Kucinich: Congress Votes to Continue Funding War

[Flabbergasted]

March 24, 2007

Congress has just voted to give President Bush the money he needs to keep the war going through the end of his term.

So where do we go from here? Well, this is the moment that all of us must come together, in communities across the United States, to insist that our nation take a new direction -- now -- in Iraq.

We must go into the town squares. We must meet in libraries, and on university campuses across the country, to cause the policies of the United States to merge from right from the grassroots, and be heard in Washington.

Unfortunately Washington has not listened. Washington has said More War.

You're the ones who must stand for peace. And join with me in this effort to just Change America.

It's not satisfactory that Congress has voted to keep the war going.

Congress had the power to end this war.

And you and I know that.

And now we have to forge a whole new relationship with the American people leading the way, not waiting for Congress to act.

We must act. And we must act from our streets, we must act from our neighborhoods, we must act from our town halls. And it's the power of the people now that's going to have to transform the American government.

It's a sad day when Washington, having recognized that we're standing on a mountain of lies, and proceeding to prosecute a war against a people that did not attack us.

It's a sad day when America will know that there will be more troop casualties and more civilian casualties, and a greater drain on our resources, when we need money for education, health care, and so many other things in this country.

Where do we go from here? We go to where America has always gone, and that is the strength of a powerful civic response. And you must be part of that.

I join with you, as I have never wavered in my efforts for peace, in my determination to point out that war is not the way, in my insistence that this is the time that we have to take a new direction.

Just know that there are those of us who continue to take that stand in Washington.

But now you need to take a stand.

So please, join, together, all over the country.

And I'll be there with you.

Thank you very much.

http://kucinich.us/node/3795

[mike_c]

1. Kucinich gets it!

Sheesh, all the folks who've been trying to argue that the pro-war appropriations bill was some sort of democratic party victory need to read Kucinich's words. That bill is shameful. It represents either willing complicity in war crimes or craven political cowardice that amounts to the same thing.

[BearSquirrel2]

74. I like Kucinich ..

I like Kucinich. He's one of those guys who gets it and knows what is right and what is wrong. Voting Bush more money IS wrong. However, the Dems will get KILLED in '08 if the media blames them for "starving the troops in the field".

The bottom line in Washington right now is that the Democratic Congress can only really DENY things of the President. This is a gridlock session and the bills that Democrats DO pass will be vetoed by the President. If the Dems denied the money, the President would have simply looted other budgets to keep the war going and then blamed EVERYTHING on the Democrats.

What we see in Washington now is pure theater. Democrats have to appear to do the things they were elected to do while maintaining the politically expedient track. The end result is that Bush keeps his disasterous war AND the Republicans are held responsible for it in '08.

I'm sorry to say it but the only way to end the war before Dubaya leaves office in '09 is to impeach both him and the vice-president. With a 1 vote majority in the Senate hanging by the thread of an invalid Senator, the Democrats do not have the votes to topple the war. They can only shame the Republicans so they can get the votes in '08.

[Rusty MacHenry]

2. No offense

But how much stuff about the Kucinich and his position on the war are you going to post today?, this has to be your 3rd thread regarding this, not being rude or anything just asking a honest question.

But it has a stipulation with withdrawal by 2008 and that's fine with me, it's progress and a start, it's not a great start but were getting somewhere.

[Flabbergasted]

3. I only posted two?

Hide my topics...It's the x by the thread

[bobbie]

5. Take all the offense you want

How much stuff about other people's posts are you going to post today?
Seems like it's not your place to challenge people on their number of posts.
Just making an honest observation.

[Frances]

8. I followed the 2004 election closely

Kucinich was included in the numerous Democratic primary debates. He was on the ballot in the primaries. Unfortunately for his supporters, Kucinich didn't get enough votes for him to be considered a spokesperson for a significant number of national Democrats.

I agree with Kucinich that we should never have gotten into this war in the first place.

I disagree that it was possible to get a bill passed that was any stronger than the one that passed yesterday. Yesterday, Kucinich voted with all but 2 of the Republicans, a few really conservative Democrats, and a few "idiot liberals" as Obey described them. If all but 2 of the Republicans were against the bill, that says something important to me.

If Kucinich really wants to get us out of this war, I think he should work with Pelosi and the Democratic majority, not against them.

[Flabbergasted]

12. If Pelosi realy wants to get out of this war she should work with Kucinich. nt

[Frances]

27. So, you think that Kucinich was elected Speaker of the House?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Honey is beter at atracting people you know

[Flabbergasted]

34. No I think Pelosi should be working with Kucinich.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Keep dreaming, won't happen

Now I could explain why this is probably the best bill you could see comming out of that House AT THIS TIME, but I fear idealism trumps pragmatism

[BearSquirrel2]

75. You do know ...

You do know that any legislation de-authorizing and defunding the war will be vetoed by the President ... don't you?? The Dems DO NOT have the power to stop the war at this point. The thing they CAN do is to weave the rope with which DUBAYA can hang the Republicans with.

[Flabbergasted]

77. How many people are going to die in Iraq before we will admit this war is lost

and it is time to bring the troops home. 200,000, 2,000,000, 2,000,000,000?

[BearSquirrel2]

79. I'd bet another 3,000

I would bet that another 3,000 will die in the escalation and there isn't a damn thing the Democrats can do about it. The Democrats cannot unilaterally cut war funding, the President will veto any such bill. Either that or the Senate will not agree. At some point a budget MUST be passed in order to fund the government and the President will hold that hostage with his veto if the Democrats do not give him his war money.

In the end the PRESIDENT is the only one with the power to bring the troops home! So that man has to be replaced with a Democrat. If the Democrats "starve the troops" (and you know DAMN WELL that is how the conservative dominated media will play it) the Democrats will loose the White House in '08. Then instead of two more years of war you'll have 6 more years of war and another 12,000 dead. Would that make you happier???

[ProudDad]

96. Check the bill again

there's NOTHING in it to bind bush to anything...

Toothless posturing...


Our only chance is that he vetoes it...

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. It's a good thing that we have someone like Kucinich in Congress who had the abiltiy to

influence how his fellow Democratic representatives vote.

[bobbie]

7. Kucinich is the best. And withdrawing at the end of 2008 is NOT progress

The people voted overwhelmingly against Bush and the Cons to show their disgust with the Iraq invasion.
The Dems, true to form, showed that they are not an opposition party.
There are a few gems like Kucinich, but not an opposition party.

This one party system sucks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. Apparently he is not the best at convincing other Representatives how to vote

[Frances]

19. Sorry, but Kucinich

has close to zilch influence on other Democrats. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but Kucinich is not very influential.

[Flabbergasted]

20. Because they work for the big money he doesn't..

[Frances]

29. I don't think that slandering Democratic representatives

is a good way to get us out of Iraq. I think it just helps Bush and Republicans in Congress and the media who support the war. Does that matter to you? Or, is winning an argument more important than ending a war?

[Flabbergasted]

35. Working to end the war is vastly more important than defending the ego of the democratic party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Let me recommend a movie for you

Amazing Grace

By the time the tittles roll you may undestand what is going....

Some things never change, and this is all about ALLIANCE building to achieve an ultimate goal

Go watch it... you may understand a little better what is truly going on when the tittles roll

[Flabbergasted]

38. Some things never change which includes the neccessity to stand up for principle

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Go watch it

serious

You may get it


After all if William Willderfoce continued doing the same thing every year the British Empire would still be in the slave trade

In fact Denis should watch it too.

[Flabbergasted]

62. Check this one out. You may get it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWyEc7FAMTg

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Yep Mr Smith is in many ways mythology

while what Willberforce had to do in the end to end slavery was real

[Flabbergasted]

73. Listen, I understand there are times to give up principle but this is not one of them. nt

[ProudDad]

97. Slander

1) words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another

Nothing false in falbbergasted's post. Nearly all of them are in the pay of the corporations...

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Corporations and unions are prohibited by law from contributing to federal campaigns

[grytpype]

6. OH NOES!!!! MIRACLE THE TROOPS HOME TOMORROW!!!!!!!

I MEAN TONIGHT!!!! SORRY!!!!

KUCINICH / NADER 08!!!!

[mike_c]

9. wow, the first constructive suggestion I've seen today!

Kucinich/Nader '08!

Wish I could recommend just your response! :rofl:

[Frances]

11. Are you saying that you are a Naderite and not a Democrat?

I am not sure why but the Nader supporters seem to think that Democratic Underground is really Nader Underground.

[mike_c]

15. actually not, but frankly I'd support Nader over about 3/4s...

...of Congressional dems these days. And I certainly do like the idea of just about any ticket with Kucinich leading it.

[Flabbergasted]

16. Could everyone raise their hands that are officially a "Naderite"?

[Frances]

10. Kucinich/Nader 08 it is

Sarcasm

[Flabbergasted]

14. Really silly.

[ProudDad]

98. Thanks for prolonging the war

Your help is greatly appreciated by the Military-Industrial Complex...

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Yeah, they voted to continue the war, and yeah, Dennis is...

still whining about it, along with a lot of the rest of us.

But, the small problem is that when some assholes start a war costing billions, and millions of lives are at stake with no end in sight, it's not easy to just walk out like nothing happened.

That the assholes who started it are still in power and still like that war makes it even tougher. Unfortunately, nothing substantial can be done unless and until the White House agrees on a real plan to unscramble the egg. And that's just the way it is.

It took three Presidents to get us into and out of Viet Nam, with Nixon taking four years to see that the public mood was sick of the war. With the draft and a lot more opposition to that war, than this one, we were stuck with it, illegal bombing of Cambodia, and the "Peace with honor" nonsense that went with it until Nixon finally bit the bullet.

Same here-- if Congress wants to actually get us out, it has to find a veto-proof majority to order an end to the war and then have its own war with the White house when it ignores the legislation. The war will only realistically end when we have an administration who wants to end it.

So, Dennis can keep on whining, Code pink can keep invading Congressional offices, and the war will go on for the foreseeable future.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

[Frances]

17. Your post makes more sense than anything I have read

on the subject.

Thanks.

[Flabbergasted]

18. The Kucinich Plan For Iraq

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world.

http://kucinich.us/node/1780

[postulater]

21. Now that sounds like a plan

Was any of this ever even debated?

[TreasonousBastard]

23. That's all very nice, but...

just who's going to implement this plan? (Much of which has been circulating around DC for a long time, btw)

Even if it managed to pass both Houses, a hard enough thing, just how are they going to force the Administration to follow through with it?

Congress had little effect until Nixon agreed to get out of Viet Nam.

Congress had little effect on Truman's Korea, and it took Ike to get us out.

Congress had little effect on FDR and Truman's conduct of WWII.

Congress had little effect on Lincoln's war.

Congress had little effect on the over 100 military expeditions since the Civil War.

The Continental Congress even refused funding for the Revolution for a while, but Washington found a way around that.

Nope-- Congress may be able to stop a war from starting, but once it starts, it's up to the Administration to agree to the terms of ending the war or the egg stays scrambled.

[Flabbergasted]

24. I expect our congress people to do what they can not roll over and accept their "powerlessness". nt

[ProudDad]

100. Nixon NEVER got out of Vietnam

He prolonged the war so that another million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians and over 25,000 Americans would die.

The war limped to a conclusion under Ford...and that didn't save his sorry ass in '76.


IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!! That'll take care of this war...

[MadHound]

31. Oh please, read your Vietnam history, there was no need to prolong the 'Nam war either

Except for the same reasons that this one is being prolonged, greed and bloodlust. JFK was set to bring the troops home in '63, yet he got shot. LBJ was indeed a hawk and let loose the dogs even more. But when it actually looked like things were going to wind down, Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace accords for his own benefit, and kept the war rolling.

There isn't a natural progression to a war friend, ie if it takes five years to wind it up, it takes it five years to wind down. That's just plain horseshit and you know it.

We can defund this war, and bring the troops home much sooner than Sept. '08. All it takes is will on the part of the Democrats in Congress. Sadly, it seems that they would rather play political games instead.

Dennis is right on this one, as he has been right from the beginning. How many times will it take for the Democrats getting their face rubbed in the shit before they finally start following his lead?

[BearSquirrel2]

76. Speaking of the draft, I have a bill

The Military Family Relief Act.

Basically it says that Bush cannot deploy a soldier to a 3rd tour unless he drafts 2 to take the soldier's place for the next deployment. No deferments. This has the merit of instituting of "bringing the war home" to people who have sat on their haunches with their yellow ribbons. It puts a spotlight on the VERY unfair system that asks a very few to bear the burden of the war. At the same time it does not actually give the President very many troops to work with so he could not really expand the war. And of course, it stops him from re-deploying men unless he wants to draft more and become even less popular.

[ProudDad]

99. Actually

Vietnam -

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford

Took 5 presidents to get in then out...

-----------------------

It's taken 10 Presidents to NOT kill Castro...

[AnOhioan]

22. Kicked and Recommended

Sorry guys and gals, but Pelosi and the leadership blew it on this one.

[Frances]

25. Sorry, but that isn't the way I see it

The MSM is finally covering this issue. It has put Bush on the defensive. But there are some who claim to be Democrats (though at least one of the posters here admits to preferring Nader to 3/4 of the Dems) who are determined to do everything they can to empower Bush.

[Flabbergasted]

28. Kind of sounds like Bush's "Unpatriotic argument". nt

[ProudDad]

102. Got to call you on this

'Naderites' "are determined to do everything they can to empower bush"...

Is UTTER, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT...

But thanks for playing the (boring anti-Nader) game...

[Ron Green]

26. K&R as well. I'm disappointed that so many "liberals" disparage Dennis for not

working with Pelosi, when indeed she should be working with him. He has been right on the war (and pretty much every other issue) for a long time, and yet DU for the most part has gone along with the Corporate Media in anointing bought-and-paid for "Democrats" as front-runners in the Presidential race.

So what if Dennis is 30 years ahead of his time? American foreign and domestic policy is 30 years behind, so that makes him the only real choice.

[Frances]

30. I notice that you are Ron_Green

Does that mean you are a member of the green party? If so, why are you not posting on Green Underground?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Read the posting guidelines

this is NOT limited to Democrats...

But don't let anybody point this to you

For the record, I used to be a Demn and now I am an Indie

Why?

IWR, Bankruptcy bill, need I mention some of the judges in the USSC? and of course the medicare give away.

I support local candidates, ONLY... after vetting them myself.

by the way, I fully understand why things are done the way they are done in the House, by the way.

[AnOhioan]

52. Could his last name be Green??

Some people really have to reach. :eyes:

[Ron Green]

90. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm going to be meeting Nancy Pelosi a few weeks from now.

I'm going to tell her exactly what I stated above: I'm disappointed that she's not taking more cues from Dennis Kucinich and fewer from corporate interests.

[Telly Savalas]

138. With the exception of defence contractors

what corporate interests are served by having billions of dollars diverted from the U.S. economy towards Iraq?

