Kerry Team Settles Dispute With Kucinich Delegates Over Iraq

[JoFerret]

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., July 10 - Senator John Kerry's representatives avoided a Democratic Party platform fight over Iraq on Saturday by persuading platform committee delegates supporting Representative Dennis J. Kucinich to withdraw their proposals for a quick withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq.

Instead, the committee agreed to present a platform to the Democratic convention in Boston this month that reflects Mr. Kerry's position. The statement of party principles promises to seek help from Western allies and Arab countries in bringing Iraq under control but says nothing about how to accomplish that goal.

The critical paragraph was worked out in negotiations between Mr. Kucinich's delegates and Mr. Kerry's supporters, led by Samuel R. Berger, who was President Bill Clinton's national security adviser.

It pledges to remove American troops "when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/politics/campaign/11platform.html

[fujiyama]

1. I'm glad

a settlement has been reached. I do hope though that Kerry doesn't brush the Kucinich delegates aside, and instead actually listens to what they have to say.

Kucinich's platform on Iraq was actually not that outlandish and radical as it may seem to some. It was really quite reasonable.

[G_j]

3. yes I hope part of the 'deal' with Kucinich

will be that his delegates DON'T get pushed aside!

[hippywife]

9. They obviously didn't

listen to what they had to say. They pushed them to cave into the Kerry apologists for his inability to see what Kucinich and the many others who voted against the IWR saw. Had I been fortunate enough to be part of the delegation, there would have been no backing down on this point. This is total bullshit.

The invasion was a huge mistake and so it stands whether Kerry admits to it or not.

[JoFerret]

2. Democrat avoid platform fight over Iraq

Another story here.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040711/ap_on_el_pr/democratic_platform&e=3&ncid=703

[IndianaGreen]

4. Sandy Berger supported the invasion of Iraq

Let's not criticize the DLC PPI neolibs that share responsibility with their PNAC neocon counterparts for this fiasco.

Keep in mind that if Kerry "stays the course" in Iraq, by this time next year Iraq will be a Democratic war.

Published on Saturday, July 10, 2004 by the Agence France Presse
Politicians Must Not Escape Blame Over Iraq Intel Errors: British Press

The US intelligence community should not be made to shoulder full responsibility for misjudging Saddam Hussein's weapons capability ahead of last year's Iraq war, British newspapers said after a Senate investigation exonerated US politicians of blame.

The Financial Times described as "implausible" the investigation's decision to exonerate US President George W. Bush's administration from putting pressure on the intelligence agencies.

"Like all government organizations, the Central Intelligence Agency devotes its limited resources to meeting the demands of its political masters," the business daily said.

It added that it was the "politicians who must account for the death and destruction of the Iraq war -- and the consequences as they continue to unfold".

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0710-01.htm

[NNN0LHI]

5. Over 70% of the American people supported invading Iraq with...

...what Bush and his minions were saying about Iraq's WMD capabilities. Rice and them talking about mushroom clouds and all that crap. That is a fact IG. Neither you nor I suspected Iraq was as clean as it was. You have to admit that.

Don

[IndianaGreen]

6. Most Germans supported the invasion of Poland

We knew that Iraq had no WMDs based on the way the allegations about WMDs were debunked in the British press. The mysterious "suicide" of Dr. David Kelley in the UK confirmed our suspicions that Blair and Bush would stop at nothing to get control over Iraq's oil resources, even murder.

If you remember, I was among those DUers that advocated the lifting of UN sanctions as far back as 2001.

[NNN0LHI]

14. We are not living in 1930's Germany IG

Few Americans read the British press. And I do not remember you ever saying that you were 100% sure Iraq had no WMD's on the lead up to the invasion here at DU. Perhaps I missed it?

As for murdering to control oil resources. Come on now. That is a gimme. We all knew they would do that.

[KoKo]

20. Well, I for one said there were NO WMD....I don't know about Indiana, but

some of us Did Know!

[NNN0LHI]

21. I will take your word for it KoKo

I wasn't sure there were none until after the UN weapons inspectors were there a couple of weeks.

Don

[MrTriumph]

7. Admit what?

Well, yes, most of us thought Iraq might have chemical weapons. After all, that's what the administration said and what most of the news media parroted. However, many of us thought containment was working and there was no need for war.

