Kucinich Urges Colleagues to Find Will to End Occupation

[slipslidingaway]

more at link
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22896

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) will vote No on the latest bill to fund the continued occupation of Iraq. Kucinich is the only Democrat running for President who has consistently voted against funding the war. Today he said that Congress' failure to end the occupation of Iraq is the result of a lack of will to do so on the part of his colleagues and his party's leadership. "Just as the Democrats could have prevented the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Senators Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd supported it," Kucinich said, "and just as the Democrats could have ended the occupation of Iraq at any point by ending the funding, while Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd have voted over and over again to fund it, so too the Democratic leadership could have ended the occupation this week by not bringing any funding bills up for votes."

"The Democratic Party has to choose," Kucinich said, "between standing for peace or continuing to support war and occupation, between heeding the demand of the voters last November or caving in to the demands of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. We can't have it both ways. We can't facilitate the passage of another bill to fund the war and at the same time claim that we want the war to end. The public sees through such hypocritical maneuvering."

"It's instructive," Kucinich added, "that the leadership removed from the Supplemental a requirement that the president gain Congress's consent before launching an additional aggressive war against Iran. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards have all said that with regard to Iran all options are on the table, a thinly veiled euphemism for a unilateral preemptive military attack."

"If Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd want to end the occupation of Iraq," Kucinich noted, "they can vote against any more funding, and they can filibuster bills that provide it. I urge every Senator to take that step."

[helderheid]

1. k

[Quantess]

2. Well, good.

The more leaders that speak up, the better.

[AnOhioan]

3. K&R Dennis is right.....

the public IS seeing the hypocrisy right now...the Party would be well-served to take notice.

[Breeze54]

4. Thanks for that, slipslidingaway...

Kucinich is the only Democrat running for President who has consistently voted against funding the war.

[slipslidingaway]

8. YW, yes he has been consistent, no apologies needed from him.

[LWolf]

5. K & R n/t

[TahitiNut]

6. I can vote for Kucinich even if I have to use a write-in.

I hope I have a better option, but I'm not seeing it yet. :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

9. I see no other option as well. n/t

[bvar22]

7. K&R for the ONLY Democratic Candidate.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[slipslidingaway]

10. If we read between the lines we should have known this was

to be the outcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3265075&mesg_id=3265075

Will Bush and the Democrats now 'compromise' on these benchmarks, I believe that is what is being signaled to us. Bush will look as if he caved to the Democrats on the benchmarks, which he wanted all along and the Dems will look as if they are holding him accountable by demanding the benchmarks that Bush wanted in the first place? Maybe there will be a timeline, see Reid's comments below, that Bush could waive. And the war will continue.

Your thoughts?


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22389

snip>>

"The new war money bill passed by the House on May 10 does not include even a nonbinding end date for the war. It does fund the war for a shorter period of time at one shot, but the Senate doesn't like that idea, and the bill must be reconciled with whatever the Senate passes. So, what's left in the bill that Bush doesn't like? Benchmarks!

But there are two problems with this. Bush DOES like them.

...Then the bill lists five (count em!) so-called "benchmarks," starting with:

"(1) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;"



"Obama Seeks War-Funding Compromise
The Democratic Candidate Could Support Bill with Benchmarks but No Timetable for Withdrawal"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3169520&page=1


Reid

snips>>

"One would wind down U.S. involvement early next year by prohibiting combat funds after March 31. The other would call for troop withdrawals to begin this year and set a goal of finishing by March 31 next year. But Bush could waive the dates, Reid said.

Reid added that he and fellow Democrats were prepared to pass a bill to fund the Iraq war that is "very, very close" to a bill Congress sent Bush last month, which he vetoed.


Bush has embraced the idea of including in the war spending bill a list of "benchmarks" for measuring Iraq's progress in stabilizing a country that has suffered from relentless violence since the 2003 U.S. invasion."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070515/pl_nm/iraq_usa_fund...



"Speaker Pelosi:

“The President’s own benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq will be the centerpiece of that evaluation. You would think that the President would embrace this legislation - it has his benchmarks."

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=366

[slipslidingaway]

11. Thx for K&R's. Two September Votes On Iraq?

http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/05/two_september_votes_on_iraq.php

"House Democrats were set to bring the $120 billion supplemental war spending bill to the floor today under a special rule that sets up two votes in September -- on legislation to bring troops home from Iraq and also to "de-authorize" the war.

September will be a key month because not only will lawmakers be debating another war-funding installment, but the Bush administration will report to Congress on the Iraqi government's progress in meeting political and security benchmarks. Gen. David Petraeus is expected to report that month on whether President Bush's "surge" plan is helping stabilize Iraq.

The maneuvering is aimed at bringing anti-war Democrats on board to support the rule, which is essentially a vote to approve nearly $95 billion for military operations without restrictions on Bush's conduct of the war."

[magellan]

12. K&R for my candidate -- the only one with a spine

[Swamp Rat]

13. Geaux Kucinich!!

:kick: