Kucinich Comes Back for '08

By Daniel Sturm, In These Times. Posted February 28, 2007.

To his supporters, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) represents the sane voice of the Democratic Party -- a man who reads books, gives intelligent speeches and acts on principle. To his detractors, Kucinich is a small man on an ego trip, too radical to be elected.

Kucinich was the only Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential primaries to vote against the war in Iraq. His 90-day plan to end the occupation was dismissed by the party's centrist leaders and he came in fourth in the primaries -- behind Kerry, Edwards and Dean.

Three years later, the Iraq war has cost the lives of more than 3,000 American servicemen and untold thousands of Iraqis. And once again Kucinich, relentless in his call for withdrawing troops, is vying for the nation's top job. "My country calls me to action," he told a cheering crowd after announcing his candidacy on December 12 in Cleveland.

Kucinich first gained prominence in 1977 when, at age 31, he was elected mayor of Cleveland, becoming the youngest mayor ever elected in a major American city. During his campaign, Kucinich promised to save the struggling city-owned Municipal Light Co. When the company's private competitor tried to force the city to sell, Mayor Kucinich refused. In response, the banks cut off credit and the City of Cleveland went into default. In 1979, Kucinich lost his bid for re-election. Years later, the Cleveland City Council would honor him for "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system" -- and saving ratepayers more than $100 million.

During his 15-year hiatus from politics, he worked as a TV commentator, media consultant, college professor and public utility consultant. Kucinich re-launched his political career in 1993, with the campaign symbol of a light bulb and the slogan, "Because he was right!" He won a seat in the Ohio state Senate in 1994 and was elected to Congress two years later.

Daniel Sturm recently spoke with Kucinich about his decision to run again for president and his position on the war.

With his proposal to escalate the war through a troop "surge," President George W. Bush plans to dispatch 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. What effect would this have?

More war, more door-to-door fighting, more civilian casualties, an expansion of the conflict, more deaths of troops, more costs to the people of the United States, more ruination for Iraq and more instability in the region and the world. And it sets the stage for a conflict against Iran.

Daniel Ellsberg, of "Pentagon Papers" fame, told Democracy Now that he believes Bush plans to attack Iran, probably without informing Congress. Ellsberg says a similar escalation happened during the Vietnam War, when the battlefield was extended into Laos and Cambodia. Could this be possible?

The analogy is correct. I think this president is looking to expand the war. His comments about Iran and Syria were not conciliatory. He's rattling the saber at a time when saber-rattling hurts our troops. It's the kind of tough talk that dragged us into this war, the same braggadocio that doesn't pass for statecraft, but shows an administration that's out of control. Here's a president who's putting his foot on the accelerator as the car heads toward the cliff.

The "Kucinich Plan" proposes replacing U.S. troops with an international peacekeeping force. But after the United States ignored the world's opposition to its invasion of Iraq, is it practical to expect European and other nations to support America now?

I'm talking about a totally different process. I'm talking about something that legitimates the international community, as opposed to the Bush Administration's plan that rejects the primacy of international cooperation. It is imperative that the United States take a different course -- a course out of Iraq. How do you get the international community involved?

It begins with the United States indicating its intention to take a new direction. That direction must articulate a desire to end the occupation; withdraw the troops; close the bases; assist in the creation of a new process for reconciliation, reconstruction and reparation in Iraq; and stop the privatization of Iraqi oil. I think that if the United States would take that position, you'd find receptivity in the international community.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes sending additional troops to Iraq, but she has also said that cutting off funding for troops already there isn't an option. How does your position differ from hers?

I have a great deal of respect for Nancy Pelosi. I think we have to give Democrats a few weeks to absorb the full impact of the president's intentions, and to realize that it is absolutely critical to stop this administration from continuing the war. The only way to do that is for Congress to assume its power under the constitution: the power of the purse.

See more stories tagged with: election08, dennis kucinich

Daniel Sturm is a German journalist who covers underreported social and political topics in the United States and Europe. Some of his work can be seen online. He currently lives in Athens, Ohio.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »