KUCINICH'S OPINION ON IRAQ. FINALLY THE TRUTH.

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (39 posts)

64
maxoxam41posted 9 years ago
As Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after "Mission Accomplished," media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a "mistake." But the "mistake" rhetoric is the language of denial, not contrition: it minimizes the Iraq War’s disastrous consequences, removes blame, and deprives Americans of any chance to learn from our generation’s foreign policy disaster. The Iraq War was not a "mistake" — it resulted from calculated deception. The painful, unvarnished fact is that we were lied to. Now is the time to have the willingness to say that.

In fact, the truth about Iraq was widely available, but it was ignored. There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The war wasn’t about liberating the Iraqi people. I said this in Congress in 2002. Millions of people who marched in America in protest of the war knew the truth, but were maligned by members of both parties for opposing the president in a time of war — and even leveled with the spurious charge of "not supporting the troops."

I’ve written and spoken widely about this topic, so today I offer two ways we can begin to address our role:

1) President Obama must tell us the truth about Iraq and the false scenario that caused us to go to war. When Obama took office in 2008, he announced that his administration would not investigate or prosecute the architects of the Iraq War. Essentially, he suspended public debate about the war. That may have felt good in the short term for those who wanted to move on, but when you’re talking about a war initiated through lies, bygones can’t be bygones.

The unwillingness to confront the truth about the Iraq War has induced a form of amnesia which is hazardous to our nation’s health. Willful forgetting doesn’t heal, it opens the door to more lying. As today’s debate ensues about new potential military "solutions" to stem violence in Iraq, let’s remember how and why we intervened in Iraq in 2003.

2) Journalists and media commentators should stop giving inordinate air and print time to people who were either utterly wrong in their support of the war or willful in their calculations to make war.

By and large, our Fourth Estate accepted uncritically the imperative for war described by top administration officials and congressional leaders. The media fanned the flames of war by not giving adequate coverage to the arguments against military intervention.

President Obama didn’t start the Iraq War, but he has the opportunity now to tell the truth. That we were wrong to go in. That the cause of war was unjust. That more problems were created by military intervention than solved. That the present violence and chaos in Iraq derives from the decision which took America to war in 2003. More than a decade later, it should not take courage to point out the Iraq war was based on lies.

Dennis Kucinich
reply report
1. 78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Maxoxmam41
  All we can do is tend to our little realities. We know we don't have much say in anything any more. We even wonder if our vote counts. With so many corrupting influences in politics what are we supposed to do with this sudden honesty?
  Really... what are we supposed to think anymore. It just adds to our frustration, so we ignore it.
  Its better that way. At least we can get through another day.
  Well, speaking for myself, anyway.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The act of turning away from the problem does not lessen nor make it go away. Usually it festers someplace else and returns worse than when it first appeared.
  
  After the 911 attacks the country was first stunned and then angered by what had happened. Bush easily made the case to chase Al Qaeda into Afghanistan and I believe rightly so. But the honeymoon was soon over when Al Qaeda was driven into the mountains and neighboring Pakistan. The oil was in Iraq and Cheney and his cronies saw a way to continue war (which so happened to be up Halliburton's ally) and pick up some stray oil wells at the same time. This war in Iraq was about greed and conquest with a complicit news media feeding us the "facts"
  
  This latest ploy to get us into a war with ISIS is just another step to crank up the war machine and line some congressmen's pockets again. Let them fight their way through this. We left Iran alone and the only thing we hear are occasional rumblings of uranium enrichment no one has yet to prove. As usual we are scared into decisions that impact many and enrich a few.
  
  What can we do? Keep talking and not lecturing each other. To have any lecturing on a subject you have to trust the source. To have a constructive conversation you have to respect the other persons opinion while discerning its validity. We are the problem as we have elected many times over the people that perpetuate the same old garbage. And guess what? Nothing changes. We are the problem.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  - we ARE the problem? We HAVE BEEN the problem… What if we choose not to be the problem…?
  Is it too late? Is the damage done? Does our vote count?
  - can you give a for instance regarding "lecturing"?
  Apathy is a way of life now…
  We are tired. We are messed up. We are starting not to care.
  I mean, has it gotten to that point as far as We The People?
  I hope not.
  Yet we will probably have only the second Clinton or the third Bush to vote for. Isn't it pretty much over?
  
  PS Some one called to ask me for $ support for Ben Carson for President… just another greedy u know what…
  - they know it could never happen in a million years.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Many issues have been taken care of by the elected elite. We now have a all voluntary military. This assures that their children will never be called upon to serve in the military. It also makes the wars very antiseptic because the ones fighting want to be there so the blood is not on the politicians hands. Foreign policy changes with every administration. No consistency provides no trust from our allies. How is representation in congress achieved when they can manipulate the vote at will. They can change the regions and even elect candidates that never lived in the area they are representing. Hillary Clinton moved to New York for a short time before she was elected to become a Senator from that State. How do you get elected to the top congressional office in such a short time. Elitism and favor is how.
  
