Kucinich: The Only Way To End The War Is To Say NO To Any Additional Funding

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24620

Kucinich: Troop Redeployment Bill Will Not End The War
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-07-12 23:10. Congress

The Only Way To End The War Is To Say NO To Any Additional Funding

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 12, 2007) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) issued the following statement following his vote against HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.

"We've lost over 3,600 of our brave service men and women. An estimated one million innocent Iraqis have perished in the war. We're now telling Iraqis, whose country the U.S. destroyed, whose reconstruction funds the U.S. mishandled, whose social networks have been shredded: Stand on your own feet! We try to steal their oil under the cover of occupation," Kucinich said in a debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today.

"This bill will not end the war. This bill will not end the occupation. It doesn't take a vote to end this war. We must inform the Administration that the $97 billion appropriated last month is the end of the financing for the war.

"Use the money that's in the pipeline through October 1 to bring the troops home. Compel the President to put together an international peacekeeping and security force which would move in as our troops leave.

"We could have our troops home by October 1. The question is whether we are ready to take a stand to do that, or whether we are going to vote on resolutions that give the American people the appearance that we want to end the war, without actually addressing the central issue that will end the war. Stop the funding."

[endarkenment]

1. No shit.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. and he's not gonna get that...

so it's childish and churlish to oppose any alternative measures.

[endarkenment]

6. What?

Which alternative measures are going to get past the senate or a presidential veto?

Who is being childish? Churlish?

[blondeatlast]

22. And defunding the war WOULD? Please... nt

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Well no it wouldn't have to.

A defeat of a funding bill in either house ends the matter. No veto. No other house to worry about.

[IndianaGreen]

3. In our hearts, we know Dennis is right!

The naysayers will criticize Dennis, but they are the same naysayers that criticized Dennis for opposing the war and Bush's power grab and assault on our liberties.

The track record of the naysayers is one of "miserable failure."

I support Dennis Kucinich for President in '08, just as I did in '04.

End the war. Bring the troops home. No residual forces left in Iraq, no bases, and no American embassy that is larger than the Kremlin complex.

[Mass]

4. Time to stop half measures - Dennis is right.

[babylonsister]

5. I think so, too. If that's the only way Congressional Dems get anything

done, so be it. And that's what it's looking like.

[LordJFT]

7. sorry Dennis, not with you on this one

what we need to do now is demand a timetable and you're hurting that effort

[babylonsister]

12. No, the rethugs are blocking every attempt to get anything done.

The dim one said today the Dem's only job is to deal with appropriations, so that's exactly what they should do.

[LordJFT]

16. how does that contradict what i said?

I agree that the rethugs are blocking every effort to get things done, but I think by voting with the rethugs Kucinich is hurting that effort as well.

[babylonsister]

19. This goes to the Senate next, where it more than likely won't pass,

just like the Webb amendment didn't, because the rethugs claim the Dems don't/shouldn't set the war agenda.
The only way, imo, they'll get anything accomplished is if they modify the appropriations bill.
That's what I was getting at.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Yeah if we just keep funding the war it will go away.nt.

[bigwillq]

8. Go get 'em Dennis.

:bounce:

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Yeah!

Cuz empty gestures RAWK! :bounce:

[bigwillq]

11. At least DK is being consistent

He's been calling for immediate withdrawal and to cut funding for quite awhile unlike other people who change their tune every other day so it might win them an election.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. like those who, say, flip-flop

on abortion or flag-burning amendments.

I love how you guys think his consistency is a great strength.

[bigwillq]

18. Consistency shows character

which I respect.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. and my point is that

Kucinich totally changed his position on abortion and flag burning. So he's NOT consistent on those issues.

[bigwillq]

21. After reading a few articles quickly

It seems like DK struggled in his decision to come to the realization that he believes in choice. I still respect him thoroughly thinking out that decision to become pro-choice after years of voting with anti-abortion legislature.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. he went

from 100% anti-choice voting record to 100% pro-choice voting record in the span of a year - the year in which he decided to run for President.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. You've fallen for a diversion trap.

Kucinich's change of mind on abortion rights is not relevant to this discussion.

[MuseRider]

10. He is consistent.

If he was not we would all be hearing about that later. "ooh a flip flopper" You can't make everyone happy and he is standing against this war even when it looks to others like he is being petulant. I am with him. Stand firm DK.

[grizmaster]

13. Kucinich is flat-out wrong on this one

To say you refuse to save the lives of some soldiers unless you get absolutely all your demands met is foolish, and could very well only delay the end of the occupation, causing even more Americans and Iraqis to die needlessly just so Kucinich can remain seated on his high horse.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Uh what he said was "end the funding". nt.

[grizmaster]

33. what he voted for was continued war

Having an all or nothing stance when so many lifes are at stake just doesn't cut it with me. He may think its a principled stand, but its a stand that supports leaving our troops in harms way.

[zulchzulu]

15. ...with a veto-proof majority...

Until that is the case, it's not going to happen.

There may be an onslaught of Republicans that decide they want to get re-elected that decide to change their tune on funding the war this fall. Let's hope...

[Warren Stupidity]

29. You do not need a veto proof majority to defeat a bill.

You just need a majority in one house.

[ProSense]

17. Kucinich is not exactly correct!

Congress used the power of the purse with the (Boland Amendment), yet Reagan found money in the system to illegally continue funding the war. Bush wouldn't be able to hide the fact that he's tapping into money, and with a timetable for withdrawal, people would also notice if he didn't start pulling out the troops.

There is money in the system and money can be put into the system without approving a sweeping defense budget that cuts off any attempt to hold Bush accountable.

So cutting funding alone wouldn't end the war immediately. This bill sets a timetable and cuts funding:

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq. (Introduced in Senate)

S 1077 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1077

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2007

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DODD, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

Rule

A BILL

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(a) Transition of Mission- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq- The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008...

Also, check out this timeline for Vietnam withdrawal.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Reagan found money in the system to illegally continue funding the war

For which crimes there were quite a few folks convicted.

"Summary of Prosecutions
After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane."

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm

[martymar64]

23. No more funding bills

The war can't be funded and a bill can't be vetoed if there is no bill to veto.
No funding bill should be introduced and if one is, it should not be let out of committee. No votes are necessary, just don't allow any funding bills to see the light of day.

No bill . . . no money . . .no veto . . .no war.
If Bush wants to fund it, let him open his own fucking wallet.

[gulliver]

25. And plant the seeds for the next war...

...because if the vast majority of the people don't call this a lost cause, and cauterize it with vehement blame for Bush and the GOP, then we'll get a worse war not far down the road. If we pull the plug carelessly, we undermine the future stability of the country.

Imagine doing what Kucinich suggests and pulling the plug cold turkey. The troops would come home. Bush would kick and scream and predict disaster. The GOP would too. Then imagine a suitcase nuke going off in New York a year later. It would have been caused by Bush's disastrous leadership and foolish war, of course, but would the people see it that way? I don't think so. I think they would melt down and take the whole American idea with them.

There needs to be consensus on Bush's disastrous failure. He has put us in a dangerous, unstable political state. If we don't get some unity, we're set up for another Bin Laden-like attack and a worse version of Bush.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Yes by all means we must stay the course.

Too bad about all the soldiers and civilians who will die FOR NOTHING AT ALL.

[gulliver]

31. Didn't say stay the course...

... but Bush has mined the course Kucinich wants us on.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Seems to me you did.

You don't want to pull out if it means that Iraq will fall apart. Pulling out means Iraq will fall apart. You have simply issued the current version of 'stay the course' in which some variation of a Friedman Unit is required to arrange a withdrawal that somehow, quite magically, will not leave a disaster in its wake. It is just the same recycled bullshit dressed up and coated with a bright new coat of sparkly rhetoric. I'm sorry that you have fallen for it. I hope you will see past it and my caustic snarkery and realize that they are just playing the latest variation on the same game they have been running on us since this Iraq crap started.

[gulliver]

36. "latest variation on the same game"

I realize it. I realize it. Bush keeps talking like he isn't disgraced. The GOP keeps looking for an out. Some people choose Burger King hamburgers over Wendy's. The world is a strange place.

[ludwigb]

26. I want to see the actual bill language

before judging Kucinich on this one. I checked the House site but it's not up yet...

Anyone have a link?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. He is right. Refuse to fund the war, fund only a troop withdrawal nt

[Stop Cornyn]

38. K & R - go get 'em, Dennis!

[MonkeyFunk]

39. and I thought

the way to get a pony was to hold my breath and stomp my feet.

Didn't work for me, either.

[SaveElmer]

40. LOL...

Very good!!!

:rofl:

[LWolf]

42. But that makes those falsely "anti-Iraq war" candidates

who keep voting to fund the war while they criticize it look bad.

We can't have that.

:sarcasm:

[NaturalHigh]

43. I don't like Kucinich...

but he's definitely right on this. Bring the troops home.

[Imagevision]

44. Of course Dennis is right, how do you think they ended the viet nam war?!!

[maxanne]

45. who really wants to end the war?

The guy who has been against it all along, who has consistently voted against funding it - or the candidates who are cynically trying to keep it going so they have an issue to campaign on?

[Imagevision]

46. who really wants to end the war? - well let's end the occupation then...