Who is the Antiwar Candidate -- Dean or Kucinich?

goodhue

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-28-04 09:54 PM
Original message

Who is the Antiwar Candidate -- Dean or Kucinich?

http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php

Who is the Antiwar Candidate -- Dean or Kucinich?

With mainstream media repeatedly labeling Howard Dean a fervent foe of the Iraq War, many antiwar-oriented Democrats have flocked to Dean's campaign. But as the record shows, the presidential candidate who opposed the war consistently and unwaveringly from the beginning is Dennis Kucinich.

By contrast, Dean made alternately hawkish and dovish statements on Iraq prior to the Oct 2002 Congressional resolution, then muted his voice after the war started in March 2003, and recently insisted to the Washington Post that "I don't even consider myself a dove" and "now that we're there , we're stuck." Dean has also declared the bloated Bush military budget off-limits to cuts.

Here is a relevant timeline from mass media accounts:

Sept 21, 2002, KUCINICH -- "Leader of the Opposition"
The NY Times runs a news story about how "a small group of Democratic die-hards in the House is trying to rally opposition to military action." The piece refers to "two dozen or so mainly liberal lawmakers...though they may be viewed as outside the mainstream of even their own party, they are raising their voices against an invasion, even if their leadership is not." The piece accurately calls Rep. Kucinich a "leader of the opposition" and ends by quoting him: "This is an attempt to start a serious debate inside the party."

Sept. 23, 2002, DEAN -- Might Endorse Pre-Emptive Strike
Dean gives a waffling endorsement of President Bush's pre-emptive war:
"Pre-emption is not off the table, but the moral high ground does matter," he says, as quoted in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The paper reports that Dean "also said he would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them."

Sept. 25, 2002, KUCINICH -- Denounces Pre-Emption
Introduced by anchor Judy Woodfruff on CNN as "one of the most active House opponents to President Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq," Kucinich denounces Bush's policy of pre-emptive war: "Since when do we equate patriotism with going to war? Since when do we equate patriotism with preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?...America's always been a nation that's worked with other nations. And after September 11 of last year, we had the entire world community working with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating ourselves from the world community because we want to go it alone."

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"
On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

Sept. 29, 2002, KUCINICH: "There Is No Imminent Threat"
On the same CBS "Face the Nation": "At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States." Kucinich adds: "There's no imminent threat. If I thought there was an imminent threat to this country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action. But I have to tell you, there is no imminent threat."

Oct. 10, 2002, WAR RESOLUTION -- Dean at 1%
Thanks heavily to Kucinich's leadership, nearly 2/3 of House Democrats vote "No" on the war resolution. But the four men in Congress then running for president all vote "Yes": Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman. Dean is at 1 percent in polls (Marist College poll, Oct. 9-10).

February 2003, DEAN -- "Democratic Wing of Democratic Party"
First reference in news media (according to Nexis Database) of Dean using the Paul Wellstone-line: "I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

February 19, 2003 DEAN -- Unilateral Action Is...Unavoidable Choice
Salon's Jake Tapper summarizes Dean's oft-repeated position on attacking Iraq: "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

March 19, 2003, WAR BEGINS

March 20, 2003: DEAN (Muted Remarks) vs. KUCINICH (Pulled No Punches)
Dean and Kucinich address press groups in Washington D.C. AP reports on their respective comments:

Dean: "'I'm not going to back off my criticism of the president's policy, but I'm certainly going to change the tone,' Dean said between the speeches. 'There won't be the kind of red meat remarks that you make in front of partisan Democratic audiences.'"

Kucinich: "Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took his presidential campaign to the same newspaper audiences, but he pulled no punches in assailing the president for starting the war. He urged Bush to bring the troops home and focus on problems in America's cities, including unemployment, pollution and failing schools. 'This is a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq,' he said. 'These are offensive, not defensive attacks, and they are in violation of international law.'"

May 2, 2003, BUSH DECLARES END OF "MAJOR COMBAT" IN IRAQ

August 12, 2003, DEAN -- "We Cannot Leave Iraq"
"I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq" (Buchanan & Press, MSNBC)

September 7, 2003, KUCINICH -- Get U.S. Out and U.N. In
"The Bush Administration's arrogant occupation of Iraq has harmed the United States' position in the world community, caused the deaths of 289 American soldiers at last count, and diverted tens of billions of dollars from domestic needs. Now the President is asking for another $87 billion. We must allow the UN to take over peacekeeping operations in the country. The UN must take over management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton."