Published on September 12, 2007 By Island Dog In Democrat
You seriously have to wonder what goes through the minds of people like Kucinich who feel it's necessary to travel to a terrorist state, and the proceed to do the usual "Bush bashing" and "lies" rhetoric that is so common among the democratic party.  Now Kucinich has every right to mouth his nonsese in the U.S., that is freedom of speech.  However, what gives him the right to travel to an enemy state and do this? 

At what point is someone, especially someone running for President and is an elected member of Congress, crossing the line? 

Now here is the best part.....

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," Kucinich said in Lebanon, according to the Associated Press. "I will not do it."

So Kucinich has no problem making a "friendly" visit to a known terrorist state, but he just can't take the time to visit our brave troops.  Simply pathetic.



Comments
on Sep 12, 2007

If Kucinich went to visit the troops, you would scream that he was being a hypocrite.  So he can criticize the President in the U.S. but that's it.  When did that become the rule?  At least he's consistent.  So what do you think the correct thing to do is?  All hail President Bush whether they agree with him or not?  That's not patriotism, that's stupidity. 

Lebanon is an "enemy state" now.  When did we declare war on them? 

on Sep 12, 2007
Lebanon is an "enemy state" now. When did we declare war on them?

Kucinich's trip included Syria, which is on the US State Dept's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. So Kucinich did visit an avowed enemy of the US on his trip -- he just wasn't actually in one when he made this statement.

So Kucinich has no problem making a "friendly" visit to a known terrorist state, but he just can't take the time to visit our brave troops. Simply pathetic.

Too true. This attitude is laughable, especially because he feels so much of himself that his presence blesses anything at all. But he'll apparently "bless" Syria and Lebanon with his presence but won't dignify the Iraq invasion with a drop-by. >rolls eyes<
on Sep 12, 2007
If Kucinich went to visit the troops, you would scream that he was being a hypocrite. So he can criticize the President in the U.S. but that's it. When did that become the rule? At least he's consistent. So what do you think the correct thing to do is? All hail President Bush whether they agree with him or not? That's not patriotism, that's stupidity.


First of all, I wouldn't "scream" that he was being a hpocrite by visiting the troops.  What happened to the far lefts mantra that "we support the troops, not the war"?  Guess that doesn't apply to Kucinich does it? 

I really don't care if Kucinich, or any other left wing loon p"hails" or criticizes Bush, I have a problem when an elected official travels to a terrorist state and does it.  Do you think this is proper?  Probably.


Lebanon is an "enemy state" now. When did we declare war on them?


I wasn't referring to Lebanon, his anti-Bush comments were in Syria. 


on Sep 12, 2007
So what do you think the correct thing to do is?


To go there to prove you are there for our soldiers not for Bush's policies. Show everyone that, just like many here say, you can support the troops without supporting Bush. To say you refuse to set foot there just because you think it's an illegal occupation is basically insulting every soldier in Iraq by calling them criminals.
on Sep 12, 2007
To say you refuse to set foot there just because you think it's an illegal occupation is basically insulting every soldier in Iraq by calling them criminals.


No, the soldiers are just obeying orders. No one is calling them criminals.
on Sep 12, 2007
Locamama


pay attention he is/was in syria when he made that statement
on Sep 12, 2007

No, the soldiers are just obeying orders. No one is calling them criminals.

Except Murtha, and Kerry.  Along with the loons at du.org, moron.org, dailykos and Puffington Host.