Further, the public did not have access to sources that the government and media did have. And it was primarily the responsibility of the government and the media, not the public, to verify the truthfulness of these sources.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Admit to what you just admitted to in your first sentence

That is all. Of course the public did not have access to sources that the government and media did have. Would not have made any difference if they had. They saw Colin Powell at the UN holding a vial as big as my little finger which he swore contained enough deadly shit to kill thousands. They heard Condi Rice warning about mushroom clouds over New York. Thats all that mattered to most Americans. And anyone suggesting otherwise is being disingenuous.

Don

[IndianaGreen]

23. Colin Powell's UN speech was debunked immediate after he gave it

by the British press, particularly when Powell quoted from a British intelligence paper that turned out to be a graduate thesis by an Iraqi exile.

We didn't believe a word about WMDs, and we posted our objections in DU, not to mention that we marched against the war.

Those that chose to delude themselves back then, are now rewriting history in order to prevent holding our politicians accountable for this war, Democrats and Republicans alike.

[G_j]

8. I seem to remember Scott Ritter and others

making the opposite case, some CIA folks saying they were being pressed to cook the books on Iraq.
The public you speak of were probably mostly watching FOX and CNN.
I don't believe Congress should be getting nearly as much slack as they are getting. If they didn't know better or didn't bother digging deeper then they shouldn't be trusted with the responsibility
of making life and death decisions.

-I offer Karen Kwiatkowski's take on the matter

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski82.html

Bagged and Tagged!
by Karen Kwiatkowski

The Senate has gingerly examined, apparently for the first time, what the CIA told them two years ago. Before this, they didn't have time to question, to peruse, to use common sense, perhaps even to read what the CIA reports said and not just follow blindly the commands of the majority whip and our wild-eyed President.

Its preliminary report indicates that much of the information was bad, and blames the CIA. The CIA was a victim of groupthink; it "interpret ambiguous elements . . . as conclusive evidence."; its corporate culture is broken. Ouch!

The CIA wasn't pressured by anyone, either. It just produced boatloads of bulls%*t all on its own. Wrong, unreasonable, made no sense, by the boatload.

Normal people (this apparently excludes most members of Congress) would wonder why you would believe anything from the CIA or DIA on Iraq anyway, given we had had no real in-country assets or visibility for years. Not even a military attaché, or a tiny hovel of a CIA station in Baghdad or Basra. Last CIA agent we had in Ba-ath country was an illegal member of the Hans Blix team.

..much more..

[NNN0LHI]

13. Show me one pre-war quote of Scott Ritter where he said Iraq had Ø WMD's...

...and I will kiss your ass on main street and give you an hour to draw a crowd. You won't find one. His estimate was that 5% of the WMD's were still unaccounted for if my recollection is correct. And in the minds of most Americans that was enough to wipe out the entire planet.

Don

[Radical Activist]

25. I heard him say it myself

In a speech he gave in Knoxville, TN before the war. He said any chemical or biological weapons agents in Iraq that had not been accounted for had a limited lifespan. Unless Saddam had found a way to get new WMD's, which was very unlikely, everything he had at one time was gone or of no use.

Based on what Ritter and others said I did not believe there were WMD's in Iraq before the war. That's why I helped organize protests and supported Kucinich, who also knew.

[serryjw]

32. SCOTT RITTER ...interview........

No he does not say that Saddam had no WMD.....BUT he did say that there was NO proof. I think this was everyone's point......They was NOT an eminent threat and we were doing a good job of keeping Saddam in his place.......We did it with USSR fro 40 years!
----quote
In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?NOTICE THE DATE!

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back
------end quote...
Ok the inspectors were back in Iraq before the war....They found no WMD...and they could have stayed for another year.....As long as inspectors were looking and found none....how can you justify the invasion and the lose of so many lives
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

[G_j]

34. thanks, you got to this before I could

:-)

[NNN0LHI]

16. Next? n/t

[KoKo]

19. Don, that's not correct. I and many other DU'ers took to the streets in

DC, SanFrancisco, Raleigh, NC and all over the world because we knew it was false. The many articles from the world press showed that the evidence was flawed. I know you've been on DU as long as I have. Surely you saw the reports from us and the pictures of the protests. There were many articles on DU where the evidence of "Yellow Cake" from Niger was debunked when Powell said it before the UN the international newspapers had stories that it was based on forged evidence. We knew all this. It was a "rush to war," and both parties are complicit.

Don't you remember Robert Byrd warning us? Surely you do..:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

22. That's not true.

That kind of support for the war was only seen after the war started.

Before that the opinion was split fairly close, the pro-war side usually being 5-10 points ahead of the anti-war side.

[NNN0LHI]

26. Here are some polls from February of last year

http://www.ciruli.com/polls/war-bush03.htm

Gulf War II—2003
Use of Military Force

Date - Favor- Oppose

ABC News/Washington Post 2/19-2/23 63% 31%
CBS News/NY Times 2/10-2/12 66% 29%
ABC News/Washington Post 2/09 66% 31%
Newsweek 2/06-2/07 70% 25%
ABC News/Washington Post 2/05 67% 27%
L.A. Times 1/30-2/02 57% 38%
ABC News/Washington Post 1/28 63% 32%
Newsweek 1/23-1/24 60% 35%
Source: Ciruli Associates, 2003

[kiahzero]

31. How did he support it?

Did he support it in the sense that someone like most Republicans supported it (that is to say, actually supported it), or "support it" in the sense that some argue Kerry supported it (in other words, not really)?

The difference is critical.

Keep in mind that if Kerry "stays the course" in Iraq

He'd be doing the right thing, and not fucking over the Iraqi people for the third time? I guess having one's hands clean is more important than preventing a power vacuum that will be bad for Iraq, America, and the rest of the world, though... :eyes:.

[truthisfreedom]

10. hey, it sounds a helluva lot better than the rethugs position!

amazing that they reached an agreement so quickly.

[Toucano]

11. I'm glad the Kucinich delegates

are having some influence.

Keep up the good work!

[Cerridwen]

12. I'm glad to see the democrats are learning/practicing politics

and no I'm not being sarcastic.

Kerry/Edwards have to appeal to the part of the U.S. population that still thinks the war in Iraq is a good thing and that the U.S. troops are doing some good there. The only way to do that is to compromise on this issue regardless of how Kerry/Edwards or Kucinich delegates may feel. It ain't pretty, but it's how you win elections.

Winning elections is how you have the power to change policy. Ideals are all well and good; but ideals in a vacuum, or around your kitchen table, may not do much to change the current political climate.

Once Kerry/Edwards are in office, they will have more power, maybe even enough power, to implement their ideals.

[sampsonblk]

17. This is why we fail

That type of thinking is why so many say we have a weak party. Prior to the war, the majority of the public thought we should wait and let the UN process work itself out.

Shrub didn't waver one bit. He pressed his case (all lies) and convinced a majority that we had to go in immediately.

Why is it that we have to appeal to the swing voters where they are now, when the Repubs press their positions and convince the voters instead. Its time we moved the crowd as they do - only with the truth instead of lies.

Your logic is also what led many primary voters to choose Kerry in the first place. During the primaries, a majority of the public (not of Dems) still thought the war was a good thing and would make America safer. So Kerry was a good pick to appeal to them. But something happened along the way to the landslide: now the public is convinced of what we knew all along - we are not safer after having invaded Iraq and the war was not a good thing. Ohhh boy. Now what? Chase public opinion again?

[Panono]

18. Good to see the party getting everyone on board

[wyethwire]

29. unity, baby

[JoFerret]

35. Especially as the GOP

are now having public spats about speakers and hiding itsconservatives and its true face from the convention cameras.

[latebloomer]

24. I find this extremely disheartening

By donating money to Kucinich after it was clear that Kerry would be the nominee, I thought I was ensuring that views like mine would be heard.

I see this as a cave-in.

Am I missing something??

[NNN0LHI]

30. Don't be disheartened latebloomer

Dennis must have been comfortable that Kerry will do whatever it takes to ensure that views like yours will be heard. Kerry is a good man. I am sure he will keep his word to Dennis. Not to worry.

Don

[serryjw]

33. NO.....I feel exactly the same way

What about the other petitions......will we get ANYTHING we wanted?

[Radical Activist]

27. Thanks to everyone who voted for Kucinich late in the primaries

This is why he stayed in: to move the party platform to where it should be. Its too bad more people didn't listen because more Kucinich delegates may have made the difference if they were larger in numbers.

And to the people who mocked Kucinich and accused him of not being loyal to the party etc for staying in the race...Cheney off!

[Radical Activist]

28. I hope Kucinich gets a prime time speaking spot

So that the American people will get the message they want and need to hear about Iraq. I don't think we can count on Kerry or even Dean to deliver that hard message anymore. Michael Moore shouldn't be the only one speaking the truth about Iraq.