The Exchange; Interview with Dennis Kucinich

From New Hampshire Public Radio, I'm Laura Canoy, and this is the exchange. Our guest today, Ohio Congressman and Presidential Hopeful Dennis Kucinich, is one of just a few Democrats who were not pleased with the recent House votes on Iraq, the House and Senate both passed Iraq's spending bills that attach a deadline for the end of U.S. involvement there. Democratic members praised themselves, for, as they said, pushing the president to take a new direction in Iraq. But for a few staunchly anti-war representatives like Kucinich, this new direction is still too close to the current policy. Congressman Kucinich says Democrats could have voted to get American troops out of Iraq now and cut off funding for the war immediately. Agree with it or not, it's a crystal clear position, and as New Hampshire learned last time Kucinich ran for president here, he's not one for intermediate measures. It's a political trait that wins him admirers for consistency. But for years ago anyway, it didn't earn him very many votes.

Congressman Kucinich came out near the bottom of the New Hampshire primary and dropped out of the presidential race in July. Today in the exchange, Ohio Democratic Congressman and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is back in New Hampshire and joins us in studio. We'll take your calls this hour, too, of course, 1-800-892-NHPR-1-800-892-6477 is the number for you to chime in. Congressman Kucinich, it's been four years. Welcome back. Good to see you. Good to be back. Well, I want to jump right into that Iraq vote. Democratic leaders, Congressman Kucinich, are saying, you know, good for us. We're holding the president accountable. We're asking what voters, we're doing what voters wanted us to do, changing course in Iraq by attaching these timetables and requirements to the Iraq spending bill. You and a handful of others voted against these bills. How come? Well, first of all, I don't think the voters were looking for a Democratic version of the war in Iraq, which is what they are now being given. Congress did not have to appropriate a dime.

We could have just told the president, look, you have money in the pipeline, you're not going to have any more money for the war, use the money there to bring the troops home, and we'll now sit in motion, a parallel plan to stabilize Iraq. But unfortunately, Congress thought that it knew better than the American people who in November gave the Democratic Party the power and the control of the Congress specifically to do something about Iraq, and it wasn't to stay there, it was to get out. So Congress did not have to spend a dime on Iraq? No, there was nothing said we had to give the president any money. I mean, he has, there's money in the budget to keep this going through mid-July. So once he gets the 97 billion, by the way, he'll have money to keep the war going through most of the rest of his term, and in addition to that, a week ago, we passed $195 billion budget, which funds the war, and that's an additional $195 billion on top of 97, which will fund the war into the term of the next president.

So what are we, who are we trying to kid? I mean, a Democratic Party, I think, blew it. We should have been standing strong for the end of the war, instead, we just passed two pieces of legislation that helped keep the war going. President says he's going to veto one. We might have one last chance to say we're not going to give any money, but what I'm hearing inside the Congress is they'll probably just lie down and give President Bush what he wants. What are you hearing? I'm hearing that the President's going to veto, they'll come back. There's a stalemate, Congress then proceeds and gives the president the money that he wants, but frankly, President Bush, who blundered into this war with the help of Congress, will complete his term, having presided over massive slaughter in Iraq, the destruction of the American budget, driving us deeper into debt, ruining our reputation in the world, creating a detachment with a fear-based politics, which actually disconnects us from our deeper ideals. So that's having accomplished a lot in a short period of time.

The fear is that if you don't appropriate a dime, as you said, that the troops who are over there are put in harm's way, they don't have the money they need, they don't have the food, the resources to keep themselves safe and do the job that they're supposed to do. You could use that argument to keep the war going for now until Kingdom come, and actually that's what some in Washington want to do. You can just say, well, we have to support the troops, you know, ten years later, well, we've got to support those troops. How do you support the troops when you leave them in the middle of a civil war? How do you support the troops when most generals say this war cannot be won militarily, nor, by the way, should it be, because we shouldn't even be there? So when you look at it, the troops are being used as pawns in an effort to try to maintain a U.S. position in the region so we can control oil. I mean, let's talk about what this is really about. This isn't about the troops. This is about the U.S. using our military to protect interests of international oil companies. And the proof is that the supplemental bill had a provision that pushed for the privatization

of Iraqi oil, mandating the passage of a hydrocarbon law by the Iraqi legislature. And so, you know, it's time to stop the lies and just look at what we're at. Those troops should be brought home. We should set in motion a process that reaches out to the international community so we can bring in peacekeepers and a security force as our troops leave. We've got to get out of Iraq. We have no moral standing there whatsoever. How do you respond, Congressman Kusinich, to the argument that there is a desire by the American public to see Iraq succeed, but to push the government harder, to get up on its feet, the vote in Congress, reflecting that, okay, let's push them a little, give this a chance, stay there a little longer with a little bit more money, things may be turning around. If we hold them accountable, we can really help these people out. You know, the extent of miscalculation relating to Iraq by our political leaders is a national crisis all of its own.

