Kucinich: 5 Dem Candidates Promoted WMD Claims

[AnAmerican]

Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich today said that based on the public record five of his fellow candidates promoted the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"The implications of this are enormous," Kucinich said. "They were either misled or looked the other way while President Bush was using the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction as a reason to go to war against Iraq. Either way, these candidates have seriously undermined their ability to win in the general election when President Bush is obviously running for reelection based on his Iraq policies.

"Yesterday the leader of the U.S. search for Iraq's alleged stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons said he didn't think there were any. Secretary of State Colin Powell now claims we went to war to find out whether such weapons existed.

"Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards, Dr. Dean, and General Clark, all claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and, therefore, contributed to the political climate which falsely justified a war.

"In September of 2002, before five of my fellow candidates joined the President in claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I repeatedly and insistently made the point that no proof of that claim existed and as such that there was no basis to go to war. Six months later, even Dr. Dean was still claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

http://kucinich.us/statements.htm#WMD

[plurality]

1. but wait! Clark and Dean are anti-war...

because after the war started they said it was bad.

[9119495]

46. Actually, a candidate could accept the existance

of WMDs and still oppose going to war on the grounds it was not in our national interest at that time--as Clark and Dean stated. They believed the goal should've been to continue the hunt for bin Laden.

Also, Dean at least, was against the war long before it was going bead--an just about everyone knows this.

[mopinko]

2. just fyi

and i don't have a link here, but i heard david kay on npr this morning say that there was evidence that "stuff" (sorry i am not sure exactly what he said, i didn't hear it all, weapons or?) was moved to syria.

[snoochie]

8. David Kay

People are still listening to him? Isn't this the guy that spent a while looking and found 'programs'?

[goodhue]

40. he has left his position and now says

he thinks there never were any wmd stocks whatsoever in the 90s
some of us have thought that all along
one of those is Dennis J Kucinich
Gov Dean and Gen Clark may not have supported war but nonetheless conceded the likelihood of WMD stock
DJK never accepted that assumption, continually saying no proof, no proof, no proof
this is not an argument but the facts

[drfemoe]

34. He said they can't be sure

Because rioting and looting continued for two months after the invasion, a number of things may have occurred. He found no evidence of anything other than "plans" to pursue WMDs. He also pointed out that even the Clinton administration believed there might be WMD activities due to the nature of available intelligence. And that it is a very complicated issue. There are no one liners. Certainly "taking out Saddam" as a one liner for justification is not the shoe that fits.

If Kucinich is saying there was NO evidence of WMD activity AT ALL, how could the U.S. even ask the weapons inspectors to return to Ira*? That's all Governor Dean supported. He did not advocate occupation of a foreign country or implementing a radical preemptive war doctrine.

I almost feel a little sorry for DK. Reuters had a story this morning about his campaign in NH. The only thing a single reporter asked him about were his poll numbers. Kucinich had a pretty good answer about the people in NH lacking health care, et al, and that there are issues more important than poll numbers. He then went on to whine about the horse race nature of presidential elections.

The thing that stops me from feeling any sympathy for DK is that while he says he hates the process, he participated fully in back-room dealings in IA, instructing his delegates to follow Edward's supporters. He needs to take more responsibility for his own actions and stop blaming the process he did nothing to challenge when he had the opportunity. Furthermore, he may need to meditate awhile on his true motivation, and how he can be of service to the people he claims to "love".

[snoochie]

36. I think he specifically referred to the 'stockpiles'

And the rioting and looting excuse doesn't hold water either, because they 'knew where they were' (in the areas around tikrit to the north and blah blah blah).

Nobody was fooled. You act as if there is some huge gray area. The key is the fact that he was no threat. That is all. If there are no 'stockpiles' and no way for him to strike us in the immediate future, there is no reason for a pre-emptive war. What we witnessed (and what some candidates approved of), based on the evidence (that we were in in no imminent danger), was a preventive war.

That is injustifiable.

Your trying to stray from the issue at hand and re-direct the conversation back to the "backroom deals" in IA is sad. Kucinich supporters seem to understand strategy far better than many of the 'pragmatic' candidates. :)

[drfemoe]

38. I was talking about the David Kay interview

I'm not acting any way, just reporting what I remember about the interview.

[justinpower]

96. Actually you are

expressing your opinion. Part of wich is that you feel DK sold out in "backroom dealings" with Edwards. If it was back room, why do you suppose it was announced to the media. There was nothing shady here, just a candidate trying to position himself to get delegates, which he did. That being said, I dont feel DK should pursue this tangeant. It is in its very nature unhealthy. Clearly those who believed in the wmd threat did because they were mislead.

[Renew Deal]

3. _

[AnAmerican]

4. DK is not dropping out

He is in this all the way until the Dem. Convention. (and quite possibly beyond that as well...as the Democratic Nominee)

[tinanator]

29. neither is he being included in polling questions

no wonder he "doesnt have a chance, look at the polls" gets sung so often. As if we are all that easily led by the nose?

[Desertrose]

64. wouldn't it be sweet if we could render the polls

completely pointless?

It would be so great if DK and his supporters, find a way around the neverending media blackout when it comnes to Dennis. Who needs all their lies?! who bloody needs them!!!

Peace
DR

[redqueen]

65. People who want to be told what to do, think, etc. n/t

[ThirdWheelLegend]

5. Good argument against the claims..

:eyes:

By the way, Dennis is in this until the convention.

TWL

[Renew Deal]

7. _

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. You make a great argument against Dennis' claims

Your debating skills are second to none!

TWL

[Renew Deal]

11. _

[ThirdWheelLegend]

12. You want Clark to drop out?

I am confused...

[Renew Deal]

13. _

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

16. _

[Forkboy]

48. best post yet!

[Desertrose]

6. Eyes that see behind the lies.....

The message Dennis repeats over and over has been so diluted and turned around by the other dem candidates...do the American people even know what the issues are??

Maybe they figure it it gets spun enough, people will forget Dennis and vote on who raised the most money...who is highest in polls....who used to be a General and knows how to keep us safe.....who voted for all the lies all the time and is proud he did!

I want someone for Presidient that I can trust to tell the truth and to fight for wht is inherently decent and right....only one I see who is all that is Dennis Kucinich!!!!

:hi: AA

:loveya:
DR

[BlueStateGirl]

9. I don't like this argument at all. I know plenty of ordinary Joes

who believed Bush & Co. and now feel duped and resentful.

Clark said today on MTP that Rumsfield met with a group of retired generals and told them he knew where 30% of the WMDs were.

Bush lied, Rumsfield lied, Cheney lied , Powell lied, Rice lied. Many people believed them.

Good for DK that he knew better, turns out he was right. But instead of knocking those who believed the Bush lies, how about we atart knocking around the damn liars?

And I don't mean specifically DK. I mean all the candidates. Bush lied. We need to repeat it over and over again until it sinks in to the American public and until the press cannot ignore it.

[plurality]

14. yeah, but would you want all those ordinary Joes to be president?

I'm sorry but the whole mislead excuse is pathetic. What will happen when these guys have to get into hard core diplomacy. Will they fall for lies and bullshit then as well?

I want a president that makes GOOD decisions and thinks for himself. I knew from Jan. of 2000 that just about everything that came out of George Bush's mouth was 100% bullshit, and he never did a single thing to prove me wrong. So now I want to vote for someone that the village idiot (aka George Bush) can make a fool out of?

[BlueStateGirl]

18. I would run some of those average Joes against the chimp-in -chief any day.

I don't think the misled excuse is pathetic. Do I think some of these people should have known better? Absolutely. But , to me, the important thing is BUSH lied.
I believed some of those lies, but still thought his preemptive doctrine was BS. I realize now that I was stupidly naive, but it honestly never occurred to me that an entire administration would fabricate evidence and lie like that. It was unfathomable to me. I couldn't imagine a President using the US military for his own personal and political gain. (not too mention the monetary gain of his cronies. I mean I knew Bush was an idiot, I just didn't think he was this hopelessly corrupt and evil)
Now thanks to his lies, we are there. And regardless of our candidate in Nov. I think that Bush lied is a message the party needs to put out there now. Attack Bush on his deceit, be relentless about it and quit shooting ourselves in the foot.

[plurality]

21. you got in on the lies part

but which candidate is calling Bush on his lies?

Is Kerry-no
Is Clark-no
Is Dean-no
Is Edwards-no

Not a single one of them is saying Bush lied to get us into war, and if you think they're just waiting until the general election you've got another thing coming. Come primary time those guys are going to run so far to the center (read right) it's going to make your head spin.

Kucinich is this ONLY ONE mentioning the unmentionable, that BUSH LIED. So if you think "Bush Lied" is the message the party needs to be putting out there you should vote for Kucinich, because he's the only who is and will continue to say it. Every other candidate is too afraid to say the Bush lied.

[BlueStateGirl]

22. I promise, if DK gets the nomination I'll vote for him.

Clark is calling out Bush. This speech is just one example. Today on MTP I heard him accuse Cheney of using US intelligence to play politcs.


http://clark04.com/speeches/035/

[plurality]

23. why is he playing word games?

You said you want someone to call Bush on his LIES. I know Bush lied, you know Bush lied, does Clark? If Clark was mislead about WMDs but doesn't think Bush lied then Oxford must have made a serious mistake giving him that Rhodes Scholarship, Jesus I thought this guy was smart.

So it's either one of two options. Either Clark doesn't get it, not good cause I would like a smart president, one dumb one is enough, or MORE LIKELY, Clark is too chickenshit to come out and say BUSH LIED so he's tip-toeing around it. Either way Clark isn't giving you what you said you wanted so why are you supporting him?

[BlueStateGirl]

25. I just went to Dk's site and reread the statement you posted, and

found his language to be remarkable similar to Gen. Clark's on Bush's lies.

DK...." They were either misled or looked the other way."
WC " The Bush administration wasn't honest with the American people"
" The President misled ..."

I would be sincerely interested in anything that shows DK calling Bush an outright liar.

I support Clark, but I am not against Kucinich, or any of the other candidates. Clark is the man I want to see get the nomination. But I will support any of the candidates in November.

Right now, I also hear Clark holding Bush accountable for 9-11. I haven't heard any other candidate do that. And once again < if you have something, show me, because I would love to see it.
But if all you are interested in doing is throwing around ridiculous insults about Wesley Clark's ( or any candidate's) intelligence, don't waste your time.

[plurality]

26. here's a link to his TV commercial

It's entitled..."The eyes that see through the LIES"

http://www.kintera.org/AutoGen/ECommerce/Product.asp?ievent=34381&ProductID=66389

And if you read what I said, I wasn't insulting Clark's intelligence, I don't think he's dumb, but I do think he's being craven and not calling the president on his lies, that's the point I'm making.

sorry, that link is for a poster, here's one of 3 TV ads Kucinich has played.

http://resources.kucinich.us/video/video/listen_up/listen_up_real_broadband.ram

[BlueStateGirl]

27. Link takes me to the poster, not a the commercial.

Sincerely, I applaud DK for doing this. I believe Wes Clark is doing it as well. I wish all the candidates were doing it.

[plurality]

28. wrong link try now.

and I do think Clark is doing a good job, even though it doesn't come across in my posts. i'm trying show you, if you want someone that's truly going to call Bush on his lies, Kucinich will be your best bet.

[BlueStateGirl]

30. Went to the site, and watched a few of his commercials .

I like what he has to say.

[plurality]

32. glad you liked it.

he says what needs to be said which is why i support him.

[diamondsoul]

61. here-

http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx101403.html

Calling the war "illegal" and saying that the Bush Administration "lied" when it took the nation into war, Kucinich said, "I'm the one candidate who consistently opposed the war and consistently opposes the occupation."

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/0306241min.html

“This manufactured catastrophe called foreign policy represents not only a failure of truth, a great credibility gap, but more than that, America faces a crisis of the legitimacy of the government itself, which lied to the American people to get approval for a war.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dnc1003/kucin100303spt.html

"It is time for the United States to rejoin the world community in the interest of international security. Every day we pay to stay longer, we stand on the rubble of the lies of the Bush administration--lies about 9/11 and Iraq, lies about nuclear weapons capability and Iraq, lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. Let the American people know the truth. The truth shall set us free, free from U.S. occupation of Iraq and free from the Bush administration's occupation of the White House."

http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/007710.php

"The current administration lied about almost everything since 9/11," he said. "It lied about the connection of al-Aqaida and Saddam Hussein, it lied about the weapons of mass destruction and it lied in those famous 16 words in the State of Union address."

That enough times of saying Bush and his entire administration lied? I wanted to present the quote from a televised interview, I think it was his first Hardball appearance where he was asked point blank "Are you saying President Bush LIED?" and Dennis said "Yes, he lied.", but the transcript is no longer available and I didn't think to save it.

[drfemoe]

42. Seems to be some misunderstanding about Dean's statements

Dean says Iraq war would be a long one
August 21, 2002
The Associated Press
MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean says a U.S. attack on Iraq could lead to American troops being on the ground in the country for a decade.

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

“The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them,” Dean said. “So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence.”
...
“We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years,” Dean said. “If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us.”
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/51796

It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a preemptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war, but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq
...
very partial listing of accurate statements

[goodhue]

39. its not an argument, its fact

[Zomby Woof]

17. woohoo!

Wonder how the Dean supporters can keep attacking Kerry or Clark over this issue now, because DK just exposed that fraud Dean over his early support for the war based on WMD lies!

[HuckleB]

33. Huh?

Shouldn't you be up in arms at Kucinich for "going negative?"

[drfemoe]

37. not if you actually give it some thought

something Kucinich would be well advised to strive for.

[sandnsea]

19. So did he

Dennis is really starting to piss me off. He's the one that said inspectors had to go back into Iraq and that tight weapons restrictions needed to be in place. Why would inspectors have to go back in if there was no cause for concern? These people who refuse to talk about their stand on the inspections and how to make that happen are ignoring a vital part of the war issue.

[wheresthemind]

24. because they didn't have any!

And we needed to be sure they didn't get any ever again, thats why we needed the inspectors and weapons restrictions.

What a weak argument...

[sandnsea]

73. How was he going to get them in?

No it isn't a weak argument. Either Saddam was a threat or he wasn't. If we need inspections and weapons restrictions, he was a threat. And Dennis has never presented a plan to get those inspectors in there in the first place.

[goodhue]

41. Dennis has never believed in WMD stocks!

And neither have I.
One of the many reasons he is my candidate.

[sandnsea]

72. Then why have inspections at all??

Why the need to make sure weapons aren't sold to Iraq?

If there's no reason to worry about Saddam at all, just call for lifting sanctions and be done with it.

[emulatorloo]

20. Way to go, DK!!!!!

I am glad to see this piece and very glad to hear he is staying in thru the convention.

[HuckleB]

31. Good for him. But, wait, isn't this "going negative!"?

I don't think it is. I think it's a legitimate point of differentiation. However, I suspect that if Dean were the one making this point of differentiation, it would be looked upon as "going negative."

Just saying.

[eridani]

95. He is criticizing their statements

--not their personalities. You might have noticed he didn't pile on the "screech" BS, or contribute to nonsense around the Confederate flag fluffup.

[Tinoire]

35. Here are the statements

plurality (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-25-04 02:40 PM
Response to Original message

40. Here are the actual quotes

Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 02:41 PM by plurality
The Institute for Public Accuracy has compiled the following quotes, :

Sen. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States. " http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html>, <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html

Rep. DENNIS KUCINICH: "Since 1998 no credible intelligence has been brought forward which suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. . . " http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020912-avoidwar.htm>, <http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030604WMDinqres.html

Sen. JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? & According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons . . . Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents. . . " http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm> <http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html >>

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. " http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html

Gen. WESLEY CLARK: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. " When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely. " (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this. " (on CNN, April 2, 2003) http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html>, <http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html>, <http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html

Rev. AL SHARPTON: "I think that the present administration is bent on war. There has been no, in my judgment, evidence presented there has been any weapons of mass destruction. " (on NPR, Jan. 31, 2003)

Dr. HOWARD DEAN: " have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. " http://www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html

On Sep. 3, 2002, on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dennis Kucinich said, "I don't think there's any justification to go to war with Iraq. There's no evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. There's no. . . there's nothing that says that they have the ability to deliver such weapons, if they did have them. There's been no stated intention on their part to harm the United States. "

On Sep. 4, 2002, on Buchanan and Press, Buchanan asked "Congressman Kucinich, does not the President have a clear, factual point here? Saddam Hussein is developing these weapons of mass destruction, he agreed to get rid of them, he has not gotten rid of them. Kucinich replied: "Well, frankly we haven't seen evidence or proof of that, and furthermore we haven't seen evidence or proof that he has the ability to deliver such weapons if he has them, and finally, whether or not he has the intent. I think that what we need to be doing is to review this passion for war, that drumbeat for war, that's coming out of the White House, and to slow down and to let calmer heads prevail and to pursue diplomacy…. "

On Sep. 7, 2002, Dennis Kucinich gave a speech in Baraboo, Wisconsin, called "Architects of New Worlds," in which he said "There's no evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or the ability to deliver such weapons if it had them or the intention to do so. There is no reason for war against Iraq. Stop the drumbeat. Stop the war talk. Pull back from the abyss of unilateral action and preemptive strikes. " See: http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/sp-020907-newworlds.htm

[goodhue]

53. keep it kicked for the truth

its right here

[Egnever]

54. no offense but thats a pretty weak example

have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. "

Thats not saying sadam has weapons of mass destrustion only that it is necessary to remove them if he has them.

heres some more quotes for honesty's sake

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.


August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.


September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.


September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."


September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."


October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."


December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."


January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"


January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."


January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"


February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''


February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

[goodhue]

55. your last Dean quote says it all . . .

Dean accepts that Saddam needs to be disarmed rather than asking, what arms?

Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

[Egnever]

56. You mean this part?

Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

[goodhue]

57. I'm refering to the fact that Dean doesn't question existence of WMD.

I appreciate the fact that Dean discounted Iraq as imminent threat. He was right to do so. But he generally said yes Iraq needs to be disarmed and the UN is the way to do it. DK said what arms? no proof!

Presence of WMD stockpiles and imminent threat are two different things. DK questioned both, Dean just the later.

[drfemoe]

60. That must be the only part DK read too .

narrow focus = partial understanding

[redqueen]

63. That's the only important part when considering preventive war

n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. We were ALL misled by the NeoCons. What's your point?

[goodhue]

44. We were not all misled!

Some of us never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I recall a fellow name Scott Ritter on TV who said as much.

[drfemoe]

45. I wasn't even tempted to be misled ..

I was praying for Tom Daschle to actually stick with his reservations about the passage. He caved. They all caved. I already knew it was bogus. Why am I not a Senator?

[no name no slogan]

47. I wasn't

I never trusted ANYONE in that whole damn Bush family-- or in their administrations. Poppy headed up the CIA, after all. His daddy Prescott got rich selling war supplies to the Nazis.

Dubya's bro Neil bilked a Colorado S&L out of billions of dollars, none of which he's repaid.

Jeb and his FL mob kicked over 60,000 poor people off the registered voter rolls in Florida, making it easy for his older, dumber brother to become president.

Most of Dubya's flunkies worked for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I-- some of the most corrupt administrations in US history. IOW, completely untrustworthy

How anybody could trust BushCo and his NeoCon cronies is beyond me. As the old saying goes, I wouldn't trust ANY of them as far as I could throw them.

[Forkboy]

49. Speak for yourself

[Tinoire]

51. We most certainly were not. Tons of DUers saw it &

discussed it as it was happenening. We were not mis-led. Anyone who bought into the lies was either uninformed, wanting to believe them or just plain blind. Whichever of those 3 categories they fit in, I do not want them leading my country.

Just search through the archives. We were appalled.

[corporatewhore]

50. The Eyes that see through the LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

52. yes! Kucinich leads, the others follow!

Polls and money do not make a leader.

The truth, integrity and passion do.

TWL

[cthrumatrix]

59. the more people know about this..the better

[goodhue]

58. kick for Monday morning

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

62. DK kick

:kick:

[goodhue]

66. kick for never any WMD stockpiles in 90s

This could be a huge issue to stick it to Republicans and media. Especially if we had a candidate who never conceded their existence.

[redqueen]

67. Yes, it *could* be a huge issue

But based on all the lovely polls (:eyes:), it won't be. :(

[Ediacara]

68. Kucinich the liar (once again)

"I'm the only TRUE anti-war candidate. Don't pay any attention to the other three to five anti-war candidates, I'm the only one that counts!"

[redqueen]

69. It would be funny if people weren't dying for their cowardice

Only one candidate is against the occupation.

I guess we really want to see the first draft that includes women.

Great.

[Ediacara]

70. Kucinich is a liar

If he claims there's any substantive difference between his position and the positions of Clark, Dean, Graham, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton.

He is claiming there is, there he is a liar.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Ediacara]

77. AD HOMINEM

Thanks.

That's mature.

If you think that Dennis COULD end the occupation, I think you're the one who might be in crazy land.

They ALL want to end the occupation post-haste; Clark, Dean, Graham, and Moseley-Braun have used their BRAINS and come up with a REASONABLE time-table that adults could take seriously, while Kucinch has come up with a snappy (and idiotic) slogan: UN IN, US OUT.

Kucinich is stupid if he thinks that that could happen quickly, and he's a liar because I know he's smarter than that.

[plurality]

78. brilliant

I'm sorry, I bow down before your superior skills. You've obviously proved that Kucinich lied when he said he wanted to end the occupation while everyone else said they would continue it for years.

And by the way an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the messenger and ignores the argument. My previous post is not an ad hominem as your pathetic assertion was dealt with as well as your delusions.

[Ediacara]

79. He lied when he said that he would end the occupation

He knows he couldn't do it in any substantially different timetable than the other three to five anti-war candidates.

[plurality]

81. so you know what's going on in his mind?

Are you now claiming to be able to read minds? Better sit still while I send someone over with some thorazine.

[Ediacara]

84. is there a minimum age limit for DUers?

Like say, no one under 15 allowed?

Anyway, like I said, he's either lying or he's stupid... and I don't think he's stupid.

[plurality]

86. top notch, you outdid yourself on that one!

Please educate me, my skills at sophistry are in need of some tweaking.

[MuseRider]

88. I was wondering

the same thing. You need to substantiate your accusations. You are calling a man a liar who has been truthful to his detriment. What makes you think he is lying?

[Ediacara]

89. Perhaps reading my posts

Kucinich wants UN IN US OUT, aparently on 21 Jan 2005.

How could he do that? Could it actually happen?

Obviously not.

He would need to create a TIMETABLE for TROOP MOVEMENTS.

And he would need to TALK TO THE UN AND/OR NATO.

And then the transfer from the US to the UN would take place.

In around a year or so.

"UN IN US OUT in about a year" is really what Kucinich should be saying, because it's the truth and he (and you) know it.

There is no substantial difference between his position (after you make it realistic) and the already realistic positions of the other 3 to 5.

For him to claim again and again (and this time using questionable semantics) that he is some anti-war messiah that's miles apart from the others is AT BEST stupidly dishonest, and at face value, a plain old lie from a desperate campaign.

[MuseRider]

90. Says who?

I mean really, DinoBoy. Are you saying that we should all just discover that you have the best plan here and that our experienced candidate is full of crap? If you want to discuss issues fine but the insults just piss people off. I am very happy to know that you have a realistic plan. He has never called himself an anti war messiah, those were your words. I do not believe that he is stupid, dishonest or stupidly dishonest. If you think he just pulled this plan out of his ass you are mistaken. You are certainly free to your opinion but it would be very nice if you mentioned it as your opinion and not as a dishonest, stupid statement from someone with some experience in this matter.

[Ediacara]

94. Ok, let's start this over

Sometimes I think that DU candidate threads are a bad idea, and more often than not, I should just not bother.

I really do respect Dennis Kucinich, he's a good guy generally, and better than most of our Dems in congress.

I really do think he's being dishonest with his views on the war however.

Was "liar" the wrong choice of words? Yes, and I'm sorry to have said them.

I am sorry to both Dennis and his DU supporters.

However, I do stand by my statement that he's being dishonest with voters.

[diamondsoul]

98. He's not being dishonest.

He's laid out a plan which he is confident can be carried out.

