The letter from Kucinich as posted last night. I don't make things up.

[madfloridian]

This is from Eridani's post in GD last night. 7:51 PM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3592698&mesg_id=3592698

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?

<snip>
We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich

[madfloridian]

1. I just posted there to thank that person for having this up last night.

I am stunned that The Nation did this without explanation. When something is changed this far out, they usually post it as a correction.

[madfloridian]

2. And I would like to know how it got edited in all those places.

I would hope someone would join with me in trying to find out.

This was posted at 7:51 last night. It was suddenly changed in The Nation, and at Yahoo, and I don't know where else.

This is the kind of thing I detest for news to do.

I hope we can find out what happened.

The saddest thing to me is that people took joy in this, that they actually believed I made it up. I am thankful for those who defended me.

Unreal.

[madfloridian]

3. Anyone with me?

Would we write Vanden Heuvel at The Nation? I had the link open when I posted, so I know it was there. Eridani posted the same thing last night from the link.

[madfloridian]

4. I will keep this going with help. Have written The Nation.

I have saved both threads from this forum and Eridani's post in GD to my hard drive to protect myself from accusations.

[madfloridian]

5. Not yet edited at this Indy site.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1735846.php
Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there , we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

[KoKo]

6. Here's a link to Kucinich's website with his letter that has a

post date of yesterday afternoon. I have no idea whether the mistake was in the original post and Kucinich site corrected it...but Nation picked it up before the correction. Was this an e-mail from the Nation or was it posted on the site that the mistake appeared? :shrug: Where did the PDA and original poster pick up that quote?

Again, Madfloridian, I don't think you are to blame for anything, in picking up a quote posted here on DU by "eridani" last night.

Here's the link:

http://www.kucinich.us/

[madfloridian]

7. I got it from The Nation. Here is an unedited link.

Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there , we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1735846.php

[madfloridian]

8. I will never forget what was done here. All saved to my hard drive.

.

[Totally Committed]

11. Dennis has probably corrected the original posting...

Both Kucinich and Dean are stand-up guys who will do the right thing when they mess up.

I'm glad to see that the correction was made (I knew Kucinich would do the honorable thing), and that Dean was un-besmearched (as well he should have been.0

TC

[madfloridian]

12. But I am not unbesmirched. I am still very much besmirched.

Now he should do the honorable thing by me.

[KoKo]

9. Send your comments to Kucinich's website. They must have had the

original quote if so many other sites picked it up. They are the ones that are responsible. Not you!

I don't think anyone is blaming you for this because the info about it being up on other sites with the quote before "correction" came out on your other thread that there was a mistake in the original letter or in whatever was picked up by the Nation and others on their websites.

It's not questioning you, personally, but the source that printed this.
I guess no one caught it last night in "eridani's" post.

[madfloridian]

10. No, here is another site. NYC indy media.

And yes, they were most certainly accusing me.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149374/index.php

Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there , we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

[madfloridian]

13. Here is the original posted by Kevin Spidel in the Kucinich forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=272x507

It linked to the Nation article as well.
An Open Letter to Howard Dean
by REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH



Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.

Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

[Moderator]

14. I'm locking this thread

Moderators would like to keep this to the original thread .