The war in Iraq is about oil. 

As you have all noticed, our use of oil damages the environment.

Enough said.

Tom
=========================================
Subj:   An Open Letter to Howard Dean   
Date:   5/4/2005 6:07:09 PM Central Daylight Time   
From:    [log in to unmask] (Dennis Kucinich)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>
To:    [log in to unmask] (Thomas Mathews)
    
    


<IMG  SRC="http://www.kucinich.us/images_for_emails/banner7.gif" WIDTH="378" HEIGHT="70" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="2420">
An Open Letter to Howard Dean
Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul 
Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there [in Iraq], we're 
there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful 
with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed 
to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently 
campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed? 
Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and 
beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest 
in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting 
"no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the 
economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004. 
Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election 
cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the 
President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic 
leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution 
to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" 
strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, 
a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a 
recession. 
The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on 
the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of 
withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches 
and deleting it from the national convention. 
Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the 
rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all 
time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others. 
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified 
threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the 
continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want 
to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim 
world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the 
world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at 
Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted 
our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the 
September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and 
occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, 
more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of 
Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war. 
There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we 
will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research 
Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military 
bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The 
Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for. 
We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He 
cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. 
Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. 
The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be 
pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. 
That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of 
the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by 
many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and 
expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the 
Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them 
or its core beliefs again. 
Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted 
from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself 
in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a 
long time to come. 
Dennis J. Kucinich 
<A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich">Link to this letter as published in The Nation</A>
Insight and Action on Iraq: <A HREF="http://www.kucinich.us/insight/iraq/">http://www.kucinich.us/insight/iraq</A>
- - -
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]