This guy ain’t no Democrat…

…I promised myself that I wouldn’t inject politics into this day of remembrance, but U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has done something that totally irks me.

First, Rep. Kucinich was the lone member of Congress to vote against House Resolution 643; a resolution recognizing September 11 as a day of rememberance, extending sympathies to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families, honoring the heroic actions of our nation’s first responders and Armed Forces, and reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges. [House Roll Call #866]

And then, I received this piece of information in my e-mail inbox:

Dennis Kucinich has really done it this time. He went on Syrian television and blasted Bush and the “illegal occupation” in Iraq. Well .. I guess every organization has to have it’s little nutcase. This footstool is beyond redemption.

Here’s a link to the video.

Can you believe that this guy wants reparations for the Iraqi people? Yeah, he said it, and all I have to say is that this short, little elf-looking creature had better not be invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention next year.


  1. Painterman says:

    What does it take for someone to be charged with Treason nowdays??? It’s one thing to speak like this on American soil, but to do it on foreign soil and TV!!!! Makes my blood boil!

  2. StevePerkins says:

    Can you believe that this guy wants reparations for the Iraqi people?

    I disagree with the idea… but concede that it makes 10,000% more sense than “slave reparations”.

  3. Federalist says:

    There should be reparations, at least, for the ten of thousands of families that had innocent child and innocent family members murdered by American bombs and missiles.
    Bill Simon, I like how you make stuff up. What makes you think Pelosi or Reid would want to do that? Taking a few pages from the GOP intelligence manual I see.

  4. Federalist says:

    “It is important that Congress wake up to the truth and exercise its obligation under the Constitution to save our nation from being destroyed from the lies that took us into Iraq, the lies that keep us there, the lies that are being used to set the stage for war against Iran and the lies that have undermined our basic civil liberties here at home,” Kucinich said in a statement.

    “The September 11 resolution that Congress considers today should have made reference to those matters. It does not, so I cannot support it,” Kucinich said, also calling for a halt for further war funding and the troops to be brought home.

  5. Bill Simon says:


    Pelosi and Reid actually want MORE of those people to die…every time they indicate they want our troops home, that means they want to leave all of those innocent people who are still alive to be slaughtered between the warring factions and Al Quaida.

    Use your head, Fed.

  6. GodHatesTrash says:

    Regarding reparations, remember Colin Powell said “you break it, you own it”. Not Dennis Kucinich.

    By the way, we’re paying the reparations anyway – to Halliburton and other Cheney friends. Might just as well give the $$ to the Iraqis as to give it to criminals.

  7. StevePerkins says:

    I’m not a big believer in reparations on a mass scale. If you break my leg, and I file a tort claim against you, I can get an amount of money that will (in theory) make up for my leg having been broken. However, how do you compensate a SOCIETY for harms against the entire society? (or even more difficult, for harms against portions within a society) You can’t really make things of that nature “right”, and you only stir up more animosity in trying (we harm groups of people every day, and will be hypocrites if we don’t pay reparations to all of them). About the best we could do for the Iraqi people at this point is leave them alone (after facilitating a political division of the country so the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds can live separately… the whole mess started in the first place because the West forced those groups together against their will when we drew their border for them after WWI).

    I don’t believe in criticizing your goverment while on foreign soil, especially in a context that invites use for propaganda. However, I will stand up for Kucinich voting against the cheerleader resolution that Andre cites. I get tired of how much time Congress wastes on showboat “non-binding resolutions” that mean absolutely nothing whatsoever, and are just symbolism for cheap political points. Any act of Congress that is unanimous, or opposed by only one guy, is probably too lightweight to have been bothered with in the first place. If I were in Congress, I would vote against (or at least abstain from) any kind of feel-good or cheerleading declaration like that.

    Bill… the “warring factions” are going to keep warring until the country is subdivided because they don’t want to live together… and “Al Quaida” is only there because WE are. Sheesh, it’s spelled “Al Qaeda” by the way… haven’t we been blogging about them for 7 years straight now?

  8. Federalist says:

    So…should the Iraqis filed a class-action wrongful death suit against the United States? I would love to represent them and get a piece of that settlement! Bill Simon. They are going to kill each other anyway. Leaving our troops there is just allowing them to get caught in the cross fire. Iraq is a third world country. There is a reason they have failed to develop. Religion.

  9. Bill Simon says:


    If they are going to “kill each other anyway,” WHY have reparations then? They would have ended-up killing each other OR Saddam would have killed them eventually. So, why ANY reparations for people that would have died as “innocent people” anyway?

    Again, I say, use your head, Fed.

  10. Federalist says:

    Because the American military killed them. When a doctor is sued for killing a patient, for example, does he defend himself by saying…”well, he was going to die anyway. maybe not tody, maybe not tomorrow, but someday.” Use your head Bill Simon, how can a person make money by exploiting the deaths of thousands of innocent people with your attitude?

  11. Mark Rountree says:

    Steve Perkins writes, “However, I will stand up for Kucinich voting against the cheerleader resolution that Andre cites.”

    Kucinich is a nut who hates America. You know better. Your statement is worse. You need to re-think this embarassing post.

  12. Federalist says:

    Kucinich does not hate America…he hates the conservative right that gave Bush unlimited reign over foreign policy in the middle east.

  13. jm says:

    I’m not going to defend Kucinich, and I don’t support Ron Paul either, but I did appreciate his comments the other day during the GOP debate regarding the “bloodbath” that will occur when we leave. The same people telling us there will be a bloodbath thought the Iraqi government would stand up as we stood down, thought it would last six weeks, would not cost over a few hundred million dollars, thought we would be greeted as liberators, thought that the insurgency was in its last throes, thought that Iraq would embrace democracy, thought Hussein was in cahoots with Bin Laden, thought they could manage the aftermath of a war without enough troops, thought Hussein planned 9/11, thought we’d be out by Christmas, thought they’d catch OBL pretty darn quick, wait…theres one I’m missing….oh yeah…thought Hussein was stupid enough to keep making WMD’s…
    Now, some of what they said was misinformation, some outright lies, and some just bad luck. But its out there…they haven’t been good fortune tellers and they haven’t been forthcoming, so why would I believe them now?

  14. StevePerkins says:

    Kucinich is a nut who hates America. You know better. Your statement is worse. You need to re-think this embarassing post.

    I honestly don’t get where you’re coming from. I don’t have a problem with the content of that PARTICULAR cheerleading resolution… or ones dealing with support of children, old people, puppies, Christmas, etc. I just said that I oppose ALL such resolutions… on the grounds that they’re meaningless symbolism, and our legislators use them to look more busy than they are. I’d rather they utilize their limited time in-session to work on and pass actual bills.

    I don’t see how that notion is “worse than” Kucinich’s crap, nor am I embarrassed or plan to flip-flop on it. I suspect that you simply didn’t read my comment all that carefully, Mark.

  15. Jmac says:

    The idiotic thing about Kucinich’s rationalizing of his vote is that feels it’s appropriate that a resolution honoring 9/11 should feature some denunciation of the War in Iraq. That itself, aside from silliness of him voting against the resolution, is stupid enough.

    I since mean Iraq and 9/11 weren’t connected in reality anyway, why would he foolishly want to make this connection over a ceremonial recognition?

    I’ve got no problem saying he’s an embarrassment to the party. That, and a grandstander.

  16. Mark Rountree says:

    Steve, part of the role of the US Congress is to make statements. while this role can be absurd at times, it is a role our Congress plays and will always play in our government.

    Given that Congress will always play this role, it seems to me that this is certainly a resolution to support in a time of war.

  17. Skeptical says:

    Oh Andre, I find it mildly amusing that you are pronouncing someone else isn’t a Democrat. I bet Dennis Kucinich votes a straight Democratic ticket like the party by-laws say you should, unlike yourself who brags about voting for Republicans.

    Do yourself a favor and shut up. No Democrat in this state cares what your opinions are.

  18. StevePerkins says:

    Steve, part of the role of the US Congress is to make statements. while this role can be absurd at times, it is a role our Congress plays and will always play in our government.

    I must have skipped Constitutional Law the night when the class covered this part of Article I

  19. Andre Walker says:


    My response to your comments is that I have voted in nothing but the Democratic primary since I became eligible to vote in 2001; but if you want to start quoting bylaws, then I’m more than willing to go there…

    No Party member shall publicly support another candidate other than the Democratic nominee in a General Election;

    No Party member shall publicly support is the key phrase there. It doesn’t say that no Party member shall vote for another candidate other than the Democratic nominee. It says, in black and white, that no Party member shall support.

    Now, I suggest to you that if you search through the archives of my site, you’ll only find one case of me saying that I voted for a Republican, and that Republican was Kathy Cox. And even then, I didn’t reveal that information until AFTER the 2006 General Election. Publicly, I supported the entire Democratic ticket.

    So, the next time you want to come at me with some bylaws, do a better job than complaining about me saying that I voted for one Republican AFTER the 2006 General Election was over with.

    One more thing, congratulations on being named as the spokesperson for every Democrat in the state of Georgia.

  20. jm says:

    Why would you vote for Kathy Cox? Oh yeah, she was running against Denise Majette…who ran for some reason for senate after one term in the house, allowing McKinney to win back her seat. OK, you are forgiven. But next time, when faced with that situation, do what a lot of real democrats did: abstain.

Comments are closed.