The death count of Iraqi civilians is now estimated to be between 600,000 and 650,000. Monday saw the number of American military deaths top 3,000. Think about that for a moment. Really think about it.
In 2002 there was only one presidential candidate who ran on a platform of ending the invasion of Iraq immediately - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Consequently, Rep. Kucinich had at that time and, maintians to this day, a voting record in Congress that is 100% consistent with this position. It's excrutiating to consider all the lives that have been lost so that that the giant oil behomoths can reap record profits. It's infuriating. If all the people who agreed with Dennis but thought he was "unelectable" had decided to vote their conscience for a change, who knows, we might have had a shot. As cynical as I can be, it is still my belief that most people will choose intergrity (read:truth) over deceit if given the opportunity. Kucinich has integrity - he told America the truth despite what the pollsters, spin doctors and politcal "experts" advised him. George Bush thrives on deceit. Don't get me started on John Kerry.
Well, we are getting another chance to get this right. Dennis has decided to run again. Read on (be sure to check out the last part where he responds to accusations his candidacies are nothing more than ego-fests.) For some reason, the final refrain of the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song about the shooting at Kent State keeps running through my head ---"How many more?" - meg
Rep. Kucinich: Why I’m Running for President
by Joshua Scheer
The six-term Ohio congressman and 2004 presidential candidate, who has been one of Congress’ most vocal and longstanding opponents of the Iraq war, tells Truthdig why he again has his sights set on the Oval Office:
Rep. Kucinch spoke with Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer*.
TRUTHDIG: What made you decide to run?
KUCINICH: Someone has to rally the American people, to let them know that the money is there right now to bring our troops home. Democrats were put in power in November to chart a new direction in Iraq. It’s inconceivable that having been given the constitutional responsibility to guide the fortunes of America in a new direction, that Democratic leaders would respond by supporting the administration’s call for up to $160 billion in new funding for the war in Iraq.
For me this is a call of conscience to stand up and speak out about what’s going on—to let the American people know that the money is there to bring our troops home now, that we need to begin now to take a new direction in Iraq, and that to pass a supplemental in the spring for another $160 billion would keep the war going until the end of George Bush’s term. Someone needs to stand up and speak out, and I decided it was my responsibility as the person who has been consistently opposed to this war since its inception, who has been a leader in challenging this thinking that led to war, that I would stand up and rally Democrats to change the course that the party has embarked on with respect to continued funding of the war.
TRUTHDIG: This is obviously your major issue, but what other issues are you going to base your campaign on?
KUCINICH: We have to take these things in sequence. From now until the spring, this is the issue: $160 billion is more than three times what the federal education budget is. This is a huge amount of money, and all the other hopes we have as Democrats to create a new agenda for the American people in housing, in healthcare, in education, are going to be destroyed by the administration’s request for $160 billion.
So does that mean I’m a one-issue candidate? Of course not. I’m prepared to lead this country forward to create a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system. I’m prepared to lead the way towards policies of environmental sustainability, to develop advanced technologies for alternative energy, for clean energy.
This campaign is about three imperatives: It’s about the imperative of human unity, of recognizing that this is one world, that we are all one, that people all around the world have an underlying connection, that we are interconnected and interdependent. And we need policies that act that interconnection. We need to affirm institutions which support the idea of human unity. And that means that we support the United Nations. It means we support treaties in working with other countries. It means we support the rule of law internationally.
The second imperative is human security, and that security has to deal with basic needs: Each person in the world has a right to survive, a right to food that is fit to eat, and water fit to drink, and air fit to breathe. Each person has a right to a roof over his or her own head. Each person has a right to have clothes on their back. Each person has a right to some means of being able to make a living. Each person has a right to be free of the fear of violence. We have a responsibility to work to secure the world from a nuclear nightmare. We need to look at what we can do to protect peoples everywhere by working for not just nonproliferation, not just disarmament, but nuclear abolition, which in fact was the promise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The third imperative I’ll discuss in this campaign is the imperative of peace. There are those who believe that war is inevitable. A belief in the inevitability of war makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to be convinced in our innate capability to create structures for peace in our society. We need to be convinced of our potential as a nation to make nonviolence an operating principle in our society. This is the motivating reason behind a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, which addresses directly, in a practical way, the challenge of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, racial violence, violence against gays, community relations disputes.
The imperatives of human unity, human security, peace, all create a context for human prosperity. We have the potential to create heaven on earth. New Jerusalem is within our reach. It’s waiting to be called forward through the power of courage, emanating through our hearts, through our dreams, which come from the longing of our souls. This truly is a time where we can change the world and create the world that we long for.
TRUTHDIG: You obviously have issues that you care deeply about, and it doesn’t seem like you’re going into this as a sort of popularity contest, but do you think you can win? Do you have a plan to win, say, the South, and parts of the Midwest?
KUCINICH: Yes. The very fact the people put Democrats in power in November over the issue of Iraq means that there exists a tremendous amount of support for affirming the will of the people to set a new course, not only for Iraq but for all of U.S. international policy. That percolation, which resulted in the Democrats gaining control of Congress, is still there. It is fairly astonishing that Democrat leaders would forget that only a month ago we were given the control of the Congress because of Iraq. It is fairly astonishing that less than a month after being given that constitutional obligation to assume a coequal position in the government, [we] would capitulate on Iraq by publicly declaring support for up to $160 billion in additional funding to keep the war going.
I’ve said it before, I’ve said it again: It is not credible to simultaneously say you are opposed to the war and continue to support funding for the war.
So these are some of the reasons why I’m running for president. And I believe that I will win, because people are truly looking for a new direction. Not by incrementalism, not by capitulation, but people are looking for real leadership, people are looking for foresight. And I’ve demonstrated foresight by moving out front very quickly when the administration was talking about attacking Iraq—warning the country that this was folly, warning the country that we needed to avert this conflict, letting Americans know that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 or Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, that Iraq did not have WMD, did not have the intention or capability of attacking the United States.
Everything I said turned out to be true. People want leaders who know what the right thing is to do in the moment of crisis, not people who will say, years later, “Well, you know, I agree, this is what should have been done.” This is a call for clearsightedness for foresight and for action, and in each case I’ve demonstrated an ability to step forward. And I’m going to do it again, and I expect that the American people are going to respond very powerfully to my candidacy.
TRUTHDIG: John Kerry got tarred with the “flip-flopper” label in 2004 for his perceived wavering on the issue of Iraq. Do you think you’re going to have a better chance than someone like Kerry—or Clinton, who’s also been wishy-washy on some of the issues?
KUCINICH: I haven’t talked about any other candidates, and I’m not going to now. I think that my consistency speaks for itself, and I think that my opposition not only to the authorization for the war but continued opposition to its funding puts me apart from all the other candidates. I’m the only member of the House and Senate who has consistently voted against continued funding for the war.
TRUTHDIG: I saw Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institute on CNN saying that candidacies like yours are just an ego trip. Is this an ego trip for you?
KUCINICH: I’ve spent the last five years of my life warning our nation about the path to war and about our occupation of Iraq. There are probably easier ways to pamper oneself.
*Truthdig interviewer Joshua Scheer worked as an entry-level staffer on Kucinich’s state Senate campaign and was later a summer associate in his congressional office. In this weekly interview series, Rep. Kucinich gives his take on the goings-on in Congress in the wake of the Democrats’ victory.
1 comment:
"In 2002 there was only one presidential candidate who ran on a platform of ending the invasion of Iraq immediately - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)."
This is factually incorrect. There was one candidate in the *Democratic primaries* who ran on said platform - and he was soundly rejected because this was not the view of the majority of Democrats at the time. As a result, he wasn't a choice for you in the presidential election - I haven't been following the blog long enough to find out who you supported in that race (guessing Kerry even though you seem not to like him - maybe as a lesser than two evils vote?).
The interesting thing is that the three major Libertarian party nominees for President were all for an immediate withdrawal, and unlike the other minor party candidates, the LP nomination winner Michael Badnarik appeared on the ballot in all but two (I believe) states, though his party affiliation was not listed on the ballot in some states (like Ohio for example).
Ending the war in Iraq immediately was an option for nearly all Americans in 2004, but most of the anti-war folks I know tell me they voted for Kerry (who would not have ended the war).
I attribute this to either ignorance (they didn't know that they had an anti-war choice because they assumed that the mainstream media had educated them on their options) or hypocrisy (they didn't really care about ending the war as they said they did).
You'll get another chance to vote for an anti-war Libertarian candidate in 2008. We're still down the road from finding out exactly who, but so far all of the libertarians to announce their candidacy are more fiercely anti-war than any Democrat.
Here's one list of candidates you haven't about on the nightly news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_potential_2008_United_States_presidential_election_third_party_candidates
And here's another great site that lists ALL candidates, not just those with major party backing:
http://www.politicsone.com/p2008.htm
- Neb
Post a Comment