THE Iraq question: Why wasn't Kucinich "misled by George Bush"?

[Paragon]

- Were Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman exposed to some incredible lie that Kucinich wasn't?

- Or, reluctantly borrowing a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld, were they looking at the IWR vote "through the prism of 9/11"?

- Were they suckered into the "unpatriotic" argument and just thinking of their reelections?

I'm speaking only of those who casted a vote on IWR - Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun can sit this argument out. And yes, Bush probably would've gone to Iraq without Congress, without U.N. resolutions, etc. - but that's not what this thread is about. This is about the integrity of those who voted on IWR, and what more "nay" votes might've done for us in opposition to George Bush.

Me, I didn't attend any top secret "Bush intelligence" meetings in Washington. I don't have a reelection to think about. I do know this - me and millions upon millions of other protestors knew Bush's record, knew about his links to oil, read what the CIA said would (and then did) happen in Iraq, watched as many exaggerations on WMD were proven false. Lie after lie after lie coming out of Bush's mouth.

Most of us were able to come to a pretty easy decision on what was right and what was wrong, as was Dennis Kucinich. Screaming that you "were misled by George Bush on Iraq" is a nice attempt at damage control - but it doesn't cover the fact that when the most important vote of your life came down, you couldn't find your cojones.

But when you yell "Bush lied to me!" in debate after debate and manage to act surprised??? Now that takes balls.

[CMT]

1. because DK

saw through the lies being peddled by the white house.

[pasadenaboy]

32. I agree but would add

because DK wanted to see through the lies of the white house. Everyone else didn't want to rock the boat, being the whores that they are. Dennis Kucinich is a man of true integerity, unlike most in Washington.

[jmaier]

2. I suspect there is a pretty

simple explanation in that Kucinich is pretty unlikely to vote for force in any situation -- whether justified or not. In this case, his default setting was correct.

[arcane1]

3. what makes you say that?

:shrug:

[Paragon]

7. Kucinich voted FOR us to go to Afghanistan

On Iraq, he voted "nay". Which default setting, again?

[jmaier]

15. Oops, my bad

I saw Kucinich speak in October and he pretty much said that we need to stop using force internationally and find another way so I was pretty much extrapolating from that. I should have looked up the Afghanistan vote.

I'm not knocking his position on IWR. I share it now and jumped up and down about it at the time. While I respect folks who see it differently, I think many democrats in Congress went along out of fear of being "Clelandized". I don't think that this is true of Geppy and Lieberman they come across as true believers on the IWR issue.

I do suspect that Kerry probably knew better and it is a negative against him in my book -- otherwise, a pretty good choice.

[diamondsoul]

43. 'Scuse, please, but that's inaccurate.

Kucinich did not vote to "go to Afghanistan", ever. The vote you're speaking of was called for on Sept. 14th, three days after the WTC attacks. The bill presented no specific target nor did the members of the House presume action would be taken since the evidence was still being collected as to who the responsible parties were.

The bill being discussed here asked a single question- Were the Sept 11th attacks sufficient to respond to with military force? Kucinich voted yes as would any rational person who suspects another Government may have participated in a direct attack on his country.

Please do not put words in the Congressman's mouth, in legislation or in his votes which don't exist.

[Paragon]

50. OK, I'll let the Congressman speak for himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63537-2003Nov19?language=printer

He said that he had voted for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in response to the attacks. "On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes," Kucinich said. "The record on that is clear. . . . I misspoke."

[diamondsoul]

53. Which is precisely what I said above.

No nation was specified and he answered the question posed. His "mis-spoke" was the fact that no target nation was identified nor was any indication given in the text of the resolution of any sort of time-table.

The SOLE question posed to Congress was whether the Sept. 11th attacks were sufficient to justify military response. Not the same thing as voting to go to another nation, sorry.

[ddye]

59. re:"Kucinich voted FOR us to go to Afghanistan"

Wait a minute...

Is there really somebody here who doesn't think we should have gone into AFGHANISTAN??????????

[moosedog]

4. Oh..I see that someone has on his thinking cap...

I totally agree with you and that is why I am thinking that the only one I could trust is Kucinich. He just seems to be more sinsere.

[Paragon]

8. Ehhh...

I'm not putting Kucinich up for deification here - I wouldn't vote for the guy, myself. I'm using his vote on IWR (easily his strongest attribute) to ask why the other candidates are using the lame "George Bush misled me" excuse on Iraq.

[waylon]

9. i like that card

where did you get that lol

[HFishbine]

5. Great question

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Myra]

33. I think enquiring minds already know.

eom

[ps1074]

6. Great sig line

:)

[librechik]

10. one thing--Kucinich not in the group of Senators who got the "secret

briefing" which told the biggest lie (Iraq missiles could reach US eastern seaboard) becasue he's a Rep not a Sen...

But that's just a guess--after all, IMO anyone with half a brain (and no political position to lose) could easily see what lies they were spreading as early as August 2002. I think the others preferred not to see it, hoping for honor where there was none, apparently.

[HFishbine]

11. I thought about that too

But then with Geprhardt being in the House, that theory gets blown.

[Paragon]

12. Yeah, I read that in Will Pitt's "I hung with Kerry" thread

I guess when Chickenhawk Little says "the sky is falling", some people still run and hide.

I don't care what they were told in that "briefing" - I presume they took their common sense in with them. Harsh sanctions and inspections for over a decade in Iraq, and I'm supposed to believe they're a military superpower? Please.

[Paulie]

18. So, Kucinich being on the....

Government Reform Committee - Subcommittee National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations as the Ranking Minority Member, he wasn't entitled to the secret briefings?

Odd...

[bobthedrummer]

51. I think he is on House Intelligence Committee though.

n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. I doubt that any of them were "misled". A lame excuse.

DK wasn't alone. A lot of reps and senators declined to follow the polls and voted to oppose the aggression.

Unlike some that tested the wind and sold out. But, what the hell, it's just a few thousand (so far) lives so that they could wave the flag along with the Goober-in-Chief and run for president.

[HFishbine]

14. True enough

wasn't it something like 28 senators who voted against it and, maybe something like 130 members of the house?

[Scott Lee]

28. They either lied or exposed their stupidity

And as I've said before, either case should disqualify them for holding public office.

[Paragon]

16. This wasn't a rhetorical question, dammit

C'mon, supporters of Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman...I want an answer!

[damnraddem]

17. Well, the real question is:

why WERE so many Dem pols 'misled.' The answer: they weren't misled at all, they were just scared and lacked backbone.

[moosedog]

38. We don't know what boat they were in....

It wasn't the one I'm in, but we will find out some day....maybe

[rucky]

19. Right after 9/11...Before I knew about PNAC

I knew * would take us to war with either Iran or Iraq. These speeches sent huge alarm bells ringing in my head:

"War on Terror"
"Either with us or against us"
"Axis of Evil"

Here we go...

Put 'em all together. Add the Bush Doctrine of September, 2002, and you don't even need to know about PNAC to know Bush's agenda.

Everybody knows the agenda. They're not trying too hard to hide it. I think the utter nerve and surreality of it all makes it really hard for some people to handle. I also think that many people actually support empire building, as long as they're part of the empire.

The reality is, most Americans want hegemony one way or another. The views of these "duped" senators are in step with public opinion - for better or for worse.

[arcane1]

20. there's nothing quite like an anthrax letter...

to make a Dem compliant...

[sandnsea]

21. Then why'd he say this?

If Saddam was absolutely no threat to anybody, why did Dennis think inspections were necessary and that no arms should be allowed in Iraq? It seems to me alot of people want to have it both ways. They want to point to a lack of absolute concrete evidence and say there's no cause for concern. Then they want to turn around and call for inspections, and in many cases, containment and sanctions. If people thought there was absolutely no cause for concern with Iraq, then the answer should be throw open the doors and leave Iraq alone altogether.

"It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.

The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Emergency relief should be expedited. Free trade, except in arms, must be permitted.

Foreign investments must be allowed. The assets of Iraq abroad must be restored.

And a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction should be established."

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[Paragon]

23. Not a threat to AMERICA. Us. The U.S. of A. The Stars and Stripes.

Say it over and over if you have to.

There isn't one Democratic candidate who isn't concerned about the safety of the world at large. However, that doesn't justify invasions of foreign nations - especially the ones soaking in oil.

[sandnsea]

45. Nobody said the invasion was justified

The question was why wasn't Kucinich misled. The information given before the war vote was on WMD in general. To go with the UN and get inspectors back into Iraq, which Dennis supported, diplomatically. Why would Dennis support doing that if he didn't think it was the role of the U.S. and didn't think Bush had evidence Saddam had weapons and was a threat? And a threat to that region of the world is a threat to us, it breeds terrorism. No matter how many ways people want to deny that reality.

[dpbrown]

22. Kucinich laid it out on Feb. 17, 2002 in his "Prayer for America" speech

Kucinich gave this speech just six months after Sep. 11th, 2001, and way before the actual Iraq force resolution vote came up. I think the point was, and is, that he believed this now, and he believes this then. And that, among other reasons, is why he not only was not "misled" by Bush, but why even now he represents the best possible candidate we could choose to replace Bush with the opposite of Bush.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

An excerpt:

Let us pray that our nation will remember that the unfolding of the promise of democracy in our nation paralleled the striving for civil rights. That is why we must challenge the rationale of the Patriot Act. We must ask why should America put aside guarantees of constitutional justice?

How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance. We cannot justify a government which takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy. The Attorney General recently covered up a statue of Lady Justice showing her bosom as if to underscore there is no danger of justice exposing herself at this time, before this administration.

Let us pray that our nation's leaders will not be overcome with fear. Because today there is great fear in our great Capitol. And this must be understood before we can ask about the shortcomings of Congress in the current environment. The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail. It continued when the Attorney General declared a nationwide terror alert and then the Administration brought the destructive Patriot Bill to the floor of the House. It continued in the release of the Bin Laden tapes at the same time the President was announcing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty. It remains present in the cordoning off of the Capitol. It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote. The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his unelected Vice President.

Let us pray that our country will stop this war. "To promote the common defense" is one of the formational principles of America. Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items it purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need.

Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror. This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget.

Let us pray for our children. Our children deserve a world without end. Not a war without end. Our children deserve a world free of the terror of hunger, free of the terror of poor health care, free of the terror of homelessness, free of the terror of ignorance, free of the terror of hopelessness, free of the terror of policies which are committed to a world view which is not appropriate for the survival of a free people, not appropriate for the survival of democratic values, not appropriate for the survival of our nation, and not appropriate for the survival of the world.

Let us pray that we have the courage and the will as a people and as a nation to shore ourselves up, to reclaim from the ruins of September the Eleventh our democratic traditions. Let us declare our love for democracy. Let us declare our intent for peace. Let us work to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our own society. Let us recommit ourselves to the slow and painstaking work of statecraft, which sees peace, not war as being inevitable. Let us work for a world where someday war becomes archaic.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

This speech was given way before Dean "got tough" with Bush, and way before the Senators running for President "got misled" by Bush.

This speech not only shows that Kucinich has the biggest cajones, it shows that he's the real deal, the original from which all the copies throwing themselves up against Bush as "alternates" were cast.

Kucinich for President.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

P.S. Please visit this flash website to view a greeting from Kucinich and a movable globe that you can turn to see how Kucinich's plans will affect the world:

http://www.kucinich.us/greeting

[Paragon]

24. Is anyone here worried about Kerry's ability to beat Bush?

:D

[TLM]

26. I am.... Kerry has nothing to campaign on.

He can not attack Bush on Iraq... since he voted for it.

He can not attack Bush on the patriot act... since he voted for it.

He can not attack Bush on no child left behind... sicne he voted for it.


Kerry vs Bush would just be a rerun of Gore vs Bush... only without the democratic base supporting Kerry the way they supported Gore.

[diamondsoul]

55. Would the person who e-mailed me

about this thread please PM me or something? The name on the e-mail makes me a tad nervous and I'd like to verify who it came from. Thanks.

[TLM]

25. Kucinich was not afraid of being called unamerican...

Kucinich was thinking about what was right... not what would be best for his career.

Kucinich and Dean... need to be applauded for being true democrats who stood up to Bush when it counted the most, and while other so called dems were selling us out to cover their own asses.

[Scott Lee]

27. Dennis Kucinich - one of the few Dems with a heart and a backbone

I salute the man, he's a courageous and principled guy. He wasn't "misled" by Bushhole - why were the others?

[IndianaGreen]

29. Big backbone is right!

And the courage to stand for liberal principles that go back to the end of the Second World War and the San Francisco Conference that gave birth to the United Nations.

[quaker bill]

30. Dennis had good company

Bob Graham for one, Robert Byrd for another.

The only thing you needed not to be mislead was the desire to see things as they actually were.

I was out there protesting with you!

Props to Dennis on this one!

[Myra]

31. Because, a real leader stands up when no one else will

Not when everyone else does.

To paraphrase General Clark.
And to link the two best candidates: Kucinich and Clark.

[Egnever]

34. Easy answer he is a pacifist

Not interested in any war. He just says no to war no matter what the circumstances. It just hapens the circumstances in this scenario didnt warrent a war so he hapened to be in the right place this time.

[Paragon]

36. see post #7

Sorry, wrong answer. Try again.

[JohnKleeb]

37. A pacifist who would have served in Nam had he not had a heart condition

:eyes:
Yes he did vote for Afghanstan, and he has rightfully criticized how things have been conducted. Either way I am pratically a pacifist, you got a problem with me :D?

[diamondsoul]

44. Wrong.

See my response to post #7 since post #7 is factually inaccurate.

He is a pacifist, on that much you're correct. He is not an extreme pacifist which is what you're trying to claim. I can repeat it as many times as people would like to hear it- "Violence is a LAST RESORT". It says nothing about violence never being acceptable, it says last resort.

[DemBones DemBones]

47. Dennis Kucinich is not a pacifist. He has

said that he would have no problem ordering the use of military force if it were necessary.

[LWolf]

57. The not-so-simple reality:

Congressman Kucinich, the Ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans. Affairs, and International Relations, supports a strong and efficient military.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/defense.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. They believed conventional Beltway "wisdom"

One of the other Minnesota DUers (it was either Myrna Minx or DFLPrincess) told me this story: She (whichever it was) attended a Wellstone fundraiser after the Iraq vote. Everybody cheered wildly when Wellstone walked in.

Later, the storyteller had a chance to talk to Sheila Wellstone, who told her that Paul had been worried all the way back to MN, because all the conventional wisdom types back in DC had told him that the American people supported the war and that the voters would reject him if he voted against it.

As we know, he actually went up six points in the polls and was poised to win the election before he was killed.

But I think that the other Senators and Congresscritters had Beltway blinders that were stronger than their integrity. Since they were out of touch with their constituents, they believed the pundits.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. They believed the pundits despite the

hundreds of thousands who marched, wrote letters, e-mailed, phoned, and FAXed their offices to say "NO WAR"? They couldn't have been unaware of all the mobilization against the war, as much as the media tried to hide it.

I hope that wasn't it. I hope that they were actually convinced that Saddam was a danger, by way of the "secret info" they were given.

But the thing to do is support the one man who had to cast a vote and cast a NO vote (not to mention working to get the rest of the Progressive Caucus to vote against the war.) Kucinich's the one!

[sandnsea]

39. He supported inspections through diplomacy

He supported strict oversight of Iraq so Saddam could not get weapons. He simply supported doing it through diplomacy.

It is not logical to me that someone would support inspections and tight regulation of arms if the leader of a country was not dangerous or could otherwise be trusted.

[Tinoire]

40. Kucinich, Members of Congress Ask Albright for Meeting on Iraq Sanctions

For Immediate Release Contact: John Edgell
Wednesday, April 19, 2000 [phone]

Kucinich, Members of Congress Ask Albright
for Meeting on Iraq Sanctions Policy

Washington, D.C --- Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) and 25 members of Congress have sent a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asking to meet with her to discuss issues related to United States sanctions policy in Iraq. This effort is also supported by the American Public Health Association, the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health.
"There is an urgent need to re-evaluate our sanctions policy and develop better ways of providing humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq," Kucinich said. "I believe that there is growing skepticism in Congress about this policy and I am encouraged by the support for a meeting with Secretary Albright."

The letter emphasizes the devastated public health infrastructure in Iraq, which is considered to be the leading cause of the spread of disease and illness, conditions that were almost non-existent in Iraq before the Gulf War. "We feel that the gravity of the public health crisis makes it urgent for us to rethink the sanctions policy at all levels, especially in regard to water purification materials," the letter states. " We recognize that many items needed for water and sanitation purposes are considered ‘dual-use' items. But we believe that such items could be safely introduced with a careful system of monitoring by UN humanitarian officials." (seel letter below)

According to a recent report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (February, 2000), "Since then , money and spare parts have not been available to repair sewage works and purification plants, which are often working at reduced capacity, or not at all. This has led to an overall deterioration in the quality and quantity of drinking water and the rapid spread of infectious disease, such as cholera."

In an effort to continue the dialogue on sanctions in Congress, Rep. Kucinich will host a public briefing on the current sanctions policy on Iraq, its effect on the Iraqi civilian population and its impact on the Iraqi regime. The briefing will take place on May 3, 2000 beginning at 3:00 pm in room 2203 Rayburn. Speakers include: Hans Von Sponeck, former UN Oil-for-Food Program Director; Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq; and Scott Ritter, former Senior UNSCOM Weapons Inspector.

Co-signers: Reps. David Bonior (MI), John Conyers (MI), Cynthia McKinney (GA), William Jefferson (LA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Maurice Hinchey (NY), William Clay (MO), Peter DeFazio (OR), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Lynn Rivers (MI), John Olver (MA), Tom Sawyer (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Jose Serrano (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Gregory Meeks (NY), Collin Peterson (MN), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Pete Stark (CA), Nick Rahall (WV), Bruce Vento (MN), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), David Minge (MN), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Xavier Becerra (CA).

TEXT OF LETTER TO SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:

April 18, 2000


The Honorable Madeleine Albright
Secretary of State
2201 C St NW
Washington, D.C. 20520-0001

Dear Secretary Albright:

We are writing to request a meeting with you to express our deep concern about the growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq which has resulted after nine years of economic sanctions.

We feel that the gravity of the public health crisis makes it urgent for us to rethink the sanctions policy at all levels, especially in regard to water purification materials. We recognize that many items needed for water and sanitation purposes are considered "dual-use" items. But we believe that such items could be safely introduced with a careful system of monitoring by UN humanitarian officials.

In particular, we feel that there is an urgent need to rebuild the public health infrastructure. A major problem that afflicts the Iraqi people is deteriorated water and sanitation systems. A recent report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (February, 2000) stated: "Since then , money and spare parts have not been available to repair sewage works and purification plants, which are often working at reduced capacity, or not at all. This has led to an overall deterioration in the quality and quantity of drinking water and the rapid spread of infectious disease, such as cholera." There are insufficient amounts of chlorine for water purification and insufficient electrical equipment and power to run the water and sewage plants. Chlorine is imported only in limited quantities through the United Nations Resolution 986 Oil-for-Food program. According to an April 1998 UNICEF report: "Water treatment plants lack spare parts, equipment, treatment chemicals, proper maintenance and adequately qualified staff...Plants often act solely as pumping stations without any treatment...The distribution network, on which most of the population relies, has destroyed, blocked or leaky pipes."

UN Reports and statistics on the humanitarian situation in Iraq from the past five years speak for themselves. They indicate that the public health infrastructure is worsening, and programs established to provide food and aid are inadequate. The recent protest resignations of Hans Von Sponeck, UN Oil-for-Food Program director and Jutta Burghardt, head of the UN World Food Program, attest to the inadequacies of the Oil-for-Food program in meeting the needs of more than 22 million people in Iraq and the urgency for relief. Most recently, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed interest in discussing with Mr. Von Sponeck ways of modifying the sanctions on Iraq to allow more humanitarian relief items enter Iraq.

We feel that this is an encouraging step in the right direction. We, too, believe that further review of the sanctions policy is necessary. We would like to meet with you to re-examine this policy and to discuss ways of helping to alleviate the continued public health crisis in Iraq.

We thank you in advance for your timely response.

Sincerely,
Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (OH), David Bonior (MI), John Conyers (MI), Cynthia McKinney (GA), William Jefferson (LA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Maurice Hinchey (NY), William Clay (MO), Peter DeFazio (OR), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Lynn Rivers (MI), John Olver (MA), Tom Sawyer (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Jose Serrano (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Gregory Meeks (NY), Collin Peterson (MN), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Pete Stark (CA), Nick Rahall (WV), Bruce Vento (MN), Eleanor

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/iraq.html

[Tinoire]

41. Rep. Kucinich Hosts Briefing on Lifting Economic Sanctions on Iraq

For Immediate Release Contact: John Edgell
Thursday, May 4, 2000 [phone]

Rep. Kucinich Hosts Briefing on
Lifting Economic Sanctions on Iraq

Washington, D.C --- Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich hosted a policy briefing yesterday on the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi population. With estimated 100 people in attendance, Members of Congress, staff and the public heard testimony in favor of lifting the economic sanctions on Iraq from three former United Nations workers, Hans von Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator; Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian coordinator and Scott Ritter, former senior UNSCOM weapons inspector. The briefing was co-sponsored with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
"I believe that the economic sanctions on Iraq have had a crippling effect on Iraq civil society. Something must be done immediately to provide relief for the current humanitarian crisis," Kucinich said. "I believe that the many Members of Congress share this view and my colleagues view that the economic sanctions must be lifted. The 70 members of Congress who recently signed a letter calling for the de-linking of economic from military sanctions, and the lifting of economic sanctions, represent part of this trend, as does the recent visit by Congressman Tony Hall."

Hans von Sponeck resigned last February in protest of the inefficiency of the Oil-for-Food program and the devastating sanctions on Iraq. He spoke to the rapidly deteriorating public health infrastructure and the failure of the Oil-for-Food program to provide for more than 22 million civilians. "The Oil-for-Food program currently totals only $252 per person per year; or less than 70 cents per person per day," von Sponeck said.

Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian, who preceded von Sponeck and also resigned in protest, offered a 10-step solution to providing humanitarian relief, revisiting weapons inspections, and reestablishing exchange between Iraq and the West. "After almost 10 years of uniquely comprehensive economic sanctions and blockade, surely it is time for the United States, the Congress and the Administration, to attempt to find an alternative way to live with Iraq without punishing its innocent populace, not involved in the bad decisions leading to the invasion of Kuwait," Halliday said.

Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector who resigned in protest of US policy towards weapons inspections said that Iraq should not be viewed as a threat. "Saddam Hussein is not capable of world or regional domination," Ritter said. He suggested that future weapons inspections teams should base inspections on quality of arms rather than quantity.

On April 18, 2000, Rep. Kucinich and 25 other Members of Congress recently sent a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright requesting a meeting to discuss United States sanctions policy.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/iraqbrief.html

[sandnsea]

46. "Something must be done"

So containment wasn't a continued option???

"The 70 members of Congress who recently signed a letter calling for the de-linking of economic from military sanctions"

"He suggested that future weapons inspections teams should base inspections on quality of arms rather than quantity." (Scott Ritter)

Scott Ritter, who said in 1998 that inspections needed to continue and that Saddam would likely reconstitute his weapons within 6 months of inspectors leaving.

None of this suggests that Saddam was not a threat as the recommendation is for continued military sanctions. Smilar to what Dennis suggested in 2002, UN inspections and a tight control of military weapons into Iraq. Doesn't sound like somebody Dennis trusted too much.

[diamondsoul]

54. I have to admit I'm kind of surprised here.

You've pretty well been decent about supporting Kucinich's statements until this particular subject. I can understand why though, since the thread is pretty insulting to Senator Kerry. FTR, I don't condemn him or anyone else for voting in favor of it.

"Something must be done." Were you under the impression that "something" is a specific action? "Something" could mean any number of about a million different courses. My own knowledge of Congressman Kucinich's views suggests communication with the UN and other Nations directly affected by Hussein's control of Iraq and the potential threat he posed. Negotiations and non-violent efforts to reduce that threat across the board.

Do you think negotiations are impossible with someone you don't particularly trust? Odd because those are the people I usually try to negotiate with, for the simple reason that give and take reduces any reason to act in an aggressive manner.

[sandnsea]

61. See #39

I clearly stated negotiations was Dennis' position.

My only point is that Dennis didn't "know" anything more than anybody else. Logically, if you think you need inspections in a country and you think that country shouldn't be allowed to have any weapons, it's because there is cause for concern. So Dennis didn't truly "know" what was or wasn't going on in Iraq. Further, he also clearly thought continued containment and sanctions was not feasible. It was simply causing too much harm. "Something must be done."

How that circumstance is handled is open for debate. Dennis clearly had a totally anti-war view. Kerry clearly thought negotiations without the threat of force wasn't going to work. However, both thought "something must be done", probably for the exact same reasons.

Neither thought a unilateral war was the right course.

That's all. I just get tired of all the "I knew", because nobody knew. Their own words and actions prove nobody knew. Everybody was concerned about Iraq and WMD. The exent of the concern was the issue in October 2002, not whether there was cause for concern at all.

[DemDogs]

42. Kucinich did not receive intelligence briefings

Kucinich refused to sign the document where he promises not to reveal intelligence material to the public or to anyone, so he did not receive the flawed intelligence briefings that the Senators, Gephardt, Clinton, the Clinton NSA, etc. received. And as for believing the intelligence, some of the unelecteds also went for it: Dean said there was 10,000 pounds of anthrax in Iraq and that even though Iraq might be restarting their nuclear program he wouldn't go in until after they had a nuclear weapon. Gore has been all over the board. Clark has been all over the board.
In this case, ignorance was helpful. It is not, however, a very good leadership practice.

[DemBones DemBones]

49. I believe you're right and we've just all

forgotten that. But how did Dean get the info? (You're saying he believed some of it.) Was it available to former governors?

As for it not being a good leadership practice, Kucinich was right about the quality of that intelligence. Bush is now trying to claim "faulty intelligence," isn't he? A leader has to make a decision and stick with it. Blaming others later is weaseling.

[Monte Carlo]

52. Another question is - Why was Bill Clinton misled by Bush?

Being President for 8 years, he had access to the deepest levels of intelligence reports. Was he misled by Bush as well, or did he maybe, just maybe, think that there were other reasons why someone would vote 'yes' on the IWR?

[dfgrbac]

58. Clinton tried to provoke war with Iraq.

According to Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Clinton tried to provoke a war with Iraq. Ritter said they knew Iraq had no WMDs. The White House demand that they search the Palaces was a direct confrontation to Hussein. When Hussein said no, the US told the inspectors to leave - they were not kicked out by Hussein!

Some of you may say that Scott Ritter had other motives and was discredited. Well, Ritter made a documentary about the whole affair and told his side of the story. I believe him! (The Ritter documentary has been shown on FSTV and WorldLinkTV. You might catch it again if you watch for it.)

[paulk]

56. Perhaps Kerry and Edwards thought it was better to err on the side

of caution rather than be wrong. In the years prior to Bush, many in the intelligence community thought that Iraq possessed WMD. Bill Clinton thought so.

The Senators were told by people in the military and intelligence services that Iraq posed a credible threat. When you are in that position it's not your job to make decisions based on whether or not you feel George Bush is an asshole - it's your job to defend the nation. And if the President lies to you about that threat - then the responsibility is his.

I really don't understand why Kerry and Edwards get blamed for the Iraq invasion by some people - George Bush deserves the blame. Do you think if Kerry or Edwards had been president we would be in Iraq right now?

[sleipnir]

60. Because Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman love GW!

They'll vote for anything he tells them to! Why stand up to the President? Sickening bunch, voting for pre-emptive war, they'll never get my vote.

[JohnKleeb]

62. they fucked up but they do NOT love him

Those 4 may have screwed up but I consider them good dems. They should have voted NO but I would gladly vote for any of them.