Presidential Candidate calls for End to War

[Dreadsox]

Democrat Calls for End to War in Speech







In the Field: Reports From The Post's Embedded Correspondents

From Baghdad: The Post's Anthony Shadid Reports

The Homefront : Military Life and the Anti-War Movement in Washington


This Just In:

? Latest Audio and Video
? The Day in Photos
? Maps: The Latest | All Maps

Top Stories:
? Intense Ground Battle in Karbala
? U.S. Planes Bomb a Presidential Compound Again
? U.S. Rescues American POW

? Multimedia Highlights






___ E-mail Newsletter ___

Fresh Washington Post news and analysis every weekday afternoon.
Sample | Subscribe






E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Subscribe to The Post





The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 1, 2003; 5:51 PM


Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich took his anti-war campaign to the House floor Tuesday, calling for an end to the fighting in Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to return.

Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, repeated the phrase, "Stop this war now," 10 times in his brief speech. He said the U.S.-led military campaign was built on "falsehood."

"This war has been advanced on lie upon lie," he said. "Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaida may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country."

"Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral," Kucinich said.

 

[Screaming Flower]

that guy is kind of a loon. i've been reading all kinds of annoying things he's been saying lately. and he was #1 on my list of candidates from that random quiz that was posted a couple of weeks back. so weird.

 

[baener]

Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq are not any less in support of the troops than those who support it.

In fact, from my observation, I believe that those who have loved ones in the service are more inclined to oppose the war -- not less -- because they don't want their loved ones endangered unless it is for unquestionable reasons. And clearly the justifications for this war are very controversial

 

[nbcrusader]

Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq are not any less in support of the troops than those who support it.

I hear this all the time, but what does it mean? What does it mean when someone who is anti-war states "I support the troops"? How? What kind of support? It all sounds like selective semantics to me.....

 

[BVS]

I hear this all the time, but what does it mean? What does it mean when someone who is anti-war states "I support the troops"? How? What kind of support? It all sounds like selective semantics to me.....

Are you being serious? How hard is it to understand? Just because one does not want to go into this war does not mean they turn their back upon the troops. The military is not the reason we're over there. We are upset with the politicians that put us over there we don't blame the troops. They are doing their job. A very brave and admirable job at that. We pray for their safety and quick return to home. In fact some of the reasoning for anti-war is that our sons, daughters, mothers, brothers, fathers, friends, etc. didn't need to put their life in risk for a war we felt we didn't need.(and this isn't a thread as to why we should or shouldn't be at war) So yes we've been thinking about their well being from day one. It baffles me that intelligent people such as yourself can't see that. What kind of support do you lend?

 

[The Wanderer]

why call for an end to the war now, it's almost over

 

[Klaus]

The Wanderer:

i wish you were right, but except of the Bush administration (you know - the war experts who thought they would be welcomed with flowers..) not many change this opinion.

Let's hope that Saddams tactic isn't close as effective as Paul Van Riper's tactic when the US army simulated this war.

Klaus

 

[Lemonboy]

nonetheless the war will benefit the democratic candidate!

 

[Basstrap]

He does raise an important issue, however looney he may be.

The biggest war crime is a war of aggression therefore it is imperative that this seem like an act of defense...and the grounds for arguing that are utterly weak and built of "if's" and "maybe's"and theories.

Also, why wouldnt the US join the new international court?

 

[nbcrusader]

Just because one does not want to go into this war does not mean they turn their back upon the troops. The military is not the reason we're over there. We are upset with the politicians that put us over there we don't blame the troops. They are doing their job. A very brave and admirable job at that. We pray for their safety and quick return to home. In fact some of the reasoning for anti-war is that our sons, daughters, mothers, brothers, fathers, friends, etc. didn't need to put their life in risk for a war we felt we didn't need.(and this isn't a thread as to why we should or shouldn't be at war) So yes we've been thinking about their well being from day one.

Thank you for your response. I do not doubt, in any way, your support and concern for our troops ? the things that exist in your heart.

I guess my question is how does an anti-war protestor bifurcate the anti-war message and the support the troops message as they march through the streets? How does one effectively communicate the two messages so that (i) the administration understands one?s stance against the war, and (ii) the military (soldiers and their families) understand one?s support for them?

This is not a challenge as to what is in one?s heart, but a question of how you get two audiences to receive and understand the messages.

 

[BVS]

I guess my question is how does an anti-war protestor bifurcate the anti-war message and the support the troops message as they march through the streets? How does one effectively communicate the two messages so that (i) the administration understands one?s stance against the war, and (ii) the military (soldiers and their families) understand one?s support for them?

We can't. The "pro-war" side has been trained to think that if you're not for us you're against us. It's sad but true.

Honestly this is the problem. The pro war side feels that just because they agree with the decision the administration made that it's assumed they support the troops. But what are you really doing? Are you writing letters, are you donating to organizations that send supplies to them or their families? It's two seperate actions. 1. you agree with the administration or you don't. 2. you lend support to the troops. There is not one all accompanying action. How is agreeing with the war really supporting the troops? Is that all it takes?