Putting the Kook In Kucinich

[Brainster]

Well, the Truther's have their first candidate for President in 2008. Dennis Kucinich, addressing the antiwar protestors (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/kook-kucinich-on-9-11-denial.html) over the weekend, said:

"And finally, our plan is to tell the truth about 9-11 and to tell the truth..."

Unfortunately the video fades out there to get to Eve Ensler and her vagina.

The video is up at SLC. The interesting thing is this is obviously a coded appeal to the Truthers; probably 50% of the people at the speech hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about, and after all, who can object to knowing the truth about 9-11?

[chipmunk stew]

He used a similar phrase in a speech (http://kucinich.us/node/381) on the House floor back in June '06:
....

"We separate ourselves from human unity by not participating in a wide range of international agreements, and yet we are the United States. Our very name speaks to unity.

"How then can we find ourselves again as a Nation? How can we come to reconnect with the deeper meaning of who we are? How can we step away from this experience which, since 9/11, has taken us into a blind alley?

"If there was ever a time when this country needed a period of truth and reconciliation, this is it. We find so many of our fellow countrymen and women still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It did not. But at a time when 9/11 gave us an opportunity to start a whole new national discussion about who we are and how we can reconnect with the world, decisions were made which further separated us. We went down a blind alley, and in that blind alley we remain, unaware of the truth behind 9/11, not with respect to who did it, but with respect to what is our role in the world, what is America's position in the world.

....
He clearly isn't denying the events, just arguing the meaning and response.

I think you're making this into a new "new Pearl Harbor".

[chippy]

Chipmunk, I absolutely love your signature.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings.

fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw

[fuelair]

How have the mighty fallen!!!

[uk_dave]

Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings.

fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw

How do you pronounce 'fwiw'?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How do you pronounce 'fwiw'?
for what it's worth


:p


:D

[WildCat]

for what it's worth:D
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

[Brainster]

He used a similar phrase in a speech (http://kucinich.us/node/381) on the House floor back in June '06:

He clearly isn't denying the events, just arguing the meaning and response.

I think you're making this into a new "new Pearl Harbor".

I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.

[firecoins]

In the speech quoted, the context would lead me to believe he NOT refering to a massive coverup. However, having met his supporters whne this guy ran for president, I find it easy to believe that he believes in a conspiracy.

[DavidJames]

I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.
I think you are making a CTist like leap. Other then using the word "truth" he has expressed nothing which suggests he has anything in common with the CTists.

Unless you have more then what's been posted already.

Note: I'm not a Kucinich fan.

[chipmunk stew]

Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings.

fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw

I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.

In the speech quoted, the context would lead me to believe he not refering to a massive coverup. However, having met his supporters whne this guy ran for president, I have no doubts he believes in a conspiracy.

I think you are making a CTist like leap. Other then using the word "truth" he has expressed nothing which suggests he has anything in common with the CTists.

Unless you have more then what's been posted already.

Note: I'm not a Kucinich fan.
I consider Kucinich a crank, but I've never read or heard anything to suggest that he entertains even LIHOP notions. I suppose it's possible that he'd use that language to win over Deniers--I don't know how stupid the guy is (he's at least savvy enough to have kept his office and, I presume, his likeability)--but it's perhaps more likely that he qualified the phrase similarly to the way he did in the speech I linked to. It's a phrase without context, and, as we who engage in arguing this topic should well know, phrases without context can be extremely misleading.

I think it's an unjustified leap, so long as there's no corroborating evidence from prior writing or speeches that he has Truther leanings.

[PerryLogan]

I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...

It's not a good sign when JREFers start thinking like conspiracists, grasping at phrases in YouTube clips to make a huge case against someone. There's a clip at this place which may clarify Kucinich's position on 9/11:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/1283

The blogger interprets it to mean Kucinich is a Truther. But Truthers are very inclined to misinterpret what people say.

Kucinich is obviously talking about criminal incompetence in connection with 9/11. That's what the parallels to Katrina and the Iraq War are meant to convey.

He's a righteous Democrat, way too smart to be a Truther. Now go back into skeptic mode, people.

[boloboffin]

Currently, I am a Kucinich supporter. I am so because of several reasons which belong in the politics forum. Suffice it to say I want his viewpoint (for the most part) at the table of ideas. However, if he really is more woo than the quote Brainster highlights (hey, Deniers get to vote too!), I'd like to know about it. The inevitable switch to Hillary has to be made at some point.

I've also seen a 2001 bill he introduced about space weaponry which proscribed chemtrails. The ick factor went up quite a bit there, and it wouldn't take too much more to switch candidates. So, Arken, lay it on me!

