Kucinich: "Anyone who thinks this Congress is trying to end the war had better think again"

[Flabbergasted]

Congress Subverts Will of American People

Washington, DC —Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich gave the following speech on the floor of the House of Representatives today:

“Today the House will pass a budget which will fund the Iraq War far into 2009!

“The budget includes an extra $195 billion, mostly for military operations in Iraq. Anyone who thinks this Congress is trying to end the war had better think again because this budget signals we will be in Iraq for another two years or more, even though Congress has led the American people and the media to believe otherwise.

“Congress recently engaged in dubious debate about a non-binding surge resolution.

“Even though Congress had, and still has the authority to end the war now, we instead gave it new life with last week’s vote.

“Now $195 billion, on top of last week’s supplemental, means that close to $300 billion in a week has been approved to continue the war.

“This war has sacrificed the lives of our troops and innocent civilians.

“This war has advanced the interests of oil companies and contractors in the manner of a criminal enterprise.

“It has undermined our national honor and alienated friends around the world.

“When will Congress stand for truth and peace, and stop funding this war?”


http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0329-04.htm

[MethuenProgressive]

1. So Dennis... you want for them to walk home?

Time for a third party, Dennis. You obviously don't want to a Democrat anymore.

[Tellurian]

2. DK wants us to start at the bottom..

Hands us a broom to start sweeping the streets.. :hi:

Yo-Hoo, DK...we're in 2 Wars going for a Trifecta of Wars...

[Imagevision]

30. No--oo, lets wait till it gets as big as nam then like they did, pull the financing

we really need to see much higher body counts for Dennis's points to register, we've only been in Iraq a mere 4 year pittance, plenty more time and bodies to spare. Hell, george may start up a new oil company after leaving office?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Tellurian]

4. I'd rather watch paint dry..

that may even be more productive than empty rhetorical comments. hmmm..

[rodeodance]

6. and this article is about saying the same as DK:

Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation....
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3190960#3190960
3190960, Only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation....
Posted by Flabbergasted on Sat Mar-31-07 08:17 PM

and spending new funds to do so.


The Fake Fight Over the Iraq War
That Was an Antiwar Vote?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

Has the end of America's war on Iraq been brought closer by the recent vote in the House of Representatives? On March 23, the full House voted 218 to 212 to set a timeline on the withdrawal of US troops, with September 1, 2008, as the putative date after which war funding might be restricted to withdrawal purposes only. It's not exactly a stringent deadline. It only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so.

On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what US troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule. "US troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.

So the bill essentially adopts and enforces Bush's war plan and attendant "benchmarks" as spelled out in his January 10 speech. On March 27, the Senate voted 50-48 to start withdrawal in March 2008, said schedule being nonbinding on the President. At any rate, Bush has promised to veto all schedules for withdrawal coming out of Congress. Meanwhile the war goes on, with a supplemental, Democrat-approved $124 billion, more than Bush himself requested. As Congress considers the half trillion dollar FY 2008 Pentagon budget, there is no sign that the Democratic leadership will permit any serious attack on further war funding.

Thus when it comes to the actual war, which has led to the bloody disintegration of Iraqi society, the deaths of up to 5,000 Iraqis a month, the death and mutilation of US soldiers every day, nothing at all has happened since the Democrats rode to victory in November courtesy of popular revulsion in America against the war. Bush's reaction to this censure at the polls was to appoint a new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to oversee the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar province. The Democrats voted unanimously to approve Petraeus and now they have okayed the money for the surge. Bush hinted that he would like to widen the war to Iran. Nancy Pelosi, chastened by catcalls at the annual AIPAC convention, swiftly abandoned all talk of compelling Bush to seek congressional authorization to make war on Iran.

Although nothing of any significance actually happened on March 23, to read liberal commentators one would think we'd witnessed some profound upheaval, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi's skillful uniting of the various Democratic factions. What she accomplished in practice was the neutering of the antiwar faction. In the end only eight Democrats (plus two Republicans) voted against the Supplemental Appropriation out of opposition to the war. The balance of 202 no votes came from Republicans who opposed Pelosi's bill as anti-Bush and antiwar. So, in Congress 420 representatives officially have no problem with the war in Iraq continuing until the eve of the next election. Ten are foursquare against it, which is more or less where Congress has always been, in terms of committed naysayers.


http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03312007.html

[bananas]

16. "this budget signals we will be in Iraq for another two years or more"

Is that what you want?
How long do you want to be there?

[warren pease]

17. You got a problem with the truth?

What exactly in DK's assessment would you describe as incorrect, untrue, a distortion or a lie? The democrats could have done any number of things re funding to continue the Iraq war crime:

- They could have authorized funds to be used exclusively for a full troop withdrawal, and none to continue the "war effort," which mainly means paying zillions in untraceable baksheesh to the Blackwaters and Halliburtons of the world.

- They could have simply sat on their hands and refused to vote on any supplemental or general budget bill, which would have eventually strangled the magic flow of petrodollars that keeps this obscenity running.

- They could have voted for the supplemental, but with an accelerated deadline for full withdrawal and with none of the bullshit about allowing troops to remain if they're training Iraqi troops or if they're chasing terrorists, or their convenient phantoms.

- Or they could have voted to continue the occupation at its present level and fellated Georgie yet again.

Given those choices, and probably many more, it would be fair to assume that they went with the one of the first three based on their pre-election rhetoric.

On the other hand, based on their track record, you'd expect them to go with the last one. And surprise, surprise, even though expectations have never been lower, they always find a way to lower the bar even further.

Oh Gee. They're scared that the GOP will say they don't support the troops. Or they're scared of being seen as unpatriotic. Or they're scared of the mutant rabbit that attacked Jimmy Carter.

They could always say they're supporting the troops in the best way possible -- by not getting them killed or, nearly as bad, sucked into the clutches of the VA.medical slaughterhouse -- WHICH GEORGE W. BUSH MADE INEVITABLE BY CONSTANTLY CUTTING THE VA'S BUDGET EVERY GODDAMN YEAR SINCE HE COMMITTED GRAND THEFT ELECTION FRAUD.

But that would be impolite. We don't talk about such things because we value gentility and proper discourse and we can't be seen as obstructionists on TV and in the WP and NYT.

Never mind that the MSM won't cover anything they say or do, unless it's negative, so why even bother pretending they're going to get a fair hearing there? Never mind that they'll be trashed on wingnut radio no matter what they do, so why even bother trying to "position" themselves? Never mind that Fox news will distort and vilify anything they do, so why pretend there's such a thing as fair and balanced -- and further, why agree to hold debates in the belly of the beast?

Could it be because they really don't know what the fuck they're doing? That they've been beaten on so hard for so long by the GOP and its wholly owned subsidiaries in MSM that they've developed a kind of mass case of Stockholm syndrome? Or maybe they're just incompetent, in which case I'm sure they feel a kind of kinship with the simpleton in chief.

I don't know. You tell me. I'm more than willing to be wrong on this, and please correct me if my assessment is faulty. After all, I'm here to learn. I just don't think today's democratic party is much of an educational tool, unless you're wanting to know how to play suck-up to wingnut thugs and still manage to look yourself in the mirror.


wp

[RapidCreek]

56. AHMEN

Thanks for the positively beautiful post. I couldn't have said it better.

Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC

[roody]

57. You are RIGHT ON, warren pease.

[martymar64]

65. Your assessment is absolutely correct

n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

87. The reason why is there is a segment of the Dem caucas in both Houses

that is pro war, pro-American Empire, that is pro-neocon agenda.

This segment can and would vote with the Repos on a Repo bill to provide whatever funding bush requests.

To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Only Pelosi could stop this, because as speaker, she can control the House agenda. But if she does that, then she will lose the sdupport of those war favoring Democrats, many of whom she relies on for her speakership position.

[warren pease]

98. I don't dispute the reality of what you're saying...

And I'm nowhere near naive enough to think that goodness and decency will prevail. I am saying, however, that somebody has to represent the progressive wing of the democratic party, because from where I'm sitting they're either ignored or despised, and they're certainly gagged. Which I like to think is another serious tactical mistake on the part of the Pelosi soft-right moderates, because large numbers of people are way out front of congress on this issue.

Also, I haven't seen a roll call of votes on the supplemental. Do you have a link? I'd really like to see how many of these Lieberman dems voted against the bill anyway, despite the rather meek timetable and overly generous funding.

And finally, your last point about Pelosi's concerns over losing support for her speakership by acting like the leader of a true opposition party, and the majority party at that, is a fairly serious indictment of both her character and her ability to keep the troops in line. I'd be willing to bet that when Tip O'Neill or Sam Rayburn were in that position, they were prepared to mess unmercifully with dissenters in their own party, and democratic members knew they were dealing with serious people who could and would retaliate. Same for Lyndon Johnson when he was senate majority leader. Nobody messed with him, or they would find themselves suddenly without power, choice committee postings or pet projects for their districts.

Contrast this with the "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi regime, allowing herself to be manipulated by a small group of democratic wingnuts who know there will be no consequences for their actions. So far, she's making me nostalgic for the old smoky rooms and generalized but comparatively lightweight corruption of 50 or 60 years ago. At least you knew when you voted for a democrat, you'd be getting a representative who's main objective was to disrupt the policies of the GOP. Now, it's accommodation, surrender, co-optation and screw the voters because they don't understand how complex politics is.

Sam Rayburn to Nancy Pelosi: Another case study that argues against the very concept of evolution

wp

[John Q. Citizen]

124. I agree with almost everything you say. My point is it makes no sense

to demonize either Pelosi or Kucinich.

My bet is most of the Dems who voted for this bill will come to a point where they have to either constantly defend that vote, or they will have to admit to another error in judgement. That's if it's not vetoed. They won't have either bush, nor Kucinich to blame.

As to backrooms, it's obvious this vote in both the house and the Senate was carefully negotiated and crafted so it would have the votes to pass. I just am skepticle to the wisdom of this "victory." Yet it was crafted to be, and is being sold as a "victory." So Pelosi deserves credit for being able to make whatever it is that happened, happen, I guess.

I believe there were eight Dems from the Out of Iraq Caucas who voted against the bill in the house, and six blue dog pro-war votes against suggesting a time table, for a total of 14 votes against the bill by Dems. Not having those remaining 14 votes isn't a sign of weakness, by the way.

The sign of weakness is the content of the bill. As has been pointed out, it contains a lot of unrelated spending measures, some that seem very worthy, that are a testiment to the power of pet projects and home district spending opportunities for getting votes for an unrelated bill. A number of Democrats hate this practice when applied by the GOP, but apparently love it when they are applying the same practice. They somehow believe voters can't understand this, internalize it, and vote against them for it. Also, the fact the bill is so watered down as to be meaningless as regards a timetable, an extent of withdrawal, and other issues, also speaks to weakness.

[enough already]

118. Wish I'd said that. n/t

[NormanYorkstein]

169. hope you are wrong, fear you are right

[ProudDad]

18. How about the F*CKING Pentagon

using some of the OTHER $500 BILLION clams they're getting to get the troops out of Iraq. That's the money the supine Congress is going to give them this year IN ADDITION to our grandchildrens' $125 BILLION just voted for in the supplemental.

Let's see -- 140,000 troops at $2000 each to rent luxury cruise liners from Iraq to Miami -- that would only cost us $280 million to get them ALL home.

Hell of a deal!


That's less than half the cost of that f*ckin' U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

[bonito]

45. The DLC is the third party

doing its best to eliminate the Democratic party (Democratic liquidation counsel) thus leaving any real democratic order obsolete, its not about governments run by the people, with them its about a world corporations run by the few at the top just like communism, competing globally between the geographic unions like the EU.

[Cascadian]

167. The DLC's job is to neutralize the Democratic Party

All this talk about what the DLC's policy is what the people of mainstream America wants to propaganda hooey! If the mainstream media were to not be lackeys of the same multinationals that the DLC own, then more people would go for the more progressive policies because they know it would benefit them!

The DLC are drinking from the same utter as the Neocons!



John

[rodeodance]

5. Congress is Too afraid of NOT supporting the troops (08)

[Peace Patriot]

7. Kucinich is one of the few speaking the truth.

Empires don't give up bloody ground gained, rich resources, lucrative markets, conquered, divided people, merely because the people at home overwhelmingly desire it. Empires are for the rich, the nobles who want land, the privileged traders. And emperors serve these forces.

Um, I thought we were a democracy.

[Rusty MacHenry]

8. Kucinich Dosen't speak for me

If he dosen't like how Congress is being runned then switch parties, nuff said.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Rusty MacHenry]

10. I may be a conservative Democrat

But i'm the farthest thing from being a Republican, I just like to say that phrase.

[Flabbergasted]

11. I think DLCers are closer to Pubs than they care to admit.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

20. Does "conservative democrat"

mean pro-war?

Just asking.

[Rusty MacHenry]

24. What, hell no.

Social Issues Mostly. I don't support this war, never have and never will.

[ProudDad]

153. You mean like

Anti-Choice, pro-gun, anti-gay-marriage?

