Kucinich Blasts Democrats (Truthdig)

[marmar]

Kucinich Blasts Democrats

Posted on Mar 23, 2007



Not everyone was celebrating the passage of the Iraq spending bill on Friday. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Truthdig it’s “a disaster for the American people.” The presidential candidate went on to explain his dissatisfaction with his party: “It’s the same kind of thinking that led us into Iraq— that we didn’t have any alternatives.”


Transcript:
James Harris: This is Truthdig on the phone, Dennis Kucinich, representative from the state of Ohio since 1996. Today we have the honor of talking to you just after the bill that passed on the House floor, a bill that will require President Bush to oppose benchmarks for progress on the Iraqi government and link them to the continued presence of American combat troops. Dennis, is this bill a victory for Democrats?

Dennis Kucinich: It’s a disaster for the American people. The Democrats should have been voting—or come up with a plan to get out of Iraq. Not one that’s going to keep us there a year or two. It’s the same kind of thinking that led us into Iraq—that we didn’t have any alternatives. It’s the same thing that caused the Democrats to construct a plan that will keep us there at least for a year, and saying, well, we don’t have any other alternatives. I can tell you something, we could have come up with a plan that would have called for the troops to come home in the next few months. But we didn’t do that, so I, no one can tell me it’s a time for celebration. It’s a disaster.

Harris: What should we do instead, Dennis?

Kucinich: We should be listening to what the American people had to say last October, and that is taking steps to immediately end the war. And that means to set in motion a plan to end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home using money that’s already in the pipeline to do so. At the same time there’s a parallel process of bringing in international security and peacekeeping forces to stabilize Iraq. And we can get that help once we end the occupation. Then you have to have a number of other steps that are taken. Most people aren’t aware that this bill that Congress passed sets the stage for the privatization of Iraq’s oil, oil industry. To have the Democratic Party involved in something like that is outrageous. Furthermore, we should be pushing for the stabilization of Iraq’s food and energy crisis. There’s no talk about that. Basically we’re blaming Iraq for the disaster that the United States and this administration visited upon them. We’re telling them, either they’re going to get their house in order or we’re going to leave. Well, you know what, this approach is wrongheaded and the Democrats should have known better and they should have done better.

Harris: Nancy Pelosi, I think she’s partying right now. She feels like she’s done a good job. I’m going to say, Dennis, that I think she has done a good job if you follow the diplomatic line of things. She couldn’t go in with guns blazing and saying “get those troops out.” These benchmarks do mean something.

Kucinich: Why couldn’t she have said: “This war must end”? Congress has the power to cut off funds. Congress has the power to limit the funds. Congress could have taken a new direction. Let’s face it, Democrats are expected to do that. ... We need to go in a new direction. And that direction is out. And the fact that we gave the president money today to keep the war going through the end of his term constitutes a sellout of the interests of the American people. And a continuation of the war for another year at least, possibly two, and this is just wrong. Just totally wrong. .....(more)

The complete piece, in audio and transcript versions, is at: http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070324_kucinich_blasts_democrats/

[saltpoint]

1. Does anybody know how Kucinich voted on this legislation yesterday?

I thought I saw a DU post on it but can't find it.

[marmar]

2. He voted no.

n/t

[saltpoint]

4. Oh my.

Thank you for that information, marmar, and hello to you.

That was a hell of a narrow vote in the House yesterday.

[marmar]

5. Good Saturday morning, Old Crusoe!

:hi:

[druidity33]

8. if he was the tie-breaker

do you think he still would've voted NO?

[saltpoint]

13. I have no idea. I share his frustration over Bush's recalcitrance, but

I don't hear any constructive alternative.

What would he have had Pelosi do differently?

[Elidor]

48. From the article:

"We should be listening to what the American people had to say last October, and that is taking steps to immediately end the war. And that means to set in motion a plan to end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home using money that’s already in the pipeline to do so. At the same time there’s a parallel process of bringing in international security and peacekeeping forces to stabilize Iraq. And we can get that help once we end the occupation. Then you have to have a number of other steps that are taken. Most people aren’t aware that this bill that Congress passed sets the stage for the privatization of Iraq’s oil, oil industry. To have the Democratic Party involved in something like that is outrageous. Furthermore, we should be pushing for the stabilization of Iraq’s food and energy crisis. There’s no talk about that. Basically we’re blaming Iraq for the disaster that the United States and this administration visited upon them. We’re telling them, either they’re going to get their house in order or we’re going to leave. Well, you know what, this approach is wrongheaded and the Democrats should have known better and they should have done better."

[saltpoint]

75. I've already read that. My comment had to do with specific

proposals before the Congress, whether Kucinich-initiated or not, which would out-maneuver the Bush administration's commitment to war in the Middle East.

[John Q. Citizen]

66. Dennis has a detailed withdrawal plan. up at his site under the issues tab.

But this is a philosophical fight because bush can veto anything anyway, Pelosi or Kucinich plan.