[pagan]

Well, the Truther's have their first candidate for President in 2008. Dennis Kucinich, addressing the antiwar protestors (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/kook-kucinich-on-9-11-denial.html) over the weekend, said:

"And finally, our plan is to tell the truth about 9-11 and to tell the truth..."

Unfortunately the video fades out there to get to Eve Ensler and her vagina.

The video is up at SLC. The interesting thing is this is obviously a coded appeal to the Truthers; probably 50% of the people at the speech hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about, and after all, who can object to knowing the truth about 9-11?

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Hope so:)

[Firestone]

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?
Forget it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73503) ... :p

[uk_dave]

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Hope so:)

ooooops your post is just crying out for an edit.......

We have a ... politician on our side .... Ron Paul.

There, fixed! :D

[pagan]

ooooops your post is just crying out for an edit.......



There, fixed! :D

For you Dave, I can mention a few others who's carears have suffered a great deal:

Rep. Curt Weldon

Rep Cynthia Mckinney. (Real heroine)

Morgan Reynolds Phd ( an *******)

Paul Craig Roberts Phd

Robert Bowman Phd

And many more take a look at this site:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

[Brainster]

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Hope so:)

Yes, and there's guaranteed to be a pony under all that horsebleep somewhere!

Back to the original point, it's a stretch indeed to think that Kucinich didn't know what he was doing with that comment. Again, it's kind of a wink, so there remains some deniability. Maybe in the clip that was cut, he went on to say something like Ward Churchill, that the truth about 9-11 was that it was the chickens coming home to roost. Maybe he went on to say that the truth about 9-11 was that it was a result of our support for Israel.

[jon]

with apologies for stating the obvious, has anyone contacted his campaign team to ask. Presumably he's got staff who can answer questions about his political position - or are US presidential candidates less accessible?

[David Wong]

Republican commentators used to do this with Bill Clinton and the "49 Clinton Murders" thing. They'd say something like, "...and we need to get to the bottom of this Vince Foster thing, because, with the reputation these people have, you can't just take their word for it."

What they're doing is straddling the woo line. Back then when the right-wing conspiracy nuts would hear that, out in the woods with their Militia gear, they'd say, "YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT THE CLINTON MAFIA HAS KILLED AGAIN FOR THE NWO." When the normal people would hear it, they'd interpret it as simply meaning Clinton was dishonest and everything should be investigated as a result.

Same here, he wants the woo vote. It's a solid 10% of the Democrats (10% of about any group is nuts) and so this phrase simultaneously gets them going, and doesn't sound nutty to the moderates because it's vague enough to mean anything.

[PerryLogan]

This is a reprehensible thread. There's not a shred of debunking going on here. It's really just a sort of lukewarm character assassination, based largely on the JREFers' ability to read minds. We are acting just like conspiracy guys--making a case out of nothing, deciding whom to ridicule.

[boloboffin]

I'd agree, Perry. Unless someone has something more than this single comment at an anti-war rally, which could mean a great many things and was meant to, then let's really get a grip.

[Hierosis]

This is a reprehensible thread. There's not a shred of debunking going on here. It's really just a sort of lukewarm character assassination, based largely on the JREFers' ability to read minds. We are acting just like conspiracy guys--making a case out of nothing, deciding whom to ridicule.

Well said. Rep. Kucinich has said since the day that the 9/11 Commission report was released that he felt it to be a convenient cover up (which it was, regardless of your side of the argument). He has CONSISTENTLY said that he feels a new investigation should take place where the conflicts of interest brought on board by the members aren't as prevelent as they were here. Actually many Hosue Democrats will tell you that if you take the time to talk to them.

Does that mean they're saying that 9/11 was carried out by a mysterious cabal such as the New World Order of the Illuminati rather than Islamic terrorists? Absolutely not.

It's a bit troubling to see that even asking the most basic questions about 9/11 will earn you an automatic thread on "ScrewLooseChange."

[Anti-sophist]

I hate this topic because it's where honest political inquiry and conspiracy theory merge. People like Bob Graham who have legitimate issues with the 9/11 commission and what is and isn't public knowledge get lumped into the most crazy and bizarre conspiracy theorist gibberish. Conspiracy theorists aren't smart enough to differentiate. They honestly believe that 9/11 was an inside job and all these people believe that as well...

It's this kind of stuff that has led me to form a personal rule that I do not discuss LIHOP issue with anyone who believes a word of MIHOP. If you are that broken in the head to believe in the MIHOP nonsense, you don't have a hope or prayer for understanding LIHOP issues.

[David Wong]

Can we at least agree that:

1. There was likely a significant number of 9/11 deniers at that rally?

2. That Mr. Kucinich is likely aware of the 9/11 denial movement? He has to get their letters, if nothing else.

3. That Mr. Kucinich therefore knew he was talking to some 9/11 deniers when he spoke?

4. That what he said could EASILY be interpreted as 9/11 denial if spoken in the context described above? And that he would have been aware of that when choosing the words?

5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line?

6. That, as evidence, we have a truther in this very thread who interpreted the words that very way?


What's "reprehensible" about that? Other than Perry's desire to use the most inflammatory language possible when he slips into extreme partisan mode as he so often does when a member of the sacred Democrat party has been sullied?

After all, if it's "reprehensible" to accuse Kucinich of playing to 9/11 deniers, then it's "reprehensible" for Perry to ever accuse Bush of lying. Either we take politicians' words at face value, or we don't. We can't make exceptions for our own political party, saying we should dig behind Bush's words but refuse to believe anything bad about Kucinich until he comes out and says it. How many of you believe Bush has been honest about his plans for the Middle East?

No, it's smart to look at the context when any of these people are speaking. And in this case, in this climate, knowing who he was talking to and knowing what those people believe, it's very reasonable to say Kucinich was tossing a bone to the Truthers here.

[ConspiRaider]

Can we at least agree that:

1. There was likely a significant number of 9/11 deniers at that rally?

2. That Mr. Kucinich is likely aware of the 9/11 denial movement? He has to get their letters, if nothing else.

3. That Mr. Kucinich therefore knew he was talking to some 9/11 deniers when he spoke?

4. That what he said could EASILY be interpreted as 9/11 denial if spoken in the context described above? And that he would have been aware of that when choosing the words?

5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line?

6. That, as evidence, we have a truther in this very thread who interpreted the words that very way?


What's "reprehensible" about that? Other than Perry's desire to use the most inflammatory language possible when he slips into extreme partisan mode as he so often does when a member of the sacred Democrat party has been sullied?

After all, if it's "reprehensible" to accuse Kucinich of playing to 9/11 deniers, then it's "reprehensible" for Perry to ever accuse Bush of lying. Either we take politicians' words at face value, or we don't. We can't make exceptions for our own political party, saying we should dig behind Bush's words but refuse to believe anything bad about Kucinich until he comes out and says it. How many of you believe Bush has been honest about his plans for the Middle East?

No, it's smart to look at the context when any of these people are speaking. And in this case, in this climate, knowing who he was talking to and knowing what those people believe, it's very reasonable to say Kucinich was tossing a bone to the Truthers here.
Well stated, and agree with the premise that DK was wink-wink-nudge-nudging the 911 Twoofers. Slickly done. Not unique - I've seen this tactic before from Dems in the spotlight. Once Bush is really gone (that's assuming he does not kill everybody in the next roughly 2 years) the Dems will drop this tactic, in my opinion.

[Brainster]

Perry and Bolo, you guys have done great work in debunking. My point in posting this is not to get some silly little advantage over Dennis Kucinich who we can all agree is going to get about the same percentage of the vote in the Democratic primaries as he did in 2004, which is to say not much.

But when Kucinich talks about "telling the truth about 9-11", he's either dumb or playing a game, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that he's not dumb. I will absolutely admit that I'd like to see the full speech, and I feel a little uncomfortable due to the edits in the video elsewhere. But I can't back away from the idea that pols who dip their toes in the swamp of 9-11 Denial deserve to have their feet bitten off--preferably by their own side.

I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself. I am not going to allow my political philosophy to allow me to blind me to the fact that any politician who endorses the 9-11 nuttery, however obliquely (and this was not that oblique) deserves nothing but scorn.:mad:

[Pardalis]

He doesn't seem to endorse 9/11 CTs on his website though.

http://kucinich.us/search/node/9/11

Maybe he didn't mean "the truth about 9/11" the way Truthers do. Maybe he meant "truth" with a small 't'.

[Cylinder]

So...why don't he just tell us the truth instead of telling of his plan to tell the truth? Is he waiting for sweeps week or something?

[DavidJames]

Well stated, and agree with the premise that DK was wink-wink-nudge-nudging the 911 Twoofers. Slickly done.In the absence of genuine CTist, it's good to see someone picking up the torch. Read what you said and then read what CTists say about what Sliversteen, Cheney, Bush etc. said.

In lieu of facts, lets interpret their words.

Sheesh, I hope the CTist come back soon to get people focused again :).

[CurtC]

I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself.Hey, I actually voted for Ron Paul for president.