[Forkboy]

13. To be fair I'm pretty far left and I use it.

I read too many comics as a kid. :)

[Flabbergasted]

14. Ok I'm willing to apologize then. But the saying always took me as RW.

[Forkboy]

15. It may be,for all I know.

I got it from Stan Lee,and I know nothing of his politics outside of Spider-Man and The Fantastic Four. :)

[The Magistrate]

22. Indeed, Sir: Marvel Comics Is The Origin

And back a good deal longer than I care to remember....

[saltpoint]

39. Agree -- I think it is a Marvel Comics trademark phrase.

There used to be letters and notes at the back of some of their comics -- Thor, Spider Man, DareDevil -- and that phrase was used a lot.

It made one's relationship with superheroes cozier. I didn't take it to be political at all.

[tomp]

63. brilliant! you really nails it! nt

[femrap]

149. Rusty, you need to go

'keyboard' elsewhere. Like Iraq....are you 42 years old or younger? Do you have family members under the age of 42...then I say: PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR ASSHOLE IS....ENLIST. GO KILL.

[Cascadian]

162. KUCINICH SPEAKS FOR ME! (N/T)

[Imagevision]

19. This congress are even too wimpy to subpeona Karl Rove, big disappointment thus far...

[Rusty MacHenry]

23. Well it's kinda hard to do that

When the WH is being far too difficult. The Democrats aren't going to have Rove testify off the record, closed hearing with no transcript.

Thats why Rove hasn't testify, you want to Rove to do this with no record being taken whatsoever, will that make you happy. Jeez give it time.

Big dissapointment, Democrats in charge have done more then what the Republicans have done in six years.

[mmonk]

21. I heard it was called steps or something like that.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Impeachment is the only option

As long as Bush is in office, he will find a way to ignore the law and fund the war somehow. If they can find 67 votes for conviction or even close I'd be all for it. Unfortunately the Republic Party is far more loyal to Bush than to their country.

[The Magistrate]

26. The Man Is Simply Show-Boating, Sir

The Bill he is criticizing as defying the will of the people enjoys the support of sixty percent of the voting public, and virtually all those who oppose it do so because they consider the administration's policies in Iraq still a good thing. The slice of people who do not support this Bill because it does not go far enough is very, very slim,. and far from embodying the will of the people.

In voting against this Bill, Rep. Kucinich cast exactly the same vote the administration demanded of the Republicans in Congress. In continuing verbal opposition to it, he is doing precisely what the administration wants done. Make no mistake: in the political confrontations due over this matter next month, the administration is counting on dis-unity among Democrats to enable it to prevail. Not to put too fine a point upon it, they are counting on Rep. Kucinich....

[Flabbergasted]

27. You made the same comment before and your still wrong. nt

[Rusty MacHenry]

28. You questioned a Moderator

WTF? Magistrate you couldn't put it better. By voting againist the bill he is giving Bush and Co. everything they want, continuing the war with no means and no withdrawal whatsover.

[Flabbergasted]

29. The Magistrate is wrong and time will prove so.

[Rusty MacHenry]

31. Why is he wrong

Because he's right, because you don't like his opinion on what Dennis is doing, why?

[Flabbergasted]

32. Why am I discussing his opinion with you?

[Rusty MacHenry]

37. Because it's an open discussion that's why.

If you want a closed discussion with no opinions from third parties like myself exchange PM's.

[The Magistrate]

35. My Comments In a Discussion Are My Own, Sir, And Open To Question Like Anyone Else's

The Gentleman has every right to disagree with me, for all my personal conviction he is mistaken to do.

[Rusty MacHenry]

36. Well if it means anything

I agree with you, hell I agree with everything you said about Kucinich

[The Magistrate]

38. Agreement Is Always A Pleasure, Sir

"I am a man of principles, and chief among them is flexibility."

[The Magistrate]

34. That Is Not Much Of A Refutation, Sir

My comment is simply a statement of facts: the Bill is widely popular among the people of the country; Rep. Kucinich cast the same vote the administration demanded of its minions in the House and Senate; the administration is counting on dis-unity among Democrats in the coming weeks to enable it to prevail in political confrontation over this Bill; Rep. Kucinich is setting himself up as the leading exemplar of dis-unity in the Democratic Party's Congressional delegation. You have not refuted these facts, or shown them false in any way. Indeed, that would be an impossibility, as they are obviously true statements.

Rep. Kucinich is serving the people of the country, and the Democratic Party, very poorly by his present conduct. He ought to do better, and show some sense of occassion, and of solidarity.

[Flabbergasted]

40. That is a proper analysis when you ignore the fact that the bill does not do what it pretends it do.

[The Magistrate]

41. The Bill Does Exactly What Its Sponsors Say It Will Do, Sir

It begins the process of reigning in the administration's misadventures and malfeasance in Iraq, and does so in a way that every Democrat ought to be able to unite behind. You may be sure my view of those on the Party's right who voted against it is no more favorable than my view of those on its left who voted against it. That there was only a handful from both factions who held out is good; that they return to the fold and show solidarity in the coming struggle would be excellent. At this point, the Party must be a bloc, solid as a fist.

[Flabbergasted]

47. I doubt Pelosi believes the bill will have any real effect beyond convincing the public that the

process of ending the war has begun. Time will tell.

[The Magistrate]

48. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Do you actually believe that convincing the people of something is of no importance in a democracy? If the people expect a thing is underway, they will require demonstration of it. That expectation is the most powerful tool imagineable for actual progress towards the goal we both share in this matter.

[Flabbergasted]

49. I think there is a vast difference of possible intents in the hall of mirrors.

[The Magistrate]

50. Best To Hold On To Something Solid And Sizeable, Sir, In That Case

"The other day upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today! Oh, how I wish he'd go away...."

[Flabbergasted]

51. I've always liked what you have to say. nt

[martymar64]

68. The people are Waaay ahead of congress on this one

n/t

[The Magistrate]

72. There Is Some Truth To That, Sir

Though as a whole, the people are not quite so far ahead of the Congress as you might suppose. It is quite true the people want the occupation of Iraq ended, but the ground upon which most want it ended is rather different from that most who consider themselves to comprise the 'anti-war left' want it ended on. Most who want the venture ended desire this because they have come to perceive it as a failuire, and thus necessarily a waste, and even more important, view it something they do not wnat their sensibilities assaulted by on the news anymore, because it is not enjoyable, and it is boring.

The largest single bloc of voters comprises people who once supported the war, and now have grown disenchanted with it. The 'anti-war' sentiment among these people is very thin and poorly rooted. They want the matter ended, but in a manner that will allow them to evade acknowledging it as a defeat for the country, which is a thing that would greatly affront their patriotic pride. They can be easily turned against the authors of a withdrawl that goes bad in any signifigant way, and there is every reason to expect withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq will lead to a period of increased instability that can easily be portrayed by those of a mind to do so as a defeat that could have been avoided. Persons actually charged with governing, and with augmenting the majorities and power of a political Party, need to take into account future prospects in their present actions.