In other words, we have leaders who are so ill-equipped to be able to make decisions, to guide this country to a safe place and to keep the world safe and not to misuse power against people 10,000 miles away. That is a crisis. Then you look at that type of thinking imposed on Iraq. We're saying that this is our problem. Well, it's the Iraqi people's problem because they had about a million people killed because we've destroyed their social safety networks because we have destroyed the physical Iraq. And now we're pointing a finger at them saying, look, you better get your act together. What is this about? I mean, it's almost the kind of conduct that you would expect of sociopaths because there's a lack of compassion, there's a lack of feeling, there's a lack of connection with humanity and we end up in a situation where our policies are so destructive and we're trying to justify it by saying, well, we just want to help you. Let us help you some more. We've destroyed Iraq. We have to get out of there. We have to rescue our national honor and we're going to have to pay reparations to the people

of Iraq who lost family members, who have lost their property and we're going to have to have an honest program for reconstruction and try to do everything we can to work with the world community to bring about reconciliation between the Shiites as soon as it occurs. But this decision to go into Iraq is one of the greatest injustices that one nation has committed against another and it also represents such a departure from those ideals which we as Americans see, you know, identify within how we see ourselves and so we really need to look at this. And my candidacy is really what I call on this wake up America tour. It's really time for us to wake up and see what the decisions by our leaders have caused and the suffering that it's caused and the implications for our country as well. I have a couple more questions for you on this Congressman Kucinich but I want to remind our audience that you can join us to 1-800-8926-477. Our guest today, Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, first elected to Congress

in 1996 representing Cleveland. This is his second run for the presidency. He joins us this morning in studio. You can join us too with your calls and questions for Congressman Kucinich at 1-800-8926-47718892NHPR. Congressman Kucinich, you mentioned compassion for the Iraqis who have suffered so much. There's a concern that if the U.S. pulls out tomorrow, as you say, the security situation they will get even worse, even more bloodshed and the U.S. will have just basically left these poor people fending for themselves in an unbelievably violent situation. Well, the occupation has fueled the insurgency. I mean, you know, there's a lack of understanding of cause and effect there. We have caused the insurgencies to arise by invading Iraq and staying there. And the longer we're there, the more conflict there's going to be. And so when we leave, will there be conflict?

Oh, of course there will be. That's why we need a security and peacekeeping force. But the only hope to take Iraq in a new direction is for the United States to actually leave and give Iraq a chance to develop its own form of government, absent the United States control. I mean, we have to understand that only the departure of our troops will increase the United States diplomatic leverage. And that's the way that we can reach out to the world community to get the help that we need to stabilize Iraq. But we can't do it. There are no paradoxes, we can't help Iraq by staying there. We can only help Iraq by leaving. And when we leave, we'll get the leverage we need to get the international community involved to stabilize the country. How has the presence of U.S. forces encouraged, fomented the militias? Because a lot of the attacks are Shiite versus Sunni, Shiite on Shiite.

They're not even focused on American forces. Well, we don't know, by the way, the extent to which these attacks have been precipitated by elements that have nothing to do with Shiites and Sunnis. But may be the result of false flag operations on the part of some of these contractors that are in there. What does false flag operations mean? You know, you attack, let's say, Sunnis, and you make it appear that it's being done by the Shiites, but it's being done by a third party that wants to stir it up between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Like al-Qaeda? No, I mean, like anybody, like anybody who wants to stay at war. And the point is that the U.S. presence there helps to stir up this ferment and the other thing is, you know, you have tens of thousands of private members of private armies there, of these contractors who are heavily armed. And it's in their interest to keep a war going.

So I think that everything about Iraq is wrong. You know, there's a line in the Bible that says that which is crooked cannot be made straight. Our endeavor in Iraq was crooked from the beginning. Our entry into Iraq based on lies, our continued presence in Iraq based on cupidity and greed, a desire to have a major say over Iraq's oil wealth. And so we have to leave. We have to leave to reclaim our honor and to start taking care of things in our own country. This whole idea of aggressive war has taken America so far from its path. It's broken the hearts of so many Americans of all political persuasions and it's caused an undermining of civil liberties here at home. It's enabled the United States to drum up this phony war on terror. It's another way of trying to keep the population so immersed in fear that people are apathetic to respond.

