DENNIS KUCINICH of Ohio: We need to have hearings on Iraq again. We need to go over again why we went there. We need to review the statements and all the errors that were made, and from that we bring the country together to take a new direction. It’s all fact-based. And then we start to heal our nation. But we cannot heal America if we continue with policies that are based on lies. We’ll never be able to bring closure to this Iraq matter unless we tell the truth about what happened. So America needs a new approach of truth and reconciliation. This isn’t a Democratic or Republican matter. This is a matter that relates to the conscience of this country. This is a matter of the heart—the heart of democracy itself. This is a matter of whether we’re going to a sober reflection about the events that have transpired since 9/11, with respect to Iraq. And until we do this, we will be trapped not only physically in Iraq, we’ll be trapped emotionally and spiritually in Iraq. We may never get out of Iraq if we don’t tell the truth.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
Kucinich doesn't really have a peace plan, but he does have "a plan to get us out of Iraq." His plan is to continue the occupation, but under UN command. He wants the US to continue the occupation until the UN agrees to take over, then the US would bug out in 90 days. He wants no US troops involved, letting the blue-capped foreign soldiers take over, but the USEmpire would basically pay for reconstruction presumably per UN judicial directive. Kucinich has no timetable for ending UN occupation.
His 3 year old plan is basically the same as what Bush in fact did, except with the UN instead of the US running the show. Kucinich suggests that the UN form a provisional government in Iraq, have a constitutional convention, and elections for a permanent government - just like Bush did. Kucinich, like Bush, seems to totally overlook little things like civil war and the Sunni, Shite and Kurd factional vying for power. Like the neocons, Kucinich blithely assumes that Iraq must be a single unified state. Kucinich seems to imagine a cakewalk if only the UN takes over. I can't tell whether he puts no import on Iraqi life and liberty, or whether he thinks somehow Iraqis won't mind foreign military occupation with UN soldiers.
Kucinich's plan is a perfect example of what I call multilateral interventionism. Like the neocons, he sees democracy building by military force as good policy. Unlike the neocons, he wants multilateral action via the UN rather than the US going it alone. Kucinich's plan not only embraces imperialism, it outsources the dirty work of occupation to international semi-puppet orgs. It worked in Kosevo with NATO. A kinder gentler empire, which shares the spoils with some UN crony states and maintains international respectibility, is what multilateral imperialists envision.
Regarding the bunkum speech Doug quoted: Kucinich seems to be saying that the occupation must be maintained until he has had a bunch of hearings. How long did Monicagate last? I expect the Dems will try to drag things out for another two years wrt Iraq so as to continue factional bashing of the Reps. The Iraqi people and US soldiers are pawns in the power game.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
I don't remember who proposed this one, but the plan is to basically pull our troops back to the borders - doing our best to keep the "foreign" (al Qada) element out - and pay Iraqis to rebuild what we broke - the entire infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage, etc). That's about the best I've heard. There is no good answer. Civil war is a fact. There were only two ways to have prevented it - enough troops or utilizing the exising civil structure. We went in without enough troops and we dismantled the civil structure. Throwing more troops into this is like throwing them into a meat grinder - doesn't matter if they are U.S. or U.N. - it's too late. And the "best I've heard" may not work anymore. The longer we delay getting out of there the more likely nothing will work.
Yes - specifically, the US milthugs should pull back to US borders. It is the US presence that attracts foreign militants to Iraq in the first place - to pull back to Iraq borders is crazy.
A civil war is inevitable. The civil war in Iraq will continue until the whole idea of forced unification is abandoned.
Barbara wrote:We went in without enough troops and we dismantled the civil structure.
Ugh! That old slavespeak again. Translation: The US rulers went in without enough hired murderers and they dismantled and destroyed infrastructure.
Barbara, you and I are not part of the ruling elite. Also, there is no reason that anyone other than the ruling elite warmongers who perpetrated the aggression should pay a cent to repair Iraqi infrastructure. If anything, Bush and the congresscritters and senators who voted to authorize the aggression against Iraq should pay compensation from their own pockets - not rip off Americans to pay for their crimes. You and I, Barbara, and most Americans have zero moral culpability for the rulers' aggressions and occupations.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
Hogeye, I don't think we should have been there in the first place - invasions are not right - but we could at least have been competent about it if we were going to do it. Evil compounded by incompetence is why the US presence is attracting foreign militants to Iraq. The current administration is in total fantasyland (or denial, if you wish) about the fact that it was an invasion and is currently an occupation. There's no "war" to it and never has been. I'd have no problem with this group having to pay to rebuild what they ordered blown up out of their own pockets. I don't live in fantasyland, however, and know better than to ask it.
Barbara wrote:Hogeye, I don't think we should have been there in the first place - invasions are not right - but we could at least have been competent about it if we were going to do it.
"We" weren't there; some vile flunkies of the rulers were. "We" were not incompetent, the rulers were. "We" weren't going to do it; the rulers did it without your or my consent or support. Please, lay off the slave "we." It adversely affects critical thinking.
Barbara wrote:The current administration is in total fantasyland (or denial, if you wish) about the fact that it was an invasion and is currently an occupation. There's no "war" to it and never has been.
You are absolutely right on both points.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
The rulers may or may not have been incompetent, depending on actual purpose v. stated purpose - and yes, they did it without my consent or support. However, I am a citizen of this country, as are the kids who went overseas thinking they were doing something to protect their country. The "winner take all" system isn't perfect, heaven knows, but it's the one we've got and that means even evil leaders are nominally doing it in my name. When it reaches a point of impossible to get rid of them legally, rather than just unlikely to get rid of them legally, then I will agree with you. Until then, I take responsibility to the point of whatever I can do in damage control, if not reparation, for their evil.
