...but what he will do is what he did in the 2004 race, keep progressive issues in the debate.

So let me get this straight: Kucinich is about to embark again on the work of a patriot? Bravo, kudos and cheers for this man.

kucinich for president! -preferably in 2003!

Hmm... don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Kucinich's intent is honestly to bring the troops home and stop funding a humongous mistake. That being said, however, he comes off to me as trying to get votes, rather than actually do anything. He keeps talking about how HE's taken a strong stance against the war, how HE's a strong leader, etc. This is probably just normal politics, but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant to hear.

I'm glad Kucinich is running again. Now Democrats are not forced to support one of the pre-anointed contenders just because they have been declared by the media and party elites to be the-only-ones-who-have-a-chance. If I get fed up with Hillary-Obama mania I can always say, "I'm going with Kucinich"--a decent guy liberals can be proud of.

Unfortunately half the questions from the media for Kucinich in the debates will be condescending crap like "Don't you know you can't win?" and "Sorry, sucker, Americans are never going to get single-payer health care, no matter what you say."

Pulling out of Iraq before there is some plan for the future would be a disaster.

The militias over there are battling one another, and they have no problem killing the innocent civilians who happen to be trapped in the middle.

As it stands, they seem to be primarily focused on each other, not the US troops.

With that said, I fail to understand how pulling US troops out [who are the only thing between these factions] is going to bring any stability to the region.

If the US were to pull out tomorrow the Saudi's have said that they would move in to assist the Sunnis. If the Saudi's moved in to support the Sunnis, the Iranian's would increase their support toward the Shiite groups.

We only have two choices here the way I see it. We can break the country up along religious lines and seperate the warring factions, or we can put something between them and hope to broker some kind of peace. Or, America can pull it's forces out now and step aside to let the real bloodbath begin.

Americans may not like the situation in Iraq, but you can be damn sure that they are responsible for it.

Leaving the innocent Iraqi's to fend for themselves while the religious sects go toe-to-toe would be an act of pure cowardice, and it would only make the moderate Iraqi's despise the west more.

I voted for Kucinich in 2004, and while some may label him 'progressive', when I heard him speak next to all the other "Democrats", he appeared more to me as 'radical', and that won my vote. He's still a politician, though, so who knows how much of his talk is merely lip-service.

Velkesh makes a good point about getting US troops out when there isn't any solid plan for the future. But his mention of "the religious sects go toe-to-toe" is spot-on: if the situation is due in large part to clashing religious sects, what the shit can be done? Religious wars never end.

I really love Dennis Kucinich. But unfortunately I think Velkesh is right. Simply pulling the troops out is not a solution. Yes, they should try to get them home ASAP and start spending that money at home. But what I would really like to hear from him is less "Bring the troops home" and more of a comprehensive idea for peace in the region. I mean, we are responsible for the state of that country right now, we can't just leave it (and for more reasons than just taking responsibility). A good start would be to transfer contracts for rebuilding from companies like Halliburton to Iraqi companies so they can start rebuilding their economy. Maybe if their country wasn't being hijacked by the American private sector they wouldn't have quite as much to be so angry about. Am I being naive?

i agree with dennis kucinich also bring all our troops home from korea and okinawa and put them around are major cities and along our major highways.

i agree with dennis kucinich also bring all our troops home from korea and okinawa and put them around are major cities and along our major highways.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/14/thebloodbathwe_created.php

for those that buy the argument that we can't leave now.

Americans' initial reflex is to agree with Velkesh because it seems likely that Iraq will descend into chaos upon our departure. However, I am becoming more and more convinced that the correct point of view recognizes that there are some problems that an American "plan" will not solve.

Overwhelming majorities in Shia, Sunni, and even Kurdish groups want Americans to leave. 60% of Iraqis think killing of Americans is justified. In light of such realities, nothing short of an American-imposed police state (and a huge increase in troop levels) is likely to restore 'order'. Are we prepared to ask American troops to exert the kind of brutal force necessary to quiet the insurgency? What would it solve? Would the religious/ethnic differences that fuel sectarian violence disappear, or merely resurface after the yoke of American power was loosened?

I am coming to the view that the nation of Iraq is irretrievably broken. Even when the US intervened in the former nation known as Yugoslavia, we didn't try to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Holding Iraq together is futile - and sitting here in safety while asking US troops to do it is incredibly selfish. Kucinich is right - as distasteful as it seems.

Irak is a serious issue with so many American's dieing for this big lie. But I believe what is more importnat is what this guy will do for US citizens in the US, ie education, research, American religious fanatics and all that

We need Dennis Kucinich. We need him now. We need him YESTERDAY.