  These and too many to mention issues have been the normal decay in what used to be a country that was involved in its' own affairs that impact all of us. We have a professional political industry that sells favor for money and worries little of the consequences. The Tea Party has had some affect of getting some out (Eric Cantor who will now lobby on Wall Street) but the slime bags continue in their favor for hire criminal acts away from our eyes and deaf ears. You can't trust the media as it sells us controversy and scandal to make a buck while ignoring the more prescient issues that affect us all.
  
  There is a way but the American electorate is so polarized by the misinformation and party politics that we have to have a fresh start. There are three things I have found many on both sides of the isle will agree on. Term Limits, Publicly Funded Campaigns and Lobby Reform. These three things can work if we talk about them. But many think they have the Silver Bullet. One man cannot make a difference as proven by Obama. But the American electorate can make a difference if they have the will.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the only way We The People will have an influence is to find common ground and reflect a position of being on the same page. Thank you for offering ideas we can agree on! "Term Limits, Publicly Funded Campaigns and Lobby Reform."
  We also need to be able to identify the politicians who are obviously indoctrinated with greed, desire for more power and money and those who seem to be puppets of u know what/who.
  And vote them out.
  If it becomes obvious our vote does not count, it would be nice if the unified WE would not vote at all. But then the bad guys would vote. (darn. If we need a revolution we need a revolution.) Another way to revolutionize is to refuse to pay taxes. But we would really have to be on the same page there!
  I wonder if it would ever come to the point of the electorate against the elected in battle. LOL.
  After all, If you hand someone power, you must also watch to see the power is not misused/abused.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed on all accounts. The only problem as you state is if we refuse to vote (which many do) they win.
  
  The inherent cause of term limits is to make it less profitable for the slime to get a long term foothold as they would be mandatorily made to leave. This would open the door for those who truly want what is best for the country to govern as career politicians goals of perpetuity would not pay off.
  
  The biggest issue is the electorate that wish to act as mobs overcoming others with their numbers rather than dissecting issues. If we were less judgmental and more open to compromise this could be achieved. But how do you start that conversation is the $100,000 question.
  reply report
  90
  GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The correct phrase is "...the $64,000 question" which originated from a 1950s game show by the same name
  
  As for term limits... do you really think there is any chance Congress would make a real effort to pass term-limit legislation that would end their careers?
  
  Even with a demanding electorate, how many election cycles do you think it would take to get enough Honest Joes in office to get it done?
  
  GA
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  .....The correct phrase is "...the $64,000 question" which originated from a 1950s game show by the same name
  
  Thank you I thought there was a more recent iteration of that show. "Give the man a cookie". Who said that?
  
  ....smile You have to use a semi colon and a un-parenthesis to make a smile.
  
  ....As for term limits... do you really think there is any chance Congress would make a real effort to pass term-limit legislation that would end their careers?
  
  We don't need them. It is in the Constitution to boot them out if "WE" wish.
  
  http://www.termlimitsforuscongress.com/
  
  ....Even with a demanding electorate, how many election cycles do you think it would take to get enough Honest Joes in office to get it done?
  
  You want expediency? How long did it take for the slime bags to get this just right for them? There is no magic wave of the hand. You are right about one thing. The attention span of the electorate and the equally lazy attitude towards anything that is not quickly rewarding is a great hurdle.
  
  But the curmungeonality (if that is a word) of the comment is well noted.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If the act of voting wasn't at the elite's advantage do you think that we would be voting?
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I am not so pessimistic. I agree it has been in development for over two hundred years but they still have to deal with it. Too few of the electorate are apathetic and allow the whole mess to get worse. The voter doesn't get it that when they don't participate or participate half heartedly the politicians win every time. We tried an insurrection with the Civil War so we know they won't let us go our separate way so the vote is still the best way to oust them.
  
  We can change it if we can agree with each other long enough to get it done. The best part is that we don't need their approval. http://www.termlimitsforuscongress.com/
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So far I've noticed that the citizenry is regressing concerning all the advantages (collective bargaining to name one) harvested along our history. Our freedom, social rights are diminishing. Again, if we had something to gain don't you think that the elite would have had its hands on already?
  The only pacific solution is to refuse to vote. Several times I asked on the platform what would happen during an election if the majority of the electorate didn't vote, democrats and republicans included?
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The ones in office would be overjoyed.
  I guess.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is not very realistic.
  Does the constitution say anything as for the inexistence of a majority among the chosen candidates or the shifting of a majority to an unelected power i.e. abstention? Any specialist in constitutional law?
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Good evening, Max.
  
  If the majority of the electorate did not vote, the votes of the minority of the electorate would determine the outcome.
  
  On the other hand, in case of a tie in Electoral College votes or a failure to capture a majority, the House of Representatives would determine the President as prescribed in the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. {1}
  
  I hope this helps, Max.
  
  {1} http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014 … lection-2/
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So, if I understood you well, and based upon your expertise of the law (?), even if the vote of the minority doesn't reflect the thinking majority there would be a president? You did help, thanks. In what way is it democratic?
  As for the article, nowhere does it state that a majority of abstentions jeopardized the election. Correct me if I'm wrong, the case argued is a tie between two candidates.
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Good evening again, Max.
  
  The election of the President reflects the thinking of the citizens who vote. Those who intentionally do not vote have decided not to participate in the election process.
  
  You asked, “In what way is it democratic?”
  
  All eligible citizens are free to vote or not to vote.
  
  You also said, “As for the article, nowhere does it state that a majority of abstentions jeopardized the election.”
  
  You are correct. Obviously, eligible citizens who decide not to vote intend to leave the selection of the president in the hands of the citizens who do vote.
  
  And, your final point was, “Correct me if I'm wrong, the case argued is a tie between two candidates.”
  
  Again, you are correct on this point too. The case cited is about two candidates having the same number of Electoral Votes.
  
  I hope this is clear and helpful, Max.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed they are free to vote but if abstentions represent 60% and democrats and republicans gather respectively 18% and 22%, in what way the election of a republican president reflect the majority that didn't vote? Not voting is expressing a disagreement towards former policies and the elected candidates for the presidency. If you express your opinion with an abstention, it is voting, then why isn't it taken into consideration? And what does the law say? Does a force need to be labeled a party to represent the voice of the people?
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  In essence you are saying without choosing you have made a choice. A simple two negatives equaling a positive. A void in government responsibility and a refusal to participate equals a positive statement against the other two. The outcome is the same according to the Constitution and unfortunately has no bearing or affect in making things better. It is mere acquiescence to the process. Who listens to a silent man?
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  In fact I made a mistake by abstention, I meant blank. Blank is voting and it says I protest. Not let's take the same equation 60% blank votes, 18% democrat and 22% republican.
  However, I just found on Wikipedia the following info : "When None of the Above is listed on a ballot, there is the possibility of NOTA receiving a majority or plurality of the vote, and so "winning" the election." Could it be the solution to eliminate our perpetual bipartisan government?
  Since my government aspires to the eradication of the people I will dedicate my time to find a way to dislodge the government from its pedestal legally obviously with the help of the constitution.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your logic but the nuts and bolt's of it show a lack of involvement. To not vote or vote in abstention as a protest is to edify those that you are protesting. With about an 80% disapproval rating it would seem Congress does not give a hoot as to who is, or is not voting. The vote in essence is the ultimate freedom of speech. It allows you to voice your opinion and mind. All I have to say is why give it over to them?
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It meant if I understood well that the people's majority would win. In that context, what does become of the elected majority? Are you eluding that it is up to congress?
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  When you don't vote the rest of the people fill in for you. Whether those people are just average voters or party tools the void left by your abstention is left out. The council member, sheriff, judge, senator or president for that matter are voted in without your influence. The majority as defined by the Constitution is the electorate not those who decide not to vote. So in essence you do leave everything up to congress because they have proven and reproved that when left alone they do what they want.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But when you vote blank, it is a vote. Therefore if blank votes are the majority, does it constitutes a winning election? I understood that abstention is null.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  In theory and on paper yes your non vote says something. How would that look on a ballot? Would the registrar tally it as a no vote or void it? If it were counted as a non vote or no confidence vote, who would it be reflected on? The candidate as a blank or on the system as a blank? You see it has no direction and no influence as the slime bags still get the votes they need to continue their farce of governance.
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Max.
  
  How true! Abstentions DO NOT represent people who do not vote. Voluntary abstentions represent a conscious decision NOT to participate in the election process and they, therefore, allow the selection of the President to be determined by those who actually participate in the voting process.
  
  You are not correct, however, when you claim, “Not voting is expressing a disagreement towards former policies and the elected candidates for the presidency.” Only 12.9% of all non-voters said the candidates or other issues were the reasons for deliberately not voting in the 2012 presidential election. A greater number, 13.4%, said they did not vote because they “had no interest” while the remaining 73.7% did not vote due to reasons that were beyond their control. {1}
  
  The U.S. balloting process is further misrepresented by saying, “If you express your opinion with an abstention, it is voting, then why isn't it taken into consideration? And what does the law say? Does a force need to be labeled a party to represent the voice of the people?” Simply stated, Max, abstentions ARE NOT counted as votes. Rather, abstentions are just moot failures to exercise the right to vote. The President is selected by the votes that are cast by eligible citizens who, under the laws of our republic, are free to support any candidate of any party even with a separate write-in ballot.
  
