges Other Candidates for Going along With Iraq Occupation

http://loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/843.html

[citizen snips]

74. I agree with you, Kucinich does not understand.

Kucinich can not live up the situation in Iraq. He does not understand that if we leave now democracy will fail.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

75. that IS what Bush says

It's a great excuse to keep the oil and give the rebuilding contracts to his cronies. So some Democrats are in on the scam - we knew that from the beginning.

"We can't leave Vietnam or the Commies will massacre everyone" - sound familiar? Won't get fooled again...

The FACTS are clear - Dean supports the War Against Iraq (now). So does CMB. Deal with it.

[JohnKleeb]

81. I dont get it

People act like he says, withdraw immediately, he wants to get the UN in there asap. The Iraqis wont have as much hostility to non US troops I will assume. I tell ya, as much as I am ABB, I am disappointed that so many of the candiates expect to be in Iraq so long, I wonder if there will be a draft, I hope not, that means I may have to go over there. I tell you, Kucinich has it right here, so many dying over there.

[maxr4clark]

110. Kucinich does say leave immediately!

I've heard him myself, in a couple of the debates! He says bring the American troops home immediately. He doesn't talk about any kind of transition period at all!

In the last two debates, and in "Winning Modern Wars" published in September, Clark has said turn over government of Iraq now, using the existing locally elected officials to make a governing body; put the writing of a constitution into UN hands, led by any non-American the UN chooses. Keep American forces there to provide security ONLY until an international or Iraqi security force can take over. Get your facts straight, man.

As for reparations, Kosovo is currently receiving twice the rebuilding funds per capita that Afghanistan is. Reparations ARE being made in Kosovo! Clark got the Americans into Kosovo to save Kosovar lives, not to take their oil. Or whatever it is you think Kosovars had that you thought Clark wanted. Stopping "ethnic cleansing" is PRECISELY what I think the American military should be used for, exactly as it was: as a last resort, after diplomacy has internationally been recognized to have failed.

No, my friend, the only one to blame for the deaths in Iraq is Bush. Every Democratic candidate is interested in the same thing: getting the United States out of Iraq, while doing our best to leave the Iraqis in a good situation. It is only Bush and the other oil barons that are in office that are interested in building an empire to control oil. Clark devotes the majority of the last chapter of his book to explaining why the US should not (ever) engage in military empire.

[goodhue]

116. Wrong

His plan calls for end of US authority within 90 days of a new UN resolution. UN in, US out is shorthand for his detailed and conscientious plan.

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

The goal is to bring all US troops home in 90 days, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

[citizen snips]

85. I do not support the war.

But now that we are in there it in imperative that we finish the job. The first Bush fucked it up the first time by leaving. And we should not make that mistake again.

[JohnKleeb]

94. I know

I am not accusing you of supporting it but I respectfully disagree, I dont think our troops being in Iraq will help matters.

[IrateCitizen]

79. Do you really think what is happening there is "democracy"?

Democracy is not something that can be imposed on people. It must come from the people themselves.

What we have in Iraq right now is a grand privatization experiment. EVERY Iraqi industry is being sold off to US corporations. EVERY F***ING ONE!

Do you really think that if a "democracy" resulted in an Islamic Republic, we would sit by and take it? Of course not. The only kind of "democracy" that is acceptable is the "democracy" that we approve -- the kind of "democracy" with the infernally corrupt Ahmed Chalabi (a man who had not been in Iraq for 40 years prior to last year and was sentenced in absentia to 23 years in prison for bank fraud in Jordan) as the titular US puppet, while the strings are pulled from Washington.

Democracy? Give me a break. They've got a better chance of evolving to it without our interference than they do with a continued US military presence there. It's sad, but true.

[diamondsoul]

83. And so what??

Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the Iraqis don't WANT a democratic government?? Maybe they're content to have a dictatorship, monarchy or whatever. That's not the decision nor the right of the United States to decide. They don't WANT to be Westernized, and lemme tell ya, if this is what it means to be "Westernized" or democratic these days, neither do I!

[Tinoire]

141. Democracy? You call what we are doing over there democracy?

Democracy has already failed. It's failed here in America and in Iraq it's all a charade.

Oil barons bringing Iraqis Democracy :shrug: That's gun-boat diplomacy at its best.

If we're so concerned about Democracy- why don't we start at home?

[Scott Lee]

88. You just negated your own post.

"None of the candidates are pro-Iraq war" is followed two lines in by "1. Supporting the invasion of Iraq, which only Lieberman does, and"

Ahem, how do you attain a hostile invasion without war? Please.

[Renew Deal]

70. She has been saying this all along. It's not new.

She has been saying that she wants to exit "with honor" and not too early. Nothing has changed.

EDIT: Doesn't Sharpton want out ASAP?

[redqueen]

77. Yes, Sharpton and Kucinich are the only progressive voices on this issue

Everyone else is parroting the establishment (MIC) spin circa 1969.


Which candidates will transfer oil contracts and reconstruction contracts to UN?

This is about the spoils, people. If a candidate says they think we have to continue the Iraq occupation 'for years', chances are they're unwilling to let anyone else get their hands on the spoils.

What does that say to you?

[revcarol]

92. "Exit with honor?"

Was that from those rice paddies in VIETNAM,....the last time I heard that phrase...

CHILLS GOING UP AND DOWN MY BACK!!


No, we can't leave "too early,"

----not before thousands more Iraqis have been killed

----not before any semblance of cooperation with the world community has died

----not before our national treasure,$$ and people, are used up!!

CMB, get a clue, or better still, get a life.

Kofi Annan has said that he could get 50,000 troops in there within a month, IF all parts of reconstruction, including $$, were turned over to the U. N. Almost HALF our force could be home within two or three months!! So how, again, is DK's plan IMPRACTICAL?

[Tinoire]

113. I got chills when she said that too

All this talk of secret plans and exit with honor sounds so... Nixonian.


If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the hopes of men the world over. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., Beyond Vietnam lecture, 4 April 1968

[diamondsoul]

140. My response to that assertion

is always "How do you create honor from an act totally devoid of honor? How do you create honor by perpetuating a crime?"

Was it criminal for the US to invade Iraq? I believe it was. If I break into your home and start to rob you, is it possible for any result of that crime to be honorable? Will it be more honorable for me to leave mere seconds after entering or more honorable for me to loot the home before I go and maybe kill the cat and dog while I'm at it? The worst part for me is the excuse- well we're already there, and if we don't finish it someone else who is meaner than us (and someone we don't like) will.

Overly simplified maybe, but the analogy is right on target, imo.

[maha]

80. Lies

Most of them don't WANT to continue the occupation "for years." Rather, most of them are responsible enough to realize the long-range problems that would occur if we left a power vacuum.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

84. Ah, they don't "want" it but they "support" it

Talk about lies...Everyone except DK and Sharpton want to keep us in Iraq indefinately and control the oil. Only DK and Sharpton want to turn it over to the UN (including the rebuilding process).

Lies? Yes, we've been hearing a lot of them.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Scott Lee]

86. Your thread is entirely misleading. Here's why.

You claim "every candidate is now pro-war except DK" based on their comments on the occupation. Here's why it's unqualified bunk.

Dean, for instance, has been against the way this war came about from the beginning. He has supported international troops there so that US ones can come home, and the need to clean up the mess that we made by this miserable war. He recognizes that the fait accompli won't allow the US to simply cut and run and leave that horrendous mess, and laid out a plan to deal with it. That does NOT equate with being "pro war". Not in the slightest.

Dean is as anti-iraq war as he was when he first sounded off on it. Your thread title should be changed so the mods don't have to lock it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

91. Occupation is War

As long as the US is there occupying the country - while US corporations are taking the oil and privatizing every industry - that's war.

What would you call it? A "Police Action"? - "Bringing Democracy to Iraq"?

"Entirely misleading" is right but it ain't me doing it.

[goodhue]

117. yes

And continued US occupation is not consistent with security and stability. It is that simple.

[Scott Lee]

129. Agreed. So who cleans up the mess we left there?

Santa Claus? Jesus? Barney the Dinosaur? Or maybe a wise and timely pullout predicated upon cleaning up and fixing what we destroyed in Iraq?

[redqueen]

135. An international peacekeeping force controlled by the UN

and funded for the most part by us, that's whom.

We cannot 'clean up and fix' anything as long as antipathy towards us is a major reason for the hostilities. That's why people are calling it a 'quagmire'.

We didn't want to leave a 'power vacuum' in Vietnam, either. Nor did we want to 'let dictatorial powers take over'.

Sometimes a nation must face when it has done something wrong and stop doing it. Eventually, we will.

However, most politicians want to stay in as long as possible, due to the situation with oil profits and reconstruction contracts. There is a lot of money to be made profiteering the spoils of this illegal war. It will do a lot for the Iraqi people if we, the instigators of this war and occupation, will remove our troops as fast as possible.

[Scott Lee]

128. War is the first step to occupation

Dean opposed it, but realizes we are stuck with an occupation. So now the question is to how to get out of it, without leaving Iraq in the shit mess our imperialistic oil grab has made.

Dean was always against this Iraq war. So was Kucinich. The others were not.

[Tadah]

125. you are misled, the thread is not...

"Dean is as anti-iraq war as he was when he first sounded off on it."

Dean is not anti-war. Dean folks refuse to look accept Kerry's comment that he supported the Biden admendent AND if you look through DU, you will see LOTS of references about Dean stating that the UN forced Bush's hand because it "failed to enforce its resolutions."

At least to me, anti-war means that neither the US will not use the UN to fight its imperialist wars....

The interesting thing about Iraq is: the US took property (oil contracts) from France, Russia, and Germany-- and these are industrialized nations.

This turned the tide. Look what the US did to Iran when Iran nationalized its oil.

We are in a new era of imperialism where countries can no longer find resources which are apparently unowned... We're fighting over how big our piece of the pie is.

[Skittles]

132. WE ARE KILLING PEOPLE FOR OUR PIECE OF THE PIE ???

*SICKENING*

[Mass_Liberal]

93. Don't you think that Carol Mosely Braun made a good point

about how we have an obligation to restore what we blew up? Personally I'm deeply conflicted about the issue. DK is right that it is draning domestic resources, but I also agree with Carol.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

95. No, that's what DK said

repeatedly over and over again. CMB attacked DK for putting a timeline on it - she, like all the others, wants to stay for years and years, until Iraq becomes "stable" -i.e., meaning never.

We've heard this excuse for imperialism before, OVER and OVER again.

[revcarol]

97. Kucinich said in Santa Fe, at a rally where I was in the front seat,

he said:

"IF WE BROKE IT, WE MUST FIX IT."And that's a direct quote. All war damage MUST be repaired by the U. S. at taxpayer expense. So we will still have a big bill, restoring stuff we bombed and houses we are still bulldozing...plus paying reparations to families for us mistakenly killing their members.

So, DK would not countenance not restoring what we can restore.

The issue is really continued war. With over 25 attacks per day on our troops, it still IS war.

A friend of mine went over to Iraq with From the Wilderness, and reported before the war that they wanted Saddam gone, they wanted to have a life free from Saddam's thugs, but also that they wanted NO AMERICAN OCCUPATION.They knew beforehand that we were just going to steal their oil.

Sad, but true, that almost none of our candidates will redress the real wrongs done to the Iraqi and American people.

[redqueen]

101. "If we broke it, we must fix it." -- Dennis Kucinich

He's been saying this for how long now?

And these are the 'politically informed'?

We're doomed.

[maxr4clark]

111. Fine

Then he should go on to say what it takes to fix what we broke. The problem I have with Kucinich on this isn't that he isn't after the right endpoint, but that he doesn't suggest a path that will get us there.

We can't fix what we broke in Iraq without providing a level of security that is sufficient for the UN and others to be willing to help. And remember that most of the "UN/NATO forces" always end up being American soldiers, anyway.

You are entirely correct that the current occupation IS aimed at controlling access to oil and at pressuring other Arab nations into doing what the United States wants. No Democrat is supporting the occupation that Bush has going, or its goals. Clark is not supporting that, by any means; no Democrat is (except maybe Lieberman). It is entirely incorrect to see this as a fundamental difference between Kucinich and everyone else.

The fundamental difference that I see between Kucinich and the other candidates that are in Congress is that Kucinich never voted for us to go to war in the first place. Kucinich was right to oppose it; I don't understand what the rest of the ones who voted for it were thinking. I wrote all of my elected officials at the time, urging them not to vote for that stupid resolution.

But to say that Kucinich is proposing to get out of Iraq immediately AND to make reparations is to say that Kucinich does not understand that the UN and NATO and al Qaeda and the Iraqis will not all autmatically do as he thinks they should. Any sensible plan for making reparations in Iraq means getting Iraq stable and safe during the process of transitioning back to self-rule, and given the situation Bush has created there, that means American soldiers on the ground for at least a year.

[goodhue]

121. yes but

You state "Any sensible plan for making reparations in Iraq means getting Iraq stable and safe during the process of transitioning back to self-rule, and given the situation Bush has created there, that means American soldiers on the ground for at least a year."

Continued US occupation is not consitent with getting Irag stable and safe. Indeed, so long as the US authority is the occupying force stablitity and security will remain out of reach. How many years will it take for the US to realize this? How many years are the terms of the private profiteering contracts for the corporations? What will be left of Iraq in 5 years? When has an occupying force ever succesfully established a democracy where there was not a democracy beforehand?

[goodhue]

119. He has been saying this for at least 6 months.

Yet critics still inaccurately characterize his position as cut and run. He could do a better job perhaps in retort to the cut and run missive. But he chooses instead to stick to the UN in, US out sound bite. He is ahead of his time but many of us are with him. The anti-war/occupation movement will be growing.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[genius]

102. I think the second best on this issue are Edwards and Kerry who

opposed the 87 billion dollars. Dennis is clearly the one real anti-war candidate. BTW, what about Sharpton? I think he agrees with Dennis on most things but has no government experience.

[corporatewhore]

115. Support our troops vote DK!!!!

[killbotfactory]

120. So if the UN doesn't want to go in Kucinich will pull out...

And leave a power vacuum that will be filled with civil wars and other nasty things that would be a direct cause of our actions?

[goodhue]

122. No

The UN will go in but only after the US relinqueshes control and a firm timetable for Iraqi sovereingty has been established. Annan has been saying as much since July but only DK seems to be listening. In fact DK's plan came out about the same time Annan signaled his preference for the US relinqueshment of control. But the US domestic media and politicians are unable to absorb this possibility since its is not consitent with US might making right.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D99A4C88-0522-470A-B972-86BDBEDFEB83.htm

Annan: Restore sovereignty to Iraqi people

Saturday 19 July 2003, 1:43 Makka Time, 22:43 GMT

Kofi Annan irked with US occupation of Iraq

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is recommending to the Security Council that sovereignty in Iraq be restored quickly to the Iraqi people, according to a report.

In the report, which will be presented to the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, Annan says, "It is important that Iraqis are able to see a clear timetable leading to the full restoration of sovereignty."

"There is a pressing need to set out a clear and specific sequence of events leading to the end of military occupation," the report states.

The principal message is that "democracy could not be imposed from outside" and that it must originate inside Iraq, Annan said in the report, made available to reporters on Friday.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

133. no

nice try though, completely uniforned people might be fooled.

[gottaB]

124. What's the difference between

US OUT UN IN and UN IN US OUT?

Give me a break. As president, you can be sure that Carol will:

• Use diplomacy to broker an international agreement that brings in the UN, and ends the US occupation of Iraq.
  
• Refrains from needlessly provoking other countries or invading them willy-nilly.
  
• Honors international law and all treaties and agreements that would reduce weapons stockpiles and ameliorate conflict.
  
• Shifts spending away from unneeded missile systems and towards essential services.
  
• Uses the armed services as a last resort, and only for purposes of defending our national interests.
  

It's really shocking to me how some people try to spin her very sensible position, which is really aimed at reducing violence on all fronts, into something resembling PNAC-light. That's pure hokum. Look at the Peace Action questionnaire. Carol and Dennis and Al all have the same rating from that group, because they all had essentially the same answers to the questions that really matter.

People, this is important stuff. Forget the sophistry and the mud-slinging and glib misreprentations. Carol has a record of diplomatic and political achievements, and a commitment to peaceful conflict resolution that is deep, consistent, and multifaceted. You can count on her to make peace.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

126. DK said - UN In (first) US Out (second)

I was under the impression that Braun wanted us in Iraq until we "finish the job" which as far as I can tell means *years* like most of the candidates.

Kucinich and Sharpton, and until the last debate, I thought Braun, want to turn over the "job" - the rebuilding process - to the UN, and bring our troops home - ASAP.

I also didn't like her swipe at "protectionism" - I hope she didn't mean to put herself against Kucinich, Gephardt, and Edwards by that statement.

I hope Carol clarifies her statements, so I can put her back on my "good" list :)

[goodhue]

127. What Carol said yesterday . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54363-2004Jan4?language=printer

MOSELEY BRAUN: Thank you very much.

First, to Dennis and the war. I opposed the war also, Dennis. But Americans can't -- we can't just cut and run. We blew the place up; we have a responsibility to at least fix it back.

And the United Nations...

(APPLAUSE)

... can't come in until we do more there.

So while, you know, the fact of getting U.N. in and U.S. out, it sounds wonderful. At the same time, we still have a responsibility there, that we cannot just drop the ball.

[revcarol]

130. To summarize: CMB

She is saying Dennis' plan is just 'cut and run.' IT'S NOT.

She is saying that it's too dangerous for the UN to go in.SHE'S RIGHT...AS LONG AS THE UN IS SEEN AS SHILLS FOR THE U.S.-- AND IS MAKING NO EFFORT TO TRANSITION IRAQ TO BE "THEIR" GOVERNMENT, NOT A U.S. PUPPET GOVERNMENT.

Getting the U. N. in as fast and as efficiently as possible while very gradually withdrawing U. S. troops is 'dropping the ball.'I DON'T KNOW WHICH PLANET SHE IS LIVING ON, BUT IT'S CALLED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

I thought she did well in the debate until that point. Don't trust her anymore. Too shallow.Mischaracterizing DK's positionsfor her own ends. Goes to the bottom of the list with several others.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

131. She attacked Edwards and Kucinich, and Gephardt

and "agreed" with Dean. She now wants us to occupy Iraq and attacks "protectionism".

Sounds like somebody just sold out - or bought in - depending on whether you're buying or selling...

I hope that I'm reading too much into it. She was great during the debates.

[gottaB]

146. Carol's critique of the rhetoric is not mine, and

I don't mean to paper over significant policy differences, but it's a stretch to say that Carol is pro-occupation, pro-war, or pro-who-are-we-going-to-invade-next.

Here's what she told NPR's Michele Norris when asked "If elected, what would you do to speed the transition of power to Iraqis and bring stability to that country."

At the outset you should know that I opposed the war on several grounds. One was consititutional, that article one, section eight calls on the congress to issue declarations of war. That hasn't happened since World War Two, but the fact is we have to get back to the constitutional requirements if we are going to avoid slipping into these arbitrary, unilateratel, pre-emptive kind of military actions. That's the first point. The second point is that at the time, before we went in, I was just appalled, frankly, at the way our traditional allies were being treated and the way our international institutions, such as the United Nations, were being mistreated.

Having said that, however, I think it is important that having blown up Iraq, we have a responsibility to at least leave it in as good of shape as we found it; and that means we're going to have to stay there and stabilize the country, at least until the chaos abates somewhat and we can actually get boots on the ground from our allies around the world as well as international organizations. To get the United Nations blue helmets back in, we need to bring all the assets we can to bear on giving us some relief on the ground, so that we can begin to bring our fighting men and women home.

link

And as for selling out, to whom? To the men and women in the armed services who don't have essential supplies because those things are being contracted out to BFEE holdings? Does that make her a sell out? Or do you think she's fronting for those same holdings who are cheating the taxpayers and our armed service personel and don't care diddly for anything but their own bottom line? Not a chance. To big oil? Hardly. It was Carol who went on Buchanan and Press and explained it all in words everybody could understand: "Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil. oil."

So, sold out to whom?

Again, if you want to critize policy differences, that's one thing, because there are a few and it's worth discussing. But when you take differences of rhetoric and style and magnify them to the extent that you can say in all earnestness that Braun is a pro-war sell out, that's just malarkey.