View Full Version : Kucinich HOLLA!
05-31-2007, 11:35 AM
Revealed by Dennis Kucinich: Why Your Sons and Daughters Died in Iraq
by Populist Party
Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:10:27 PM PDT
...Do you still think we went into Iraq for Humanitarian reasons or to protect the United States from an awful dictator? Well, if you read about the lastest "oil sharing" deal, you just might think differently...
* Populist Party's diary :: ::
Could it be that our soldiers died to enrich five or six International Oil Companies (Four of them American)? Or that possibly a million Iraqis suffered the same fate for the same reason? You might recall that President Bush claimed that one of the Benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet is a deal to share the Oil revenues. What he didn't say is with whom they, the Iraqis, will have to share. Seems like it's not the Iraqis.
This is according to a speech by Dennis Kucinich last week, well not all of it was a speech; some of it was a reading of the Oil deal that Bush is saying Iraqi must sign. And was the reported deal ever an eye opener!
Seems that those International Oil Companies (can you say EXXON, MOBILE, and BP for starters), stand to pluck the Iraqi people for about $21 Trillion. Folks that's twenty one thousand BILLION. In perspective about double the United States current cash debt and a little over 40% of the accrued National Debt of $50 Trillion. Figured another way, about $70,000 for every American currently alive. And it will all go to about six Oil companies. Well not all, there's the Congress to be bought off, actually it seems they already have, but they still need to get a little more of the harvest.
These are the guys that brought you $3.25 gas and rising. Once they corner the Oil market what might gas cost? How many of your family members are you willing to send to their death so that these Oil companies might get just a little bit richer? For every Human being who has died, American Soldier and Iraqi Citizen, these companies stand to rake in about $21,000,000. And just think, their cohorts got to furnish the War materials and they made off with upwards of a Trillion dollars already. Damn, what a profitable business this war mongering is! For the few that is. For us common folk it's deadly.
How did I come to these figures? Well according to the Oil deal that Bush says must be signed, Kucinich reports that the deal requires that the Oil Companies get control of over 80% of the Iraqi Oil fields. The CEO's of those Companies have complete control of every aspect of the oil for 35 years into the future. Iraq gets to keep 17 oil fields, but even for these fields, operational control is in the hands of the International Oil companies.
Kucinich also points out also that this plan was formulated well before the invasion. And some of you still cling to "We went in to get rid of the WMD?" Ready to admit that you've been had? I'm talking to the Bush supporters here. Yeah I know there's the regime change story, but how many of you out there know that Saddam Hussein agreed to leave Iraq and go into exile - before the invasion? And for that matter, as I write this story, there is precious little on the Media about Kucinich and what he reported.
I'm sure you've heard rumors about the absurd rape of the Iraqi resources leading up to today, and so have I. What I heard was that the plan was for American Oil companies to get 74 cents of every dollar generated by Iraqi Oil revenues for the next 35 years. Pretty close to what Kucinich reported.
Do you still think we went into Iraq for Humanitarian reasons or to protect the United States from an awful dictator? We have a dictator looming over the horizon and folks he sure ain't A-rab.
Did we really need to lose all those civil liberties to get all that Oil? Or, did we get the oil? Maybe those Oil companies will lower the price of gas as soon as they get that 21 Trillion. Then again, they might not. They still have to sack Iran to corner the market. Course they're gearing up for that now. The most powerful country on Earth, America, the country with a Military budget greater than the rest of the World combined is afraid of Iran? Absurd! Of course they're not, our shadow government is just afraid that Iran can't handle all that oil. How many of your sons and daughters do you plan to send to die so those few oil companies sack Iran? How many Iranians are you willing to sacrifice?
Have you heard about the oil deal? Do you think we sacked Iraq for any reason other than the oil? Do you consider yourself to be well informed? What do you think you have gained by our invasion of Iraq? What have the American people lost?
The time for change is now. And it won't come from either the Republicans or the Democrats. It will have to come from the people. Those in Power won't surrender their roles without a fight. You ought to get informed and involved. Now.
bug on your lip
05-31-2007, 11:41 AM
05-31-2007, 11:43 AM
you have been waitin for weeks to bust out that cat.
bug on your lip
05-31-2007, 11:44 AM
Thank you for the forum
full on idle
05-31-2007, 11:55 AM
05-31-2007, 12:20 PM
05-31-2007, 01:14 PM
05-31-2007, 01:16 PM
ROFL I almost sprayed water out of my nose.