Kucinich is right that congress can cut off funding and that the Speaker has extraordinary powers to determine what comes up for a vote.

The Speaker also has a sizable group of "Blue Dogs" and "New" Democrats who might give her grief if she did what Kucinich advocates.

However, the very fact that Kucinich is out there talking about it helps pull some of the "Blue Dogs" and some of the "New" Democrats over to the left, even if just a little.

The whole exercise of passing a bill is mostly symbolic.

The only real power congress has is in not passing a funding bill.

[saltpoint]

74. Yet not all those voting in favor on Friday were "blue dog" Dems.

I admire Kucinich, but he's one of the Democrats who did not stop the war Friday, if that is his stated goal.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. Neither did any of them, because the wars being faught today.

A lot of "New" Democrats as well as "Progressive" Democrats supported the bill and it was a masterful piece of political theater that demonstrated the abilities of Madam Speaker as well as the bipartanship of the left in inter/party politics that assured Pelosi prevailed.

That Kucinich is sticking to his guns doesn't suprise me a bit. He a fighter and he will fight for what he thinks is right. It's refreshing in politics to know where a candidate stands on the issues and to see them stand by those issues even if it means taking some heat from your own more regressive leadership.

If it weren't for people like Kucinich, Pelosi wouldn't even be putting through her watered down version of sorta withdrawal maybe in 08. Don't forget that it takes people willing to stick there necks out to help drag other people along.

[saltpoint]

78. Nancy Pelosi was my Congresswoman for some years. I do not consider

her "regressive."

Neither do most of her constituents.

[John Q. Citizen]

80. Neither do I But her bill was more regressive than Kucinich's bill. And a lot more expensive

[saltpoint]

81. No bill of Kucinich's made it out of committee.

Do I have that wrong?

[MGKrebs]

3. I'll give you a pen next time I see you DK.

You can write the bill you want and see how many votes you can get for it.

[papau]

6. LOL - DK does seem more intent on symbols than on getting a bill passed! n/t

n/t

[mmonk]

9. I wouldn't call it symbolism.

He has real grievances that I myself share. One could say the legislation is symbolism due to the loopholes, meeting some administration goals, as well as probably either not escaping a veto or the administration just plain not going along with what they don't like and ignoring provisions they don't like.

[papau]

19. All is symbolism - some of which can be passed - and some of which has a chance of

becoming law if we can hold enough of the original passing votes.

Bush must realize that this is the only bill he will get passed. It is already a compromise as can be seen by these comments on DU.

What I fear - and what Rove expects - is for the left to blow it and for May 15th passing of emergency funds for Iraq via 200 GOP votes AND 18 DEMS.

[MadHound]

11. Umm, no, that is the what this bill is, a symbol, not worth the paper it's printed on

Sure it says that Bush has to bring the troops home, unless they are "training Iraqi Security Forces" or "fighting Al-Qaeda". Holes big enough that Bush can drive his whole war through. And once again, the Dems have continued to fund it:eyes: And will fund it in the future:eyes: And here we'll be in a couple of years, wondering why we're still in Iraq training security forces and fighting Al-Qaeda.

This isn't a victory for the Dems, this is a defeat. And slowly, but surely, the Dems are slowly going to distance themselves from the anti-war movement also. After all, haven't they brought the war to an end? It's already happening here too, with the anti-war movement being criticized for everything from being to confrontational to committing fashion faux-paus:eyes:

This isn't a victory, this is a tragedy, a disgrace. If you want to end the war, you don't continue to fund it. You bury the war funding bills in committee and bring this whole goddamn train to a screeching halt. Anything else is just a continuation of the war.

Dennis is, once again, spot on with this one. And if the Dems don't start paying attention to him, they will lose big time in Novemenber '08. A large coalition of people, 'Pugs, centerists, anti-war liberals, all came together to put the Dems in their position of power last fall for one reason, and one reason only, to stop the war ASAP. If we're still in Iraq come November '08, that coalition will fall apart, with people voting Republican, third party or staying home in droves, and the Dems will once again be in the political wilderness. It is past time for half steps and marginal measures. Stop funding this war and end it NOW. Anything else is simply more innocent blood on the hands of Democrats.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. What MH said.

Add me to the disgusted list.

[MuseRider]

16. Add me to the disgusted list.

I am with DK on this, not because I like him but because I think he is right.

Last night I was at a reception after a concert and ran into my Rep. Nancy Boyda. She was very excited about it. It was not the time to discuss it with her. I wish I had had the time, I would love to know how this is going to change anything.

[papau]

18. I disagree - and note that this is the bill that barely passed - wishing rarely gets one anything -

this bill ends what could be ended - and ends it as quickly as is possible.

The logistics of getting out of Iraq is a one year task.

DK wants - we all want - an instant end.

But DK is a fool if he thinks whining about a fantastic victory by Nancy makes him look wise.

Does anyone want a stripped down Iraq appropriations bill on passed May 15th by 200 GOP votes and 18 Dems - because that is the alternative

and there is no other alternative.

[MadHound]

24. Please, read the bill, note the loopholes

The ones that give Bush the authority to keep troops in Iraq past the exit date if they are "training Iraqi security forces" or "fighting Al-Qaeda" Gee, what word games Bushboy can play with that, and in the process continue to prolong this war indefinetly. After all, isn't that the current nominal reason we're in Iraq, to "fight Al-Qaeda" and "train Iraqi security forces"?

Thus, the Dems have fed Bushboy more billions to get his war on without end. All he has to do is change the labels a bit.

And then there's those infamous signing statements that Bush loves. How much can he distort this bill while signing it?

Or let's say he simply vetoes this bill. Well, gee, since the Dems took defunding the war off the table before they were even seated, another war funding bill, minus the timeline, will be duly introduced, duly passed, and signed into war, again consigning us to more endless bloodshed.

This is a no win, no end the war strategy. It is simply a cynical political ploy, one that allows the Dems to claim "victory" while the war rages on. And when we're still in Iraq in November, the Dems will simply throw up their hands stating that they did all they could to end it, hoping to buy political cover. Yet they could bring this war to a grinding halt now, immediately, simply by burying the war funding bills in committee and defunding the war.

This is what DK wants, and it is the surest, most certain way to end the war ASAP. And you see, unlike the vast majority of his fellow Congressional colleagues, DK doesn't have one eye on his political career all the time. He simply wants to do the right thing and end the war. He has been true and steady on this matter since before the IWR, and still is. Most of his colleagues are still much too worried about their careers, and thus don't really give a damn about the troops, the people of Iraq, or even what the American people want.

And yet because the are failing to see the forest for the trees, these Dems that are declaring victory will wind up shooting themselves in the foot come election time. For the American people, a broad coalition of Republicans, centerists and anti-war liberals sent the Dems to Congress with one clear mandate, end the war ASAP. Come November '08 if the troops are still fighting there, this coalition will fall apart, with people voting Republican, third party, or staying home in droves. And thus the Dems will lose in a major way.

This bill isn't a victory, it is a farce, one that is destined for failure. The Dems who voted for this are hoping that it gives them political cover, but that too will fail. And thus these Dems will be exposed as having the blood of innocents on their hands once more.

Defund the war, as DK wants. It is the only sure, certain way of ending this war. Anything else is simple political posturing while thousands continue to die.

[papau]

27. Those loopholes allow the type of training we do in a hundred other countries - getting this

conflict downsized to just the usual US military that influences other countries to buy our corporations war products would be a good.

Since "fighting Al-Qaeda" has been and always will be a police action - not a military one - and this is acknowledged by our military even if our media refuses to remember that our military acknowledged it - there is no real addition to that "training so as to sell American products" mission.

So this bill effectively does defund the war - while letting the free sales work that we use our military for to go on and make the rich and corporate GOP a little richer.

[MadHound]

30. Do you honestly thing that Bushboy will actually follow that spirit?

Do you think that he will simply limit the number of troops to the handful that is needed to train Iraqis? Do you think that he will reduce the number of troops needed for police actions? I remember another "police action" in Vietnam, one that killed millions, involved hundreds of thousands, and cost us billions upon billions. This is type of "police action" Bush has in mind, not the quaint, minimalist version that you envision. And since this bill is open ended, and subject to interpration, whose vision do you think will prevail. Yeah, that's right, Bush's.

And since this bill is so open ended, so subject to the whims and interpretation of Bush, we're going to be in Iraq, in force, for much longer than Sept. '08. And gee, now thanks to the Dems, he'll have that money to keep the war on.

Wake up, this is politics, we're not playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules here. Thus everything we have to do has to be firm and well defined. In order to do so, the surest way to avoid interpretation conflicts is to simply defund the war, bury war funding bills in committee and bring the troops home.

[papau]

32. Yes I believe that if passed it will be obeyed - the military is a stickler for rules being

followed.

The pres using "national security" to ignore those rules would mean impeachment even if it was his last day in office.

[MadHound]

33. Oh, the commander in chief, with his hand picked military commanders

Will actually follow the rules:rofl: Please, pull my other leg! First off, since when has Bush listened to anything from his military that he didn't like? And now that he has replaced these sane military commanders with his hand picked flunkies, he won't even have to here any sort of disagreement.

And since this is a matter of legal interpretation, not actually breaking the law, it will go through the court system, up to the Supreme Court, on which he has installed his hand picked flunkies to back his ass up with.

Rather than going through these permutations of interpretation and nuance, don't you think that something that isn't subject these sorts of twists and turns, like defunding the war, is the best thing to do. I certainly do!

[papau]

35. If we could actually do so, of course that would be the better choice n/t

n/t

[MadHound]

41. We can actually do so, however it takes concerted effort like we saw yesterday

And the will to not only go to the public and explain what we're doing, but also the ability to stand up to the president, and perhaps more importantly the corporate backers. This can be done, but it will take something like a spine in order to do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Ok if bush was not angry and got all he wanted

'splain to me the tanter tantrrum and humans shields and I will say it, political theater on his part

That was not for the base

He was genuenly PISSED

[MadHound]

42. As you said, political theatre.

Bush probably considers this a negotiation at this point, and probably figures he can get better. Thus, he rants and raves and puts on a show. And he probably will get better than this. However, even if this is the best that he gets, it still allows him to stay in Iraq a long time after Sept. '08.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Ok so bush wasn't pissed one bit

ok... my lying eyes tell me otherwise.

[ProudDad]

51. For the Thinking Impaired

If No One Fights for the RIGHT THING

The right Thing will Never be done.




Why don't you complain about the fucking conservative Dems who wouldn't follow the wishes of the American people and STOP THE FUCKING WAR!!???!!!???


This is the Dem circular firing squad, those of you who complain about the people who are right and seem to favor the assholes who AREN'T representing the people....



Interesting...but maddening

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. You are right, but sometimes the tactics must be reconsidered

I have recommended on this thread and others Amazing Grace... real story, real world... and you may realize William Willderforce cause was as valid as yours, but he realized fifteen years into fighting to abolish slavery that he had to ahem, play the game, and be sneaky about it... if he wanted to succeed

It also a bit of coalition buildung...

In fact, when it comes out in DVD I may just send a copy to Congressman Kucinich. I have quite a bit of respect for him, and I respect his voting on principle, but in this case his tactics are going to be rather ineffective.

Wilberforce realized it, and changed tactics... hopefully Dennis will as well.

[CreekDog]

63. Kucinich would have produced a bill to end the war that would have lost

And just how would that advance the cause of stopping this war?

So, I think we know why it's better for us that Pelosi is speaker and Kucinich is not.

We can thank Kucinich for his bold, brave effort in supporting nearly all the Republicans in his vote on this bill.

[mmonk]

7. I agree with Dennis in a sense that

it gives the bush administration some of its goals and enough loopholes to stay on for years. I'm not much for playing politics for public consumption (having the ability to say we have a time table for the fall of 08) in anticipation for the 08 elections which unfortunately, is what it looks like to some of us. And please, don't take this as an attack on Pelosi or make any other accusations not present in my posts. I get tired of people putting intentions or words in people's mouths that aren't present because they get so emotionally invested in this legislation. Just make your points or counters.

[mtnsnake]

10. Kucinich is right. What's the point of prolonging the misery more than a few more months? nt

[SoFlaJet]

12. It's called being realistic

and all about living in the real world-I'm sorry he lost me on this one-I say he's being as pigheaded coming from his POV as Bush is coming from HIS side

[mtnsnake]

14. So according to you, "being realistic" is Dems prolonging the war instead of ending it?

Uhh, like why the hell did the country vote Democrats into power? Didn't it have something to do with ending the war ASAP, not a year or two later?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. It is called building coalitions so you can pass

SOMETHING

I will recommend to you the same move I have been recommending all along

Go watch Amazing Grace

By the time the credits roll you may develop an appreciation of how the parliamentary system works, and that little thing called Alliances.

Goddammit, if William Willberforce carried his way the way some of our idealist do (and he was by the way), the British Empire would still be in the slave trade.

[warren pease]

46. parlimentary system?

I can only wish. Can you imagine living in a country with functional, electable third, fourth, maybe tenth parties? Where proportional representation is the system of government, and where all views, no matter how weird (such as a true commitment to peace) can have a place at the table?

But in this situation, under this binary political joke and absent a functional third party, we're stuck with either the sociopathic GOP or its Democratic enablers. Hell of a choice.

In the American political con game, the two allegedly opposing parties are -- as Saint Noam says -- simply factions of The Business Party, who share a mutual objective and differ only marginally in the means they use to achieve a common result. And the objective of both factions is to advance the goals of American "business interests" around the world. Which often takes the form of black ops to murder populist leaders and destabilize the movements they represent, because American business "interests" need cheap local raw materials and cheap local labor to exploit them and don't want to hear any nonsense about human dignity getting in the way of production.

Or, in this case, covert ops be damned. In our names and with our money, this country perpetrated a blatant resource grab on another sovereign country which posed zero threat, and marketed it as a crusade against terrorism or some pollyanna drivel about bringing freedom to the poor brown people, or whatever the excuse du jour is these days. And the members of the House who opposed continuing this bloody charade are labeled impractical ideologues because they dare to vote their conscience rather than grovel before the boy emperor or his latest surrogate, the speaker of the house.

Practically speaking, any proposal to limit the occupation will be killed in the Senate or, if by some miracle it clears the upper house, will be vetoed by the vampire in chief. So they might as well have given the bastard something real to veto. In doing so, they would have kept their pledge to the voters and, even better, forced the miserable dolt to explain to the American people exactly why he's killing a bill that would have supported the troops in the best possible way -- by keeping them alive. Or by keeping them out of the clutches of the deadly VA medical system. And if the Dems knew what the hell they were doing, they could also point out that this administration has cut VA funding every single year since the 2000 right wing coup. If they knew what they were doing.

So screw coalition-building. This Congress should be at war with this vile administration, not playing conciliatory kissy face. I knew we had been fooled yet again when Pelosi took impeachment "off the table." I'm so sick of this accommodating crap from Democrats. With the chance to make history, they chose to make nice instead. Who the hell do they think they are to thumb their noses at the people who put them in office? I expect that In 2008, huge numbers of voters are going to be asking themselves why the hell they should set themselves up again for another predictable Democratic betrayal. And since they can't stomach the GOP, they'll probably just stay home, ceding the presidency to yet another religiously insane wing nut.

Bottom line: If you're going to govern by ruffling the least possible number of feathers, you belong in an aviary, not in Congress.

Lest you misunderstand, I'm not angry at you or the contents of your message, nadinbrzezinski. But I'm mightily pissed at the members who had the sheer gall to allow this fiction to pass as a legislative milestone and a blow against the empire. Not even close.


wp

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Go watch the movie

but I will list the coalitions in the democratic party for you

(who in other countries would be separate parties)

1.- DLC
2.- Blue Dogs
3.- Progressives

And I am sure I am missing somebody here

But these are your three major "parties" within the party

Here you go to who they would be somewhere else

1.- Liberals as in the stripes of Neo Liberals
2.- Conservatives in the old style that not even the GOP any longer has
3.- Progressives run the gamut from old style liberal party to the socialist party... and all in between

So yes, you need to build coalitions and indeed our system, with all its quirks, is a Parliamentary system, not in the british sense, as in the modern sense, but in the archaic sense that somebody like William Willberforce worked in.

If we all of a sudden developed proportional representation my money is on the Dems breaking into three parties and the Repubs into at least four.

Hey it would make thing very interesting.

[bread_and_roses]

70. amen to all that! (n/t)

[MuseRider]

17. Surely you can't expect

one of the few Reps who have steadfastly voted against this war, spoken about it thousands of times trying to get people to help us get out of it to just go ahead and vote for this crappy bit of legislation just for political purposes. Surely you can't. What would everybody be saying then? Boy he is a bigger hypocrite than anyone, that is what would be said, not that he cares one way or the other what people who vote to continue this war think about him personally.

If he lost you on this one then he never really had your support. This is anything but pigheaded. This is a true worker for peace. Politics have no place when people are dying by the hundreds each day.

[cali]

21. Dozens did.

Reps that are every bit as committed and outspoken about the war as Kucinich. I respect both postiions. And I respectfully suggest that it could easily be concluded that Kucinich is not above playing politics. He's done it in the past. More important to me though, is that although I think it's indisputable that Kucinich is committed to peace, he's a remarkably ineffective legislator when compared to someone like Bernie.

[papau]

23. I agree - and will yell that to Bernie at Warren on the 4th! :-)

:-)

[papau]

22. Why can't one expect DK to be part of the group that achieves a move toward the goal he

advocates - that we all advocate?

Does a political leader search for the passable compromise, or go the Bush route of my way or the highway?

[SoFlaJet]

26. Exactly Pap

hey every single one of here at DU want us out of Iraq yesterday-but we are also savvy enough to understand that we AIN'T getting out one second before George Bush is out of office...so you try and do what you can while this megalomaniac is in charge of the executive office-we do what we can...

[ProudDad]

52. Those of us not hampered

by lack of imagination...know the answer

IMPEACH and REMOVE...

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Can you get me 67 votes to indict in the Senate?

I mean now, not in six months when they might materialize...

[ProudDad]

59. Begin the process

and the votes will come.

The more the bushie crimes are publicized, the more votes we'll get to remove...

It REALLY is as simple as that...


This discussion is a little moot though -- the investigation and publicity has already begun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. The process has started

read on watergate and it will become abundantly clear that it has started, even if they are not calling it impeachment yet

We call them hearings... and oversight and whatever it may lead to

[JNelson6563]

25. It's easy to be uncompromising and pigheaded

as long as achievement isn't the real goal. Progress is never made by such.

Julie

[warren pease]

43. realpolitik and the docile Dems

Actually, the real world as personified by the voters who managed to overcome traditional GOP vote theft, voter roll purging, understaffing in democratic precincts resulting in hours-long waits, inscrutible electronic machines manufactured by, among others, a guy named Wally O'Dell at Diebold who said he would do anything in his power to reelect Bush in 2004, and so on... somehow managed to elect a Democratic majority to both houses. And they did so because Democrats united behind the promise to bring the Iraq occupation and resultant mass murder of Iraqi civilians to an and.

Somehow, between November and yesterday, they decided -- several courageous members excepted -- to perpetuate the war by giving Bush enough wiggle room to drive his Hummer through. He can continue US presence in Iraq beyond the distant deadline if -- and this according to Will Pitt -- if they're engaged in training Iraqis to take over policing their country, or they're chasing, maiming or killing suspected Al Qaeda members. And that's pretty much what they're doing now, when they're not running for their lives or being blasted into oblivion by another "roadside bomb."

And you think it's just fine to continue on that path, because it's the best Dems could do?

Nonsense. They caved yet again and we're all the worse for it.

wp

[mtnsnake]

44. hear hear!

:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

72. "This is upside down...

If the Democrats had told the American people in October 2006, “Vote Democrat, we’ll keep the war going till the end of Bush’s term; vote Democrat, we’ll privatize Iraq’s oil; vote Democrat, we’ll give the president enough money to attack Iran if he so chooses,” the American people would have never voted Democrat.

...He’ll veto it, and it’ll come back to Congress to come up with a plan that will be even weaker. We should have come out very strong; we knew he was going to veto it anyhow. We should have come out strong and indicated that the Democrats stand for truly getting out of Iraq. We didn’t show that by this bill. You could say, “Well, we reached a timeline”; that doesn’t mean a thing. People say, well, constitutionally it means everything. If it means everything then why didn’t we set a timeline of 90 days. Why a year, why a year and a half? We just have to put an end to this nonsense. We’ve got to get out of Iraq. This war is destroying the aspirations of people, for housing, healthcare, education. It’s ruining America’s reputation in the world. It’s destabilizing the region.

Once again, he speaks the truth and so many here want us to give these assholes yet another pass for not even trying to do the right thing.:grr:

It's almost like they're determined to lose again, forever.
:kick:

[sellitman]

20. As usual Dennis is right on.

Even forgetting the time table on bringing our boys home does anyone want the Privatization of Iraqi Oil being made on our watch?

I sure as heck don't.

[LeFleur1]

28. Dennis

Dennis can't get the votes for anything. If the Dems thought they could get out of Iraq tonight, they would have. They are sending a message to Bush and the Republicans that they are united...except for Dennis and 14 other yahoos who would allow our troops to stay there forever rather than do SOMETHING to get them out. Someone should get those jerks out of office. They aren't interested in progress, they are interested in their own unpassable ideas and they stubbornly stick to them although they are totally ineffectual.
This vote gives the people of the country a chance to get behind the dems one hundred percent and that is what we should be doing if we want to go the next step, which is overturning the president's veto. B** is another person who sticks to his nonplan rather than saving our troops by giving up what isn't working.
This President made this mess, and it is a mess. When you clean up a mess you don't always have some magic fairy coming in and whoosh, it's clean.
We can start the work and we can continue to work at it, bringing sane people along. We can begin to bring troops home, and continue to do so. Is it ideal? Absolutely not and if the Democrats don't stand firm they are just blowhards and should be voted out along with those unthinking dunces who rubber stamped everything this incompetent president did.
This is a war within that we must win.

[SaveElmer]

29. Excellent Post...

Precisely the point most do not understand!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Welcome to DU

[ProudDad]

54. WRONG!

If they had passed NO bill, the war would HAVE to end when the money in the pipeline runs out...

It's those pandering to the corporate dems who are in the wrong, not Kucinich...

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. In that case you can pack the keys to the house

and surrender the gavels to the Republicans in 2008

Serious....

[ProudDad]

60. Don't think so

"Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"

3/14-15/07
Favor Oppose Unsure
59%-----34%-----7%


3/14-15/07
". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
27%--------69%----------4%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

=============================

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

=============================

THESE are the voices the Dems in Congress should be listening to -- not the pork and perks crowd...

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. I do

read on what happend to the House when it basically paralyzed the governemnt in the mid 1990s

In fact, it cost Genwritch his job as speaker....

Don't mind me and paying attention to history

[Flabbergasted]

31. As always Kucinich hits the bullseye regarding the war.

[CreekDog]

64. Yes, Kucinich's dart hit the board next to almost all the Republicans

If all those pro-war Republicans saw in Pelosi's bill, enough bad news for the war that they nearly unanimously opposed the bill, surely Kucinich could see that same thing in the bill as something to latch onto in order to help get the war stopped.

Sadly, no.

But I am biased, because I cannot stand Kucinich, on account of the stupid things he says, this example just being the latest.

I am okay with standing up for principles, but when the method he uses to get attention is to go after prominent liberal Democrats, I want him to shut the heck up.

Pelosi did more in 2002 to drum up votes against the Iraq war than Kucinich ever did and she is currently doing more useful work to stop it than he is doing now as well.

Sheesh.

[Raiden]

82. Pelosi's bill is a political masterstroke.

Bush and the right-wing know that she has politically outmaneuvered them, and they're very pissed about it. Kucinich in his infinite wisdom and perpetual rightness is only hurting the anti-war Dems in Congress. We all want the War in Iraq to end ASAP. I know for a fact that Nancy Pelosi wants to get the troops home NOW (remember, she was against the war all along), but whether we like it or not, Bush is going to do what ever the fuck he wants for the next two years and we can either put requirements on our spending bills or we can concede our Congressional majority next year when we shut down the government. The right-wing is begging us to cut the funding for a reason, because it will be the end of the Democratic Majority (just as government shut down ended Gingrich's reign). Thank God Pelosi knows what she is doing. Dennis Kucinich is an lunatic and I'm not gonna apologize for saying it. Principle means nothing in politics unless it is coupled with prudence and a healthy dose of realism. Politics is, in fact, the art of the possible, and it's very easy to say "cut the funding" and "troops out now" but I don't see Kucinich getting any of his anti-war bills passed. Sure he comes out of it able to say that he's pure as winter snow, but at the end of the day, the fact is that he voted with the Republicans on this bill and AGAINST the anti-war Dems.

I doubt you'll see any love for Lieberman from the Kucinich-fans when he does the same... And whether you like it or not, by defying Pelosi and denouncing Dems on TV, Dennis is doing the same thing, serving the same purpose as Lieberman. He is shifting the focus away from the right-wings idiots who got us into this mess in the first place and refocusing it on the Democrats who are actually doing something to end it--and getting enough votes to make it politically feasible.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

55. For sure

there's no imagination or courage among that group...

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. And the same applies to dennis as it applies to people here

Even those we repsect...

wake up Denis, this is the first step in defunding the war.

If it wasn't 'splain to me the tanter tantrum from Chucklenuts?

Yep your leadership is playing chess... the kind of chess that if you are elected President you will have to contend with

And I have a little more disturbing piece of news for you

Yes the people want out of Iraq, but the method to the madness is not fully clear

By the way, I admire your courage but in this case... I think you are off.

And it happens

[zulchzulu]

40. So we should do legislation that doesn't have the votes and thus keep the war going...

Dennis, it's no wonder you'll never get past 3% in the polls.

You don't get it.

It's that simple.

Bumpersticker politics might feel good and even sound good in a room of those with the same views, but once you walk out that door and have to face reality that no legislation will pass to simply "end the war now" without the votes, you see the effort is actually playing into George Bush's hands. Legislation with enough votes is as valuable as used toilet paper.

Many of us can't stand the wars going on, but also get that by simply decreeing some opinions on war policy on a web site is not going to do anything more than possibly inform people of an alternative.

We can't just march up to DC and wave our signs and documents and expect ANYTHING to magically happen.

It's the slow drip of democratic incremental legislation that is the only way to end the wars. Rejecting legislation that calls for a timeline and benchmarks is EXTENDING THE WAR, not ending it.

[Rusty MacHenry]

45. Quoted for truth

Couldn't of said it better zulchzulu, your dead on about what you said.

[ProudDad]

53. Hey, just a thought

The war would HAVE TO end if the House NEVER passed one of these bullshit spending bills!!!

It's the appeasers who are wrong; those who caved to the republican light wing of the democratic party and passed this toothless blank check on Friday.

[MadHound]

67. And how does this bill, with loopholes the size of Mac trucks

Actually end anything, incrementally or otherwise. Bush can still leave the troops in Iraq past Sept '08, he simply has to hide behind the polite figleaf that the troops are "fighting Al Qaeda" or "training Iraq security forces". Wait, he's doing that now:shrug:

However defunding the war, as Kucinich and others have proposed, actually forces the war to end much sooner, and it isn't subject to loopholes or twisted intrepretations by the president. The money runs out, the troops have to come home. Nice, neat, simple, easy.

Yet heaven forbid that the Dems actually want to do anything truly meaningful, like actually ending the war. Instead they pass non-binding resolutions and faulty bills that don't hold water, much less hold back Bush.

[CreekDog]

68. But you can't pass that bill defunding the war...

And if you get a vote against doing that, you are going to make the pro-war side appear much stronger than it is, and that will play into Bush's hands and probably delay the end of the war even further down the road.

Please join the reality based community.

You are playing Pelosi's bill, which passed against a bill, which cannot pass.

If you simply want a moral victory coupled with a political defeat and think that will somehow advance the cause, how exactly can you be so sure when you can barely muster even a majority of support in a place like Democratic Underground, certainly friendly territory for the antiwar movement, yet you cannot even get most of the compatriots here to agree with you.

Imagine how you will fare in congress as a whole and in the general public.

[MadHound]

73. Remember how Congress works?

Having the majority in Congress means that the Dems are in charge of the committees(and also have a majority of members in each committee). They are also in charge of the agenda, which bills see the floor, which don't. Therefore they don't need to pass any actual bill to defund the war, nope. All they need to do is simply bury each and every single one of these supplemental war funding bills, the funds required to actually keep the war going, deep, deep in committee, don't allow them to get to the floor and thus, effictively defund the war.

And here you are, sadly putting party politics above doing the right thing. Afraid that we'll look "soft on terra" or some such thing, and that the party would have to pay some sort of political price for daring to end the war. Shame, shame on all of those who put politics above the death of flesh and blood human beings. There comes a time when the only right and moral thing to do is to throw political considerations out the window, and do the right thing, like ending an illegal, immoral war. Shame.

But luckily for you, the majority of Americans actually want the US out of Iraq by any means necessary. Why the hell do you think that the Dems got elected to power last fall? What the hell was the mandate that was given to the incoming Dems? Yeah, end the war ASAP. In fact the latest polling shows this.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm> The vast majority of American people are against the war, a majority want us out of there NOW, and 46%, just short of a majority of the people currently favor defunding the war. Gee, let the Dems take to the bully pulpit, do a little message massage, and that will easily turn into a majority.

Now then, since you're so hung up on the politics of the situation rather than the morality of it, let me hit you with some more political reality. It was a coalition of Republicans, centerists and anti war liberals who put the Dems in power last fall, all with one express purpose, to end the war ASAP. If the Dems fail to do so, if the war is still grinding on come November '08, this coalition will disappear into thin air, voting for Republicans, third parties, or simply staying home in droves. No more majorities, no White House, the Dems will again be banished to the political wilderness. This has happened before, go check out the history of the '68 election. So, since you're so hung up on politics rather than morality, you just might want to take that little fact into consideration also.

I'm not looking for moral victories friend, none of folks who against the war want moral victories. What we want is the war to end, and this bill that was just passed can't and won't do it, not with the loopholes that it has in it. The only sure way to stop this war is to defund it, bury those supplemental war funding bills deep in committee and starve the goddamn beast. Playing political games and passing compromised bills only allow the war to grind on indefinetly. We can't afford that, tens of thousands of people have already paid for this war with their lives, do you want tens of thousands more to pay with their lives while the Democrats worry about their political careers or pass meaningless legislation? Stop this war NOW, defund it and starve the beast.

[MaggieSwanson]

47. K&R for Dennis

because he is right.

[CreekDog]

65. Wrong headline for Kucinich

The headline should be:

Kucinich Blasts Democrats, Gets Covered on The Teevee

[CreekDog]

69. DK should thank Republicans for helping him try to defeat

Pelosi's bill. He wouldn't have stood a chance without their voting with him.

The man can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

To further glorify his amazing political powers, DK has managed to play this bill up as not being antiwar, putting heat on Democrats for not ending the war sooner than is possible, instead of putting heat on Republicans and the President for starting and not being willing to end the war they started on any terms at any time.

That Dennis.

I take it Dennis doesn't use umbrellas when it rains because they don't stop 100% of the raindrops from getting him wet. That's how pure Mr. Kucinich is.

Golly.

[AnOhioan]

83. "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

Tha would be our Speaker, Ms Pelosi, who tried to please all and instead pleased no-one, with the exception of the Blue Dogs and AIPAC. The citizens of our country are the ones who got screwed, the same citizens who voted Dem in '06 on the premise that the party would do something concrete to end our involvment in Iraq, not continue funding for another year and half.

[Greyhound]

71. This bill does nothing to slow or stop the war. All that it accomplished was what the Republiks

needed, and had no chance of getting themselves, to have a chance of taking back the government next year.

By capitulating and allowing the slaughter to continue for at least two more years (more likely four to six), "our representatives" have taken ownership of what they never had before, responsibility for this crime in progress.

Now every Republik candidate can, and I assure you will, claim that this disaster is a "bipartisan" clusterphuck. So why not vote for the Republiks, after all Democrats did it too?

So, lets start to sum up next year's campaigns;

Since we're now equal partners in the rape of Iraq, nobody's going to be able to make much of an issue about that.

Since we are not even going to try to achieve universal health care, no point talking about that.

I know, we'll run on slowing, or better yet, stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs off-shore. Wait a minute, we're not interested in that either.

The economy, yeah that's the ticket!
What's that you say, foreclosures continue to rise every quarter, gas costs $4 a gallon, the price of groceries has doubled, and you haven't had a significant raise in five years, sorry. :shrug:

Gonna have to think a little harder...

Education, whew, I was worried there for a minute! Now that the United States once again leads the world in education and everyone that wants to can get into a good university, we're gonna turn this all around. What? We don't? You can't? Still?

Well, at least we have a minimum wage high enough to at least live on now, you have us to thank for that you know.
Hello? Is this thing on?

Safety! You're safe from scary brown people that want to kill you because you have it so good. Yes, thanks to our laser-like focus on securing the borders, ports, and other entry points to our nation, combined with the hardening of vulnerable targets, you can sleep safe at night knowing that we won't be seeing any clouds, toxic or mushroom, as a result of crazy scary brown people.

Yep, that's us, the party of security. Vote Democratic in 2008, so that you won't die!:eyes:
:kick:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.