Calling all Kucinich supporters

[WilliamPitt]

I am putting together all the statements Dennis has made in the press about Iraq's WMDs, all the way back to September 2002. Wanna help? Post links here. He, and I, would be grateful.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. here's a pile of articles from Common Dreams News Center :)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site:www%2Ecommondreams%2Eorg+iraq+kucinich

Go Dennis :yourock:

[twilight]

2. no link BUT ...

I do remember hearing Dennis Kucinich query, "WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION MR. PRESIDENT?"

You GO Will!!!! :D :D :D



:dem: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Wetzelbill]

3. for a wildman Kerry supporter....

You have been doing some great DK stuff lately. I salute you, sir.

I do declare, Will Pitt, you may need to get some New Age crystals, become a Vegan and grow your hair out like a hippy here pretty soon.

[WilliamPitt]

4. Not bloody likely

:smoke:

[Wetzelbill]

6. yeah i don't fit the stereotype myself

:)

[VelmaD]

10. Oh come on Will...

don't tell me you don't miss the ponytail some days. :-)

[Raven]

15. Noooooooooo! NOT THE PONYTAIL....Pleeeeeze!!

Velma! Don't encourage him! It took me years to get rid of that ponytail! I finally told him he'd go bald with it and he cut it off. :-)

[VelmaD]

19. I can't help it Raven...

I'm a hair-slut. I've always wondered what he looked like with the pony tail. ;-)

[Raven]

21. Pretty much the same from the front, but

it made his face look longer. Here's a funny story about that: when he finally cut it off he cut it in one piece with the elastic still attached. We decided to save it and give it to my balding brother for Xmas as a joke. I put it on the shelf in a cabinet in the laundry room. For months, every time I reached in to get something, that damn ponytail would fall out and scare the hell out of me. My brother was not amused either. :-)

[VelmaD]

27. Hee...

you are EVIL...EVIL to the bone. :-)

My little brother did the same thing when he decided to go into the Navy. He had a fairly long pony tail and he wanted to lose it on his own terms instead of when they gave him the buzz cut at bootcamp.

So I took him to a barber shop and they chopped it off in one piece and handed it to him. I don't think it really dawned on him that he was really really going into the service til that moment. He cried almost as much as I did the first time my momma made my lop off my long hair. :)

I hereby solemnly promise not to encourage Will to grow his back out. *crosses my heart and hope to die*

[Crewleader]

28. That is funny Raven

there is baldness in your family too. My Dad asked me once when I cut my hair to save it for him and he'd have it colored to match the rest of his. I know he was joking or if he wasn't I never did cut my hair it's always been long.

You can't get the hippie out of me...:hippie:
And this hippie throws her support for Dennis and William to do really well in this primary campaign! :thumbsup:

[no name no slogan]

31. (o/t) Did you donate it?

www.locksoflove.org

I'm a ponytail-wearing guy myself. My hair's a few inches above my waist now, but I'm going to get it all cut off in a few days.

I'm donating it to Locks of Love, which is an organization that makes wigs for kids undergoing chemotherapy. They take the hair and process it for use in wigs, or sell it if they can't use it themselves, and use the proceeds to make wigs.

It's a very worthy cause if anybody is wondering what to do with their hair. After I get shorn, I'm going to start all over again. Hopefully, I'll have another batch ready in a couple of years!

:D

[tinanator]

5. all i could google in a hurry

probably not what you are after, but some really good stuff for others to check out.

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=WIS-DEMS-06-16-03&cat=PP

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/4/223151.shtml

http://kucinichwatch.com/video.htm

http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_DKucinich6.12.html

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_922.shtml

http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/006053.php

http://www.theassassinatedpress.com/shitbank.htm

[Lady President]

7. Small suggestion

I'm a Kerry supporter, but I would love to see a fellow Ohioan do well too.

I did a quick search of the Akron Beacon Journal and they're quite a few articles about Kucinich there. It's a fairly left leaning paper with a more positive Kuchinch message than the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Try searching the articles older than 7 days for some profiles of him. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/

I'll check the independent papers from Columbus because I know they've given some coverage. (i.e. The Other Paper, Columbus Alive).

[goodhue]

8. here are some resources you probably are aware of . . .

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

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/~list.html

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

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

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.

illegal codeplayClip('rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/jdrive/iraq101002_dems.rm')
Speakers: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH); Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL); Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA);
10/10/2002: WASHINGTON, DC: 30 min.

[dawgman]

9. here's a speech from 1/19/2003

n 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.


http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech8.htm

[redqueen]

11. Um, Will?

Do you want just things from the mainstream press, such as from interviews, or a compilation of everything? A lot of stuff seems to have been taken from his press releases -- which are coming from his House site. Would you want those included?

Thanks...


on edit... adding these just in case:

Kucinich's "The Bloodstained Path" http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html


Kucinich: Show Us The Evidence, Mr. President
Saturday 07 June 2003

Kucinich Leads 30 Members of Congress In Introducing A Resolution of Inquiry To Force Administration To Turn Over Intelligence On Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction
http://www.freedomtocare.org/page303.htm


Demand White House Evidence on Iraq
Petition by Kooch campaign
http://www.petitiononline.com/affero03/


An interview with Dennis Kucinich
(relevant part below)

"Diane Sawyer interviewed the president this week, and she was drawing a distinction between actual WMD's and the desire to obtain WMD's, and the President said, "What's the difference?"

This is a very significant question. We must remember that this administration took this country into a war, telling the American people that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that this country was in imminent danger. We invaded, and those assertions proved to be false. As President of the United States, I would hope that Mr. Bush understands that there is a difference between having weapons of mass destruction on one hand, and speculating that someone has weapons of mass destruction on the other hand. You cannot speculate on these things and let that speculation be the cause of war. That breaks the trust between people and their government. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the Bush administration misled the American people. Nothing that the President says can change those facts."
http://s89689575.onlinehome.us/MT/blog/archives/000003.html


Hagelin Upholds Kucinich Resolution, Urges NLP Supporters to Take Action
June 11, 2003

On June 5, Kucinich led 30 Members of Congress in introducing a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives that would force the Administration to turn over the intelligence that supported yet unproven claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

“It is long past time that the President and this Administration show its evidence,” stated Kucinich, the leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House. “We are introducing this Resolution of Inquiry to compel the White House to substantiate its claims. The President led the nation to war, and spent at least $63 billion on that war, on the basis of these unfounded assertions.”
http://www.natural-law.org/enews/2003_06_11.html


ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, MR. PRESIDENT
May 23, 2003 (estimated)

"This Administration led this nation into a war based on a pretext
that Iraq was an imminent threat, which it was not. The Secretary
of State presented pictures to the world he said were proof.
Today, despite having total control in Iraq, none of the very
serious claims that the Administration made to this Congress,
to this nation, and to the world have been substantiated.

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, what
was the basis for the war? We spend $400 billion for defense.
Will we spend a minute to defend truth? The American people
gave up their health care, education and veterans benefits
to pay for this war. And for what?

"Answer the questions, Mr. President."
http://www.goodworksonearth.org/message20030524answerthequestionsmrbush.html


Weapons of Mass Destruction: Coalition claims face the test of time
June 10, 2003

"Here we are in June of 2003. Show me the weapons; where are they? What evidence did this administration have to spend $63 billion in taxpayers' money? What evidence did this administration have to put the lives of American servicewomen and men on the line?"

-U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, June 5, 2003
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/wmd_testoftime.html


Kucinich Draws the Line Against War
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich
October 29, 2002

Unilateral military action by the U.S. against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

When Iraq possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, quite sad to say, it did so with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the U.S.

During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.

Iraq's punishment? The U.S. reestablished full diplomatic ties around Thanksgiving of 1984.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14417


Kucinich Pushes Bush on Iraq War Lies
"13 Days for White House to Tell the Truth on Iraq"

(Editor's Note: It's nice to hear at least one congressional voice rail against the Wall of Lies coming from this regime, since mainstream media can no longer function in that capacity. I have no way of knowing whether Dennis is any more free of Illuminati control than are other self proclaimed 'opponents' of the Bush Administration such as Ramsey Clark, Ted Kennedy, or Robert Byrd, but it doesn't really matter. If he's helping to get out the Truth to the American people, then I'm all for supporting him; regardless of what bend in the road he may or may not take later on. E-mail your House representative and tell him to sign on to the Kucinich Resolution...Ken Adachi)

KUCINICH ON HOUSE FLOOR: CREDIBILITY GAP IS GROWING

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, leader of Congressional opposition to the Iraq war, took to the House floor today to continue pressing for the truth about the Administration's drive to war:

"The credibility gap is growing. First the Administration said the US had to sweep aside the UN inspections and the UN Security Council because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat. Now, Paul Wolfowitz says: 'The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.'

"Now their story is changing: Iraq had a weapons 'program,' they say. No longer weapons of mass destruction, but a program. If this Administration can fabricate reasons for war after the fact, where will America be headed for war next?

"Congress must demand accountability for the wanton exercise of war power, for the loss of life, the destruction of property, the waste of tax dollars and the damage to America's reputation. Thirty-three members of the House have now signed the Resolution of Inquiry to demand the White House tell the truth."

Kucinich's Resolution of Inquiry, demanding the Administration turn over intelligence to back its pre-war claims about Iraq, was introduced Thursday and has growing support. It is a privileged resolution and must be voted on in Committee within 14 legislative days of being introduced.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/kucinichpressesiraqlies10jun03.shtml


Bush's Iraq Lies
June 10, 2003

Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio and Presidential candidate, has been courageous in denouncing the Bush Administration for its chicanery.

"Now their story is changing: Iraq had a weapons program, they say. No longer weapons of mass destruction, but a program," Kucinich says. "Bait and switch won't work here. Nor will a pretense for war. If this Administration can fabricate reasons for war after the fact, where will America be headed for war next? Congress must demand accountability for the wanton exercise of war power, for the loss of life, the destruction of property, the waste of tax dollars, and the damage to America's reputation."


Truth is, the Iraq War was always about ulterior motives: Bush's desire to settle family scores with Saddam, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's desire to flex U.S. muscle, and the Administration's overall desire to grab Iraq's oil. Dick Cheney, author of the Administration's energy report in the spring of 2001, certainly understood that control of Iraq's oil would not only help the U.S. economy and U.S. companies. He knew it had strategic influence because he said last August that Saddam sits atop 10 percent of the world's oil supply, which gives him power. The United States wanted that power to lessen U.S. dependence on an increasingly shaky Saudi Arabia and to be able to turn on and off the Iraqi spigot, as Rumsfeld did to Syria immediately after the war. The United States could also use its control of Iraqi oil to exert some power over the Chinese economy, which is dependent now on Mideast oil, as Michael Klare has noted.
http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx061003.html


MEET THE CANDIDATES: DENNIS KUCINICH
February 27, 2003

RAY SUAREZ: Last night Pres. Bush laid out his vision for disarming, liberating, and rebuilding Iraq. Did you hear much in the speech that you could agree with?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, certainly I think all Americans want to see Saddam Hussein disarmed. I think the inspections can work, and certainly America has a powerful deterrent force. However, the administration has not made a case for attacking Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, with al-Qaida's work in 9/11, with the anthrax attack upon this country. Iraq does not have missile technology, which can strike at this country. U.N. Inspectors have not found that Iraq has useable weapons of mass destruction, which constitute a threat to this country. So I think that the administration can be best advised to continue to support the United Nations' efforts and inspections, and that leads to containment.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, all along you have been calling fire solution to the Iraqi crisis within the context of the U.N. What if the Security Council approves this latest resolution, which would seem to give an opening if there is not Iraqi cooperation for military force?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We want to work with the U.N., but it's no secret that the United States is using every lever at its disposal to try to gain votes in the United Nations, whether it's through threats or wheedling or cajoling, or even outright buying the sport of a nation. The United States is doing everything it can to gain the support of the world community. I don't think that's the right path. I think that to try to gather support in that way for a war is taking this nation and the world in the wrong direction. Think instead of how powerful a force the United States could be if it proceeded to gather the support in the world community for continued containment and inspections. This war is not necessary, but the Bush administration is determined to have the war any way.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_2-27.html

[Rhiannon12866]

45. Great stuff! I'm bookmarking this!

:D

[Rhiannon12866]

12. Do you have his "This Is the Moment" speech?

I found it quite inspiring, and continue to support him, though I realize he hasn't a prayer.:-(

http://www.kucinich.us/video/video256.html

[JohnKleeb]

34. I love that video

Its a shame. Hes always been the best IMO.

[Rhiannon12866]

37. I know that you do. Me, too, John!

Dennis Kucinich is just the best. I just cannot figure out why he's doing so badly. He has such great ideas and whenever I listen to him, I am inspired...:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::kick:

[Armstead]

13. Check out Dianne Reim Show on NPR

She did an interview with Kucinich a couple of months ago which was really good. She keeps archives so you retrieve it from NPR website.

[dawgman]

14. here are some.

"Three more Americans died today in a war based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction. These claims were unfortunately supported by five of the candidates in today's primary. There is an eerie silence in this campaign surrounding the Bush Administration's false claims about WMDs.

"The Bush Administration took this country into an illegal war in Iraq. The President will be campaigning for reelection based on his Iraq policy.

"The Bush Administration policies of preemption and unilateralism have cost the lives of 515 troops and wasted $155 billion of taxpayers' money. Where are the rest of the Democrats?
http://kucinich.us/statements.htm

Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood.

Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation
http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/10-peace-freedom/C-peace-statements/2003/10C-04-06-03-kucinich-stop-war-2-articles.html

Kucinich, one of those with presidential aspirations, bowed his head slightly and began to softly sing phrases from a trio of patriotic songs before delivering a rousing speech decrying what he called a war "all in the name of eliminating phantom weapons of mass destruction."

"Let us support the troops, but not the administration," Kucinich said. "Let us support the troops by bringing them home alive and healthy."

Asked if he would temper his cries against the war once American troops were in battle, Kucinich replied that "it is a moral imperative to speak out."
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6290238p-7243928c.html

[Zomby Woof]

16. ZombyLinks

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page303.htm

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030612WMD.html

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_922.shtml

http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20031018_munoz_bush_probe.htm

http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm15.showMessage?topicID=31.topic

[redqueen]

17. More

t r u t h o u t | Address
US Representative Dennis J. Kucinich
The Redwood Sequoia Congress
University of California, Berkeley, California
A Second Renaissance
Saturday, 14 September, 2002

Why is war with Iraq presented as inevitable? Isn't it time to insist that our leaders suspend their incessant talk of preventive war, of assumed right to unilateral action? Isn't it time for insistence upon preventive diplomacy and our obligations to work with the world community on matters of global security?

Why is this war presented as inevitable? The headlines from The New York Times of September 12, 2002, read:

Bush to Warn UN: Act on Iraq or US Will; He Leads Nation in Mourning at Terror Sites.

There is no credible evidence linking Iraq with 911, with Al Qaeda or with the anthrax attacks. There is no credible evidence that Iraq has usable weapons of mass destruction, the ability to deliver those weapons or the intention to do so. That Iraq possessed and used such weapons, they did so, quite sad to say, with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the United States.

During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, 60 helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used US helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to the Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA. Intelligence reports cited the use of nerve gas by Iraq against Iran.
http://truthout.com/docs_02/09.29D.kuch.renass.htm



This doesn't exactly fit with what you wanted but I LOVE it. :)

Lies, cork, and weapons of mass destruction
Norman Markowitz
People's Weekly World (US), June 14, 2003

If we are to prove Bush wrong, we must begin the campaign to defeat him with a serious candidate like Dennis Kucinich, who opposed Bush's war policies in a principled way and has stuck to his guns while others in the Democratic Party have waffled and scattered.

http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030614_markowitz_media_lies.htm

[redqueen]

18. Bush administration: Intelligence data on Iraq was not manipulated

Democrats challenge White House on claims
Wednesday, June 4, 2003

"Some Democrats, however, are growing increasingly vocal in criticizing the White House, demanding a fuller explanation from the administration about U.S. intelligence on the matter. Some have said the intelligence was either flawed or manipulated to advance a specific agenda.

"What evidence did this administration have to claim that Iraq had WMD," asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, outspoken critic of the war -- and a presidential contender. "What evidence did this administration have for its repeated claims that Iraq was a threat to this nation ... What evidence did this administration have to justify war?"

At a news conference Wednesday, Kucinich announced that he would introduce a resolution demanding the White House detail its claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

At the Pentagon, one top official disputed reports that some analysts there had sought out evidence to justify a war with Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/04/sprj.irq.wmd.controversy/

[redqueen]

20. Pentagon fires back over Iraq weapons controversy

Thu, 05 Jun 2003

People such as Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a presidential hopeful, are taking a "show me the weapons" approach. "Here we are in June of 2003. Show me the weapons; where are they?" he said.

(snip)

Kucinich wants a resolution passed in the U.S. House of Representatives calling on the administration to provide some evidence that Iraq indeed possessed such weapons.

"What evidence did this administration have to spend $63 billion (US) in taxpayers' money? What evidence did this administration have to put the lives of American servicewomen and men on the line?" he said.

One thing media reports have unearthed is that the Pentagon had its own intelligence unit that was reportedly undercutting the work of the Central Intelligence Agency and building the war agenda.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/04/wmd_controversy030604

[redqueen]

22. Basu: Don't replace one evil in Iraq with another

12/15/2003

But referring back to the White House's original justification for an invasion, (Kucinich) said that toppling and capturing Saddam "still doesn't change the underlying truth that there were no weapons of mass destruction."

Saddam, he noted, "was a threat to his people at the time that we were selling him the ability to make weapons of mass destruction. In the late 80s the U.S. taught Saddam the weapons capability that years later we're decrying . . . So what follows from that? That we take the oil of the country, that we privatize Iraq and operate a corrupt contract process? That we operate Iraq from D.C.?"

"The administration can call this a victory if they like, and bring our troops home," said Kucinich. His own definition of victory would be going to the United Nations with a whole new plan that results in U.N. peace-keeping forces being brought in until the Iraqis were ready for self-governance. The United Nations would, meanwhile, take over all administrative and security responsibilities, including administering Iraq's oil revenues and helping employ Iraqis to rebuild the country. All current rebuilding contracts and "war profiteering" would be suspended.

Kucinich is right. What happens from here will reveal the true Bush administration motives. Unfortunately, anyone who has been watching knows we're not about to yield power or relinquish profits flowing to American corporations with no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq. The White House used the contracts to punish countries that refused to sign on to the war. The Halliburton corporation returned the favor by overbilling the Pentagon by as much as $61 million for gasoline.

So, yes, it's nice that they got Saddam. But please forgive me if I'm not lifting my champagne glass just yet.
http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/23016452.html

[TeeYiYi]

23. Ask Tinoire. She'll have all the links. ;-) .....n/t

TYY

[Terwilliger]

24. I second that

Tinoire is the info diva!

[Tinoire]

25. Thanks for the vote of confidence guys but alas I don't save everything

:( Thanks to the 2 Ts ;) When I get home I'll look.

[Tinoire]

26. Will look more when I get home. In the meantime, here is Nov 2002

THEN
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."
-George W. Bush's state of the union address, Jan. 28, 2003

NOW
"Here we are in June of 2003. Show me the weapons; where are they? What evidence did this administration have to spend $63 billion in taxpayers' money? What evidence did this administration have to put the lives of American servicewomen and men on the line?"

-U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, June 5, 2003

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/wmd_testoftime.html

=====

The Progressive (Magazine)

November 2002 issue

The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich


Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

When Iraq possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, quite sad to say, it did so with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the United States.

During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.

Iraq's punishment? The United States reestablished full diplomatic ties around Thanksgiving of 1984.
http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

DENNIS KUCINICH: "Since 1998 no credible intelligence has been brought forward which suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction..." (Sept. 12, 2002)


====


Statement Of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich On His Resolution Of Inquiry About Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Today, at a Capitol Hill news conference, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House, issued the following statement about his Resolution of Inquiry:

"This Administration made many assertions, for which they have yet to produce any evidence, about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The President led the nation to war, and spent at least $63 billion on that war, on the basis of these unfounded assertions. Let me repeat, the President led the nation to war on the basis of unfounded assertions. It is long past time that the Administration shows its evidence, and today, we are announcing the intention to introduce a resolution of inquiry tomorrow, to compel the White House to justify its claims.

"We all know the unfounded claims the Administration made to justify leading the country to war.

"Remember when on October 7, 2002, the President said in Cincinnati “ possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons… And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons?”

"And in August 26, 2002, when the Vice President said “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.”

"And even this past March, the Secretary of Defense said on “Face the Nation”: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.”

"In fact, I have a list of claims that this Administration has made over the past year about evidence they claimed they had of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But we all know that no weapons have been found. It has been 76 days since the start of war, and no weapons have been found.


"So what evidence did this Administration have to claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What evidence did this Administration have for its repeated claims that Iraq was a threat to this nation? What evidence did this Administration have to spend $63 billion in taxpayer money? What evidence did this Administration have to justify war?

"We think that it’s high time that we see the evidence—if there is any evidence—for the Administration’s many unfounded assertions. That is why we intend to compel the White House to release its evidence through a Resolution of Inquiry that we will introduce tomorrow."

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030604WMDinqres.html

====

Ten Questions For Cheney

While it has been widely reported that the President made a false assertion in his State of the Union address concerning unsubstantiated intelligence that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger, your own role in the dissemination of that disinformation has not been explained by you or the White House. Yet, you reportedly paid direct personal visits to CIA's Iraq analysts; your request for investigation of the Niger uranium claim resulted in an investigation by a former U.S. ambassador, and you made several high-profile public assertions about Iraq's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. We hope that you will take the opportunity to provide responses to the following ten questions.

I. Concerning "unusual" personal visits by the Vice President to CIA analysts.

According to The Washington Post, June 5, 2003, you made "multiple" "unusual" visits to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs."

These visits were unprecedented. Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA analysts.

According to the Post, your unprecedented visits created "an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives."

Questions:

1) How many visits did you and your chief of staff make to CIA to meet directly with CIA analysts working on Iraq?
2) What was the purpose of each of these visits?
3) Did you or a member of your staff at any time direct or encourage CIA analysts to disseminate unreliable intelligence?
4) Did you or a member of your staff at any time request or demand rewriting of intelligence assessments concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

II. Concerning a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago.

This alleged sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. During the period of time you reportedly paid visits to CIA, you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger, and your office received a briefing on the investigation.

According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."

Moreover, your chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week that you did in fact express interest in the report to the CIA briefer. Our understanding is that Standard Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about a report, he is given a specific answer.

Questions:

5) Who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report?
6) What efforts were made by your office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense?
7) Did your office regard Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate?


III. Assertions by the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Administration claiming Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

The President's erroneous reference to the faked Niger uranium sale in his State of the Union address was only one example of a pattern of similar assertions by high ranking members of the administration, including yourself. The assertion was made repeatedly in the administration's campaign to win congressional approval of military action against Iraq.

For instance, you said to the 103d National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002, "they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago... we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions be realized... subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

In sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, just weeks before the House of Representatives voted to authorize military action against Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified on September 18, 2002: "He ... is pursuing nuclear weapons. If he demonstrates the capability to deliver them to our shores, the world would be changed. Our people would be at great risk. Our willingness to be engaged in the world, our willingness to project power to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for multilateral action, could all be under question. And many lives could be lost."

Questions:

8) Since your address to the VFW occurred nearly 7 months after Ambassador Wilson reported his findings to the CIA and State Department, what evidence did you have for the assertion that Iraq was continuing "to pursue the nuclear program" and that Saddam had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons"?
9) Since the Secretary of Defense testified to Congress that Iraq was "pursuing nuclear weapons" nearly 8 months after Ambassador Wilson's briefing to CIA and the State Department, what effort did you make to determine what evidence the Secretary of Defense had for his assertion to Congress?

Further refutation of the authenticity of the forged Niger documents came from IAEA Director General ElBaradei, when he reported to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003: "These documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded... we have found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Yet on March 16 -- nine days afterwards -- you again repeated the unfounded assertion on national television (Meet the Press, Sunday, March 16, 2003). You said:

"We think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," and "We believe has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Question:

10) What was the basis for this assertion made by you on national television? We hope you will take the opportunity to answer these questions about your role in the dissemination of false information about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war in Iraq. We look forward to a response.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Carolyn B. Maloney, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Bernie Sanders, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/the_clipboard/005939.php

Demand White House Evidence on Iraq

http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/the_clipboard/005721.php

[TeeYiYi]

30. I knew it ! . . .

:7 *lol* You're too modest Tinoire. :hi:

TYY

[mouse7]

29. Looks like Center for American Progress Lexis/Nexis-ed "imminent"

I know this is what Bush, not Dennis said, but I have a feeling this is where you're kinda going...Link (It's layed out better on their page)...

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228

"The Progress Report


by David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum
Know the most first: Sign up for e-mail delivery of The Progress Report.
Please send any news tips to [e-mail].

January 29, 2004

'Imminent' Semantics

AP reports, "since he resigned as the top weapons hunter in Iraq, David Kay's public statements have sparked widespread questioning of the Bush administration's main justification for war: to remove an imminent threat posed by Saddam and his supposed weapons." However, instead of explaining why it ignored repeated warnings from the intelligence community that the White House's WMD case was weak, newswires report the Administration responded by "denying it ever warned that Saddam Hussein posed an 'imminent' threat to the United States." But a closer look at the record shows the Administration not only used exact phrase "imminent threat," but also buttressed it with claims that Iraq was a "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat," "serious and mounting threat," "unique threat," and a threat that was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." See a long list of the Administration's "threat" rhetoric in this new American Progress backgrounder.

"IMMINENT THREAT," PART I: White House spokesman Scott McClellan yesterday lashed out at reporters yesterday saying "some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But almost exactly a year ago, it was McClellan who said the reason NATO should go along with the Administration's Iraq war plan was because "this is about imminent threat." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied "Absolutely."

"IMMINENT THREAT," PART II: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked whether Iraq was an imminent threat and replied affirmatively, citing 9/11 as justification: "Go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" And despite the Administration's efforts to pass the blame for failure to find WMD onto the intelligence community, Rumsfeld essentially admitted that the intelligence community had, in fact warned the White House of the weakness of its WMD case – yet still raised the "imminent threat" specter. On 9/18/02, he said "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

"GATHERING" THREAT: McClellan told reporters that the White House only "used the phrase 'grave and gathering threat.' We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat." According to the Roget's Thesaurus, "gathering" is a direct synonym of "imminent". A synonym, we might recall, is defined as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word" – meaning the White House's continued attempts to differentiate between the use of "imminent threat" and "gathering threat" are hollow and silly semantics. It was President Bush who said in October 2002 that Iraq was a "gathering threat" – and has continued to repeat this phrase for the next two years...."

[tmwat]

32. Only published statements?

First post...

I'm transcribing a couple of videos including his speech at the Dem convention in San Jose including his appearances at many of the different caucuses (heard he sang an Irish song at the Irish caucus). I can send the transcript if you'd like.

Re published statements, this one on Medicare reform is hilarious but, as always, makes his point:
http://tinyurl.com/3a9zo

Great to have you on board, Will!

[Kanary]

33. Hi tmwat!

Welcome to DU!

:hi: :hi: :hi:

:toast:


Kanary

[Dover]

35. Will, a word of CAUTION, if I may offer it.

There seems to be a movement going on among some in the GOP
back in defense of the WMD argument...which might mean they are about to "discover" them. Not sure how to read all the stirrings going on right now about this issue, but it just makes me think something's up.

I know they suddenly came up with their "al Qaeda link" with their purported arrest of one of its leaders in Iraq, and Cheney continues to give life to the potential for WMD being in Iraq. Other sources have hinted that they ARE there and still might be found. There is the Hay thing, and yet the WMD search program is still going to continue under new leadership. HUH?

Right now such a "discovery" in Iraq would provide some leverage in vindicating Bush (for those that believed him at least). Tony Blair has been vindicated, apparently. Is the Shrub next?
And this news might also have a residual vindication effect on those Dem candidates who signed the War Resolution. So both would benefit.

Scott Ritter's endorsement, while welcome, is a big flag planted in DK's camp regarding which side of this issue DK is on. And while I'm sure DK would never back away from this issue, I wonder about its over emphasis right now.

So please be cautious in wrapping DK too tightly in the 'NO WMD' flag just now. He's so much more than this single issue.

[sandnsea]

36. What was his plan?? (read me)

That's the most important piece missing for Dennis. I love Dennis too. But he said sanctions needed to be ended, inspections back in, keep weapons out of Iraq and make the region free of WMD. That's great. What was his plan to do that? Besides talking. That's his weakness, in my opinion. You have to have strategies to go with the talking. Offering real carrots, progressive steps, stop-gap measures, stuff like that.

And I still don't know where all these UN peacekeepers are going to come from. He needs to explain that.

And I'd transform him into a hardcore realist if I were you. Fact is, health costs are killing this country. Globalization has not been good for working people anywhere. It's a moral outrage that children are working overseas so we can have cheap shoes. Hard Core. Realist.

Good luck!!

[tinanator]

38. not familiar at all? heres the link

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php\

How strange of you to say all that when DK is the only one offering specifics about anything. Please do check out this link, and go on to familiarize yourself with the only realist in this country, the only one against NAFTA and in favor of transforming the health care system we are already paying for into one that provides the level of care we deserve. He's already there, why dont you know this?

[Rhiannon12866]

41. Thanks for the great link.

Yes, Dennis is the best and is saying what needs to be said. Unfortunately, he is largely ignored by the mainstream media. No wonder he is not doing better in the polls, let alone the primaries. Maybe Will can remedy this situation.:shrug:

[tinanator]

42. 1 primary, 1 caucus down

Kucinich has what it takes, and other states have it as well. The media? They havent been with us in decades, so dont bother trying to factor them in. Only cable news junkies let that stuff affect them.
Better off on crack I think.

[tinanator]

39. C-SPAN video from 8-20-2002

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=ritter&image1.x=35&image1.y=5

a video search for Scott Ritter turns up this clip in the middle of this search. In case it is helpful, I thought Id post this here.

[sweetheart]

40. conflicts of interest

I realize will that you are an author in your own right, and that you have published on this forum long before your formal association with the kucinich campaign.

It might be helpful to the campaign for you to use a new login for your career with the campaign, and that way, it is cleaner given your new role, and such. I feel slighly uncomfortable, as i feel that your previous publishing career benefits indirectly from this new association, and i don't want to mix the two up.

Were I myself to become formally employed in the campaign, and were i to use DU in that regard, i would create a new login like "kucinichPressSec" and use your other login to rant on your personal behalf. With your new id, you can put your formal position in your sigline and "be" that role.

Perhaps i'm overly sensitive... its just an idea.

Peace,
-s

[tinanator]

43. no conflict there, check out the Bush regime for the definition

which will soon be removed from our language. Are you certain that "Will Pitt" on these posts doesnt HELP Kucinich? I think it does. Especially here. So, who do you support in the horse race?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. kick

Glad to see the Kucinich campaign getting in shape and getting this info out!