Frankly, Dinoboy, if it were any other candidate, I'd probably think the same thing. It isn't any other candidate and I've paid attention to Kucinich's background, his connections, his reputation with the UN, and the Congressional bodies he serves on. He of all the candidates is the one most likely to get this plan or one very close to it done.

Now, people around here like to say Kucinich is "inflexible", well this to me is evidence he is no such thing. He's laid out a timetable. He has not ever made a guarantee the timetable would be exact. It's a plan, a starting point, and a goal. Where are the goals of the other candidates vis a vis bringing US troops home from Iraq? They don't exist.

What you're saying is that no candidate should ever put forth a goal because he can't guarantee it. Tell me this- if we don't allow them to set goals, how will we ever know if they've achieved anything?

[MuseRider]

91. DinoBoy

Don't bother responding to my last post to you. I had this very same arguement with you several months ago. I am backing out because I have become angry and at this point feel there is little to be said. Sadly you have decided that DK is not capable and rather than discussing it you have formed your opinion and it will apparently not be up for discussion. It is sad knowing everything he has done for us to come here and hear this said about him.

[no name no slogan]

74. There's a HUGE difference

Dean and Clark want to bring in NATO to help out with Iraq, and keep the occupation and reconstruction under US control (NATO? WTF?). Clark wants to send in MORE troops.

Contrast that with DK's position: he wants to turn over control of the occupation and reconstruction to the UN, wants the UN to take over peacekeeping duties, and wants the Iraqis to have more say in the rebuilding of their country.

That is a HUGE difference.

Dean may have opposed "this war at this time", but he was NOT opposed to invading Iraq to dispose of the mythical WMDs if the Iraqis did not "cooperate". No matter what Saddam would have done before the war, it would have been spun by the government as not being "cooperative" with the administration.

Dean would have still led us into Iraq, only "30 to 60 days" later, after Saddam had not sufficiently "cooperated" with inspections.

IOW, we'd be in the same situation were are now: more dead GIs than in the first four years of our involvement in Vietnam, thousands of dead Iraqis, no security, crumbling infrastructure.

Oh, but there'd be a "Democrat" leading the war, so I guess it might just be okay in that case.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

75. they know that

it's hardly a secret now.

[ByRillYAN]

92. continued ocupation/out in 90 days

'I' see a difference.

[John_H]

76. I'm surprised at Kucinich. Normally he avoids hits that rely on wordplay

"Promoting claims" is intended to equate the dem candidate with the Chimp. Only lieberman actively helped Bushco promote the war.

Everyone else, even the second most "pro war" candidate, Edwards, said that intelligence indicated Iraq had WMD's. Nobody except for lieberman was out there promoting the war or any of Bush's claims to the extent that Kucinich claims.

[alcuno]

80. I admire Kucinich for taking on the blond dominatrix this AM.

On FAUX and Fiends. She was playing her part as WH spokesperson and he really called her on her "media" role.

[plurality]

82. what happened, please do tell n/t

[alcuno]

83. That E.D. Hill character was interviewing him and he was talking

about the IWR and the other candidates who just went along with it. She was blathering about how absolutely EVERYBODY believed that Saddam had WMD's. You know the argument. Kucinich said, "Well, I didn't." She asked what made him have a different take on the intelligence and he replied, "Common sense." It was really hard for her to spin Kucinich. He did a good job.

[plurality]

85. oh god I wish I had seen that.

[goodhue]

93. Wow, I wish I had seen that . . .

Common sense indeed.

[Schmendrick54]

87. Kucinich reveals "Dean breaks time barrier".

Hi American,

According to your post Dennis Kucinich said today that Dr. Dean (among others) ... "claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and, therefore, contributed to the political climate which falsely justified a war."

If you go to the single link to a Dean quote, and read the statement

Dr. HOWARD DEAN: " have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. "

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html

you will note that

(a) it was made on Mar. 17, 2003, AFTER Bush announced the invasion.
(b) it clearly stated that Dean opposed this war and would continue to speak out against it.

If Dr. Dean's statement "contributed to the political climate which falsely justified a war" he seems to have violated the usual rule of cause coming before effect.

Or maybe Dennis was just exaggerating a little.

You be the judge.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[sangh0]

97. Dean said Saddam has WMD's 2/20/2003

"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed"

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html