Kucinich Question: Why was he so certain about WMDs?

[Armstead]

One thing i've wondered about Dennis Kucinich. From the beginning he has stated with absolute certainty that there were no WMD's in Iraq. I know he is on a committee that has access to information. But so were many others who had diffeent conclusions.

Turns out Kucinich was absolutely right. But how could he be so right and others so wrong? I think that's an important question, aside from the presidential campaign.

While other Democrats waffled, or agreed with Bush's assessment, Kucinich said repretedly that it was totally a false claim. Even those against the war (including myself) often hedged their bets, saying Sadaam probably had some WMDs, but this wasn't the way to deal with it. Dean waffled on whether Sadaam had them.

But Kucinich said flat-out there are no weapons. We will not find any weapons.

My question is, why was Kucinich so unyielding? Did he know something most of them didn't know? Or did he simply interpet the same information differently? Or did he just trust his instincts, and hoped he was correct?

Were the others no able to connect the same dots that Dennis did? Were they really being so cynical as to know better, but avoided saying so for political reasons?

I think it's important, because if Kucinich could see it and say there is nothing, why weren't the others able to?

[Wetzelbill]

1. because he read Will Pitt's book "War On Iraq" and he......

actually listened to former U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Yep. Read the _real_ intel and didn't twist it around

like a certain Chimp did.

[HootieMcBoob]

37. Scott Ritter has been absolutely right on everything

from the very beginning. It's no wonder that you don't see hide nor hair of him anymore.

[redqueen]

2. Colin Powell himself admitted it in 2001

What a joke.

This shouldn't even be debated still.

[redqueen]

28. "Colin Powell said Iraq was no threat"

http://www.coldtype.net/Assets/Pilger/JP.26.%20Sept%2022.pdf

Exactly one year ago,Tony Blair told Parliament:“Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programme is active,detailed and growing. “The policy of containment is not working.The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down.It is up and running now.”

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. “It was 95 per cent charade,” a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush ’s closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat -to America, Europe or the Middle East. In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: “He (Saddam Hussein)has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of “containment” that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”. Two months later Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq.

[reprehensor]

4. Because he had the guts to say so?

Because he could see, like I and many others, that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.

When I watched the Chimp make his war-drum speeches, there was a distinct lack of evidence for all of his claims of WMDs in Iraq. No hard evidence AT ALL was provided for the world to see.

Frankly, it looked pretty fake right from the get go to me.

[Armstead]

5. It looked fake to me too, but....

All of the hoopla and claims struck me as phony. But still a big part of me wondered: "What of they're right?" I also realized that my instincts are no substitute for inside knowledge.

[plurality]

6. Kucinich didn't say there was nothing, he said

He had seen no proof. That's a big difference. He saw that the evidence was all circumstancial and inferential, and not hard-core without a doubt PROOF. Proof being something like photos of WMD being produced or stored. Instead all the evidence was, "Iraq bought some stuff that if seriously worked over mighted be able to be used to make WMDS someday." Everyone else ran with that and said, "That's it Saddam has WMD!" While Kucinich looked at it and said, "Yes that does raise suspicions, but I would like PROOF, since we've already gone to war once with this country over fabricated evidence." (By fabricated evidence I mean the babies thrown out of incubators lies, and the fake satellite photos that showed the Iraqi Army about to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Monte Carlo]

7. That worried me too. Did he really know?

Or just think he knew? Anyone can be confident, but being correct for the right reasons is something else.

[plurality]

8. read above, or go to his website

At the time he never said he knew without a doubt that Iraq had WMDs, instead he said he hadn't seen any evidence to say that Iraq HAD WMDs as everyone else was saying. Since he said there was no conclusive proof that Iraq had WMD, there was not a reason to go to war at that time.

[adamrsilva]

9. Well, DK would have been against the war regardless...

.

[Terwilliger]

14. incorrect

he supported the US action against Afghanistan

[eridani]

33. Not really

He supported the idea of military action as a possibility, but he sure was not behind the strategy of bombing a bunch of civilians for the purpose of replacing one claque of repressive warlords with another.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

34. about right...