"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

[warren pease]

77. Now *that's* an interesting position

> The 'anti-war' sentiment among these people is very thin and poorly rooted.

That's a very interesting take. People may not be against war per se, but have shifted from pro-war to anti-war mainly because it's become a dangerous and expensive disaster. Not because it's inherently immoral to "pre-emptively" invade a sovereign country and kill hundreds of thousands of its civilians. But because this particular war isn't working out for the US.

The corollary is that the war, and BushCo by extension, would now enjoy significant popular support if things had gone the PNAC way -- a "cakewalk" for the liberators, who would be greeted by grateful flower-bearing Iraqi citizens.

And I think you may be right. I sometimes naively think that the national value system in America is shifting very slowly toward embracing alternative behavior models that exclude things like leading the charge toward global ecocide. Or use of the US military to fight proxy wars to secure third world resources and developing markets for corporate America. Or unwavering support for the bad guys in any movement of national liberation anywhere in the world, and the use of CIA black ops types to either murder or overthrow left-leaning leaders and replace them with compliant toadies who will grease the skids as corporate America plunders what's left of his country's resources.

So in your assessment the American public doesn't give a damn about that kind of stuff, and in this case is only against the war because it's a failure. And would support the war and wallow in all that boring patriotic crap all over again if we had succeeded in grabbing the oil so that we could continue our infatuation with Hummers. Because freedom's on the march, and woe betide any country that isn't quite ready for US style freedom -- now featuring the freedom to experience first hand the extraordinary amount of pain the human body can endure when torture is practiced by dedicated professionals who know their stuff.


You're a clever and highly cynical guy, Sir M. And that's a compliment.

wp

[The Magistrate]

78. Thank You, Sir

For both the compliment, and the excellent expounding of my root position here. My personal view is that the troops should be out yeaterday, and indeed should never have gone, as there was neither a just cause for the inavsion nor any rational policy objective of the country that could be obtained by it. It was simply an attempt by the regime to manipulate and distort the political life of our own country in the interest of its own and its party's hold on office, which makes it about as high a crime of state as it is possible to achieve in a democratic government. But there is no sign to me my position is too widely shared, or predominant among the people, and we are fortunate the administration botched the thing so completely as they have done. That will prove the deliverance of our country from an effective Republican dictatorship, as they were aiming for over the next decade.

"A win is a win."

[warren pease]

93. But it also occurs to me...

that if you're correct that American objection to the Iraq disaster is based solely on the fact that this particular war is disaster, rather than a distaste for war in general, then doesn't it follow that Americans would support an accelerated timetable for redeployment, and would also support a bill allocating funds to be used exclusively to pay for that redeployment? And if that's the case, wouldn't they inevitably lean toward Kucinich's position, since the majority also seems to oppose allocating funds that could be used for escalation rather than redeployment? Or am I missing some critical detail or using faulty logic that completely demolishes my hypothesis?

Also, this whole discussion demonstrates why I'm constantly babbling about alternatives beyond a simple "I support Kucinich" or "Kucinich is a traitor to the party" binary construct that doesn't allow room for gradations or other quite reasonable tactics. I suggested two other courses of action in an earlier post, and nobody has said they're hogwash or poorly reasoned. But more nuanced alternatives never show up on the radar screen, thereby forcing people to think within the bounds of accepted opinion rather than exploring other options. And so you get poll results that aren't necessarily reflective of national consensus, but simply represent the best available response to a lousy question.

Anyway, just wondering about the thesis in the first paragraph, and whether it stands up to peer review.


wp

[The Magistrate]

104. People Want Withdrawl, Sir

Accomplished in a manner that does not require them to own up to the fact of defeat. The quicker withdrawl occurs, the harder it is to pretend it is not defeat. People want a face-saving formula, carried out in a manner that looks like the time was picked, and not forced by the enemy. That is the value of 'benchmarks' for performance by the puppet government: it will fail to meet these, and so we wash our hands of it, and leave for reasons unconnected to any enemy of our's, or it will be pretended the puppet government has met them, and so there is no reason for us to remain.

But if the confrontation over this Bill mounts to a state where the administration is vetoing funding bills from the Congress that the people see nothing wrong with, as it very well could, withdrawl could be accomplished somewhat sooner, with the administration and its intransigence held to blame by a solid majority of the people.

[mvd]

138. My plan would start withdrawal this month

And give until the end of the year for all to come home. I agree that if it is too rushed, it will look to the people like a surrender - a regular, phased withdrawal would also be more efficient. :hi:

[warren pease]

148. One thing I know for sure..

There's a substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Or so the banks have been telling us for decades.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


wp

[The Magistrate]

151. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

Well done!

[martymar64]

66. A bill to bring our troops home NOW wold be even more popular

But alas, nobody in Congress, save DK, would have the moral courage to put it forward.
It's business as usual in Washington. The election came out meaning jack squat for the people. We just have a few new faces feeding at the trough.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. That simply isn't true

Numerous polls have been posted here lately showing a small minority favor bringing the troops home now.

Don't confuse YOUR desires with that of the general public.

[warren pease]

42. The tyranny of the majority...

So Kucinich erred because he failed to vote for a bill that "enjoys the support of sixty percent of the voting public." If I remember correctly, Bush's approval ratings were around 90 percent in the months after 9/11/01. Never mind that he was a corrupt, incompetent boob on Sept. 10, just as he was on Sept. 12. The majority was convinced that Bush was the man for the times -- partly because it wanted to be and partly because he was packaged and sold as a product called "leader and statesman" by every single media outlet in the country.

I won't bother with the litany of reasons why the majority was incorrect; they're well understood here. I will, however, challenge the view that the majority knows its posterior from a cave.

The majority knows how to respond to official truths as gleaned from traditional media sources, most of which gave up on objective journalism some time ago and now specialize in feeding their audiences prepackaged, simplistic, feel-good drivel. Political coverage on TV is reduced to 9-second sound bites followed by voice overs to tell us what the speaker actually said -- because apparently we can't be trusted to think the right thoughts if we listen for ourselves.

It knows how to feel when the usual charges of "they don't support..." and "unpatriotic" are lodged against democrats, because they've been trained by wingnut radio and featherheaded news readers. It knows that it was either this way or the highway because nobody has even mentioned a third or fourth or tenth alternative.

But we don't depend on those predictable sources of conventional constructs. We see options the majority can't or won't even conceive of. And we are old enough to know right from wrong, and who's telling the truth and who's just calling it in.

Somebody, sometime simply has to tell the truth. This bill was a fraud, it doesn't do a damn thing to end or even curtail the Iraq occupation, and it's fundamentally dishonest for democrats, who were elected specifically to end the war, to fob this piece of appeasement crap off on the public as a significant blow against the empire.

I don't care if it's playing into GOP hands, although I doubt it would be seen that way by any thinking person who hasn't already been lulled into a coma by our intrepid white house correspondents. And so what if it is? The GOP is so preoccupied with covering its corrupt ass these days that I doubt they're spending much time "strategerizing" on how to co-opt the democrats. And why bother, since the dems are so consistently adept at co-opting themselves. Pelosi and the rest of her DLC ilk need to be kicked in the ass now and then to remind them of their pre-election commitment to the electorate, and how they've failed to deliver yet again.

In closing, polling can extract virtually any opinion from virtually any random sample by judicious phrasing of questions. So maybe that 60 percent isn't truly representative. And if it is, it's just one more item for the gigantic, overflowing file called "American gullibility."

Somebody, sometime has to tell the truth or it simply loses its value and morphs into further assaults on critical thinking like positioning statements and focus group consensus. Kind of like the white house has been selling for the last six years.


wp

[truedelphi]

43. "Somebody, sometime simply has to tell the truth. "

Howard Zinn, Pat Buchanan and Kucinich all have stated the problems with this bill.

Although on some levels I am glad the bill passed, I understand what the bill's critics are saying.

[Rusty MacHenry]

44. You don't like it then vot the Republicans back in the majority

Cause obiously you don't like the job the Democrats are doing and rather have the minority party back into office so they keep funding the war without any withdrawal or money for VA relief whatsoever.

So go ahead, do that vote the Rethugs back into office if you don't like the fine job our party is doing, let's see the results.

[treestar]

61. This style of argument is so inanely childish

Nobody said any such thing.

Leave the black and white thinking and the exaggerating of the opponent's position to absurd lengths to the freepers, please.

[The Magistrate]

46. Unfortunately, Sir

When Rep. Kucinish says this Bill 'subverts the will of the people' he is not telling the truth: the people like the Bill just fine, and Rep. Kucinich is merely indulging in a species of elitism akin to that displayed by a vanguardist, who represents and acts for the people without bothering to consult them.

Rep. Kucinich is indeed playing into the hands of the White House, Mr. Pease: are you calling me a person who does not think, or someone who has 'been lulled into a coma by our intrepid white house correspondents'?

"Enquiring minds want to know...."

[warren pease]

54. "Enquiring minds want to know...."

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. You're obviously a smart guy, as I gather from your posts over the years. I am suggesting, however, that the "will of the people" is easily obtained by simply offering them no alternative except the bill that passed or nothing at all. There's no nuance, no gradients; it's a or b, on or off. Such binary choices are prevalent in the way public opinion is gauged, or manipulated to conveniently align with official truths.

It's even reflected in our political structure. There are the democrats, who allegedly care more about people than corporate profits, despite the fact that they grovel for the same campaign "contributions" from the same sources as does the GOP. And there are the republicans, who are blatant in their contempt for individuals and enthusiastically support corporate profits by any and all means. Neither party is defined quite as simply as that, although the GOP's reflexive willingness to march in lock-step toward totalitarianism is duly noted. Nor is any attention paid to third-, fourth- and so on parties or their candidates. Why? Because they can't win. And why can't they win? Because conventional wisdom, as articulated for us by our genius pundits, says they can't, and who the hell are we to challenge the experts?

And that same kind of binary choice is echoed here, by people who really should know better. Either DK is on the mark, which is my position, or he's a threat to the party. That his assessment is factually correct doesn't seem to matter. We both know that the "will of the people" last November was to put an end to the war, and democrats played on that to gain majorities in both houses. And we both know that giving the pentagon what it wanted in funding, and giving Bush what he wanted by including criteria that effectively eliminate the possibility of enforcing the timetable for withdrawal, while politically safe in the short term, does not reflect the intent of the people who elected them. Bush, of course, will snivel about democrats tying his hands while "we're at war," but I would bet that the administration is laughing its collective ass off as they put yet another one over on the clueless democratic congress.

So think what you will. If you honestly believe, after reading the damn bill, that the democrats did the right thing, great. If not, that's fine, too. I just hate to see what happens to a guy who, in my opinion and that of countless other observers from here and abroad, tells the unvarnished truth and is roundly castigated for having the gall to publicly challenge received wisdom.

I think it must be so surreal to run into an honest politician that many people automatically assume he's either lying or engaged in some stunt to increase his name recognition.

And if they're all liars, then why would anybody believe Pelosi's version of the truth rather than Kucinich's?

I just don't get it.

wp

[The Magistrate]

55. One Must Play It As It Lays, Sir

If our political system were different, different lines of operation would be adviseable. But it is what it is, and lines that will not work in it are worthless to press.

This Bill is a good first step; certainly the best first step that could command a majority in both chambers. Certainly further action is necessary, and as the administration continues to lose prestige in widening and deepening scandal, further action will become more practicable.

But in the current situation, Rep. Kucinich is behaving very poorly. The situation calls for Parliamentary style unity, not grandstanding at the expense of the Party and its leadership.

"Every time someone says 'Speak truth to power,' God kills a baby kitten."

[RapidCreek]

59. There is no god.

Kucunic is being honest. You got a problem with honesty? It lays where you hit it and if you dont hit it you aint playin the game. More importantly IT DONT LAY if it isnt hit. Nope you advocate spectator politics....and I dont need a spectator masquerading as a politician. There are way to many statesmanlike spectators already....For the good of the party? If no one on the team is playing the game how the hell is that good for the team?

RC

[martymar64]

69. It's another example of "keeping our powder dry"

n/t

[RapidCreek]

132. What powder.....

Me thinks you live in a fantasy world. "Democrats" have been keeping their powder dry for six years....they don't have any to worry about. They are licking the bung holes of the corporations that brung 'em. A real Democrat isn't afraid to speak as one. EVER.

RC

[ProudDad]

154. A very strange post

"god kills a baby kitten"??

I think your heart and head may be in the right place it's your apparent "deterministic theology" that gets tiresome. You keep harping on the "fact" that the system is just as it is and cannot be (should not be?) changed.

It's your arrogant tone that suggests that one must accept the status-quo without striving to change it that bothers me...

[The Magistrate]

156. In Strategy, Sir

The beginning of wisdom is understanding what can be achieved with the means to hand in the existing situation. Action based on wishful thinking regarding either element is always futile.

[RapidCreek]

160. Lack of action based on acceptance is futile buddy.....

and that's a sure bet. If the means at hand present no possibilities....then you make some more means....that's what living in a Democracy is about, sir.

RC

[DemBones DemBones]

52. "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

"In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-- attr. George Orwell

I haven't checked the attribution yet but whoever said it was right.

[treestar]

60. That is a great post!

:you rock:

[Seabiscuit]

81. Good points. It's a sad day in hell when a DU moderator claims that speaking truth to power

is nothing more than "show-boating".

[The Magistrate]

83. It Remains True, Sir

"When someone says 'Speak truth to power,' God kills a baby kitten."

It is the most hackneyed, trite, and sentimental catch-phrase polluting political discourse on the left today.

[Seabiscuit]

85. What's "hackneyed, trite, and sentimental", Sir, is accusing DK of "show-boating".

That's the kind of tripe I'd expect a Rush Limbaugh to come up with.

[The Magistrate]

89. Actually, Sir, It Is None Of Those Things

It is an accurate observation of what the man is doing. He is seeking to publicize himself as a focus for left opposition to the Democratic leadership of the Congress, at a time when solidarity by our Congressional delegation is essential. He should not be doing that, and displays poor judgement by doing it. We must hold persons on the right of the Party behind this Bill, as well, and they have at least grounds to plead they risk their seats by hanging together with the rest. Rep. Kucinich is in a safe district, and will be returned no matter what vote he casts. If people who actually do risk their seats must be told, 'well, stand to it and take the bullet, kid,' those on the left who really risk nothing must set an example.

[Seabiscuit]

90. Some shit just doesn't float, Sir, including accusations that DK is insincere

in his speech against this bill, which cogently expresses some key misgivings he and the other 13 House Democrats who voted against it (and probably many who voted for it) are concerned about.

You can disagree with what DK is doing without accusing him of "show-boating", meaning he's only saying things he doesn't believe for "show", or effect, as some sleazy attempt at self-aggrandizement. That is utterly uncalled-for.

[The Magistrate]

106. Half At Least Of the People Who Voted Against It, Sir

Did so on completely different grounds than Rep. Kucinich: they voted against it because they thought it went too far, at least too far for the voters in their districts, and feared they would lose their seats in '08 if they voted for it. These people behaved just as poorly and wrongly as Rep. Kucinich and a handful of others he is by far the most vocal of.

'Show-boating', Sir, does not mean insincerity or any of the other things you have suggested, it simply means making a scene that draws focus to one-self to no good purpose, save perhaps one's enjoyment at being the center of attention. If you wish to declare Rep. Kucinich is not a human being, you are free to do so, but it would leave interesting openings for attack....

"We are simply exchanging long protein strands. If you know a simpler way, I would like to hear it."

[Seabiscuit]

112. Excuse, Sir, excuses. That shit still doesn't float, Sir, no matter how you try to

weasel around it. "Show-boating" certainly *is* a form of insincerity, even given your conveniently narrowed definition. Your attempt to get into DK's head is presumpuous at best, and ascribing bad motives to him is even worse.

What solid evidence do you have that DK doesn't believe what he says, and only says it to draw focus to himself to no good purpose?

[The Magistrate]

126. Your Choice Of Metaphor, Sir, Is Interesting

It adds nothing to your attempt at arguement here, which fails to be anything but an expression of irritation someone does not share your adulation of a minor politician.

[Seabiscuit]

130. The presumptuousness I'm seeing here appears limitless.

I not only see denial of the obvious about your words (pretending that accusing someone of "show-boating" is not an accusation of insincerity), not only see presumption that you can read DK's mind, now there's an even worse presumption that you can read mine: sorry, but there is no "adulation of a minor politician" on this side, Sir. My vote during the 2004 primaries belonged to Howard Dean, not DK. I don't agree with DK about all he says, and strongly disagree with some of the ways he says it. But that's not the issue here.

My point was simple Sir: you do nothing to enhance your disagreement with DK by personally attacking him with pejorative phrases like "show-boating". And you completely undermine your already vapid points in this sub-thread, Sir, by personally and falsely attacking me for presumably being someone who is only expressing "adulation of a minor politician."

And if you don't like the metaphor, Sir, you shouldn't work so hard at setting off my bullshit detector. What goes around comes around.

DK is not the only one to express the thoughts he did in that speech. Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters and other House Dems who voted against the bill publicly expressed similar sentiments. And they're indisputably right about one thing: despite language about ending the war 18 months from now, the bill not only funds the war for those 18 months, it allows Bush to continue the war indefinitely beyond those 18 months by merely claiming that he's fighting terrorists and/or training the Iraqi army (the same excuses he uses today). And everyone knows it will never become law anyway, as Bush vowed before the vote to veto it, and neither house of Congress has the votes to override a veto on the war right now.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question: where is your evidence, Sir?

[The Magistrate]

134. And Yet, Sir

Somehow it is not Reps. Lee and Waters who are being quoted ad infinitum denouncing the line adopted by the Party leadership, and the overwhelming preponderance of the Democratic delegation in the Congress: that seems to be the particular province of Rep. Kucinich, which suggests, to put it mildly, that he is making some special effort to call attention to himself in this matter, and succeeding at in some measure. In doing so, he is playing into the hands of the enemy in a political confrontation we had better win, and in which the enemy pins its hopes for victory on fragmentation among Democrats. Nothing you say touches on these concerns.

Nor do you engage the fact that at least half of the Democrats who peeled off to vote against this Bill peeled off from the right of the Party, on the ground that it goes too far in reigning in the administration's policy. You continue to attempt to present the matter as if all who succumbed to splinterism were denizens of the left acting from whole-hog anti-war sentiments. Perhaps you are of the view that any vote against this is a good vote, but then you would have to account all the votes of the unified Republican bloc in the House against the Bill as good votes, cast in the cause of peace and what-not....

"Saints should be judged guilty till proved innocent."

[mvd]

135. Well..

I don't think it's "ad infinitum." I have no problem with him wanting to be heard, though. This is not about himself. When he speaks out, he thinks he is speaking for the progressives like Lee and Waters.

I disagree with more conservative Democrats who voted against it because they don't even want a timeline.

[The Magistrate]

136. And My Ire, Sir

Is aimed at those from either wing who broke ranks in this crisis. Fingers can be snapped like twigs, fists cannot: until we learn this, we will remain at a disadvantage against a numerically inferior force on the right, who nonetheless know how to stick together in a pinch.

But there does not seem to me to be any reason to state this is not about himself, in large measure. Anyone in politics has an outsized ego; an inflated sense of self is a pre-requisite for the profession, and the man has been at it in one form or another a long time. The Representatives you say he thinks he is speaking for are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Indeed, those named are greatly superior to him in stature in the House and in the Party. If we are not treated to daily pronouncements from them denouncing this Bill and the Party leadership, that is probably because they realize this would be most unhelpful just now.

[mvd]

139. No, it is not entirely about himself

Or mostly. He is a bit dramatic, I agree, but this is not all that unexpected. When politicians want to make a strong point, it can come off that way. We can't know for sure, so I will give the benefit of the doubt to a good Democrat.

And as I said in other posts, I believe Dennis WILL unite with us if it means life or death of a big bill proposed.

[The Magistrate]

145. If He Votes Right In the Pinch, Sir

In my view he will be a prince of a fellow....

"Don't make no waves, don't back no losers."

[mvd]

147. I hope he does vote with us in the pinch

Because if he doesn't, then it would be showboating IMO. He has come through on votes in the past - on bills that didn't go as far as he wanted.

I have to sign off, but thanks for a good discussion.

[The Magistrate]

150. Always A Pleasure, My Friend

[Seabiscuit]

137. Oh, so now it's DK's fault that the press has quoted him, perhaps even

more than it has quoted Lee and Waters? That's real great logic, there, Sir. As if DK controlled who the press decides to quote. And you would muzzle him because you think his sincere expression of his beliefs, however naive they may be (like his 2003 Debates talk about a "Peace Department", whatever that was supposed to be I never knew) "is playing into the hands of the enemy"? That's like saying Democrats shouldn't rock the boat because the Repukes might call us "unpatriotic" or say we "don't support the troops". I'll take DK's bold naivite over that kind of spinelessness any day. His is a point of view, however imperfect, that still needs to be heard.

Nothing I say "touches on these concerns" as you put it because they're not my concerns. They're yours. My point all along has merely been that your put-down about "show-boating" is inappropriate, uncalled-for, and diminishes any otherwise valid point you may be attempting to make.

As for the bill, I find it interesting that it got the press Pelosi wanted, and that's a good thing, but all in all, it really isn't worth the paper it's written on, except to force Bush to veto it so that Pelosi, et. al. can then engage in a bit of *real* "show-boating" by claiming Bush's veto shows he "doesn't support the troops". While I admire Pelosi's political savvy and hard work in making certain she had enough votes by calling on every House Democrat behind the scenes, the sad fact of the matter (and I think this is DK's fundamental point) is that Congress has a long ways to go before it will really appear serious about ending this senseless war. This bill may be a baby step in that direction (it generated some PR in the press), but what this country really needs after over 4 years of this bloody insanity is giant steps. People are dying every day while our government fiddles and twiddles.

[The Magistrate]

146. A Man Must Speak To Be Quoted, Sir

So it would be very easy for Rep. Kucinich to avoid press attention....

No good purpose could be served by further engagement with someone who views 'bold naivite' as a good thing.

[Seabiscuit]

152. As I suspected, you just want to muzzle DK.

I didn't say bold naivete was a "good thing". I said it beats spinelessness.

But I will thank you for your disengagement. The "Sir" thing gets really tiresome fast. It's like trying to talk to someone who keeps poking you in the ribs with "Sir" this and "Sir" that. Very rude, provocative, obnoxious and ultimately boring (but I don't have to tell you that, do I).

[The Magistrate]

155. The Situation, Sir, Requires The Congressional Delegation Speak As One

The enemy is relying on dis-unity among us, and should be given no encouragement, no purchase whatever for its hopes. Persons unable to comprehend this, and conform their actions to it, ought to find another trade than politics....

[Seabiscuit]

157. That's quite a "disengagement". Wow!

I really don't care what your thoughts are on the subject. The arrogant, pompous, condescending airs you put on and your rudeness get in the way of everything you have to say. "Sir".

[The Magistrate]

158. Your Charm Is So Great, Sir

It is difficult to look away....

"The bleatin' o' the kid incites the Tiger."

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. Showboating?! Why the outrage! Politics is not the place for showboating!

But it seems to me that it is something of a stretch to describe the truth as showboating.

The fact that, as you observe, he didn't check polling reports before informing the public that they can count on war for another three years at least, speaks well of him... and is exactly what I'd expect.

[Imagevision]

33. The people voted in Nov. didn't do beans - now they'll do it agaijn in Nov. 08 again

it won't do jack, even with Hillary blabbing, "make me president and I'll end the war"

[DemBones DemBones]

53. I agree that the Democrats should be using the mandate

they received in a more powerful way. I predict a lot of Dems will lose their seats in 2008 if they don't get their acts together and do everything possible to end this war.

The GOP will be perfectly happy if they can just run out the clock and start calling it "the Democrats' war" after the 2009 inauguration, assuming a Democrat actually becomes president in 2009.

I think Kucinich represents what the public wants more than most people at DU realize.

[Seabiscuit]

133. I share that suspicion...

that "I think Kucinich represents what the public wants more than most people at DU realize."

[cali]

58. Dennis is irrelevant.

The only people listening to him, the only ones who will listen, are his true believers, and as is usual for Dennis, he's being disingenuous. As someone else pointed out, Congress is not subverting the will of the people. The statement, oft seen here on DU, and issued by Dennis and others, that the American people voted for dems in 2006 in order for them to get us out of Iraq immediately, is an overstatement bordering on a lie. It's no truer than bushco's claim of a mandate.

Dennis is simply pandering to his base. He's marginalizing himself further from serious discussions on serious issues, just as he's marginalized himself in the House. If he spent more time actually working in the House, and less time pontificating, he might actually have achieved something in his years in Congress. He hasn't.

[warren pease]

74. Not only relevant, but necessary

So Kucinich speaks only to the choir and is, therefore, irrelevant. These days, the country is so polarized and the poles are so monolithic about their positions that only the choir -- and maybe a few protesters who managed to avoid being trapped in "free speech zones" --shows up for any political speech or rally, or reads only political statements issued by a member of the party they support, or chooses to read Coulter or Franken, but never both. And they'll all swear they're hearing or reading the truth, even though the GOP propaganda machine has been caught in its own bullshit countless times and democrats, as usual, are playing catch-up even in the bullshit battle.

So I concede the point about the choir. No matter how important it is to know and understand the enemy, I'm not going to subject myself to even 10 minutes of Limbaugh or any of the hundreds of wingnut motormouths he spawned. And wingnuts must be equally sickened when any member of the amazing shrinking left of the democratic party actually gets some ink or "face time."

So running to the middle is fine in theory, but it accepts and perpetuates the narrow limits of binary thinking I referred to in an earlier post. When the power brokers behind the curtain create the box in which all acceptable opinion must remain -- and these days I would argue that "credible" discussion takes place almost exclusively on a continuum with hard right and moderate right defining the end points -- they've already won the argument. That's why minor irritants like Air America are seen as problems -- although if left alone it will probably eat itself up with no outside help. But even that faint voice of dissent from official limits on discourse threatens homogeneity and orthodoxy and must be run out of business.