[Pardalis]

I agree with DavidJames, Kucinich seems to be referring to Iraq having no link to 9/11, and 9/11 being used to go for war, not anything about 9/11 being an inside job. At least, he doesn't mention anything about it in his website.

[ConspiRaider]

In the absence of genuine CTist, it's good to see someone picking up the torch. Read what you said and then read what CTists say about what Sliversteen, Cheney, Bush etc. said.

In lieu of facts, lets interpret their words.

Sheesh, I hope the CTist come back soon to get people focused again :).
Well then call it best-guess speculation, which is still legal. Who can definitively infer exactly what Kucinich meant? No one. The only thing wrong with this thread is that it is NOT in the Politics forum.

Your "picking up the torch" comment is way out of line. This cannot be compared, David, to what the woos infer from Silverstein's "pull it", correct? That's a bit of an unfair comparison you just made.

[EvilSmurf]

I think he was certainly "dog-whistling" the twoofers. However, I do not think he was saying "9-11 was an inside job". If you take it in its full context, it looks to me like he was talking about how 9-11 was used as a justification to go into Iraq.

[LashL]

Perry and Bolo, you guys have done great work in debunking. My point in posting this is not to get some silly little advantage over Dennis Kucinich who we can all agree is going to get about the same percentage of the vote in the Democratic primaries as he did in 2004, which is to say not much.

But when Kucinich talks about "telling the truth about 9-11", he's either dumb or playing a game, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that he's not dumb. I will absolutely admit that I'd like to see the full speech, and I feel a little uncomfortable due to the edits in the video elsewhere. But I can't back away from the idea that pols who dip their toes in the swamp of 9-11 Denial deserve to have their feet bitten off--preferably by their own side.

I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself. I am not going to allow my political philosophy to allow me to blind me to the fact that any politician who endorses the 9-11 nuttery, however obliquely (and this was not that oblique) deserves nothing but scorn.:mad:


Agreed on the larger message, but for the record, I'm not "Libertarian conservative" and I do not ascribe to the political views expressed above in that regard.

But I agree with the larger message which you directed to Perry and Boloboffin, both members whose opinions I respect, even if I disagree with them sometimes, which was:

Leave the politics to the politics forum, guys. I don't give a flying **** for Bush or his politics or his minions, but do try to keep your politics to the appropriate thread. If a left leaning politician exhibits woo tendendies, he's going to get called on it here, and that's as it should be, just as it would be if a right leaning politician exhibits woo tendencies.

Maybe you should try to separate your politics from your posts in this particular sub forum, where politics are really not an issue.

Just a suggestion.

[boloboffin]

Last thing I'm going to say about it, because we are veering off into the politics of it. I remind everyone of what chipmunk stew quoted from Kucinich's site (http://kucinich.us/node/381):

If there was ever a time when this country needed a period of truth and reconciliation, this is it. We find so many of our fellow countrymen and women still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It did not. But at a time when 9/11 gave us an opportunity to start a whole new national discussion about who we are and how we can reconnect with the world, decisions were made which further separated us. We went down a blind alley, and in that blind alley we remain, unaware of the truth behind 9/11, not with respect to who did it, but with respect to what is our role in the world, what is America's position in the world.

That's a third thing Kucinich could mean, Brainster. There are legitimate questions to be asked concerning 9/11, and if the "truth" movement keeps us from asking them, it would be wrong.

[SezMe]

Can we at least agree that: <snip>

5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line?
Yes, we might agree that there is a "fair chance" of that. But does that also mean that there is also a "fair chance" that his words were NOT thus chosen? And thus that your subsequent conclusions also have a "fair chance" of being wrong?

Such sloppy thinking does not befit this forum.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Currently, I am a Kucinich supporter. I am so because of several reasons which belong in the politics forum. Suffice it to say I want his viewpoint (for the most part) at the table of ideas. However, if he really is more woo than the quote Brainster highlights (hey, Deniers get to vote too!), I'd like to know about it. The inevitable switch to Hillary has to be made at some point.

I've also seen a 2001 bill he introduced about space weaponry which proscribed chemtrails. The ick factor went up quite a bit there, and it wouldn't take too much more to switch candidates. So, Arken, lay it on me!
http://www.raven1.net/govptron.htm
is one of the things I recall off the top of my head.

I also recall him being quite fond of lots of fed gov't involvement in just about everything, ex http://www.thepeacealliance.org/.

Unfortunately, today is nucking futs for me at work so I can't devote the time to a quality discussion on it.

Admittedly, I run so diametrically opposed to him on so many political issues, that every little thing is just another nail in the coffin for me.