[Ron Green]

140. It's not just the war in Iraq. It's the US position of hegemony and empire throughout

our foreign policy, as well as the sale of the US Government to private corporations. Pelosi is a woman acting like a man, when she could be doing so much better.

[Telly Savalas]

143. But hasn't the occupation of Iraq undermined U.S. hegemony?

It's made the U.S. economically, militarily, and political weaker.

[Ninja Jordan]

39. I wish this guy would shut up.

House Democrats achieved a great victory with this bill. Kucinich wants to crap on it. Nothing he advocates would pass the House. Get over it. Dems did the best with what they had.

[Frances]

41. Agree

It seems to me that at least two of the people who are strongly against yesterday's bill do not consider themselves Democrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. If you are talking about me

you have not Read my posts defending this bill

But you are right, I am not a democrat, but I also understand the posting guidelines of DU

I also tend to fund LOCAL Dems, in local and Congressional Races, AFTER I vet them personally.

Now to the posting guidelines

Here yuo go from the guidelines

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)
1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.
2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.
3. Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts with links.
4. Respect the wishes of the moderators and administrators.

And the longer version of point number one

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, antisocial behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=terms_conditions#welcome

[Frances]

44. I did not think I was being rude when I said

that two of the posters were not Democrats.

I also don't think it is rude to suggest that greens and indies may like to have a site of their own.

My main concern is that when non-Democrats dominate a thread it's hard to get a sense of what Democrats think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. I posted the guidelines for you

end of discussion.

You can post a poll if you so wish.

By the way, did you even consider that Mr Green may actually be a Green as in a member of the GREEN family?

Anyhow this is not only for Democrats... and it is not only rude, but against the rules to suggest otherwise

By the way, it is folks like you that may prevent me, in my new radicalized state, to join ANY political party... it is this my way or the highway thinking that is dangerous and given that Indies are quite important come election time, I'd be careful on who you alienate

[Frances]

47. I re-read the rules

I do not think I broke any rule.

The rules say: If you are a Democrat or a progressive working for a goal that both Democrats and progressives support, you are welcome on this board.

There are a number of people posting who are very against a bill that the Democratic Speaker of the House and the vast majority of Democrats in the House supported. It is interesting to me to see how many of those people who are vehemently against the bill are actually registered Democrats. That is why I very politely asked what the Green in Ron_Green's name referred to.

Of course, I hope that independents and greens will support the Democratic candidates. But I don't respond well to threats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. You do know that herding cats

even wet cats, is easier than getting unity in the democratic party.

That is why the dems have sucked at being an oposition party.

Dems are not in lockstep, like republicans

So yes, you will have DEMS, who are not only registered, but active, speaking against what the leadership does

In fact, I make this promise to you, the leadership makes a mistake (what I myself conisder a mistake) and not only will they hear from me, but I will be rather critical

This lockstep thinking prevalent in US Politics is one reason I left the democratiic party... and one reason (among many mind you) that would keep me from ever joining the Republicans

Oh and as to rules, very technically you did... by asking people to go to inde undertround or green underground

[Frances]

64. I have read that authoritarian types gravitate to the

Republican Party. I think that anti-authoritarian types gravitate to the Democratic Party as you said.

Some people are so anti-authority that they are anarchists.

I saw a play back in the 60s which made the point that anarchy leads to fascism. Personally, I think that is what came close to happening in this country. Those people who are authoritarian were so afraid of the sexual revolution of the 60s (the coming of age of the boomers combined with the birth control pill)and the defiance of the government and the government's police (anti-war demonstrations) that they turned to Nixon and then Reagan to protect what they saw as an assault on the social structure. Interestingly enough, some of those anti-war demonstrators became Republicans once the draft was over! (A big disappointment to me, but a lesson in human nature.)

This same type of person felt very threatened by Clinton (an Elvis of a president). They didn't care what Gingrich was doing behind closed doors (Gingrich doesn't cut it as an Elvis anyway). They turned to Bush who said he would restore dignity (authoritarianism) to the White House.

Now, Bush has made a terrible mess in every way possible. To even begin to clear up his mess in Iraq, those wet cats have to be herded together. Not an easy task.

So, when Pelosi is able to herd the wet cats to take a small step in the right direction, I cheer.

I think the majority of the country's Democrats also cheer.

I am curious if a majority of the Democrats on this board also agree.

That is all I am trying to determine.

By the way, I did not mean to be breaking the rules when I asked if a Green would prefer posting on a Green site. As long as any progressive supports a common goal, the rules say that he/she is welcome on this board. But the board is called Democratic Underground, and I think it's wrong to be rude to someone who is supporting something the majority of Democrats supported.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. There is a poll on GD

and last count it was 38 against and 58 for it... spare changed amongst other thigns

In fact, here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x494052

[Frances]

72. I voted in the poll early on

but what I am interested in is how many of the people voting consider themselves Democrats. That would not change the result of the poll, but it would give more information, and I happen to like analyzing data.

But I have spent far too much time on an issue (yesterday's bill) that has already been decided. That's yesterday's news.

Tomorrow brings many new battles to achieve what I hope is our common goal: the quickest possible end to the war in Iraq.

[Flabbergasted]

43. I wish Hillary would apologize for her voting record and start working to end it.

In this case Kucinich like always is right about the war. The fact is we are not helping Iraq or anyone else by staying there. Yes the bill was a victory but merely a symbolic victory.

[AnOhioan]

50. Well, he won't shut up anytime soon

And that is a damn good thing...someone has to speak up against the war and against policies which prolong it. The Dem leadership did not "do the best with what they had", what they did do was cave to the Blue Dogs Dems and to AIPAC. Plain and simple, and in doing so lost some respect from me and others like me.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[AnOhioan]

55. You know what your so-called pragmatism is gonna get you??

At least 1.5 more years of war, 1.5 more years of American deaths, untold billions spent. And also, quite possibly, loss of the House majority in '08 when the people who voted Dem in '06 realize that they were lied to. The Democratic Party campaigned on setting a new course. What just happened was they caved and the course is not changed. We will now be in Iraq until a few months before the the next Presidential campaign...way to go.

[Ninja Jordan]

56. It is a change: 1 more year vs. indefinite number of years.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I would rather have some sort of change than none at all.

[AnOhioan]

58. You and I disagree....

It is pretty clear to me that the Democratic Party is scared of ruffling feathers, and this fear makes it hard to achieve and=y meanigful victories, like getting the hell out of Iraq, impeaching the criminals and actually moving forward with full steps, not baby steps.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Given the history of Nam

they got to this step in year two

As I said, why do you think Bush is so pissed off?

He is on a corner

He vetoes, there goes the funding, he does not, he gets deadlines.

I have been recommending the film Amazing Grace, I really have, people may understand how the parliamentary system works by the time the credits roll

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. You realize it took 19 tries at the pie

and three + years to get out of Nam, don't you?

The problem is that this is not a one person gets to decide, but a congress with 400+ people, with 400+ views (ok 200, the Republicans pretty much vote in lockstep)

But the problem is that folks truly need to study history... and UNDERSTAND how the parlaimeantary system works

For the last six years you have not had that, by the way.

By the way, if Bush got all he got, 'splain to me why Bush was SO PISSED OFF that he made a wonderful piece of POLITICAL theater... and may have broken a military reg or two on the way, but that's besides the point

[AnOhioan]

59. I would rather have had a bill go down in defeat,

one time, two times, whatever it took to win the votes....the Dem leadership caved on this one without every taking a swing for the fences. When I vote Dem I vote for those who I beleive will do what is right by the country, the current Dem leadership has failed this time, maybe next time they will do better. Here is hoping.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Yuo get that many bills go down in defeat

and you can give the House Keys to the Pubies in 2008

[AnOhioan]

63. As I said in an earlier post....

We may have done just that by enabling the chimp to continue the war until his term is about over.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. He is on a corner

that is why he's pissed

He either defunds the war or accepts limits

I have no idea how else I can explain it.

Unfortunatately at times pragmatism has to take over from idealism

[Flabbergasted]

82. This is not one of them.

[Ninja Jordan]

86. It is, because the alternative is no change at all.

[Flabbergasted]

93. Another alternative is speaking up against it. nt

[Ninja Jordan]

107. "Speaking up against it" is exactly what this legislation does.

Unequivocally calling for immediate defunding of the troops and withdrawal is also "speaking up against it," but that isn't an alternative at all, as that position will not result in legislation.

[BearSquirrel2]

78. LOCKSTEP

Hey that reminded me about Rush Limbaugh talking about how Democrats vote "in lock step" in 92-94, before the Rebpulican Revolution. Funny that it evaporated from his vocabulary after that. Then 1 or 2 guys voting Republican became a "bipartisan" effort.

Since the modern era of corporate centralized control, the Republicans have been VERY monolithic. They vote together because there are bribes to be given to objectors and monetary threats issued against those who will not conform. The Republican machine is a Tammany Hall affair turned loose nationwide (except in Chicago where Daley rules ;-) )

[ProudDad]

103. Your Nam timeline's a bit off

It took from '68 to '75 (7 years) and an IMPEACHMENT to get out of Vietnam.

IMPEACH NOW!!!


bush is not pissed off, he's the one doing political theater. I'd bet he's depending on the Senate to strip out the NON-BINDING "timeline" verbiage and then he'll sign it.

[Ninja Jordan]

106. Impeachment had nothing to do with Vietnam.

[Frances]

109. Where did you get the date 68?

I thought our first involvement was under Eisenhower and he left office in 1960.

[ProudDad]

116. '68 was when the handwriting was on the wall

and that the war HAD TO end...

Even nixon ran on an "end the war" platform...

You are correct about the genesis; Eisenhower bought out the French interest in the Indo-China war in 1954. This was after he gave them many U.S. taxpayer dollars to bribe them into prolonging their involvement in Vietnam...

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Genesis has been on the wall for two years

but I am talkign of HISTORICAL FACT, the fifst bill was introduced in 1970

I know... these things are kind of stubborn

[Frances]

137. I remember arguing against the war in 1965

I wasn't alone then. I think the real reason there was so much anti-war fervor is because of the draft. I have always been disappointed with what happened after the draft was over. I may be mistaken but I think that many of the protestors became Reagan supporters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. The first bill to come before the house

and go down in flames was 1970

oops

[zulchzulu]

81. By Kucinich voting against the bill, HE IS PROMOTING TO PROLONG THE WAR

Yeah, let's try to pass a bill (THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES) to end the war like, oh, gee, next Thursday. That is an absolute complete waste of time!

Sure, people will chime in that he "tried to end the war". Well, so did my dog. Actually, Kucinich did jackshit to try to end the war. He just likes to hear the sound of his unelectable voice.

[AnOhioan]

122. You really are a bitter person

Too bitter for my taste. Go ahead, flame away at Dennis, all you end up doing is making yourself look foolish.

[ProudDad]

101. The military-industrial complex

thanks you for your contribution to the war effort...

As you believe so shall it be...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Frances]

48. Are you saying that Pelosi and the Democrats who

supported yesterday's bill are "Bushs willing collaborators"? Please correct me if I misinterpreted your meaning.

[Ninja Jordan]

53. And if that poster does believe that, they have no place on this website.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Care to read the posting guidelines

they are upthread for your convenience.

[Frances]

68. Here's the rule: You decide

"Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger."

IF someone is saying that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who supported yesterday's bill are Bush supporters, then the poster is not treating Pelosi and the Democratic congresspeople with respect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Look in that case

me calling cucklenuts shoudl be a kicking offense too, since at the most extreme we should respect all leaders.

Sorry, but there is this thing called a thick skin?

Trust me have had to endure far wrost in message boards regarding personal attacks

[AnOhioan]

71. I believe that rule is for other posters...

Not elected officials. If it were meant for elected officials there would be no DU. Here, we can criticize or Democratic officeholders. If we could not do do when they deserve it I would not post here, nor would many. DU is not "Dems can do no wrong board". Therein lies our strength.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. you got it

[ProudDad]

104. Pelosi

and the corporate, "conservative" Dems are unworthy of our respect for that toothless surrender they passed yesterday.

[Forkboy]

94. Maybe you should let the Admins worry about who does and doesn't belong on DU.

[Ninja Jordan]

108. Thanks for identifying yourself.

I'll take what you write with a grain of salt.

[Forkboy]

110. You do that.

:crazy:

[Tom Joad]

69. At least Pelosi never supported the IWR... and i would not say each

one of the people who voted for yesterday's bill were collaborators.

Clearly, though, there are many democrats in office who support the war, and have done so from the beginning, and have promised to continue the war, even into 2009 and beyond. Wont mention Hillary by name, though.

[Ninja Jordan]

85. I don't think Hillary's said that actually, but whatever.

Facts won't stop you from bashing her. And I'm not even a fan. But she's getting a bad rap on this...

[zulchzulu]

80. Does Kucinich believe in democratic legislation that can pass or...

...just being an unelectable, pretentious blowhard that doesn't offer a realistic solution to end the war...

I used to have respect for Kucinich until recently. Man, was I fooled...

[Flabbergasted]

83. I wouldn't bet on that. He's right on the war.

[Ninja Jordan]

84. and? What he advocates won't pass Congress.

I'm happy with 'almost right,' instead of nothing.

[zulchzulu]

87. So should we give Kucinich a gold star and then what?

Of course, there are many who voted against the war from the beginning that voted for this legislation. You know why?

They get it!

Kucinich wants to use his innane vote to raise money for his never-to-go-anywhere campaign. He would rather extend the war by proxy than vote to end it realistically. And the joke is on you if you think he really wants to end the war. If he really did, he would have voted for the legislation.

Better yet, if he was really serious, he would have come up with legislation that would pass to end the war...but I don't see that kind of leadership in Kucinich.

[Flabbergasted]

91. There is one reason why his campaign is "going nowhere" Because when he speaks he means it.

[Flabbergasted]

92. There is one reason why his campaign is "going nowhere" Because when he speaks he means it.

[ProudDad]

117. Let's see if I have your position straight

Someone who's

100% right about Iraq (and Iran)
100% right on Civil Rights.
100% right on Universal Health Care
100% right on Public Financing of Election

etc, etc, etc, is a "pretentious blowhard"???

How perceptive of you... :eyes:

[goodhue]

88. Dennis is right as usual

But apparently presents an inconvenient truth for democrats

I look forward to the end of the Iraq war in about 2 or 3 years from now at the earliest.

[mvd]

112. Our options are limited

As far as I'm concerned, if neither this bill nor a bill that would start withdrawal now have any chance of passing, go with what Dennis suggests. If we can't have a timeline, and every step is thwarted by either a Senate filibuster or a veto, then I don't see what else would be better option than sticking with a philosophy of ending the war sooner. Repukes will not compromise and never have. There are just too many extremists in that party.

[CreekDog]

123. Dennis wants to be a dictator, think about it

After all, he thinks we should end the war by decree, even though there aren't the votes to stop it at this point.

So, is Dennis supporting dictatorship so that whatever he says becomes law regardless of the political opposition?

Dennis makes it sound so easy, so either he has no knowledge of civics or he thinks that we should rule by decree. He certainly hasn't come up with a way to end it that is based on the majority will of Congress.

[AnOhioan]

124. The most inane post on this thread

Congratulations

[CreekDog]

128. Not inane, Dennis thinks he can make it happen...

...without the votes

The fact is he can't make it happen without the votes unless he is dictator.

Since we have a constitutional system, I'm curious what his strategy for cutting off funding for the war and bringing the troops home is when he doesn't have the votes to actually do that?

And, no, a mantra saying it will happen doesn't amount to a workable political strategy.

Pelosi is doing a better job on this than DK is.

And yes, I'm biased, I can't stand DK.

[AnOhioan]

132. I am sure he lies awake at night thinking about

how to win your approval. :sarcasm:

[cali]

89. Dennis plain out misleads in this screed and I don't

like it. The bullshit line is: "Congress had the power to end this war", and he caps it off with "both you and I know that".

Technically it is true that Congress controls the purse strings, but Dennis knows even better than I, that the Dem Caucus has no more than 80 votes to support "ending the war".

It's dishonest as hell.

And I feel nothing but contempt toward misleading statements- whether they come from I-have-a-mandate bushco, or Dennis.

[Flabbergasted]

95. BTW Congress had the power to end this war. nt

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

111. Call it like it is

Kucinich offers zero tangible solutions to end the war other than the usual bumpersticker gibberish that we "need to end the war now".

No fu*&ing shit, Dennis. Thanks for not voting for a way to begin to end the war...

You can write a bill that has no chance of passing (yet alone be veto-proof), smoke 10,000 bong hits, come back and ask for people to vote for the bill...that has no chance of passing.... meanwhile, more people die, more days pass, more enemies are spawned against us and nothing gets accomplished.

Kucinich is a whiney complainer that offers nothing tangible and is not a leader by any stretch of the imagination with his little tantrums.

I used to like him, but now I know better. He and his campaign are going nowhere and he offers nothing that can help really stop the war. He can talk the talk, but he sure as hell can't walk the walk.

[MaggieSwanson]

115. Kick for Dennis Kucinich

He speaks truth to power, and some people just can't take it.

[CreekDog]

121. He speaks, but he hasn't mastered power, that's for sure

Pelosi, not Kucinich, rounded up more votes against the war in 2002.

Pelosi and not Kucinich rounded up a majority of the House to commit to removing the troops at a fixed time.

Kucinich opposed this bill but couldn't get enough votes to defeat it.

This suggests that all those liberal, antiwar Democrats actually prefer Nancy Pelosi's leadership on the war issue to Dennis Kucinich's.

Because his work is a lot of talk, mostly aimed at harming the Democratic Party and her effort is mostly aimed at getting some actual progress towards ending this war, which she cannot snap her fingers and accomplish.

And while Madame Speaker is trying to walk this issue through our system, she is trying to make sure the antiwar effort gets a victory, she is also trying to save it from an embarassing defeat in the form of a vote against ending the war and defunding it which would happen had the issue been brought forth on those terms. In other words, despite Kucinich's best efforts, Pelosi has kept the antiwar movement from appearing to be smaller than it is via an embarassing defeat.

[AnOhioan]

125. Complete tripe

It was DK who rounded up the antiwar vote back in '02. Speaker Pelosi did not engineer this current vote to helpo the anti-war crowd. In fact, she was cowed by he Blue Dogs and by AIPAC...does not seem like leadership to me. Seems like taking the easy way out. This bill ensured that we will spend the next year and half spending more money, losing more troops, and once again ignoring the popular sentiment that the war needs to end now. We very well may have lost the chance to win in '08 with this piece of shit bill.

[CreekDog]

126. DK couldn't defeat this bill

What suggests that DK could get an immediate defunding/troop withdrawal passed?

Nothing, actually.

[CreekDog]

127. Pelosi got blue dogs to vote against Republicans

That was the point and it worked. She divided the pro-war votes with her Iraq War bill.

Had she put up a bill that immediately defunded the war and immediately began troop withdrawal, those blue dogs would have mostly voted against the bill with the Republicans.

And Bush would have said, "A majority in the congress does not believe we should end funding of the war or bring the troops home."

This would have been a huge defeat for those that oppose this war, and you can thank Pelosi for not letting it happen.

This is why almost all the prominent liberal bloggers, liberals in Congress and even antiwar MoveOn supported the supplemental, because they understood what I just explained to you.

But don't let facts stand in the way of understanding what actually happened and how it happened.

Just keep having a tantrum and saying that you expect a majority in congress to vote your way, damn the torpedoes and the consequences if they don't.

As for me, I'm grateful the grownups are in charge and that strategy, which is important in big issues, is being handled by Pelosi, Murtha and not by Kucinich.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the deals LBJ cut with segregationist Democratic Senators in the South to pass civil rights leglislation. Some are too pure to have done such a dastardly thing. Some are pure, but they wouldn't have gotten civil rights leglislation into law either, not for many more years.