05-31-2007, 01:21 PM
05-31-2007, 01:29 PM
for reals.....but lets keep Mike Gravel out the Kucinich homage.
06-04-2007, 09:25 AM
Kucinich did decently in the debate on CNN yesterday.
06-04-2007, 09:39 AM
It was on CNN? I guess that would be why I didn't hear about it. Damn network TV.
06-04-2007, 09:43 AM
06-04-2007, 11:08 AM
you go boy.
06-04-2007, 12:16 PM
Yeah I know there's the regime change story, but how many of you out there know that Saddam Hussein agreed to leave Iraq and go into exile - before the invasion?
I would like to see this 'fact' substantiated. I'm not calling it bullshit - yet. I would like to see some credible backup.
06-04-2007, 12:20 PM
To complete agreeance I will look further.
06-04-2007, 12:25 PM
So two guys claim they had a deal for Saddam to leave Iraq and get immunity. A deal that was never presented to anyone else. So what?
06-04-2007, 12:27 PM
thank you. that's useful. also, it sheds light on the propaganda skill of the author of the original article.
Kucinich also points out also that this plan was formulated well before the invasion. And some of you still cling to "We went in to get rid of the WMD?" Ready to admit that you've been had? I'm talking to the Bush supporters here. Yeah I know there's the regime change story, but how many of you out there know that Saddam Hussein agreed to leave Iraq and go into exile - before the invasion?
that makes it sound like the Bush administration nixed the Saddam deal, while both those articles make it clear that it was the Arab League that said 'no dice'.
06-04-2007, 01:20 PM
And rampant board socialists.
06-04-2007, 01:22 PM
who's camp are you in?
06-04-2007, 01:40 PM
I like to camp in the Anza Borrego desert this time of year.
Ron Paul is the presidential candidate I am the most aligned with though.
06-04-2007, 01:47 PM
06-04-2007, 01:54 PM
I know that you and you're candidates are more intelligent and capable than nature, hopefully someday all us fiscal conservatives will be able to see the light and recognize that.
06-04-2007, 02:05 PM
I know that you and you're candidates are more intelligent and capable than nature, hopefully someday all us fiscal conservatives will be able to see the light and recognize that.
Only the bourgeoisie and aristocrats can afford to be fiscally conservative.
06-04-2007, 02:10 PM
wow, does anyone really say 'bourgeoisie' anymore?
06-04-2007, 02:19 PM
Yeah French is coming back.
06-04-2007, 02:23 PM
fuck the proles.
pardon my french.
06-04-2007, 02:25 PM
full on idle
06-04-2007, 02:27 PM
I don't want to waste my energy arguing with ben.
06-04-2007, 02:30 PM
06-04-2007, 03:19 PM
06-05-2007, 05:46 PM
07-13-2007, 08:22 AM
You go boy.....
07-13-2007, 08:37 AM
you go boy.
we need to get that dude a ladder :) ... cr****
07-13-2007, 08:41 AM
He is right where he wants to be.
07-13-2007, 11:32 AM
Kucinich angrily reacts to Clinton-Edwards exchange on limiting debate participants
By Beth Fouhy
8:13 a.m. July 13, 2007
NEW YORK – Democrat Dennis Kucinich responded angrily Friday to a conversation overheard between Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, in which the two spoke of limiting the number of candidates invited to participate in presidential forums.
“Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not,” Kucinich said in a statement released by his campaign.
The Edwards-Clinton exchange was picked up by several broadcasters on an open microphone after an NAACP forum in Detroit on Thursday. All eight Democratic candidates took part in the program, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Kucinich.
As the candidates exchanged greetings when the forum ended, Edwards was heard suggesting to Clinton that they try to exclude some of their rivals from future gatherings.
“We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group,” he said.
Clinton agreed, saying the forums were “trivialized” with too many candidates crowding the stage.
Neither she nor Edwards mentioned names of which candidates they thought should be excluded. But Kucinich, who typically polls in the low single digits, clearly felt the slight was directed at him.
“Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our democracy as an imperial president,” Kucinich said, adding that his campaign would take steps to stop any effort to limit participation in the forums.
07-16-2007, 01:30 PM
Reid Announces Senate Filibuster
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Floor Remarks on Levin/Reed Amendment to Defense Authorization
As Prepared for Delivery
Monday, July 16, 2007
After 52 months, America finds itself mired in one of the most tragic foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history, with no end in sight.
In my view, it will take years — and, I fear — perhaps decades, to finally close the book on the damage this war has caused our troops, our economy and our moral standing in the world.
On May 24th, President Bush said — quote —
“We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say leave, we would leave.”
This weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki — for whom President Bush has expressed consistent support and confidence — said that Iraqi forces could take control of their security at “any time” American troops want to leave.
A recent poll of the Iraqi people showed that 21% think the American presence makes their country safer, while 69% say it puts them at greater risk.
The Iraqi people and their leader say they are ready for us to end our combat operation. It’s time we listen to them.
In the war’s four-plus years, our troops have accomplished everything they have been asked to do.
They took down the Iraqi dictator. They secured the country for not one, not two, but three elections. And they have provided the security needed for Iraqi factions to come together to negotiate peaceful settlement of their differences.
But Iraqi leaders have not done their part.
After 52 months — more than 3,600 Americans killed and another 20,000 wounded — and after nearly $500 billion of American taxpayer dollars spent —
– After all this sacrifice — it’s long past time for the Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people to put their words into action by taking responsibility for their own future.
After 52 months — more than 3,600 Americans killed and another 20,000 wounded — and after nearly $500 billion of American taxpayer dollars spent –
– President Bush continues to tell our troops and all Americans that we should wait it out — just stay the course, in hopes that he will eventually change his mind.
Our troops and our security cannot afford the President’s run out the clock strategy.
We have an opportunity and an obligation to change course in Iraq right now.
We can remove our brave troops from the front lines of another country’s civil war — a conflict we have no business policing and little chance to diffuse.
We can conduct the kind of tough and strong diplomacy required to stabilize Iraq and the region, which even the President’s own military experts plea with him to revive.
We can refocus our resources and fight a real war on terrorism that drives the terrorists back to the darkest caves and corners of the earth.
And we can choose that new path right now.
We don’t have to mark time, waiting for the President to wake up one morning with a revelation.
We don’t have to wait two more months for an arbitrary September deadline when it is so clear that a course change is required now.
With our courage and our votes, we can rise above this tragic failure to deliver the new course that our brave troops — and all Americans — demand and deserve.
We can do that today, by voting for the Levin/Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
The Levin/Reed amendment–
– Sets a firm start and end date to transition the mission and begin the reduction of U.S. forces — beginning 120 days after enactment and completed by April 30th, 2008.
– Limits the U.S. military mission after April 30th to counter-terror, training of Iraqi security forces, and protection of U.S. personnel and assets; and
– Requires that the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive diplomatic, regional, political and economic effort and appoints an international mediator to bring together the warring factions.
To those who say this language is binding on the President, I say — yes it is.
It is binding because the President has resisted every effort we have made to work with him to change the direction of his failed Iraq policy. The record will show that binding language was not our first choice.
We passed legislation requiring that 2006 be a year of transition. Instead, the President ignored this language and dug us in even deeper.
We gave the President the chance to develop his own new course as commander in chief.
Instead, he chose to extend deployments and ask even more of our brave men and women in uniform.
Earlier this year, we passed legislation that would have begun the phased redeployment while leaving significant discretion to the President about how and when to execute that redeployment.
Instead, the President vetoed this bill and asserted that only he had the power to set war policy.
So the record here is clear. The President’s decision to stubbornly cling to the current course leaves this body no choice but to enact binding language.
He has failed to lead us out of Iraq. We are ready to show him the way.
M. President, my worst fears on this bill have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment.
It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”
But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.
They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.
They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.
I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.
The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.
Given the Republican leadership’s decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction.
We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up or down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.
All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case.
Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate.
Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.
Whenever Republicans are ready to allow a vote on this most crucial legislation, we stand ready to deliver the new course that has been so long in coming.
08-09-2007, 08:40 AM
Just throwing this out there for my colorado people....
To all New Volunteers:
Come join us on Monday, August 13, at Colorado State Democratic Headquarters at 7pm for our first volunteer orientation and voter registration training.
This is a perfect way for new and prospective volunteers to learn about the party and ways to get involved.
We will have information about upcoming events and opportunities to bring you up to speed on all the goings-on for this summer.
County Party Secretary Dan Willis will be on hand to conduct an official voter registration training to certify any volunteers and district officers who want to help register new voters at events in Denver. This training is required by voter rules in the state of Colorado, and it will definitely help prepare us with some valuable skills as 2008 approaches.
