Kucinich Statement- Authorizing Force On Those Responsible For Recent Terrorist Acts Against The US

[slipslidingaway]

Kucinich did not vote to authorize the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, he did vote, along with EVERY other member of Congress, except Barbara Lee, to use resources against those who committed or aided the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01.

As Kucinich is now speaking out against the escalation, this vote is being used as an excuse that he voted for the war in Afghanistan.

He has NOT voted to continue funding this war.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=25520

Thanks to DUer Cerridwen for posting the link in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7136360&mesg_id=7136617

CSpan video
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8299027


Kucinich Statement On Authorizing Force On Those Responsible For Recent Terrorist Acts Against The U.S.


"On Friday, September 14, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) spoke on the House floor explaining his reasons for supporting the resolution authorizing the President to use force on those responsible for the recent terrorist acts against the United States. Following is the text of his statement.

Washington, Sep 14 -

I will support this resolution authorizing the President to defend our country. Whatever forms of action we choose must reflect our democratic principles and distinguish us from the mentality of terrorists and destructive violence. Our actions must pursue a path towards reducing violence, not escalating violence. Launching weapons of mass destruction or collateral attacks against innocent civilians would be no different than the terror we have already had brought upon us. An eye for an eye mentality is unacceptable. We are a nation with civil and moral values and we must show the world that. These terrorist attacks were clearly a crime against humanity. What does a democracy do to punish criminals? We put them on trial, if found guilty, we imprison them.

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles."

[Romulox]

1. k/r for the truth. nt

[slipslidingaway]

4. Thank you :) n/t

[Oregone]

2. thanks

[slipslidingaway]

7. you're welcome n/t

[Cerridwen]

3. Thanks for starting this thread.

I was thinking of doing the same but I'd just go all copy and paste and it would have been boring or ranty or my usual snarky. :D

Thank you for crediting my little bit 'o research. :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

9. My pleasure, it needed it's own thread, thanks to you and Zodiak for...

posting in the other thread.

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7136360&mesg_id=7136605

"Here is the text of the vote "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."


We have not attacked Saudi Arabia yet, as far as I know....or Yemen. But nice try at further ridiculing and marginalizing the left using half-baked arguments. You also just showed that Kucinich is not a knee-jerk pacifist who is against ANY use of force, which is a great big strawman I have seen thrown around here by those that want to justify this escalation."

[Cerridwen]

10. I got kind of lost when I read

We have not attacked Saudi Arabia yet, as far as I know....or Yemen. But nice try at further ridiculing and marginalizing the left using half-baked arguments. You also just showed that Kucinich is not a knee-jerk pacifist who is against ANY use of force, which is a great big strawman I have seen thrown around here by those that want to justify this escalation."

I think I missed a part of your post????

[slipslidingaway]

12. No you did not, that was Zodiak's post in the other thread. :) nt

[Cerridwen]

13. :D

Thank you. I thought my caffeine had mis-fired. LOL

[slipslidingaway]

16. Still working! :) n/t

[Cerridwen]

18. And still kicking. :D n/t

[slipslidingaway]

21. Thankfully! n/t

[mikelgb]

5. But, but, RON PAUL! RON PAUL!

[G_j]

6. the truth hurts sometimes... nt

[autorank]

8. Kucinich is the last man standing

Of all those progressives who said they'd vote against a bogus health bill, Kucinich alone
stood up and voted NO.

He's consistent of Afghanistan. The fact that they're going after him just says how scared they
are. This move is idiotic and the public isn't behind it, except in carefully constructed polls.

Good for Dennis! Always there, always right!

[slipslidingaway]

11. Agree, they folded quickly on the HC bill - Eric Massa also voted no ...

on the HC reform bill and is also against the escalation.

http://massa.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24§iontree=23,24&itemid=466

"Congressman Eric Massa outlines reasons for his vote against Health Care Legislation
11/09/09

CORNING, N.Y. - Today Congressman Eric Massa outlined his reasons for voting against H.R. 3962 on Saturday night. To summarize the specific votes: Rep. Massa voted for the rule of debate, against the Stupak Amendment and against final passage of the bill.

When H.R. 3962 was first introduced on Thursday, October 29th, Rep. Massa canceled his weekend schedule to read and review the legislation. Following seven days of studying the bill, consulting with experts and speaking with constituents, Rep. Massa announced his intention to vote against the bill.

Rep. Massa had several concerns because the legislation did not meet several of his key objectives, including guaranteed universal access for all Americans and an assurance of individual affordability. While this bill does contain a public option, it is far from a "robust" one and Rep. Massa pledged, in a letter months ago, to vote against anything less than that. The public option in this bill is available for only about 2% of the American population and its premium rates will match private health insurance, guaranteeing no effective competition in the marketplace..."

[slipslidingaway]

15. OT on carefully constructed polls ....

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/80

They spent months telling us the PO would be just like Medicare and then looking how they worded the polls, which were then cited in the media, was interesting.

When the word Medicare is used in the various polls, the number of people who favor the plan automatically jumps, it makes no difference if the question relates to the public option or a national insurance system such as single-payer...the word "Medicare" has a favorable connotation....

...Now their August poll has just been released and they did not half sample the public option or single-payer questions, what they did do is include the word "Medicare" when asking about the public option and exclude it from the question about single-payer, guess what happened to the single-payer poll...it dropped.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Read the legislation

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Agreed to by House)

HJ 64 ATH


107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 64
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 14, 2001
Mr. ARMEY (for himself and Mr. GEPHARDT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations


September 14, 2001
Committee on International Relations discharged; which was considered and agreed to


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;

Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;

Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;

Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Barbara Lee was the only one to oppose this authorization and I bet Kucinich...

would like to change his vote, since he cannot, he has voted no on continued funding. The attacks here against Kucinich for this vote are being blown out of proportion IMO.

[berni_mccoy]

19. Bottom line is Kucinich AUTHORIZED the current mess. And this AUTHORIZES Obama's decision.

[EFerrari]

20. It may authorize Obama to invade Pakistan because that's where Omar is

and that's where AQ is training. None of those people are still in Afghanistan.

[berni_mccoy]

22. In fact, it does.

[slipslidingaway]

23. In addition to authorization, the mess needs FUNDS and Kucinich...

has voted No on the funding.

But why single out Kucinich, other members of Congress also voted yes on the bill and are speaking against the escalation.

:shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

24. I didn't single him out. You did.

[chill_wind]

26. Not you, berni

But I just came from a thread with assertions in the midst that did. And one the day before.

It's tired out lore.

Kucinich is not pro-war.

[slipslidingaway]

27. There was another thread that singled him out and many comments in ...

other threads pointing to his vote, of course they fail to mention the fact that he has voted against funding the wars.

You even posted in the thread that singled him out yesterday ... or did you forget.

:eyes:

[chill_wind]

25. Exactly. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

28. Appears to be a forgotten fact :) n/t

[Karmadillo]

29. Kick

nt