If the non-thinking antiwar folks insist on this type of purity, then we can be sure that our involvement in Iraq will last even longer than if the politicos figure out how to turn opposition to the war into successful steps that actually end it.

[AnOhioan]

130. I fail to see this bill as a victory

When it will be seen as the Democratic Party caving to special interests, exactly how the Pubbies paint us. Sorry but this one was a major mis-step on the part of the Dem leadership.

I am sure the US soldiers who will die or become maimed between now and August '08 and their families will praise the "bold" leadersdhip of Pelosi and company. Another 1200 (based on average per day) or so will be dead before this ends.

How much more money will be flushed into Iraq? So much for domestic needs.

How many people who voted Dem in '06 will change their votes in '08? Enough to put the House back into the pubbies hands?

Pelosi ran away from leadership in this instance...and it will cost us all.

[CreekDog]

133. I see it as avoiding defeat rather than victory

But that is as important as hell in this issue.

A majority vote against either defunding the war or withdrawal of troops would be a huge setback for those against the Iraq war and for our troops.

You should be thankful Pelosi stopped that from happening.

A defeat such as that would have prevented many more votes to stop the war from happening and would have severeley handicapped the war issue. This is precisely why nearly all the progressives in the House voted for this bill.

Politics is about winners and losers, and the losers do not get to set policy. If you want something to happen, it's wisest to NOT LOSE.

But tell me exactly why losing a vote in favor of withdrawing troops and defunding the war wouldn't set back the antiwar effort? Please tell me, because if you want me to support that type of vote, you have to convince me it won't be more harmful to stopping the war than if such a vote didn't happen.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[AnOhioan]

135. Playing "not to lose".....

Another way of saying the game is already over. I find that unacceptable. Reminds me of the "prevent defense" my beloved Browns were fond of using. It was always a surefire way to put themselves in a hole.

I am not saying the fortunes of a football team are as important as national policy but the analogy works in this case.

We had the advantage with the change in control in Congress. Instead of going for the win, we just played "not to lose". Now the score is back to even, the pubbies are still in the game.

Would a vote calling for the immeadiate end of the war hve failed? Quite possibly yes, but if that was the case, we regroup and try again. Giving the administration another year and half right out of the box was foolhardy, and it will come back to bite the Dems in the ass.

[CreekDog]

134. There is not a majority of votes yet to bring the troops home today

...and to defund the war today

To pretend that there are the votes for that today by bringing up leglislation and ignoring the consequences if such leglislation is defeated is tantamount to malpractice on the political issue.

And right now, the majority of the public is not saying to bring all the troops home today and defund the war today. They will come around, but to state that these folks will vote against Democrats because the war isn't over, now that the Democrats have actually passed leglislation (to be vetoed I know) that sets a date certain for withdrawal is not going to get them voted out for not opposing the war enough.

What's getting in your way is that most of the public is not where you are on the issue --not yet. You are assuming that what you think is what the average voter thinks, well, it's not, but your strategy on this issue relies on the average voter agreeing with you. That's a miscalculation of huge proportions and it's one that Pelosi and Murtha are not making.

[AnOhioan]

136. A significant majority want the war to end....

now in 1.5 years, but now.

We disagree on the mood of the country, as well as to how best capitalize on that mood. I would love to argue more but am headed off to work. I am sure that those who share my feelings will keep this thread active until this evening.

[Ninja Jordan]

139. Your argument is premised on the assumption that you have enough votes

to pass your plan. No such majority in Congress exists. This was the best alternative. If Dems advocated your position, it would fail and the war would go on even longer.

[AnOhioan]

141. Sorry, but passing a bill that FUNDS the war

is not the same as ending it. This pull out the troops in late '08 while funding up until that point is prolongiong the war more than anything else. I am amazed that so many here are heralding this bill as a good thing. The people spoke in November '06, our elected officials are ignoring that message, to their own detriment.

[CreekDog]

129. Kucinich would have preferred:

"Congress votes against not continuing to fund the war"

Yep, that would have been REAAAALLLL helpful.

Thanks man, by the way, I'm not hiring you to manage my important issues in congress. No offense, it's just that you are incompetent.

[CreekDog]

131. Kucinich voted with the Republicans on this bill

The bill was too antiwar for all but two Republicans to vote for it.

The bill was too pro war for just 14 Democrats to vote for it, but antiwar enough for 216 Democrats to vote for it.

Seems like Kucinich will only vote for an antiwar bill that is so strong that it will lose.

Smart cookie that guy. What does he know that we don't?

[ShortnFiery]

142. There's still some big money to be made. Sure, the Govt isn't totally financially gutted yet!

After all, don't we all know who WE (the American people with their tax dollars) are working for?

Answer: NO, not just Lockheed Martin but our tax dollars are going to all sorts of wonderful "KILLING MACHINE" and Military Complex supportive corporations. :grr:

As long as there's money in the Treasury, these greedy KILLING MACHINE corporations and all the subsidiary corporate whores who support them (our M$M, etc.) will continue to steal from us Average American. :grr: