The South Coast was graced yet again by a Democratic Presidential candidate this past weekend when all five feet of Dennis Kucinich made an appearance (amongst many in the area) at Arlington West on Sunday. Kucinich, the self-glossed peace candidate, spoke to an estimated crowd of 250 people at the shrine by the wharf. Reports said it was a much more personal visit than that of Barack Obama earlier this month, where around 5000 people turned out to cheer on the guy with no real platform. More personal? That's an understatement. You would think that if he knew that B. Hussein Obama 
drew maybe 20 times as many people that it might discourage him from spending another dime on his campaign, but alas he drives on. He even followed up his Santa Barbara visit with an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Congratulations to the former mayor of the Mistake by the Lake errrrrrrr Cleveland. You know you've really made it when you appear on a television program right after Jay talks to former pro wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. In case you were interested, Jay has Jennifer Love Hewitt on his program tonight, so set those tivos.I have several problems with Dennis Kucinich. First and foremost, it's his slogan, "Strength through Peace." This is the only Democrat in the race who voted against the resolution granting the President the power to wage the war on terror. This passage appears on his website:
The Cold War belief that peace comes through strength is as obsolete as the Edsel. In an interconnected world of trading partners afloat with nuclear weapons, war is unthinkable. The Europeans have turned away from the catastrophic wars of the last century which took over 100 million lives to embrace a new understanding of diplomacy and dialogue as well as a new understanding of patriotism. So must the United States. The world depends on it.
Forget for a moment that in the last 1000 years no peace has emerged from any major conflict where one of the warring factions has pledged weakness errrrrr peace. It was in fact our very own weaknesses, in intelligence, operational safety, and lack of resolve, that led to the events of 9/11. It is weakness that our present enemies seize on. And for Kucinich to point to the Europeans as a model for foreign policy is an egregious moral error. Was it not the French and the Russians that were involved in the UN Oil for Food scandal? Didn't the Spaniards cow to the terrorists by electing a socialist administration very shortly after their trains were bombed by the terrorists? Aren't European countries being overrun with Muslim immigrants whose birthrates quadruple those of native Euros in some nations? Kucinich has pledged to engage with all nations, whether they disagree with US policy or not. So he's willing to lend an ear to the Iranian Hitler Mahmoud Ahmedenijad. I'm sure that the Kucinich policy of laying down would have furthered the progress with North Korea in trying to get them to abandon their nuclear programs. And Dennis Kucinich screaming "Peace! Peace! Peace!" is going to get the Sudanese to stop killing each other. Right.
Strength through Peace only works if you're living in H.G. Wells' far flung future from The Time Machine, where the people ignored history. And even that was a relative peace, for weren't those monsters living just a few hundred feet below them, underground, ready to strike at any time? We are fighting a war right now that Dennis Kucinich would not fight if he were president. His campaign slogan is an affront to our men and women serving overseas right now. I believe he gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war with his foreign policy platform. The fact that he voted against the Patriot Act shows how ignorant he is of the threat we face today. Doesn't he know how many terrorist plots have been thwarted by that piece of legislation? This is the wrong guy at the wrong time, and he's got to know this. Only 200 people showed up to hear him speak in public on a Sunday. You don't have to be a soothsayer to see that his future does not contain the American Presidency.To go along with his defeatist platform he's got all the bells and whistles of a liberal campaign: Universal Health Care for All, the End of World Poverty, Global Warming Legislation, Manned Flights to the Sun, you name it and it's on there. The one piece of credit that I will give the little guy: he's no Barack Obama. He's not all hot air. If you go to his website, it's pretty chock full of his platforms and how he would accomplish what he proposes. And for a little guy, he's got a pretty big set of balls to have voted how he has over the past six years. Unfortunately for him, the other horses in the race are bigger and stronger, like the black cocaine user and the pantsuit wearing lesbian. There's not a Napoleon Complex in the world that could overcome those two, and the sooner the little guy realizes that the quicker he can get back to bashing Bush and meandering down the path of less relevance.
Thanks for coming Dennis!
21 comments:
I am not surprised that you would bash Kucinich's political stance, but the repetitive knock against his slight physical stature?
I thought you little people were suppose to stick together?
Yeah but did you see the pictures of him standing next to his wife? She's got like six inches on him! I could never get the guy who went with a chick who was taller than him. Maybe it's just me, but I always thought it looked really weird.
And hey, I'm 6'2", 220 so I don't know what you're talking about.
5'6", 140 SOAKING wet.. I bet Kucinich's would kick your ass if he read your post.
... or flog you with daisies and rainbows.
Either way, you would be sorry.
So what Junior High School do you attend? Your thinking and verbal bullying tactics denote that you are quite immature.
If you want really want to talk about an affront to those fighting this "war for sport" over in Iraq, this administration has done more to dishonor, maim and kill our soldiers than Kucinich. BushCo sent over troops ill trained, ill prepared, ill paid (compared to the mercenary army of Halliburton Inc. - the now Dubai company) and ill taken care of when they come home. Why is it Bush can phone up Barry Bonds when he breaks a stupid batting record but can't even phone up or attend the funerals of those who paid their lives to his little war of choice?
Oh, and speaking of terrorists, how has the Patriot Act helped in finding those homegrown terrorists who sent anthrax to Democratic policymakers or finding those who are hunting down doctors who aid in women's healthcare?
Size doesn't matter, but since you seem fixated on "small", I think we know what you're "driving."
Anon 1239: Our troops are ill-trained and ill-prepared? I know a couple of Army Rangers who would severely disagree with your obviously uninformed opinions. I sincerely doubt that you would spew that kind of ignorance in their physical presence.
And to call the war on terror a "war for sport" is just plain dumb. Like many on the far left, you do not perceive the nature of the threat of islamic fascism. There's a fatwa on your head and you don't even know it.
There was no Patriot Act at the time of the Anthrax attacks. Perhaps if there was, the attackers could have been brought to justice. I'm not sure what the Patriot Act would do to nab the kooks who bomb the abortionists, but tell me this: have any doctors (who use the forceps and fetus vacuums to suck out unborn babies from the wombs of promiscuous ladies) been bombed or attacked lately? Funny how I haven't heard of any of those stories in a couple years now... any chance the Patriot Act has thwarted the actions of those malevolents?
Approach the hole and re-insert your dome into it.
Thanks for coming! MC Confrontation, Spring St. Junior High School, Nashua, NH, graduated 1985.
I thought you little people were suppose to stick together?
I think anonymous was refering to you as a MORAL midget.
Anon 1239: Our troops are ill-trained and ill-prepared? I know a couple of Army Rangers who would severely disagree with your obviously uninformed opinions. I sincerely doubt that you would spew that kind of ignorance in their physical presence.
Neocons always have a token soldier they can haul out to prove their point. Show me one army ranger who supports bush's occupation and I'll show you 1,000 veterans who know this occupation is a lie and want their fellow soldiers to come home safe and sound.
There can be no compromise with war; it cannot be reformed or controlled; cannot be disciplined into decency or codified into common sense; for war is the slaughter of human beings, temporarily regarded as enemies, on as large a scale as possible. - Jeannette Rankin
mcconfrontation, please get over your macho-peckerwood crap!
Hilarious. A Jeannette Rankin quote? Pssshh.... Please!
I'll save interested people the Wikipedia search. While this woman can be commended for being the first woman elected to Congress, she happened to be the only person in the House of Representatives who voted against entering World War 2. Keep in mind, that vote took place AFTER Pearl Harbor. She was also a founder of the ACLU. Nuff said.
Dinah, YOU are the weakest link... GOODBYE.
Apparently you don't read the newspapers. Oh, that's right. They're evil to Reich wingers such as yourself.
"We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks," Speakes said in an interview. He said it will take the Army months, probably until summer, to supply and outfit the additional trucks. As a result, he said, combat units flowing into Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to units now there, leading to increased use and maintenance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901584.html
“President Eisenhower warned of the growing military industrial complex in his farewell address. Since Dick Cheney can now afford solid gold oil derricks, it’s safe to say we failed Ike miserably. After losing two friends and over a dozen comrades, I have this to say: Do not wage war unless it is absolutely, positively the last ditch effort for survival,” wrote Spc. Alex Horton, 22, of the 3rd Stryker Brigade in Army of Dude. “In the future, I want my children to grow up with the belief that what I did here was wrong, in a society that doesn’t deem that idea unpatriotic,” he blogged.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_soldierblogs_070909/
Gaines served a yearlong tour in Iraq between 2004 and 2005 with the U.S. Army Reserve. He spent his time guarding two military bases and issuing ammunition to soldiers but never fired a weapon, he said.
The experience convinced him the war was a mistake and that a steady withdrawal of troops was the right course of action, Gaines said.
“To be quite honest, I felt like we wasted taxpayers’ money,” he said. “The mission just didn’t seem correct and right for that time.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_givebackmedals_070925/
McConfrontation:
You write: "It was in fact our very own weaknesses, in intelligence, operational safety, and lack of resolve, that led to the events of 9/11. It is weakness that our present enemies seize on."
Please illustrate, with facts, how the war in Iraq specifically has improved the United State's intelligence services, operational safety procedures, and lack of resolve that led to 9/11.
Again, don't just tell me it has. Please provide some evidence.
In testimony before the House Armed Forces Committee yesterday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said that that the Army is “out of balance” due to the war in Iraq and that it cannot respond adequately to another conflict. Casey said that the “current demand” on the military was not “sustainable“:
"The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."
Asked by if the military is prepared to meet an unexpected challenge, Casey responded “I am not comfortable. We could not respond as rapidly as we would like to.”
...Casey is not alone in his assessment. Several current and former Bush administration officials have publicly warned for several months that current troop levels cannot be sustained past next summer due to strain:
Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Pace “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half” and “is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.” [8/24/07]
Commanding General Odierno: “We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of ‘08, and then we’ll have to start to reduce…we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.” [8/26/07]
Army Secretary Peter Geren: “[T]he service’s top official, recently said he sees ‘no possibility’ of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.” [8/30/07]
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell: “[T]hey probably can’t keep this up at this level past the middle of next year, I would guess. This is a tremendous burden on our troops.” [7/18/07]
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/27/casey-army-thin/
McConfrontation:
As I eagerly await your response to my previous question, I'll point you in the direction of a story put out today that might help you forge an answer:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/border.security/index.html
Another further question for you: How does spending hundreds of billions on elective wars overseas more effective in protecting our borders than is actual border security?
Worker Bee: I never said the war in Iraq has improved our security measures. I do believe however that we are safer now than we were before, due to the forming of the Homeland Security Department and the implementation of the Patriot Act. Fact number one: we have not suffered any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Fact number two: US intelligence agencies have thwarted more plots than the public even knows about, and there are so many that the public have been made aware of that there are too many to list here. Fact number three: even though I didn't say it before I WILL say it now. Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan gives us the opportunity to kill or capture top echelon members of that organization. The guys that live get sent to Guantanamo and debriefed. That intelligence leads us to other members and plots. Forget about the fact that we're fighting them over there and they havent gotten back to us over here since 9/11, when we fight and kill them or capture them, they cannot fight us anymore because we have detained or killed them. Simple math says that the less terrorists you have to fight against, the safer you are. Can you disagree with that statement? Because if you do, then you are saying that more terrorists in the world makes us safer in the US.
As for your second question: I never said that fighting a war overseas is more effective than shoring up our borders. I believe we need to secure the borders, because right now they are not secure. I also believe that should be more important than fighting a war against terrorists in Iraq. Here's where I DO have a problem with the President. I'm with Mike Savage on that issue. Borders, Language, Culture, baby.
So I hope I've cleared up my positions. I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth, but my advice is to not extrapolate anything from what I've written, and take it for what it is. I'm not a cryptic person, and I don't think my writing is overly complex, but the local lefty bloggers, and some commenters, seem to love to twist what I say.
Thank you for the response. I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm just asking questions. Your answers are helping me understand your position. Indulge me with a few more:
Do you believe an American life is more valuable, so to speak, than that of a foreigner?
Do you condone torture?
Finally, on a more political note, you write:
"So he's willing to lend an ear to the Iranian Hitler Mahmoud Ahmedenijad. I'm sure that the Kucinich policy of laying down would have furthered the progress with North Korea in trying to get them to abandon their nuclear programs."
Clarifying this rambling bit of nonsense would require, on your part, answering a wealth of questions. But I'll tee up just a few: You've written on other blogs that the left is unwilling to give George Bush credit for anything. You credit Bush with causing N. Korea to stand down. Did any other nations contribute to the negotiations that have led to N. Korea falling in line? Was it necessary to wage a war against N. Korea to achieve its current stance of co-operation? Finally, please outline the historic parallels between Hitler's assent to power, his European invasions, and the Nazi death camps with the political career of Ahmadinejad? (you misspelled his name in your post)
And I'm not trying to be cute here - I think comparing people to Hitler is a very serious charge that is cheapened by its overuse. Perhaps you've a more thorough understanding of Ahmadinejad than I, and I'd be grateful for whatever insight I'm apparently missing.
Keep up the good fight against the liberals so we don't have to fight them at home in our pond! ...wish we had time to join in and help, but after our last trek through blogland we decided to keep our concerns local for now, and you do a great job single handedly. We enjoy your toungue in cheek approach.
More power McC! Don't get demoralized. Oh and remember, verbal bullying is not a crime, yet. No more than degrading insults and spellchecks from the left.
We do have to ask Worker bee a question before you answer hers.
Worker Bee, you ask if he condones torture. First you have to define torture. Is it the slow sawing of a person's neck with a dull knife until that person's head is separated from their body while chanting to Allah, or is it being forced to wear underwear on your head and listen to loud music while being dunked in the water? I think you confuse torture with humiliation.
Ok the Bee is bugging the Turtles.
First we want to know why McC's legitimate answer to a question is called "rambling bit of nonsense" because you don't agree with it, and then you go on to ramble about things we might not agree with. One of the degrading insults I speak of previously.
Now this one we couldn't resist:
"Do you believe an American life is more valuable, so to speak, than that of a foreigner?"
McC can give his answer but ours is:
Absolutely.
If that foreigner is an animal that would actually torture, (as opposed to humiliate but not physically harm),
If that foreigner is a coward that would use and hide in ambulances and hospitals and schools containing innocent defenseless people,
If that foreigner uses women and children and religious places as shields,
If that foreigner would send innocents to die under coercion. If that foreigner would strap a bomb onto their own children in the name of jihad,
If that foreigner was a kidnapper and rapist and torturer. If that foreigner would hijack a plane and fly it into a building,
If that foreigner wishes the world to convert to Islam or die,
If any of the above, a foreigner is an animal that only with thanks to our Armed Forces are not now among the American people, then that foreigner is no more than a rabid animal that has no value whatsoever and absolutely ANY American has more value.
We did a spell check so you wont be able to use typos in an obvious attempt to discredit.
Would that include Timothy McVeigh?
Turtle,
Unlike you, I wouldn't presume my own morality is authoritative enough to define torture and I'm happy to let our language take care of that task:
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Take note of the body or mind part, Turtle. If you consider being water boarded - otherwise known as convincing someone they are being drowned -merely "humiliating" you are a sad person and I pity you.
You might think "Well, our enemies think nothing of torture, why should we have the courtesy to treat them humanely."
Because if we don't, Turtle, we are like them.
Anyways, I'm really enjoying your pro-torture arguments. Way to go. Also, congrats on the spell checking. You've stolen my thunder.
I am pro-torture; maybe I can amuse you too.
Extracting information from detainees at Guantanamo has been the number one way that our country has been able to thwart multiple terrorist plots all around the world. If you don't believe that you've got your head up your ass. What is it with the left that America ALWAYS comes last? Do you imagine a CIA guy dressed up like Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs, torturing detainess because "it's interesting to me to torture?" They're doing it for a reason. It's called national security. Get a grip on reality Bee. It is a necessary evil in this war on terrorism, which I feel compelled to remind you was foisted on us, not the other way around, on 9/11. There is nothing indiscriminate about the campaign in Iraq or the treatment of detainees in Cuba. It all has a purpose.
"Extracting information from detainees at Guantanamo has been the number one way that our country has been able to thwart multiple terrorist plots all around the world."
Really? Prove it. I dare you, tough guy.
Post a Comment