Congressman Kucinich’s Response to President Obama’s “Just War” Doctrine

[bigtree]

Washington, Dec 11 -

“Yesterday, our president mused about the inevitability of war, war’s instrumentality in the pursuit of peace and just wars. It is important for us to reflect on his words, because once we believe in the inevitability of war, war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once we are committed to war’s instrumentality in pursuit of peace, we begin the Orwellian journey to the semantic netherworld where War IS Peace, where the momentum of war overwhelms hopes for peace. And once we wrap doctrines perpetuating war in the arms of justice, we can easily legitimate the wholesale slaughter of innocents. The war against Iraq was based on lies. Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are based on flawed doctrines of counter-insurgency. War is often not just; sometimes it is just war. And our ability to rethink the terms of our existence, to explore the possibility of peace without war, may well determine whether we end war, or war ends us.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=161031

[keep_it_real]

1. On some points Kucinich is right on, on others forget it.

[tomp]

41. well, that was helpful. nt

[liberation]

84. I think the hubris is just too much for the "concern" brigade to cover...

... so they are getting real sloppy in their attempts at drowning opposition or those who dare have a shred of decency.

The red herrings and adhominems they are bringing as of late, leads me to believe they are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel.

[Subdivisions]

48. On some points keep_it_real does, on others not so much. n/t

[Dinger]

2. 5th Kick From Me (nt)

[WeDidIt]

3. Kucinich is such an idiot

He actually said during the primaries an Real Time with Bill Maher he would take the military option completely off the table.

What an utter moron.

[G_j]

4. I don't know

what would you say if someone called Obama a moron?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. That they're wrong? n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[WeDidIt]

8. HA

You want me tombstoned because Kucinich is an idiot.

That's rich!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. It's your whole over-the-top rhetoric about anyone you disagree with...

You label many Democrats in the most mean spirited and antagonistic manner that I've ever seen on this board.

[WeDidIt]

12. I can't help it that Kucinich is an idiot. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

15. gee, one of those "real democrats" with a small d

dime a dozen, with cheezy talking points to match

[WeDidIt]

17. Yep, Kucinich has some cheezy talking points all right! n/t

[rudy23]

20. Nasty ad hominem--for those scoring at home. nt

[HughMoran]

24. Well if the "wishing a person is tombstoned" didn't get deleted

Then nothing will - it's all fair game in this thread apparently.

[ima_sinnic]

35. why are you responding to "Ignored"? (n/t)

[sabrina 1]

157. And that might be why he isn't!

No opinion on his actual position on Eternal War though.

You did accomplish something though, you have managed to demonstrate how, compared to those who hate him telling the truth, he is brilliant. :rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. Sure does n/t

[reggie the dog]

120. And just why is he an idiot?

taking the premptive war option off the table sounds like good policy to me.

[TomClash]

25. "The Idiot" in good company though . . .

. . . Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, Seattle, Schweitzer, Einstein.

[KittyWampus]

39. All the people you mentioned actually ACCOMPLISHED things. Dennis gets nothing done.

[liberation]

85. Can you please list Obama's accomplishments during his stay at the senate

thank you.

[reggie the dog]

121. That must be why he keeps getting elected over and over again.

[MissDeeds]

151. + 10000

Thank you, TomClash. You nailed it.

:toast:

[TomClash]

160. . . .

:hi:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Luminous Animal]

27. Ooooh! A dishonest one sentence recap

of a several minute thoughtful response about the use of the military to "wage peace".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01ef4PRZsk8

[Lorien]

34. Ah, I see. So you think that spending trillions of dollars and thousands of

lives will stop guys with box cutters from getting on another commercial aircraft or driving a bomb rigged dingy close to one of our Navy vessels. Not like a little extra intelligence and an investment in renewable energy would have been a wee bit more effective and beneficial to this Country, eh?

[hippywife]

64. And you are

an utter warmonger. You and your fucking president. Ass. He lost all my support with his acceptance speech. This country is fucking hopeless.

You are still responsible.

[bertman]

90. WeDidIt, there's an old saying that it's better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool

than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Food for thought.

[ChiciB1]

138. bertman... Hammer Hits Nail! I'm Going To Try To Stay Nice About ALL

of this back and forth, however I can't resist agreeing with you. There have been just tooooooooooooo many posts by some that simply make me feel like "fingernails on a chalkboard" so I had to make my comment.