As I recall, Kucinich voted yes to take action against those responsible.
UNFORTUNATELY, Bush and his cronies got to decide who that was and how they were going to bomb the living shit out of them. Now of course we know that the people of Afghanistan were not responsible, but Bush doesn't care about people, he only cares about the 'plan'.

TWL

[peachy]

10. courage

I think that Dennis Kucinich has a great deal of courage to make a decision based on the information available to him and not be swayed by political pressure. It's his steadfast and unwavering commitment to his own values that really make him the best candidate in my book.

[KC]

13. I agree

DK is wonderful. He also has that same, wonderful spirit that Wellstone did.

KC

[IrateCitizen]

11. I think you're asking the wrong question here, Armstead

The question isn't, "Why was he so certain?" The question is, "Why didn't he simply perpetuate the myth?"

When the question is framed in this manner, the answer is much more straightforward. It all starts from the difference in "overview" between these others and Dennis Kucinich. See, DK has some ideas that many would call "whacked-out", to say the least. Chief among these is the belief that we are ALL connected -- to each other, and to the earth. But delving into a lot of spirituality (NOT religion, per se), this seems to become a very valid belief. In fact, outside of Western societies, this IS the belief. And there are many over the last 30 years who have come to view the earth and its ecosystem not as a bunch or separate life forms running around -- but actually as an organism of sorts unto itself.

Why do I see things this way? Because I believe this to be true as well. Looking back over the writings of the likes of MLK and Gandhi -- they believed it as well. MLK was fond of saying, "I can never be what I ought to be, until you achieve what you ought to be. Likewise, you can never become what you ought to be, until I become what I ought to be." Implicit in this statement is the realization that all of our individual well-beings depend innately on our COLLECTIVE well-being, and the realization of such connectivity that goes along with achieving it.

Moving on to the other candidates, it is important to look at their underlying motivations. The reason that they are perceived as "mainstream", and DK is not, is because they express a more common belief (in the US at least) that we are all separate. The people of a nation halfway around the earth are not a member of "us" -- they are a "them". As such, it is not that much of a big deal if "they" are stepped upon in order to further "our" common cause. The primary difference between all these other candidates and the Republicans is that they perceive the "us" to be a bit broader in definition than the Republicans, to whom "us" means only the privileged few. It is more important for "us" to maintain our position of unchallenged authority than it is to actively engage the world. A threat must be engaged with force, rather than sticking one's self out on a limb to try and resolve differences through nonviolent means.

This certainty by Dennis is just a continuation of his overall philosophy. Another parallel for him exists when you look at his views on foreign policy. The "mainstream" candidates call for a return to the "soft unilateralism" of the Clinton years. They don't believe that the US should relinquish in any way, shape or form its quest for sustained dominance -- they simply believe that it should at least be shrouded with the veil of cooperation. Dennis believes in a radical departure from this, and an engagement of the rest of the world in a TRUE spirit of partnership.

I'm certain that this was not the best answer you were looking for, but it's a question that needs placed in a broader context in order to be properly addressed.

[Armstead]

16. IC, I basically agree with that philosophy except....

if someone has something destructive and the potential desire to use it against "us" something does have to be done to prevent that, as self-defense.

Sadaam obviously did not fit that description, but what if he had?

I was basically with DK on this one. But I was more inclined to believe part of the hype, at least to the extent of believing that there may have been something to it, despite my hunches otherwise.

[redqueen]

17. It's not your job to sort the lies and hype from the truth

That's what we elect congresspeople for.

Which ones failed us, again?

[IrateCitizen]

18. Disagree vehemently, redqueen!

It IS our job to sort the lies and hype from the truth. It is our responsibility as citizens.

Do you honestly expect elected officials to lead you anywhere? Former CO Gov. Richard Lamm correctly described the job of all politicians as that of followers. The only way that they do ANYTHING is if their constituents drag them, kicking and screaming, to do so.

In this instance, there is PLENTY of blame to go around. There are the politicians who were either duped or participants in the lie themselves. There is also the mainstream media, too busy in its role as the establishment cheerleader and "first filter" to instead do its supposed job -- which is objective journalism. And perhaps most of all, there is the American people -- who allowed themselves to be duped out of fear, blood-lust, and an innate need to belong to something.

[redqueen]

22. You're right, of course

I was being flippant. However we must note that most citizens, working hard and raising families, aren't going to scour intelligence reports the same way congresspersons SHOULD.

I'm just so sick and tired of all these candidates trying to have it both ways. They enabled bush's war by not standing firm and asking about the evidence of WMD's (actually they were 180 degrees different -- they bowed to the king and deferred as if he deserved it).

As I posted above, Colin Powell himself stood up in front of a crowd in 2001 and said that Iraq was no threat.

The fact that I'll probably have to vote for a candidate who spinelessly went along with bush's rush to war makes me want to puke.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Look beyond that, Armstead

The very fact that you would bring that up signifies a desire to regress to "immediate danger" thinking. We all have that reflex. The key is to work past it.

Seriously, can you produce for me any REALISTIC scenarios in which this might be true? Some people would cite North Korea -- but I think they realize full well what any aggression would do. Their stance is one of more "aggressive defense" than anything else.

I remember seeing an interview on Bill Moyers' NOW with Mark Hertsgaard. Hertsgaard basically said that we, as America, have tremendous influence throughout the world. People watch and listen to what we do. If we were to adopt a stance of true partnership with the world and seek to engage, rather than rule it, we would likely find the rest of the world quickly responding positively.

I guess because I hold this kind of outlook -- one which stems probably as much from spiritual/religious convictions as anything else -- I never once believed the hype surrounding Saddam and WMD's. I say that with all honesty -- I NEVER believed it, not one iota. And in that situation, I saw just how fearful and dangerous this country really is, as it exists now.

I guess that's why I believe so much in Dennis Kucinich. He is the only candidate who offers a coherent vision to take us away from the path we're currently on. All the others seek only to soften it to varying degrees, while not truly veering from the course.

[redqueen]

23. I read an interview with Kucinich from 2000

In which he says much the same thing you have related from Hertsgaard.

*sigh*

[MMT]

29. I think common sense told him it had to be a fraud

Iraq has been under constant surveillance. I can't imagine how it could be possible to secretly create the development environment needed for real WMDs. Someone could perhaps secretly assemble nukes in a garage, but only if absolutely nobody cared whether they did it and they could buy all the pieces ready-made. And then they'd have to figure out a way to transport them en masse to the victim country. It's true that it wouldn't be such a big deal to create Sarin or plague in a garage, but to keep the surveillors from noticing while enough was made and packaged would be.

[goodhue]

12. because he is smart and he was listening to Scott Ritter

DK said no proof, no proof, no proof because there was no proof.

Go to C-SPAN and watch Kucinich and Ritter at Fourth Freedom Forum on 8/20/02

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&Ba...

illegal codeplayClip('rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/ldrive/ter082002_iraq.rm')
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), with former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, Fourth Freedom Forum President David Cortright, & Inst. for Policy Studies Fellow Phyllis Bennis.
8/20/2002: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr.

Watch DK's own explanation:
http://www.kucinich.us/
Video of Dennis at a New Hampshire Soda Shop
Broadband: Real | Windows 56K: Real | Windows
http://resources.kucinich.us/video/soda/soda_real_56k.ram

[iowapeacechief]

15. He saw the big picture clearly and wasn't distracted by war hype!

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech8.htm
Dennis Kucinich
January 19, 2003

<...>
On September 12, 2001, a little more than 24 hours after the planes hit the World Trade Center, the Secretary of Defense, in a meeting at the White House, called for immediate strikes against Iraq. "Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorists attacks to go after Saddam immediately." (Source: Bush At War by Robert Woodward, Pg. 49, paragraphs one and two).

In sixteen months since America was attacked, no credible evidence has been presented that Iraq perpetrated 9-11, or conspired in 9-11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attack on our country. Nor does Iraq have missile strike capability against the U.S., usable weapons of mass destruction nor the intention to use them against us.

It is more than strange that while no credible connection has been made between Iraq and 9-11, that the Administration blocked efforts at an early official inquiry into 9-11, while beating the drums to attack Iraq. <...> We must insist that the UN inspection process continue. As long as the UN inspection presence is at work in Iraq there is the possibility that Iraq can be disarmed, rebuilt and reintegrated into the community of nations.

Yet predictions of war swirling around the Capitol involve not if, but when and whether America "goes it alone." The question is not whether we shall go to war with the UN or without the UN. The question is why should we go to war at all? Some have made a cause of twelve empty "war heads" recently discovered. There is something lacking in the war heads as there is something lacking in the heads of those who want war.

The narrow-minded drive for regime change will have severe consequences. Regime change means war. Regime change means invasion. It means occupation. It means colonization. It means the death of countless Iraqi citizens and the deaths of countless American service men and service women. And the waste of up to $1.9 trillion in our tax dollars, wrecking our economy while, at the same time, the Administration gives out a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy.

If we are successful in disarming Iraq nonviolently, then our nation needs to hasten our efforts to lead the way for disarmament world wide. Seventeen nations are seeking, have or are capable of acquiring nuclear weapons of mass destruction, twenty nations -- biological weapons, twenty six nations -- chemical weapons.

Over twenty nations have or are at work on missile technologies to deliver those weapons. America has much work to do as a nation among nations, furthering peace through disarmament.
<...>

[MadHound]

19. Because he was listening to the experts, not buying the Bushco spin

Hell, millions here and abroad came to the same conclusion about WMDs as Kucinich did, that there were none, or at least no proof of any. All you had to do was listen to the Bushco administration pre 911, or read the '98 CIA report, or listen to Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, or David Kay. And if you didn't like those folks, well there were always the international aid agencies that could give you the straight scoop.

It was painfully obvious that Iraq was no threat, with or without WMD. And yet our very own quisling Dems simply rolled over in an effort to please Bushco and their corporate masters.

[Gin]

21. Why did any Democrat vote yes on the IRW? If Dennis knew the right

answer...what exactly was the reason for a yes vote from the other side? Fear? Running for office? Lemmings?

[redqueen]

24. The talk from DC at the time

was that they wanted to remove the Iraq war from the table, so they could campaign for midterms on other things.

Worked well, huh?

[Terwilliger]

26. lemmings

and/or frightened politicians

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. We can't forget...

that Dems in general had already been given the "you sleep with the fishes" sign in the form of anthrax attacks.

I think that, combined with midterms and the need not to be seen as soft on terrorism, did the trick.

[IrateCitizen]

27. They're unwitting supporters of American Imperialism

By that, I don't mean that they are duped into supporting something they don't believe in. What I mean is that they, whether they realize it or not, support the belief that it is America's right to rule the earth.

Just think of how much you hear talk about "our interests" and such from politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle. And it's also a pretty mainstream belief throughout American society. And just look at how NONE of them talk seriously about reducing either or military, or our "footprint" around the world. Kucinich is the only one who actively discusses this -- and I would say that even he doesn't hit it quite hard enough.

But like so many other things throughout history, just because it is believed by the majority does not mean it cannot be completely wrongheaded and self-destructive. Hell, this is even an unpopular opinion among many DUers, so I know that I'm truly tilting at windmills voicing it.

[GreenArrow]

31. "They're unwitting supporters of American Imperialism"

I beg to differ with you; they were for the most part v-e-r-y "witting."

God Bless America! And to Hell with everyone else.

[info being]

25. Because he considers not just what he's being told...

but who's telling it to him. A good rule of thumb is the believe the exact opposite of what you hear from established power, commercial media, etc. Think about motives and it becomes clear.

I was saying the same thing with certainty all along because, just as I am careful about what I eat, I'm careful about the information I consume. Who made it? Are the ingredients healthy, etc.

[redqueen]

30. A better question would be:

Why did the other canddiates capitulate to bush so quickly on WMD claims?

They had set up a special office in the pentagon - cheney did - to cherry pick intelligence to get their war on.

But still, those spineless traitors voted with bush.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. The Eyes That See Behind The Lies

Fact is - everyone knew Bush was lying - but only Kucinich and Sharpton had to guts to say it - and the media continues to black them out, wonder why?

[JohnKleeb]

36. His name is Dennis Kucinich and hes the best :)

Seriously, with all the IWR litmus tests I see, why cant you all support DK :), please I have candy :).

[genius]

38. Dennis is the true conscience of the Democratic Party.

He is the most needed of the candidates.