You wonder why isn't there this huge movement of people in the streets everywhere? It's because the level of fear has been so profound. So my candidacy is not only a wake-up call for America and a call to conscience, but it is a revelry for the spirit of America to say, look, we've got to come back and restore this country to a place of honor and dignity and to a place of justice. And we're not there right now because not just because of the administration, but also because of the Congress as well. That's a pretty strong statement you made a moment ago, Congressman Kucinich, that private contractors in Iraq are actually fomenting violence in which innocent people die in order to further their own profits. Right. I did say that. Do you have any evidence of that or is that just a suspicion? Well, you know, under a situation where our hell is breaking loose. So you know, you get reports that this is happening. And so, you know, I'm saying that the violence in Iraq is coming from all directions. And that we just shouldn't assume that it's the Sunnis and the Shiites who just hate each other and it's going to stay that way.

Somehow people found a way to live together peacefully before the United States engaged in this attack. And I am saying that these false flag operations are a reality that Iraq is wide open for the worst kind of violence coming from all directions and people having every manner of intention to keep that violence going. So I'm saying the U.S. has to get out. These private contractors have to get out. And when you do that, you're going to see for the first time a hope developing that we can get out, that we can stabilize Iraq and begin the process. It's going to be a long process of rebuilding that country. Congressman Lutz and Lutz to talk about and lots and lots of calls. Let's go to them again. Our number 1-800-8926-477 to Tamworth First, where Paul is on the line. Go ahead, Paul. Thanks for calling in. Good morning, Warren. Thank you for what you do for all of us in New Hampshire every day. You're welcome.

My comment is this and I am becoming one of the more discouraged, if not, apacetic people. And that is why should the people have faith in the Congress to address the issue of the war, when Congress hasn't addressed any other major significant political issue, whether it's health care, which has an employer of a group that employs about 25 employees and we look at $16,000 a year for family health insurance premiums, social security to people poorly set up a retirement to poor funding for education to da da da da. I don't see Congress really addressing any significant issues for the American people right now. What do you think Congressman Kusinich? Well, I'd say, you know, I'll speak for myself in this regard. And that is that four years ago, and longer, I warned the American people that we should not go into war against Iraq. And I've led the effort in the Congress to discuss that we should not privatize so security, that Wall Street was trying to get its hands on so security to just further

the growth of the stock market. And I've been the leader and co-author of a bill, HR676, to establish a single payer, not-for-profit health care system. Now, the gentleman calls as a small businessman, and there are small businessmen all over the country being crushed by the rising premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. The Kanye's Kusinich bill, HR676, provides for a not-for-profit health care system that would take the entire $2.2 trillion a year that spent for health care to be spent only for health care, instead of $0.31 on a dollar going for the activities of the four-profit system, corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, the cost of paperwork, 15 to 30 percent. The gentleman's right, Congress has not been responsive. I'm running for president of the United States. I'm running to provide this country new leadership to make sure that people have health care, and it's a not-for-profit system, and to make sure that we protect so security, to get us out of war, to stop the use of war as an instrument of policy. So I would agree with the gentleman, but this country is waiting for leadership where

the judgment is clear, the vision is clear, and there is no strings attached and an intention and willingness to act. So thank you for calling. Paul, thanks for the call. You know, on health care Congressman Kusinich, lots of candidates are talking about more health coverage or a couple of you word, the universal coverage word, but in general, this country has shied away from a government-sponsored single-payer system in the past. What makes you think that people want that now? Well, first of all, everyone talks about universal health care as you've acknowledged. What some of the other candidates are talking about really is universal health for insurance companies. To have the government subsidize the insurance companies, I'm saying that's wrong. I'm saying that it's time for a not-for-profit system where you get the for-profit insurance companies out of the equation. Are people ready for it? I think they are. 46 million Americans without any health insurance. 50 million Americans under-insured. Highest level of bankruptcies in this country's history. Half of it related to the cost of health care and people not being able to pay doctor bills.

People being strangled by increasing premiums, copays, and deductibles, insurance companies controlling doctors' decisions. People not being able to get the care they need because insurance companies deny them. The care insurance companies making money by not providing health care are people ready. You bet they're ready. The problem is that Congress isn't ready because Congress is influenced by the insurance companies. And it aids Clinton and Edwards in a health care form in Nevada almost two weeks ago. Said, look, interesting, this proposal not-for-profit health care, but it's not feasible politically. Well, it's easy to say that if you are in bed with the insurance interest and you then create the possibility for insurance companies to make money while you're talking about universal health care. I'm talking about changing the system, providing health care for all Americans, making it possible for people to avoid being driven into debt or losing their homes because someone in their family is sick. It is wrong for this country to have the kind of wealth it has and not provide health care for everyone.

And the only way to do that, HR676. Well, maybe we'll talk a little bit more about that later. I want to go to some calls again to Litchfield where Lee's been waiting a while. Go ahead, Lee, you're on the exchange. Thanks for taking my call. I'm in a question for the congressman, he talked about pulling our troops out. And I think I speak for a lot of Americans that we're all anxious to have that happen. My concern is the void that is going to be left when our troops are gone. And he mentioned that he was going to put together a coalition force, crack me if I'm wrong. I think that's what he had said. I'm just interested where this coalition's coming from. Well, first of all, I've consulted with people at the United Nations, people who have years of experience in developing peacekeeping and security forces. And there is a general agreement both at the UN and in the region that the United States presence, our occupation, is fueling the insurgency.

Once we are determined to take a new direction and end the occupation and close the bases, that's the point at which we can and will get help from the world community. That's the only way this war ends, by the way, that we are able to put together a security and peacekeeping force to stabilize Iraq with the help of the regional and the world community. Half of that force would have to be for Muslim countries. So having spoken to people about this, it's the only way that we're going to be able to get out of Iraq, otherwise we're going to be there for 10 years, 20 years and more. And this period that we're going through right now is really a decisive period as to whether we take a new direction or not. For those who are concerned about Iraq and we should be, and I am. Then we have to realize that the United States presence isn't helping the people of Iraq right now. But we need to, we need to leave that will lessen the bloodshed. It's not going to end it. That's why you need to have an interim peacekeeping and security force while Iraq continues

to attempt to stabilize. I mean, what we've done to that country is going to have implications in the world for years to come. But we have to begin to take a new direction. Do you think the UN would be willing to do that? I mean, one gets a sense of skepticism these days from the UN. It seems to, well, it seems to get cold feet sometimes when situations are unclear. We're not going to get any help as long as we're occupying that country. Let's face that, no one is going to want to commit their national resources to helping America occupy Iraq. We are, you know, every, you know, every major ally we had who is with us has gone out of the country because they realize that it is an untenable situation. Only this administration now supported by members of Congress is saying, well, you know, we have to stay there and they're using this lame excuse of what we're going to support the troops. That is so phony because you want to support the troops, bring them home. This troops are in an impossible situation.

You want to support the troops, extricate them from a civil war. Don't use the troops as an excuse to keep us pursuing a policy that was wrong from the start. I mean, you have to understand that we're there based on lies. And if you think that somehow we're going to turn it around, it's not going to happen. We shouldn't have gone there. We have to get out. Now, there's some people don't want to admit that. There's some people don't want to admit that they were wrong about it. But you know, this is past the issue of pride. There are people, our troops are dying for this lie, bring them home. And we can pull the plug on this war now. Congressman Kucinich, why do you suppose, and this is a political question, why do you suppose that the majority of Democrats in Congress, your colleagues, took a different approach and said, yes, President Bush timetables requirements, but not a pullout right now. That's a good way, and you're going this other way. Look.

And you were in the distinct minority there, we just don't believe. I was in a distinct minority four years ago when I said don't go there. When I analyzed this and said there was no reason to assume that Iraq had any intention or capability of attacking the United States, was connected to 9-11, or had weapons of mass destruction. Now, you know, we're electing a president based on issues of judgment and clarity. This isn't American Idol. You know, it's a question of whether or not someone can be far-sighted and can provide real security for this country by not dragging us into wars we don't need to be in. And so the Congress, unfortunately, has bought into the war. This has now become a democratic version of the war in Iraq. I oppose that my candidacy for President is the only vehicle the people of New Hampshire have to take a new direction. All right. After a short break, we're going to talk about your candidacy more specifically, Congressman Cousin, it should take a lot more of your calls to stay on the line. This is the exchange. Support for New Hampshire Public Radio comes from UR members and from Franklin Pierce,

offering advanced degrees through the doctoral level with five locations, including the online center and Manchester, information at fpc.edu. Some Vineyard Brands, importers of wars, warria, and OTMA port wines from the Simmington family and Portugal. Information on the web at vineyardbrands.com. And Tracy Banks, sob and conquered, sales service satisfaction, a Banks family tradition since 1957, one 800 new sob online at Tracy Banks, sob and dot com, sob, born from jets. More with Ohio Congressman Dennis Cousinich on the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio, then at 10 o'clock on the Diane Reinshow, we get an update on the 2008 presidential race, the money, the candidates, and the strategies. This is New Hampshire Public Radio. This is the exchange. I'm Laura Canoy. Tomorrow morning at nine, a special broadcast, America and Cuba after Castro. Find out more at our website, NHPR.org, email us your comments there too.

NHPR.org again is the address. And now Congressman Cousinich, let's return to our callers again, the number 1-800-892-6477. And to Hillsboro, where Mike is waiting, go ahead, Mike and thanks for calling in. Yes, a good morning and nice to talk with you Congressman Cousinich. I wanted to ask you a quick question about, well, to be honest, I'm very excited by a number of the statements that you make. They really seem like they make a lot of sense. Your comments on the war are right on the money, health care, universal education, college education. And especially I'm interested in your initiative about a department of peace at the cabinet level. If we are to evolve from a species that uses bombs to resolve this agreement to one that uses peaceful conflict resolution, I think this is the next step. Do you have a question for the Congressman Mike? Mike, sure. The question is, while your policy seems to make sense, I think most of the electorate sees you as too progressive, too far in that direction.

How can we kind of get the message out that these things are feasible, that these policies you're proposing are actually doable, they do make sense, they are realistic. Mike, thanks for the call, Congressman. I come from the city of Cleveland. The district I represent is a working class, middle class district, there are some people very wealthy, some people very poor, in a way it's like a microcosm of America. My politics come right from the center of the aspirations of the American people for decent housing, for health care, for secure jobs, for retirement security. And I understand that the only path to that is to change our national priorities. So we're not on the war path, so we're not spending as we are headed toward $600 billion a year for a military, another $800 billion by 2008 for the war in Iraq. We have all these needs in this country. So I'm a very practical politician, this is my 40th year in politics.

And because I'm practical, I say war is impractical. And what is practical is to look at the issues of violence in our own society. Issues of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, racial violence. This violence that happens in the microcosm is a reflection of the violence that we license in the world at large. And so by taking the principles of Gandhi, of Christ, of Dr. King, and actually teaching them in practical ways of teaching children how to handle their feelings and why it's not right to hit another person. When you start to look at a young man's attitudes toward young women, you can explore the kind of feelings of equality and mutuality that lead to proper conduct and don't lead to violence. I mean, the time to deal with domestic violence is not an emergency room, although you have to deal with someone who's hurt. But it's really way before in the attitudes that form, Department of Peace promotes education about peaceful relations, how to get people to handle their feelings, and it also supports

community groups that aren't involved in that work. Congressman Timik's question, though, he says, how are you going to overcome this sense by most voters, which was a problem last time for you as well, that Dennis Kucinich, nice guy, way too liberal for the country can't win. Well, you know, I've won in 40 years. I've won, let's see, probably about 25 elections, you know, to counsel, clerk of course, mayor, state senator, congressman. So somehow people were listening to what I had to say and they said, well, you know, he makes sense. There's a point at which I think people in New Hampshire, in their hunger for authenticity and integrity, are going to turn to my candidacy, as a candidacy that represents the truth and someone who's willing to say it and someone who can't be bought and someone who can't be influenced by media interest to our promoting war. I mean, we really have to look at where this country has had it. And I love this country, you cannot serve, you know, and have a public career that goes

over 40 years and not love America. But I love America so much. I see it being ruined right now. I see us losing our civil liberties. I see us losing our capacity for being able to meet the needs of the people because we're being driven into debt for war, borrowering money from Baghdad, or from Beirut, or excuse me, borrowing money from China and Beijing to fight a war in Baghdad, where are we going as a nation? I see a higher role for America in the world. And so I think as people in New Hampshire connect with that vision, and when they know I'm speaking the truth, and they know, and they compare what I've said over the years to other candidates. I think that I have a real good chance in New Hampshire, and New Hampshire then can change the entire country by voting for someone who has that integrity and that authenticity. How is this time different Congressman Kucinich? Because we've talked many times four years ago. We had a very similar message, and you didn't do so well in the election here in New Hampshire. What's different now is people can look back and say he was right. And this choice for president involved not just picking someone who was right because

you know that can be ego driven, but you have to look at what did my vision and judgment and clarity show. It showed that I wouldn't take this country into a war under false pretenses. For people who voted for the war, Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards made a disastrous mistake. Now they're asking people to rely on that same judgment to put them at the helm of the ship of state. There are others who voted 100% of the time to fund the war. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, voted 100% of the time to fund the war. What does that say about their judgment? If you know the war is wrong, why do you vote to keep it going? So what I've shown is a capacity for leadership that others haven't. Never played to the crowd on this. Just steered a often solitary course. Why is this time different? Because I've been able to demonstrate consistency and that you can look at the record and of all the candidates.

I'm the one who stands out as having not only challenged the war from the beginning, voted against funding at every time, have a plan for peace, and also have a broader vision of America in the world, rejecting policies of preemption, unilateralism for a strike, and frankly rejecting war as an instrument of policy. I want to let our audience know our staff has been working hard to get Obama and Clinton and Edwards on so we can talk about those votes. Haven't done that yet, but we will ask when they come in, 1-800-89264-777 is the number 1-800-892-NHPR, and let's go to Salisbury, congressman, where Kurt is waiting. Go ahead. Kurt, you're on the exchange. Mr. Laura, thanks for taking my call, great show. Congressman, I was wondering, I'm a member of the carbon coalition in New Hampshire, and I'm also a part of the Speaker's Bureau, and the carbon coalition has had a resolution for climate change passed on, I believe it's 152 out of 180 towns that have on their ballots at the recent town meeting.

If elected, I was wondering exactly what steps you would take to address what I consider to be the most important, most pressing issue facing America today, and that is global climate change. Sure, thanks for the call. Kurt, global warming and global warming, those two are inseparable. War is echo side, but let's talk about what we need to do to repair our environment. It's obvious, and what I will do as President is to first call the American people together as a single community in the cause of energy conservation. There's a lot of things that we can do to dramatically reduce our energy footprint. Then I will cause the government to spend money into circulation for the purposes of the production of technologies that enable a broad distribution of wind and solar for application people's homes. We'll create new jobs doing that. I want to see this country move away from dependence on oil, on coal, on nuclear, and towards wind solar, green hydrogen, develop new energy technologies.

This is something we have to do. We also have to incentivize mass transit and enter an intra-urban. Create more bike paths. Give people a chance to live closer in communities that have the ability to save money, a green housing program, retrofit homes, insulate them, retrofit them with green energy technologies. I mean, there's a lot that we can do. And I support your initiative, but in addition to that, as President, I intend to call on this creative capacity to the American people, to take us in a direction where we not only individually realize our responsibility, but collectively join the world community. I'll sign that Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, and America will achieve a substantial reduction in non-renewable energy usage. We got an email on this topic too, thanks for bringing it up, Kirk. From someone named Frank, he likes your positions on the war, on health care, on other issues, but he says, and I'm quoting Congressman, that when it comes to global warming, there's been a deafening silence from you.

That's not true. I have attended two, probably one of the few people in the country who's attended two climate change, global climate change talks in Buenos Aires, attended the World Summit on Sustainability in Johannesburg, was a major spokesperson for the United States in both. I was going back to my career in Cleveland. I was one of the architects of a clean air proposal, as a member of Cleveland City Council, one of the leaders of a movement for clean air and clean water in Cleveland, have been active nationally in helping to challenge pollution on Native American lands everywhere. In this campaign, I mean, it's obvious since people see, well, I've been so active in trying to get out of Iraq, that's been very time consuming, and it seems that, for some people may seem, that's all I'm talking about, but the fact of the matter is that I've been long active in environmental issues, and if you like what I do in other areas, then you ought to like the environmental policies, which I've just articulated, because I do believe that we have to protect this global habitat, and there's one other element I'd

like to bring up. When there's a lot of discussion about people raising funds and, you know, the big fundraising targets, and how Wall Street's entered into the fundraising and these hedge funds. It seems as if presidential campaigns, yeah, and how Wall Street with their hedge funds have entered into the presidential campaign funding. Listen to this, hedge funds a month ago, and now some of the leading hedge funds announced they were getting out of investing in green energy, and alternative energy, and looking again to reinvest in oil and coal and in uranium, we have Wall Street driving in the wrong direction, and candidates raising money from those same interests. Because I don't have strings attached, I'm free to take this country in a direction that protects our environment and protects the globe, and what we need to do is work with the world community, not continue to use these non-renewable source of energy. Let's face it, our entry into Iraq and our savoratling against Iran is a desire of certain

economic groups to hold on to oil and to keep using it. Let's go to Gilford, where Betsy is waiting. Hi Betsy, go ahead. Thank you. My question has to do with the way our elections seem to be going, in that it seems like we elect the best fundraiser, and right out of the starting gate, it's all about the ones in the lead or the ones who have raised the most money, and so my question is how can we change that? Go ahead Betsy, sorry, because I think I really like what I hear from Senator Kusinich. I supported him, his candidacy last time, and I've talked to many people who have the same feeling, but they say, well, he couldn't be elected, so I don't want to waste my vote. You know, Congressman, we should talk about this money issue, a little bit more.

Betsy's right, this has been a big issue this week with all the candidates coming out with their financial reports. You can look at it in a number of different ways. First of all, can I win this election? Yes, and let me tell you why New Hampshire's importance is one of the few states where you can campaign individually, where people get a chance to see the candidates up front. People in New Hampshire aren't going to be bought. Candidates have to go and see them. They want to meet them. They want to meet them in small groups, not just about meeting an image on television. So this is one of the reasons why I support the New Hampshire primary, and why I think with New Hampshire being the first primary, I have a chance to be president of the United States because our campaign, our grassroots campaign in New Hampshire will give people a chance to vote for peace, to vote for prosperity, to vote for health care for all. And so it's not just about the money because a grassroots campaign is golden. That has a value on in its own, and now in addition to that. The more, you know, having been in politics for 40 years, I can tell you that the more candidates raise money from these interest groups, the less independence they have. You know, he pays the piper, calls the tune.

And so we're seeing a corruption of our politics represented by this massive infusion of money. I think it's great candidates raise money on the web. I think it's great to have a lot of small contributors. But that's not the whole story. Most of the contributors are large contributors. Most of them represent interest groups who feel that if they can get their person in, they can control the politics of the country, which could mean staying with a non-stainable source of energy, staying at war, staying in a health care system that takes health care out of the reach of many Americans. So my candidacy, frees up our system, gives New Hampshire people a chance to vote for someone who's independent, who can enable us to restore our freedoms and get away from war and start to pay attention to domestic needs. Congressman Cassandra, even if you were to win New Hampshire with a grassroots campaign, there's some harsh financial realities that hit your heart after New Hampshire with the compressed primary schedule. All of a sudden you have three dozen states ready to go with their primaries and you need the cash to compete.

Well, you need the cash, that's true, and you need an organization. Now, we've been able to organize without spending a lot of money. But the candidate who runs well in New Hampshire or who takes New Hampshire is going to be able to parlay that into electoral success across the country. Actually, New Hampshire is more important than ever, more important than ever because of the collapsed primary season, all these primaries moving up, New Hampshire looms even larger because before where New Hampshire was, let's say a month ahead of a number of the major primaries or even longer, now, you know, then if a candidate broke through like a Buchanan a few years ago, the political establishment could rally and try to direct their resources to their candidate who's the choice of the insiders. In this case, all of these people loading these primaries right after New Hampshire, it's a perfect scenario for me because it enables me to have the possibility of running well New Hampshire, even winning New Hampshire and parlaying that into success in other states because New Hampshire is going to be more important than ever.

And that's why I feel so comfortable being here, campaigning with the people, this is my fourth trip, I've spent a dozen days in this state already, I'm going to be spending a good part of the summer here because when people hear this message about it's possible to take a new direction, we shouldn't be locked in war, we should be able to meet the needs of the people, people should have decent jobs and how healthcare and housing and we should have a clean environment, but we can't do it unless we change our political direction, you cannot continue to have war and talk about prosperity, the two are antithetical, we're leading our nation on a path to ruin by borrowing money for a war and these candidates who say they're for peace and they want to describe themselves as peace candidates and they keep voting to keep us at war, well you know what, during the debates they'll have to face that and I'm sure if they get on this show they'll have to face it. Our number again on the exchanges 1-800-892-6477, the guest today Ohio Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from the Buckeye State, making his second one for the presidency, 1-800-892-6477 is our number, Congressman over to Brattabur

over Montenau, where Rick is on the phone, go ahead Rick, it's your turn. Hi, a lot of us are heroes of yours because you bring up all these issues and keep them in the limelight and whether you win or not I'm really grateful for that. As a member of the Wyndham County Democratic Committee, I've been questioning a number of other Democratic actors, including Howard Dean about who I've known since the Universal Healthcare Days, I was the Universal Healthcare Lobbyist, about the basic issue of suffrage. The Florida 2000 election and this most recent election I felt like were seriously flawed between the 90,000 people in Florida who didn't get to vote, including some people who were actually election officials.

Hey Rick, I'd love for you to get to your question. Yeah, my question is, why is it that the Democratic machine is not screaming about the issue of touchscreen voting machines and voter fraud in general? Okay, well I agree with you, that's one of the reasons why I voted against certification of the 2004 election because of the election, the election irregularities that took place in the state of Ohio and we know that people were frustrated in their attempts to vote in Ohio. We know that areas where you had a majority of African Americans voting didn't have the number of voting machines they needed and certain suburbs where it was sure to have a big Republican turnout had no problem at all. So I think that you have to look at the conditions that we find ourselves in and this touchscreen voting cannot in any way be fail safe or tamper proof, I have introduced a bill to provide for paper ballots in federal elections that would give us a chance to have an audit trail

and to have a account that's visible. So I think that people, Laura as I go across the country, concern about the integrity of the elections is a major concern of the American people. They want to know their vote as a council is going to be counted. That's why I say we ought to go back to paper ballots. This new technology does not in any way assure security of the elections. I agree with the gentleman. Although in the Florida issue we had paper ballots and we all got familiar with pregnant chads and swinging chads and they were messy too. But it was that butterfly ballot was very complicated. I'm talking about a just a simple paper ballot. Fill in the circle. The kind of ballots we used to have, excuse me when I started in politics. We still have fill in the circle here in New York. Or just make your ex on a piece of paper. That worked for years and we had faster voting returns too by the way. I agree with the gentleman.

We ought to be concerned about election integrity and I've introduced a bill to address the issues he's concerned about. Rick, thanks for the call and another caller outside New Hampshire. This is Paul in Lewiston, Maine. Go ahead, Paul. You're on the year. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. To what extent do you think the military industrial complex has been responsible for this foreign policy crisis and tragedy in Iraq? Secondly, what is the likelihood that impeachment alone will stop this war and stop this administration because that's what it took in Vietnam? I think you addressed the military industrial complex pretty much earlier if you want to make a comment on that. There is one thing I would like to say and that is there is a people who choose a career in the military. It's an honorable career. We should salute those who serve. And there are a lot of good people who are in the military at the highest levels. But unfortunately when you get these corporate interests involved in trying to guide certain

programs and procurement programs and the building of weapons systems, the country loses its direction and then the budget becomes about assuring the profits of the corporations and not the protection of our country. We don't have the kind of protection that we should have for the kind of money we spend. We spend more than the rest of the world put together and we don't need to spend that much to be safe and secure and our policies have made us less safe. So we've talked about that throughout this show but let's talk about impeachment. A month ago on my website at consentage.us, I reached out to the American people and said, we see our destruction of our civil liberties. We see this administration on a path towards war against Iran. Is this the time that we should start talking about impeachment? Let's have a national conversation. And the response has been very powerful. People feel that it's a legitimate to have this discussion first of all. Well some democratic leaders have said off the table, no talk about it. There are people who feel that our country's civil liberties have been in danger, that

our national purpose has been undermined with torture and rendition and destruction of the habeas corpus and the an illegal war. And so I have participated in those discussions. I've been in many states already. People think that we ought to be talking about it and there are people who think that it ought to proceed. I'm listening carefully as a member of Congress, the House. I have the ability to introduce such a resolution. I'm listening to what people have to say and I will be making a decision within the next month or so. A decision as to whether to call for the impeachment of President Bush. I think that any kind of a discussion cannot center only on President Bush but must center on both the President and the Vice President. Again, I haven't made a decision yet, but I will make a decision. I am listening carefully to what people say. I don't think this is something that you can say is off the table because Congress as a co-equal branch of government was created to provide a check to administrative abuse of power, to executive abuse of power. If Congress doesn't restrain an executive who is gone astray, then who will?

Who will protect the interests of the American people? Now it doesn't mean, by the way, that the simple introduction of impeachment resolution is going to result in the impeachment of the President. But what it will do if one is introduced is it will state what the American people stand for in terms of what kind of conduct they expect to be obtained by our nation's highest leaders. Some people, if you introduce this Congressman, we'll say, hey, look, Congressman, impeachment was not intended as a method to settle political differences. You know what? It was intended to prevent high crimes and misdemeanors from escaping without any kind of notice. I think that the process, by the way, and these are the discussions we've had in town hall meetings, would have to proceed without anger, would have to proceed with the intention of healing America, healing this country's breach that has occurred from an illegal war, healing this country's political divisions that have occurred from a Democrat's just attacking

Republicans over policy issue. This is not a Democratic Republican issue. This is a question of our Constitution, of the primacy of the law, of the sanctity of American political tradition, of whether we really have government of the people and by the people. And so all of those questions enter into a decision as to whether or not to introduce a resolution. But I can tell you, having traveled the country, there's a high degree of interest in accountability. And the question is, who will stand for accountability? So I'm listening carefully. And as I said, you should see a decision in some time this spring. Well, this is a huge topic and we have just a minute left. So I think I'm going to leave it on the table for next time Congressman. I wanted to end on a lighter note with you. You recently got married. Congratulations. Thank you. To a British woman, how has that Congressman Kucinich enhanced added to reshaped if at all your political views, getting that outside perspective from your wife and her British

family? Well, you know, when any of us have love, it is transformation on the changes everything in our lives. And so having Elizabeth's participation coming, she coming from a British or a more European point of view, has been very helpful because in some ways it's confirmed some of the things that I've wondered about how America has looked at from abroad. She loves America and has come up with ideas that have been very helpful in this campaign and she's been a New Hampshire with me and people have responded very, very joyously to her presence. So listen, love changes everything and love can change this world. And so can peace, the two are together. So we're trying to take America in a new direction and I feel confident that a New Hampshire is the place to begin. And again, on that impeachment boat, you're going to make a decision pretty soon. It sounds like. I'd say within the next month or two. All right. So next time we see you, we'll talk more about that. Thank you, Congressman Kucinich very much for coming in. Thank you. Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He was first elected to Congress in 96.

He represents Cleveland. NHPR would like to know what issues are most important to you during our presidential primary campaign. You can visit our website, NHPR.org. Click on the public insight link to share what you know. Your insights will help inform our primary coverage as candidates like Dennis Kucinich come to the Greenwich State. Again, NHPR.org, the public insight link. The exchange is a production of New Hampshire public radio. The producers Ty Frailey, the engineer Dan Colgan, our intern is Caitlin Rookie. Our theme music was composed by Bob Lorp, the exchange's executive producer is Keith Shields. Thank you very much.