I'm not happy with this fighting, but I'm also not happy with too much Rah-Rahs or Pom-Poms either!
JMHO!

[chimpymustgo]

149. Kucinich isn't the moron in this thread. His reaction is thoughtful and proround.

Yours...not so much.

[MissDeeds]

152. Kucinich isn't the idiot here

Utter moron, indeed.

[HughMoran]

5. Nice rhetoric - a bit over the top and a lot detached from actual policy making

It's easy to throw stones from the cheap seats.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

9. "War is often not just; sometimes it is just war." What the hell does that mean?

Basically, he's agreeing with Obama. Stating that "war is often not just," indicates that sometimes it is just. Did Kucinich believe the war in Afghanistan was just when he voted for it?

[WeDidIt]

10. Kucinich is just a showboater

HE has no accountability, so he can just go off on whatever tangent he wants.

[Fumesucker]

18. He is not accountable to the voters in his district?

You learn something every day on DU..

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

40. What does that have to do with the fact Dennis gets nothing accomplished?

[Fumesucker]

53. It has to do with the fact he is accountable..

You never said a syllable about accomplishments, just accountability.

I pointed out that he is accountable to the voters in his district.

[neuvocat]

77. Compare him to other liberals or Dems

like Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy or even Al Franken. Kucinich found his niche with the "dems are the bad guy and I'm the good guy" schtick but that's his campaign strategy year after year. He doesn't help the left, he hurts it by being the very thing he says he's against.

[reggie the dog]

122. Has has prevented Cleveland from privitizing their public electric company

[sellitman]

37. Pathetic

You sound like those from the other side.........hummmmmm?


*Click*

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[OnyxCollie]

111. Demand loyalty oaths!

Party uber alles!

Authoritarian personality disorder is not bound by party identification.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

69. And here it is again!

Another lie used to discredit Dennis Kucinich. This is what Kucinich voted for.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40

107th CONGRESS

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; and

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; and

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

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.


Approved September 18, 2001.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

Please explain to me where it says anything about Afghanistan in the resolution? This is a meme which seeks to discredit Kucinich by the intellectually lazy.

[bridgit]

72. I wouldn't have phrased it that way but think he said 'war for the sake of war'

And yeah, there's all those pesky authorizations - people think they need rain till it floods, soon after even opinions about water change

[Boojatta]

145. It means that sometimes it is plain war (merely war) without just cause.

For example, consider a dialog:

Cashier: "Would you like fries with that veggie burger?"

Customer: "No, just the veggie burger."

[LWolf]

13. War is not ineveitable.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[G_j]

21. some folks hate him for saying that.. nt

[LWolf]

43. Truth hurts,

especially when it reflects poorly on your team.

[Goldstein1984]

14. There's only one justification for war...

DEFENSE

Preemptive war?

War by proxy?

War for "national interests"?

And now, war for "VITAL national interest"?

Look where those have gotten us.

Recommended Reading: "The New American Militarism" by Andrew J. Bacevich

On the other hand, "Ignorance is strength"

[polichick]

16. Reminds me of that famous saying, "There is no way to peace, peace is the way."

It's been attributed to more than one person, so I'm not sure who originally said it.

[ShamelessHussy]

19. K&R

We need more like him!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." Bertrand Russell

"A country cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Albert Einstein

[Bonn1997]

36. Those are great quotes!

[rollingrock]

23. No difference between Bush Doctrine and Obama Doctrine

they are now virtually one and the same. Bush's speech on WMDs on the eve of the Iraq war is virtually interchangeable with Obama's recent speech on Afghanistan. Just substitute the imaginary al qaeda threat with the imaginary WMDs...and presto! What do you get?

A bunch of recycled Bush-style talking points.

[Autonomy]

55. Completely untrue

the Bush Doctrine is that of 'pre-emption'. Obama does not have a doctrine regarding foreign policy (as yet). The difference is between you (and those who agree with you) who say the Afghanistan war is OVER because we've won (Al Qaeda has been defeated), and those who say the war is NOT OVER (Al Qaeda and the Taliban have NOT been defeated yet).

The problem with Bush's talking points on Iraq was that they were ON IRAQ. He cynically conflated Iraq and Afghanistan. So, Bush's rhetoric on Iraq belonged on Afghanistan; Obama is using that reasoning where it always belonged. How can you not remember the hue and cry from our side, saying 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11'? I cannot see how you are not being disingenuous.

[northernlights]

66. you're missing the 3rd group

Those of us who say that al qaeda *already* won, and the rest is just flailing against fate. Bin Laden set out to destroy our economy. W was his wildest dream come true for the best Ramadan gift ever. Mission Accomplished. Doesn't matter whether or not bin Laden lived to see it. We could flatten Afghanistan, and we'd still have lost the "war on terrah" because the more we kill, the more we incent the survivors to hate and kill us.

[Autonomy]

117. How fatalistic!

I recall conservative Bush supporters saying something similar to defend the Iraq war. When I said the doctrine of pre-emption would mean the death of our republic, their response was: we gotta go sometime!

Bin Laden didn't destroy our economy, the Repubs did, and in a lot of ways previous to 9/11. Also, we don't have to use a scorched earth, or attrition strategy in Afghanistan. There's a soft power strategy, but hard power is necessary against the Taliban, or the soft power with tribal leaders won't work.

Oh, btw, know what I said to the 'we gotta go sometime' clique?: I think I will listen to someone who has a more positive worldview. After all, even if that person is wrong, we're not losing anything.

[northernlights]

137. I never said "we gotta go sometime"

What I said is we lost the war on terror when W took bin Laden's bait.

I'm not defending the Afghanistan war. I'm saying it's too late. Waste of more time, more resources, more lives for a war that should never have been declared to begin with.

But if you want to equate that with Bush supporters defending the Iraq war, by all means...:shrug:

[rollingrock]

112. What did Afghanistan have to do with the 9/11 attack?

can you answer that question? because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and none of them were from Afghanistan. bin Laden himself was born in Saudi Arabia and a Saudi citizen. so why the hell didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?? what did we invade Afghanistan for, when there is zero evidence to show the country had anything at all to do with 9/11?

because the hijackers were allegedly trained in Afghanistan?? first of all, where is the evidence for that? and so what if they did? many of the hijackers allegedly received their aircraft, pilot and other training right here on US soil, according to the FBI! shouldn't we be bombing ourselves? so you want to know what Afghanistan has in common with Iraq? Answer: neither country had anything to do with 9/11. Saudi Arabia (and even the US itself, as I pointed out) had far more involvement with the 9/11 attacks than Afghanistan ever did.

[Autonomy]

116. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda

geographically, in their goals (war against non-Sunni Islam states), and it their methods (terrorism).

I'm really not going to waste anymore time on this angle.

[rollingrock]

119. That's bs

not even the US government has ever claimed the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11.

[Autonomy]

132. Here's your starter kit

I will just cut & paste the wikipedia article to save me the time of bringing up all the citations in the article. Recall that 'evidence' against the Taliban includes but is not limited to:

-aid & comfort
-protection
-support, economic or morale

The Taliban aid to Al Qaeda (and vice versa) clearly the fits 'accessory to murder', which in the 1st degree IS murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Relationship with Osama bin Laden

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came without any invitation from the Taliban, and sometimes irritated Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwa to murder citizens of third-party countries, and follow-up interviews,<104> but relations between the two groups became closer over time, and eventually bonded to the point where Mullah Omar rebuffed its patron Saudi Arabia, insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki and refusing to turn over bin Laden to the Saudis as Omar had reportedly promised to earlier.<105>

Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that Al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif.<106> Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections, were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the Taliban.<107><108> Perhaps the biggest favor Al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the assassination by suicide bombing<109> of the Taliban's most effective military opponent mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before 9 September 2001. This came at a time when Taliban human rights violations and extremism seemed likely to create international support for Massoud's group as the legitimate representatives of Afghanistan.<109> The killing, reportedly handled by Ayman Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad wing of Al-Qaeda, left the Northern Alliance leaderless, and removed "the last obstacle to the Taliban’s total control of the country ..."<110>

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.<111> The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan,<112> or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."<113><114> Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.<115><116> Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan.<117>

[rollingrock]

135. All I see is some vague circumstantial evidence

there's no real evidence to show Afghanistan was involved with 9/11.

don't you find it the least bit suspicious, how they were able to come up with the names of all 19 alleged hijackers within three days of the 911 attack, and all the media talking heads were immediately putting the blame on bin laden on the very same day of the attack? that the hijackers conveniently left their IDs, koran, written plans attack plans, in their rental cars at the airport just waiting to be found by the cops? lol. I thought it was comical.

[reggie the dog]

123. where did you hear or read that?

The Taliban were at war with multiple factions down in the lowlands, and Al Qaeda was supposedly up in the mountains and not waging battle against the Taliban. The real reason the Taliban were attacked by the USA is because they cut the heroin supply too much. Look at the results of our war there, heroin production has skyrocketed.

[Sparkly]

144. Let me speak up for a 4th group.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban may not have been "defeated," and there IS no precise definition of "defeat," nor of "victory" (we won, they won, we can win, they could win).

That's because this isn't a "war" with armies in uniforms fighting it out for their countries. It's more of a "campaign," really, involving politics, legal justice, economics, and yes "hearts and minds."

It takes carrots and sticks, deals and threats. There is a role for force, but it isn't the solution! The military can't solve all the problems involved.

As General Clark has said time after time, it's not a question of how many troops are there, as if X many is okay but Y many is too much. It's a question of what the overall strategy is. What are the troops needed for? What's the rest of the plan? How do they play into it, how's it all going to work?

THAT is what's missing.

I was really hoping that President Obama would present a broader strategy and explain how the military fits into it. Instead, it's another litany of scary possibilities, a few nods to the notion of diplomacy, maybe a mention of a final political solution at most. Unfortunately, this makes our national debate all about the military, about force, about combat, about fighting against evil.

Somehow that is a politically expedient explanation, I think, but there is much more going on and surely the president is smart enough to know that. The main "forces" are intelligence and political (economic, diplomatic, basic PR) maneuvering.

What's the strategy? How do combat troops work within that strategy? Those are the questions that need to be answered, very clearly and repeatedly, to keep the public in support of his decisions about Afghanistan.

[bvar22]

28. Proud to K&R

”Unlike the other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[bluestateguy]

29. The daily whine from Kucinich

and the McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis wing of the Democrat* Party.

* Democrats who are losers get called "Democrat Party".

[bigtree]

38. Their party is called the Democratic Party

Get it right. 'Democrat' party sounds like something 'redstateguy' might say.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

71. More coopting of RW talking points by

people on DU. What the fuck happened here.

[tblue]

79. No kidding! I need some fresh air. I swear Jesus himself would be called names here.

Stay strong. Keep up the good fight.

[tekisui]

80. It is far too prevalent now.

It is getting harder to stay.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

82. I agree it is getting harder to stay

I have read more Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck talking points coming from so called progressives on this board than I ever thought I would. It is unbelievable.

[liberation]

88. That is exactly what happens when one puts party/leader before country/society...

... the devolution of the Dem and GOP are following a similar path. I think that is more likely what is happening, than the "Hope and Change" brigade consciously co-opting RW talking points .

[spiritual_gunfighter]

89. It smacks of desperation

and I sometimes wonder that the most ardent Obama supporters dont see it as well.

[NorthCarolina]

146. Kucinich scares the hell out of the Rightards because he speaks the truth

to the American people. They will stop at nothing to keep him and his progressive message marginalized. Enlisting a few paid staffers to watch for DK posts on progressive sites such as DU to chime in and interject their canned "he's an idiot", "is that the UFO guy, "what has he done", etc. postings is a small, but well organized, price to pay to keep the progressives down. It works for the simple fact that their efforts, while highly simplistic and repetitive in nature, are not immediately recognizable to all.

[GreenArrow]

150. What happened is that there is a "D" in the White House.

It's all about the "D". LIttle else matters.

[reggie the dog]

124. If Kucinich is a loser why does he keep getting re elected?

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. I think he needs a primary opponent. nt

[reggie the dog]

125. sure, put a centrist up against him and he will likely win

because in his district people actually like the work he does and has done in the past for Cleveland.

[slipslidingaway]

31. knr nt

[azul]

32. Lotta dissonance here boggling my little mind.

Americans get united, in fear and loathing, by fighting "enemies"?

A crusade to defeat evil by waging war against righteously demonized people by following the path of the Prince of Peace and loving our enemies?

And we don't seem to have enough enemies left, after the fall of the Evil Empire, so we have to create more by the ill will of collateral damage in assassinating designated evil-doers?

And the world's financial industry pays the wages of war and collects the profits, out of harm's way?

[Vidar]

33. K&R

[Individualist]

42. K&R

[hayu_lol]

49. Kucinich has something to say about almost everything...

but he never goes further than his expenditure of hot air. He reminds me of the clown in the box who pops out when you turn the crank far enough.

15 years as a rep and he has yet to take on Diebold/name change which is located in his very own baliwick. 15 years as a rep, he has only gotten passed, one bill. This is a guy who does nothing, has done nothing, and will do nothing.

He is not a viable candidate anymore even for the job he now holds.

Remember his statement: "Life begins at conception." Flip-flopped when he flopped. Deciding that being unmarried was not helping him, he married a trophy wife some 30 years his junior...a Limey hippie chick with tongue studs.

He is like the scarecrow of OZ singing: "If I only had a brain."

Ummmm...and the little green men from the UFO?

[Individualist]

52. Fuck the DLC!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

73. More coopting bullshit from the Republicans

posted on DU. What the fuck.

[reggie the dog]

126. He makes proposals which are actually good for the people

it is not his fault if the rest of the party takes too many bribes to actually work for the people.

[L0oniX]

44. K&R

[Echo In Light]

45. "once we believe in the inevitability of war, war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy"

K&R for DK

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Once again, I agree with Kucinich's words, but...

it's just Dennis again, not anyone important or who can get anything done.

FWIW, this is pretty much the point of 350 years of Quaker, and later Baptist, discussion of war, and could easily have been taken from an FCNL flyer. Note that while we Quakers have been talking about war and violence for all that time, not much has changed.

Catholics refined Just War theory during all this time , with the Lutherans just behind them, and they haven't had much luck changing things, either.

Dennis gives good speech, but I can't help remembering Stalin's asking "How many divisions does the Pope have"?

[WT Fuheck]

47. War is often not just; sometimes it is just war.

Too bad Kucinich "just can't win."





-spit-

[fascisthunter]

50. an honest representative

a rare sight to see.

[GodlessBiker]

56. +1

[saltpoint]

51. There is some cold arithmetic against which Kucinich must battle.

Public opinion currently reflects that 6 of 10 adults in the country support the President's position on Afghanistan.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/afghan-war-obama-get-opinion-poll-boost-20091208-kht4.html

One may argue that this approval is good or bad, thoughtful or not, insightful or not, as one wishes, but the raw numbers speak plainly: the majority backs the President's decision.

The numbers were reflective of comparative support from last February, a month after the President took office:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/us.troops.poll/index.html


The decision Obama faces is not whether peace is preferred to war. He is not in a position, literally, to make that call, and in any case, nearly 10 in 10 adults would prefer peace to war. The Dalai Lama likely prefers peace to war. So did Ghandi. So did Dr. King. So does Alec Baldwin. That is not the issue at hand. An informed and thoughtful and insightful citizen may not wish to live in an Orwellian world but an Orwellian world is often on the menu. The President is asked to order from that menu as a condition of his public service. Were Congressman Kucinich to hold the same position in public service in the Oval Office, he would be faced with the same menu. He cannot redo the menu.

In wanting peace, Congressman Kucinich has covered the same ground most people have covered throughout history. It would be just great to have it, to have it forever, even. The history books on my shelf suggest that the menu is recalcitrant and that a more integrated analysis is required than the one Kucinich offers as opposition to the President's. This is not to say that peace is not worth fighting for, including by non-violent means. It is to say that Kucinich cannot change the arithmetic that renders his opposition ineffective.

"Ineffective," and not without purpose. Over some time, a majority of U.S. adults who supported the war in southeast Asia came to oppose it, by roughly a 7 in 10 percentage. It was a huge ideological shift in the belief of the administration to bring about "a just and lasting peace," and underlying the shift included the discernible change in the public's view that the government had been truthful. Note that public opinion in Iraq shifted much, much more rapidly against Bush. It was the same phenomenon but happened way, way faster than the shift from Johnson.

In the wake of that rapid, we're-hip-to-government-malfeasance awareness, the President's Afghanistan decision nevertheless is backed by c. 60 percent of adults. Kucinich's voice, whether you agree with him or not, is coming from a far corner of the electorate, not the 40% differential. He offered his candidacy twice before after public opinion had begun to turn against Bush and still could not make the case.

He's not making it now either. He is a good man and not without purpose but he is spectacularly ineffective.

[bowlerhat]

74. "a more integrated analysis" indeed

From a social science examination, there is certainly a lot there to support the belief that war is inevitable. Although, it is disheartening for me to hear that statement being made from a Nobel peace prize winner.

Kucinich is correct in pointing out that the justification of war's use as an instrument for peace is entirely a false logic. Did Obama's speech make this justification of war for peace? If it did, then I would have to agree with Kucinich's opinion on the president's speech.

As an earlier poster stated, there is a justification for war: defense. The question about our peace-prize-winning, war president's Afghan decision is, how much longer the "war" can be justified as defense?

The difference between Obama and Kucinich is that, as a president, Kucinich would redo the menu. Yes, his thoughts and philosophy are outside of the normal, as is embracing peace as a way to interact with the world. Obama represents incremental, or pragmatic, peace, which might be more normal, but is subject to comprise and false hope.

[saltpoint]

78. I value Kucinich at a philosophical level but in politics a white-knuckled

punch in the alley is never out of the question. He lacks the muscle for politics, which is to the credit of his character, but which does no one any good in that particular alley.

Why would he position himself on the side of "peace" when he knows very well Obama does not "oppose" peace?

But yet there he is doing just that.

[reggie the dog]

128. 6 out of 10 likely means that

most Republicans support what Obama's choice to send more troops and that most Democrats do not.

[saltpoint]

155. The voters are out there, no matter their party.

Kucinich has not been able to gain traction among Democrats, nevermind Republicans.

[Autonomy]

54. Justification of war is bullshit

but its inevitability is not. War starts with simple impassioned rhetoric, the kind that makes up 95% of the posts on this website. Someone feels legitimately threatened, so they respond in kind, or maybe up the ante. Like we see here all the time. Each side feels aggrieved, and therefore justified. No one remembers exactly how the escalation started...

I'm not being metaphorical; rhetoric IS the precursor to war. Even anti-war rhetoric is war. The only difference here is that no one (thankfully) has an army.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. Would Kucinich have opposed using force against Germany in WWII?

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

75. He didnt oppose using force on September 18th 2001

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40

107th CONGRESS

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; and

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; and

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

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.


Approved September 18, 2001.




http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

What makes you think he would have opposed war aganist Hitler when he voted for the Use Of Military Force resolution. The meme that Kucinich is an unpragmatic pacifist who lives in the clouds belies the evidence.

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. So, he voted for the war in Afghanistan before he voted against it?

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

95. for your consideration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7213997&mesg_id=7217883

[reggie the dog]

129. Had FDR before Pearl Habor?

Kucinich is against pre emptive war, he has no problem with a war for defense. Remember that the USA did not get involved until Germany's ally, Japan, attacked the USA.

[followthemoney]

58. Those who oppose change are de facto conservatives.

Their dominance in the party will prevent it from ever becoming the people's party.

[saltpoint]

59. But an effective rescue mission requires a healthy horse.

Kucinich is willing to lead. But his bid for leadership, for influence, for effective and meaningful reform, has been rejected summarily by Democrats. Democratic primaries were held; Kucinich commanded well less than 3% of total Democrats' votes in those primaries.

In sheer arithmetic, you simply can't get too much more marginal than Congressman Kucinich.

[followthemoney]

61. You speak of an indictment of the Democratic Party not Dennis. nt

[saltpoint]

63. The numbers suggest that the Democratic Party is in better shape than

it has been for some decades.

On definitional issues, we whip the Pukes pretty good, in fact.

There is some loud chatter of third party revolt but I'm not seeing the rationale for it at all. The Green Party is extremely marginal in the United States and if it continues to nominate whack jobs like Cynthia McKinney it will become all but invisble.

Kucinich will not challenge Obama for the nomination because so long as Obama wishes to run for re-election Kucinich would be no more than a squawking fool screaming at the coach from the far left field bleachers.

[Kermitt Gribble]

147. Yep, it's all about winning.

Forget the issues and ideals.:eyes:

[saltpoint]

158. Whoops Don't forget that in order to realize one's ideals

one needs to be effective.

I'm not seeing that in Kucinich at all.

Ted Kennedy, who was at least as liberal as Kucinich, forged deals in the upper chamber for decades. And that was the feisty, recalcitrant Senate. Kucinich struggles for traction in the lower chamber and has failed twice to persuade voting adults that his issues and ideals merit their support.

[pleah]

107. Yeah, he didn't have a catchy slogan.

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

142. He didn't have any organization or plan to form one either.

Which might account for his piss-poor percentage support nationwide.

Twice.

[reggie the dog]

130. you know damn well that most people still listen to bullshit corporate media

and of course this bullshit corporate media calls any threat to themselves "crazy" and most common dipshits fall for it hook line and sinker.

[saltpoint]

143. I don't think Kucinich is crazy at all. I like him. A lot.

But he is marginal and ineffective.

[dana_b]

60. K&R

he always says it like it really is.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

67. Then maybe the esteemed Congressman Kucinich should not have voted for war. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

76. He didnt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7213997&mesg_id=7217883

[nemo137]

81. What did he think he was voting for then?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

83. He was voting for the authorization of force against the people who attacked us

4 days after September 11th. Not Afghanistan, not Iraq but the people who carried out the attacks. It is totally acceptable as far as I am concerned.

[nemo137]

91. He was voting to authorize the president to send US military forces abroad

what did he think was going to happen?

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.

That's as clear of a statement of "we might be attacking nation-states" as you can get short of a full-on declaration of war.

[bigtree]

93. we're fighting resistance to our occupation in Afghanistan, not 9-11 terrorists

Notice anything in that authorization about propping up a corrupt regime as a buffer against a fugitive band of terror suspects?

[nemo137]

97. And there's an argument to be made for that.

But claiming that Dennis did not vote to use military force in Afghanistan is dishonest. He voted to authorize military force against nations that harbored 9-11 terrorists, which became the war in Afghanistan. We can argue whether that was the right thing, we can argue whether the continued war was the right thing, but this claiming that Dennis didn't vote to authorize military intervention in Afghanistan trope is dishonest.

[bigtree]

105. he authorized chasing the fugitive terror suspects into Afghanistan

. . . not nation-building. The mission changed - and changed again under this administration.

[nemo137]

106. He authorized force against Afghanistan for any number of reasons

included in the resolution was language authorizing military force to prevent future attacks. It was more than just "chasing fugitive terrorists."

[bigtree]

113. the Taliban resistance he's escalated the force and activity against are not the same

. . . as "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."

That's who he's authorized to use military force against in the resolution, not the Afghan resistance to installing and propping up the corrupt Karzai regime.

[nemo137]

115. My argument was just about the claims about DK's vote.

I'm still very much ambivalent about the escalation.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

94. You are aware that a nation didnt attack us on September 11th right?

Are we co-opting Bush era talking points on DU now?

[nemo137]

98. I'd suggest you re-read the resolution, and try to argue in good faith.

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"

It authorized the use of force against nations which harbored organizations which "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks. It does not claim a nation attacked us, and I did not make that claim. It does, however, the use of military force against nations. Claiming that Kucinich did not cast a yes vote on the resolution which authorized military intervention in Afghanistan is dishonest.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

99. Afghanistan isn't mentioned in the resolution

It would have been foolish not to vote for the resolution when the country was still reeling from the attacks of September 11th 4 days later. Anyway you can continue to argue that Kucinich is a hypocrite for voting for a resolution to go after the terrorists in September of 2001. The reality is that it is 2009, there are less than 100 AQ fighters in Afghanistan according to Gen Jim Jones and he also said that Afghanistan is no threat to the United States in October. Kucinich understands that it is no longer September 2001, unfortunately the President does not.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

101. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knew what that resolution meant. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

103. And yet you dont understand that it is no longer September 2001

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

109. Can you point me to the sunset clause in the resolution? n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

110. can you point me to anything remotely rational

about having nearly 100,000 troops in a country that has less than a hundred AQ fighters?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

114. I'm not going to reiterate all of the arguments in favor of the war to you.

I'm sure you've heard them all already. It doesn't change the fact that reading Kucinich's statement, you'd think he's opposed this all from the start. Which is at worst an outright lie and at best a cynical rewriting of history for his benefit.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

118. It is an opprutunity for Kucinich haters to get their hate on

nothing more.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

127. I see very little in the way of hate in any of my statements.

"He's wrong" and "I hate him" are hardly the same thing. Well, except on internet discussion forums.

[reggie the dog]

131. I thought it meant we would invade Saudi Arabia.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

134. Then it's a good thing you weren't in any position to vote on it. n/t

[nemo137]

104. I'm not arguing he's a hypocrite,

but saying that "Dennis Kucinich voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan" is some sort of RW talking point is dishonest. He voted for the authorization to use force, which included language authorizing the use of force against countries which harbored organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks. That's not a talking point, that's a fact.

[PufPuf23]

68. I would like POTUS Obama to publically address:

1. AFRICOM and the new $6 billion dollar investment in the base at Djibouti.
2. The need for the 7 new base agreements in Colombia and the re-invented 4th fleet in the Carribean.
3. Address his policy on the Honduras coup and USAs involvement.

I still support Obama but he has surrounded himself with rat bastards in almost all areas much to my disappointment.

He may not have identified himself as DLC but has referred to himself as a "New Democrat" (same as neo-liberal, third way, DLC).

This group has coopted our Democratic party and has essentially the same foreign policy as the neocons, just smooth talkers rather than bullies.

War is stupid especially when one's country is the aggressor.

[liberation]

86. You are not going to get an answer from him, so I offer an article by Chomsky providing context:

http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/chomsky.php?chom

[PufPuf23]

100. Don't expect answer and expect most won't notice

the global picture.

Great but sobering article. Well worth the time to rear and reread. Thank you.

We are a country of ostriches.

[Odin2005]

87. Kucinich is full of shit.

Talk about over-simplistic thinking. Thinking that pacifism is impossible because there is evil in the world is Orwellian? WTF?

[bigtree]

96. really

. . . the occupation is actually stamping out evil in Afghanistan?

In my view, it's fostering and fueling it in the form of the resistance to our occupation. But, you see it as a defense against 'evil'. Interesting.

Is he really talking about 'pacifism'? I think he's talking more about a wrong-headed policy of military engagement with Afghanistan's Taliban as a defense against the fugitive 9-11 terrorists in Pakistan. We don't take this military approach to every expression of evil in the world.

[reggie the dog]

133. There is plenty of evil in the USA.

What else do you call putting people in jail for selling cannabis flowers. What else to you call letting people die for lack of health insurance, what else do you call not getting insurance because you were sick before you got the job?

[Overseas]

102. K&R. He said it so well. //nt

[pleah]

108. K&R

[sabrina 1]

136. Assuming that war is inevitable is an admission of failure.

Coming from a man who was seen, not only here, by the world, as someone whose diplomatic skills were so far superior to his predecessor that war would not be viewed in the same way as it was by Bush, kills any hope there was that the US was not really what Bush made it appear to be, an Empire on a mission to control the world's resources.

Good for Kucinich for his response. It's just so depressing to realize that not much has changed after all and that the only hope we had, the election 'more Democrats' is not the answer. The war machine is on a roll and it doesn't like it will stop anytime soon.

[totodeinhere]

139. Good for Dennis. k&r n/t

[Swamp Rat]

140. AMEN!!!!!!!!

[sheldon]

141. Right on, Dennis!!!!!!!!!! What a great man. A true human being.

[Kermitt Gribble]

148. K&R!! n/t

[MissDeeds]

153. K&R

Go Dennis!!!!

:kick:

[d3m0l1sh3r]

154. But at this point..

War is all there is.
Until we make the MUCH NEEDED changes in our entire country (gov't, economy, etc.), war will be all we can do, and we will always be at war. in the 30s it was the Germans who were the enemies, then the 40s it was the Japs, then til the 90s it was the Russians, and then from 91 on it's been Muslim Extremeists, as America, that's all we have anymore.
I'm by no means defending it, we should be attacking it, I'm just stating the truth =S

[democracy1st]

156. kick

[teacher gal]

159. He said it well.

Thanks for posting this!

[Cassandra2010]

161. Good going Dennis

The war is also against the people here at home. How can some here not see the obvious in their uber-allegiance to their icon? Rhetorical question.