  {1} http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting.
  As I said it to Rhamson : "In fact I made a mistake by abstention, I meant blank. Blank is voting and it says I protest. Not let's take the same equation 60% blank votes, 18% democrat and 22% republican.
  However, I just found on Wikipedia the following info : "When None of the Above is listed on a ballot, there is the possibility of NOTA receiving a majority or plurality of the vote, and so "winning" the election." Could it be the solution to eliminate our perpetual bipartisan government?
  Since my government aspires to the eradication of the people I will dedicate my time to find a way to dislodge the government from its pedestal legally obviously with the help of the constitution."
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  They win what they have been working for all these years.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed it is the sad reality.
  The population shifts from right to left and vice versa without at any moment being granted of any voice to express its needs. And we still vote. If voting doesn't aim at the improvement of its society where is its point? If it doesn't obey to the concretization of people's conception of a society where is its point?
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What you are questioning is the intent as having no effect on the outcome. The problem is not with the intent as the outcome is realized by those who vote. The real problem is with those that refuse to participate. Sure the politicians can craft a new way to pervert it as in the Bush/Gore debacle but that was because the vote was so close and therefore easily manipulated. With a 54% turn out for the election only half the country voted.
  
  If we could make the candidates more responsible and responsive to the electorate there might be a chance of actually having our needs represented. Unfortunately the slime keep producing for their constituents enough to warrant their votes. It is the same old thing while people bash all the other congressmen they stand firm that theirs is a good one.
  
  Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is out only hope of corralling our run away slime ball mess on the hill.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to be quite naive, reassure me.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I am currently reading Jeremy Scahill's "Blackwater" but I can't help making the connection between the rise of domestic and international terrorism and the rise of Blackwater. It is interesting to know that our government spends more than a thousand dollars per day to have one Blackwater's guard protecting a member of our government abroad versus using an army man for $300.
  It is interesting to know that those mercenaries, at least 100 different companies in Iraq, for instance, committed and commit crimes disregarding the rule of Law.
  It is also interesting to see the tight connection between CIA, Halliburton (and other private arm dealers) and Blackwater.
  By perpetuating the elections of puppets, WE ARE THE PROBLEM.
  reply report
64
maxoxam41posted 9 years ago
You know that we are forcing Russia to enter war with Ukraine. And if they do, America will receive the first nuclear bomb. Or better, we'll launch a nuclear warhead somewhere someone will tend to their realities as you explicitly said it and pretend that it was Russia (we master false flag operations) and, third world war won't be a fantasy anymore. Does anybody measure the seriousness and the danger of the situation?
reply report
1. 78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  14. We are forcing war with Ukraine.
  15. We will be responsible for either a nuclear bomb or warhead.
  16. We will falsely accuse Russia for being responsible.
  17. The reality of the third world war is at hand, thanks to the US.
  
  So far you have given us 17 reasons to not listen to the news, research the news in the internet, or read newspapers.
  If you are trying to say that is America is B A D,
  that is is even more reason to bury our heads in the sands…
  of our our own homeland.
  
  ( Unless you have another suggestion, Max. )
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Am I the one stating it or independent news? Since the subject interests you why not starting by awareness? Then action will follow?
  reply report
90
Dr Billy Kiddposted 9 years ago
This is an amazing discussion. There are two true points of view here.

The citizens of the U.S. were lied too. And, in fact, Bush's first national security council meeting in 2001 dealt with how to start a war with Iraq, not with bin Laden. And immediately on 9/11, the discussion continued on how to blame it on Iraq. These facts have been documented.

The other discussion here is that Americans are tuned out and just don't seem to care anymore. This is unfortunate. When the Roman's tuned out the empire ended. That was because they tuned out so much that they refused to pay the mercenaries who fought their wars. This caused the mercenaries to sack Rome. And people still didn't tune in.

Today, it seems like facts don't matter and people have tuned out to a high degree. Football seems to be more important than war! I do not have an answer for this.
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't our mercenaries launch attacks on Bostonians during the CIA bombing of the marathon?
  reply report
78
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
18. The government aspires to eradicate the people.
(!)
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No it doesn't it aspires to your prosperity, does it? Inflation is at its lowest, as is unemployment, as the debt... isn't it?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

KUCINICH'S OPINION ON IRAQ. FINALLY THE TRUTH.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

KUCINICH'S OPINION ON IRAQ. FINALLY THE TRUTH.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies