No more money for Iraq war, Kucinich says

[sabra]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1163757795188080.xml&coll=2

No more money for Iraq war, Kucinich says

Washington -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the former presidential peace candidate whose opposition to the Iraq war is now practically mainstream, wants to cut off future funding for the war.

It's the only way to assure a pullout soon, he says.

The Cleveland Democrat, appearing Wednesday on the Democracy Now independent broadcast network and Thursday on Fox News, says he will push that message in Congress and try to get a majority of his colleagues to agree. He would leave current funding in place but refuse the next Bush administration request for more money for the war, which could come by spring.

Money already in the pipeline would cover the pullout, he told The Plain Dealer.

[sabbat hunter]

1. would harm the troop

we still need to fund the troops. we cannot leave them defenseless and without the funds needed until we do get them out of there.


bush can keep the troops there and get the money from elsewhere. this isnt the right way to get our troops home ASAP

[meganmonkey]

2. No matter how much money Congress approves for this occupation

The troops will never have what they need. The money is not being spent on them anyway. Throughout this whole conflict we have heard reports of lack of armor and other equipment that they need. Yet the military contractors are making record profits and billions of dollars go missing.

:shrug:

[arcane1]

6. exactly!!!

their presence in Iraq is what harms the troops. Billions are lining pockets while the troops get shot at, and the priority should be getting them out of there asap

[Vidar]

11. Sorry, defense spending is simply corporate welfare for

military contractors. Hell, even the troops'nutrition was outsourced to Halliburton, who then did teir best to poison them.

[Tellurian]

12. Vidar..

Poisoning the troops?

I haven!t heard about that..

what is that all about?

[Tempest]

15. Bad water and rancid food

Several instances by Halliburton sickened many troops over the last few years.

[RedSock]

26. blood in the food?

Weren't there reports of blood in the Halliburton-supplied food?

[Vidar]

17. They were using substandard food & a fair number of troops became

ill. No deaths that I know of. It was two or three months ago--reported here at DU. Since I don't have a star, I can't search & don't have a link. I hope that is helpful.

[No Exit]

35. Kucinich totally bitch-slapped Fucker Carlson in his appearance

Not to damn him with faint praise, but Kucinich made mincemeat of the Perpetual Pretty Boy today.

It was the first time I'd ever actually SEEN Kucinich.

My conclusion: I want this guy for my president.

[CountAllVotes]

40. DK is THE BEST!

and I agree, we need him for President of the United States!

FEAR ENDS, HOPE BEGINS, KUCINICH '08!

:dem: :kick:

[Tempest]

14. Read the article

He would leave current funding in place but refuse the next Bush administration request for more money for the war, which could come by spring.

Money already in the pipeline would cover the pullout, he told The Plain Dealer.



It wouldn't harm the troops at all. It would save their lives.

[IndyOp]

27. He (Kucinich) would leave current funding in place

"He would leave current funding in place but refuse the next Bush administration request for more money for the war, which could come by spring."

As Kucinich says in the "DemocracyNow!" interview - there is more than enough money in the current budget to pay for phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. What he wants to cut off is additional funding for the US Embassy that is bigger than the Vatican; additional funding for Halliburton to pump oil (un-metered) from Iraq; additional funding for a covert war in Iran (there are already US operatives on the ground)...

Cut off the money = Get troops out of Iraq = Save troop lives

In other words, I think your logic is backwards...

[puebloknot]

30. Kucinich is the last man who would harm the troops.

In his interview, he specifically said that there is enough money "in the pipeline" to achieve withdrawal while still taking care of the troops.

[DemReadingDU]

36. If this administration sold war bonds

War bonds were sold in WWII to finance the war back then. If this adminsitration sold war bonds instead of taking money from our taxes, there would not be the money to continue this war. So use the money in the 'pipeline' to bring our soldiers home.

[eridani]

34. If a trillion dollars hasn't gotten the troops what they need--

--why do you think a few hundred million more will, all of a sudden? Probably a specific earmarked appropriation is the way to deal with this, and we'll have a much better chance of getting it through come January. What Repub would dare vote against?

[we can do it]

37. BS They Are Throwing the Money at Halliburton et al Not the Troops

Bring them home

[Zorra]

39. There is an easy method for getting the troops out of harm's way.

Get them out of Iraq immediately. They don't need to be there. They never should have been made to go there in the first place.

End of story.

[mike_c]

41. it is likely the ONLY way....

Congress has a duty to STOP AMERICAN WAR CRIMES. Every day the U.S. remains in Iraq compounds the severity of those crimes. Would you tell a bank robber "Look, we want you to stop, but we know you need the money, so try to rob fewer and fewer banks until you stop altogether, say in six months or a year?"

[lazyriver]

3. No more money for Halliburton & friends

That would end this damned war in a hurry.

The poor guys & gals carrying the guns and getting their asses blown off in the process deserve everything they need to stay alive until we get them out.

[lapfog_1]

4. It's the only direct way the new Congress will have to end this...

But it is such a bad option, on so many levels.

The Dems would never win another election in my lifetime. The public (including me) is four-square behind the troops that are ordered to be where they are.

I understand the sentiment. And the coming frustration. But this isn't the answer.

I think we will have to impeach this little shit AND send capitol hill police to arrest him to end the war. It may be the only way. Cutting the funding, no matter how little of it actually gets the troops paid or buys them ammo or armour, is a non-starter.

[sabbat hunter]

5. no impeachment

at least not yet. do a full investigation. democrats have both houses, bring back the special prosecutor and let him investigate wrong doings.

have full and open hearings. that is what happened during watergate. build up the solid evidence, make the case to the american public by having the hearings public. if all goes well by the end bush will resign in disgrace, like nixon did.

[lapfog_1]

10. Well, yes, I've been saying that too

in other posts... Investigate, make the hearings public, and if the evidence of crimes exist and is obvious to everyone, then impeach.

The point in this post is that, to stop this war before W. leaves office, we will likely HAVE to impeach him. No matter how many people tell him otherwise, I don't think he will listen and withdraw the troops.

[arcane1]

7. meanwhile, soldiers and Iraqis will continue to die...

while impeachment hearings go on and on and on

waiting and waiting and waiting, and hoping that impeachment actually happens, will do more harm to the troops than pulling them out NOW

[lapfog_1]

13. I'm all for pulling them out NOW.

Tell me how the Dems are going to do that?

I don't even think that they will be able to pass a non-binding resolution that calls for troop withdrawal and have it pass the Senate.

So how do they do it? The only options I know of in the constitution is to cut off funds.... and the other is to remove the Commander-in-Chief. Cutting off funds, well, that's just not a good option.

We think we won it all last week. That we are in power now. That the public finally gets it and elected the Dems to end this crap. And ALL of that is true but one thing... we aren't in power where it really counts. Even before * came into office, the US government had already become more "unitary executive" than the founders intended. * just pushed it hard in a unparalleled power grab, aided by a rethug Congress and a court that he was able to tilt just enough. And a brand new shiny Dem Congress just isn't going to be able reverse the power grab. That's the bad news. The good news is the public IS waking up... and the Dems WILL be able to halt any future power grabs. But they won't be able to end the war.

So get ready for a frustrating two years.

[arcane1]

28. I sadly agree

:evilfrown:

[ngant17]

16. these reasons were stated 30 years ago in Viet Nam

The fact of the matter is that we could have pulled out in SE Asia much earlier than 1975, many thousands of unnecessary troops would not have died, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese citizens who would have not been killed.

Withholding money seems to be the most rational way to force the White House to make the painful decision. Why must we wait another 2 or 3 years before the final pull-out under a new President?

Even if it will cost Democrats a political victory, it is worth saving innocent lives in this unnecessary, contrived war.

[lapfog_1]

18. Let me ask you a difficult question

"Even if it will cost Democrats a political victory, it is worth saving innocent lives in this unnecessary, contrived war."

so... you are willing to bet that the next 8 to 16 years of repuke rule won't get us into another misadventure that cost us more lives... not to mention all the other lives that republican rule will cost us (ruined environment, bad health care, etc)... just so we can try to cut off the funding and end this war sooner?

Now, suppose we cut off funding and Bush DOESN'T do the logical thing and bring the troops home? What if he plays chicken with 140,000 American lives? I know, that's not rational. But it wasn't rational to go there in the first place and Bush is unhinged, he is the decider, and he alone talks to god.

[saigon68]

24. The Chimp is Nuts _____ He is a WAR CRIMINAL look at his face

[thingfisher]

29. Yes, how many people died

while the "peace negotiators" argued interminably over what shape the negotiating table would be?!!! Peace with honor indeed!

[jwirr]

8. Specific funding for specific needs to support the troops still

there and not one cent to send new troops or the bastard profiteers. And heavy oversight. Take control of what we are doing over there.

[lapfog_1]

20. You realize that much of the funding that led up to the war

was illegal. Bush misappropriated funds destined for one thing and used them to start the build up to Iraq.
And what's the ONLY remedy when he does it again with these "earmarked" funds? Oh, that's right, THEN we'll impeach him.

So let's cut to chase and start the investigation and impeach sooner rather than later.

[jwirr]

22. Oversight is the beginning of legal action, I hope.

[lapfog_1]

25. Someone had a great quote on the cable today

"Oversight is looking into the future, investigate looks into the past"

I think most here would agree that Bush has already broken a number of laws... so let's pick a few and investigate.

I think we could still have draft articles of impeachment by late spring... hopefully, just as with Nixon, that might be enough to have both him and shooter resign.

Then President Pelosi could put an immediate stop to the war.

[Vidar]

9. Go, Dennis, go!

[Canuckistanian]

19. Cutt off the contractors!

Kill the contracts, put the military back in charge of food, logisitics, housing, etc.

Agressive oversight! Reclaim the money from contractors who didn't do as they promised, wasted money and overcharged for basic supplies.

Reinvest that money in supplies for the troops - body armor, vehicles, etc.

That's how you can do it with the money already in the pipeline.

[Senator]

21. Impeach the warmonger instead

And before you start, there's nothing to "investigate"

The regime admits and "defends" clearly impeachable offenses -- like illegal spying and violating Geneva.

The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters (that may or may not lead to impeachment charges).

Doing the former (while not even "required") could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul. Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face.

That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it.

If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention.

Like Kucinich and his "pipeline" story.

===

[Zhade]

33. Hear, hear!

It's almost as if, when we won, suddenly people forgot all the crimes, some of which we've HELPED reveal to the public!

[Palladin]

23. The Congressional Democrats just elected

a pro-war Majority Leader. He won't let his domestic and foreign constituents down, and neither the Democratic or Republican leadership will ever allow a fund cutoff bill to ever even make it to committee.
The army went to a shambles in Viet Nam. Fragging of officers and noncoms, race riots, drug abuse by combat troops, atrocities etc etc. It may come to that in Iraq. Maybe the high military will take matters into their own hands eventually. That would be a sad day for the American republic - but that republic died long ago. Bush has really been a piss poor Caesar. God help us if the two War Parties put McCain in next. There's not much to do except try to protect our local communities now.

[Ignis]

31. Keep up the good fight, Kooch!

Not a single more cent for this illegal war. Pull the handbrake!

[Supply Side Jesus]

32. I knew my vote for him at my state convention wasn't a waste.

love that man.

[FtWayneBlue]

38. By stating up front that there is enough money in the pipeline

to bring the troops safely home, DK is powerfully stating the reason for cutting off future funding. Bush will be the target of future outrage if he continues the occupation without Congressional funding.

[StrictlyRockers]

42. This is EXACTLY the right maneuver for Kucinich to make.

Congress controls the purse strings. Congress is the only body with the authority to declare war. Bush is a maverick who needs to be reined (reigned?) in.

If Congress does not make this move, they are seriously misrepresenting themselves as Democratic Party members. This is what the vast majority of Americans want! Delaying bringing the troops home in any way, should and will seriously damage the political propects of whatever party is doing the obstructing. Enabling further murder and death by approving more funding for the war would be a crime, a huge mistake and a grand lie to the American people.

This IS the right way to get the troops home ASAP. Kucinich made it clear that using the money already earmarked for Iraq provides enough funding to get them home safely. Implying otherwise is obstructionist warmongering.

SR