Drinks and socializing to follow at El Noa Noa across the street on 7th and Santa Fe.
Everyone is welcome to attend. Forward this message to your friends!
What: 1st Denver Democrat Volunteer Orientation & Voter Registration Training
Where: Colorado Democratic HQ—777 Santa Fe Dr., Denver
When: Monday, August 13 at 7:00 pm
Contact: Matt Poundstone, Volunteer Coordinator
08-10-2007, 08:11 AM
Democrats gather in Hollywood
Logo debate tackles gay issues
By TED JOHNSON
Talk Back - post a comment
The crowd gathered in Hollywood on Thursday for a first-of-its-kind Democratic presidential forum on gay issues could barely contain its excitement at the milestone. They cheered. They gave standing ovations --- even to the longshots.
But the elephant in the room --- in this case, a hip, comfortable living room set of earth tone carpet and olive green sofa and chairs --- was still gay marriage, and the fact that none of the leading contenders support it.
The occasion was a two-hour forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Viacom’s Logo, which covered the event live and streamed it on its website. Although it was the third debate in a week for the Democratic field, the event was viewed as ground-breaking for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
In one-by-one sessions that had all the trappings of a daytime talk show, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson each tried to mix eloquence and poignance in highlighting their support of civil unions and equal benefits for same-sex couples. But only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel support marriage per se, and they drew some of the loudest cheers of the evening.
That fact was not lost on HRC President Joe Solmonese, who released a statement saying, “While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear.”
Yet for many in the studio audience of gay leaders, community activists and entertainment insiders, there was a sense of excitement over the mere fact that so many in the field of contenders showed up. As one donor noted, it wasn’t too long ago that candidates would return their money.
But there also was hope that the 2008 race won’t be a replay of 2004, when gay issues became a wedge issue that drove many religious conservatives to the polls.
As friendly as the crowd was, moderator Margaret Carlson and panelists Melissa Etheridge, Washington Post editorial page writer Jonathan Capehart and Solmonese pressed each contender. They benefitted from the more conversational atmosphere, which elevated the event to more than mere sound bytes.
In fact, outside of marriage, all of the candidates agree on a host of issues across the board, including the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and equality in health benefits for same sex partners. That left the candidates to all but plead their bonafides.
Obama noted that he didn’t “just talk about these issues where it’s convenient,” citing his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, and speeches where he has emphased gay rights issues before groups of black ministers.
When Carlson asked if civil unions were a “lesser thing” than gay marriage, Obama said, “Well, you know, as I’ve proposed it, it wouldn’t be a lesser thing, from my perspective. And look, semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I’m interested in is making sure that those legal rights are available to people.”
Edwards cited a host of issues that he supports, such as teaching about gay and lesbian families in public schools. And he vowed to try to rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” even if that meant overruling military leaders.
And although he once said that he opposed gay marriage for religious reasons, he admitted on Thursday, “I shouldn’t have said that.”
“I will not impose my faith belief on the American people,” he said. “I don’t believe any president should do that.”
Clinton, meanwhile, pointed out her efforts in defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. “We were very clear about what we needed to do to get the votes in order to prevent this mean-spirited, divisive effort,” she said.
But in one of the more notable moments of the evening, Etheridge noted that when Clinton’s husband was elected, “we were very, very hopeful, and in the years that followed, our hearts were broken. We were thrown under the bus.”
“I don’t see it quite the way that you describe, but I respect your feeling about it,” said Clinton, adding that her husband’s administration made an “honest effort” to try to “keep the momentum going.”
Richardson, meanwhile, made a much more pragmatic pitch, emphasizing his efforts in preventing gay marriage bans from passing in New Mexico and in pushing for gay rights measures in the state.
But he made the evening’s major gaffe when he was asked whether homosexuality was a matter of biology or a choice.
“It’s a choice,” he said. Some audience members gasped when he said it.
The campaign later issues a clarification, in which he said, “I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice.”
Gravel and Kucinich, meanwhile, made a point of highlighting their differences with the other candidates.
In summarizing why he isn’t opposed to gay marriage, Kucinich said, “To me --- who cares? --- it really doesn’t matter.”
08-30-2007, 11:26 AM
10-08-2007, 01:26 PM
Damn I almost missed my homies b-day. <3! happy birthday HOLLA!