Creating the box is an old but effective PR tactic that's been enthusiastically adopted by the people who decide what the punditocracy is allowed to discuss, and therefore shape the opinions of millions of Americans who, for example, think the American Enterprise Institute is just a benign think tank dedicated to advising politicians and business persons on globalization and free trade issues. And nobody seems curious about a think tank that's so consistent in its bias that it's gone far beyond "thinking" and now runs on pure reflexive regurgitation.

Although 15 minutes spent on the web reveals all, it's generally not known that the AEI was founded not by enlightened businessmen eager to explore the range of modern economic theory, but by radical free market wingnuts who wanted to develop credible "experts" to appear on TV and write "serious" papers, articles and books that feed Americans a steady diet of business-boosting PR designed to make certain that Americans convert to and proselytize about our true national religion: rapacious, unrestrained, unaccountable capitalism in which there's no such thing as enough.

And conversion happens despite the fact that, if they use their own eyes and ears, Americans can tell that something's seriously screwed up in this country and the proximate cause is the complete amorality of multinational businesses that treat every single species, raw material and cultural value as just another exploitable, disposable piece in the grand game of global corporate warfare -- used, abused, discarded and replaced with another interchangeable part.

That's how the box works to turn reality on its head and create and enforce societal consensus based on the values of the dominant group -- in this case the kleptocracy that includes the ultra rich, multinational CEOs and board chairmen, and the political institutions that work for them. It's just another example of the big lie, used so effectively by the great Dr. Goebbles, the Third Reich's PR genius. And you see the results of the box's limits right here, of all places. Some of the Kucinich detractors have actually recycled cold war remnants, with "go join the GOP" replacing "go back to Russia." I should add that your post isn't one of them.

That aside, what exactly did he say that's "...an overstatement bordering on a lie?" Is it borderline lie that the bill gives the pentagon and the administration the money they demanded, along with provisions that can, and probably will, be used to continue large-scale US military presence in Iraq far beyond the phony fall 2008 "deadline?" Just read the bill if you haven't already. Or read any of the analysis, from any political perspective, and I think you'll find it more difficult to question Kucinich's veracity.

As to subverting the will of the people, I think subverting is a little too strong. Ignoring is closer, I think. They promised to end the occupation and shine a little light on BushCo's systemic corruption, and people responded to that message. So far, they're doing pretty well on the corruption side and, for the first time since 2000, I allow myself a bit of hope that these vile bastards will finally be brought to account. And even more importantly, IMO, they need to be seen as standard products of mainstream GOP ideology and of conservatism in general, such that "conservative" becomes the new dirty word, replacing liberal as the focus of national scorn and removing them from the political mainstream for as long as possible.

So I think Kucinich represents the potential that progressive activism has to initiate real change and real reform, which definitely doesn't include meeting with Bush capos like Rove and Meirs behind closed doors, off the record, no notes taken, and no oath administered.

Pelosi, on the other hand, seems completely comfortable staying in the box and limiting what's possible by simply refusing to push the limits. As a result, she will inevitably settle for crumbs when she could have had a chance at the whole cake. And this supplemental is the result of that kind of self-imposed limitation. But hell, she's only the leader of the majority party. What could she possibly do?

So what's the worst thing that could have happened if the house had simply refused to vote on this ridiculous bill? President Bumble would piss and moan about how the democrats are tying his hands in wartime, which is exactly what he's saying even though they passed the bill. MSM might call democratic strategy "questionable" on the moderate side, and "treasonous" everywhere else, which is exactly what the more biased papers and political "discussion" shows are doing anyway. GOP voters might have an even lower opinion of democrats, but they're never going to vote democratic anyway so who cares? Maybe Lieberman again whispers about switching parties which, thanks to a really crafty move by democrats, won't change committee chairmanships or tilt the Senate to the GOP anyway, so let the senator from Tel Aviv go straight to hell, which is what the right side of the aisle must feel like to normal people.

Anything else? So despite giving BushCo the money and the time it wants -- and the provisions about troops remaining in Iraq beyond the deadline if they're chasing terraists or training Iraqi security forces allows American troop presence in Iraq indefinitely. And after all that, the miserable prick has said he won't sign it anyway, which just demonstrates how comfortable he has become in his role as tinhorn dictator and gleeful murderer of hundreds of thousands of civilians. And when a democrat speaks out against further enabling this dimwitted vampire, he's called impractical, rebellious, disloyal and a dreamy idealist in a grim, cold world. I disagree.

Long winded as usual. But I guess my positions need explanation, since their intent is clearly misunderstood by several posters on this thread.

wp

[rman]

62. kick for peace

[LWolf]

64. Answer?

When will Congress stand for truth and peace, and stop funding this war?

When complicit Democrats are replaced with Democrats and 3rd party members of integrity.

:shrug:

[no_to_war_economy]

67. most people dont get it

I, you and the other Dennis supporters DO get it

[LWolf]

80. Agreed. n/t

[Rusty MacHenry]

84. Well I won't be apart of that

Cause I think the Democrats are doing fine on this bill and I will never hold my nose and vote 3rd party, never in a million years.

[LWolf]

170. Not holding the nose is the whole point.

If I have to hold my nose to vote for someone, it really doesn't matter whether or not they are a Democrat. Holding one's nose is holding one's nose, and if there is not a Democrat on the ticket that I can vote for without holding my nose, I'll vote elsewhere.

Generally, I vote for the best person on the ticket, and that's usually the Democrat. That's why I'm a Democrat; it's usually been the best choice. If it becomes more and more frequent that the Democrat is not the best choice, I'll move on. The party only has value to me when it represents me.

I can't say "I'll never hold my nose and vote for a Democrat in a million years," because I have. I have voted for Democrats I thought did not represent me, and would not do what I wanted my rep to do. If I have to do it too often, though, that practice will come to a halt.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

73. Kucinich is for political theater over political reality

Kucinich would rather have the Congress not pass legislation, thus continuing the war, than being part of a REAL movement to end the war though congressional legislation, which apparently he's not good at doing.

[dajoki]

75. Somewhere along the line...

Dennis has lost touch with reality. I used to admire his maverick stance, but he's been there long enough to know how things get done or don't get done. He's choosing how to not get things done.

[The Magistrate]

76. That Certainly Seems To Be the Case, Sir

The man is about striking postures rather than accomplishing things.

[mvd]

79. I have to respond to this, Sir

He is not about striking postures. He has his own plan drawn out on his website, a 12-point plan, and has sponsored several withdrawal bills that were bipartisan in nature. He has a record of sponsorships and co-sponsorships that address most all the things I care about. There can be disagreement here, but there is no evidence of his motives being more misguided than yours or mine.

That said, I have a couple problems with what he said:

1) If we cut off all funds, the withdrawal effort itself could even be in jeopardy. Also, we need to keep giving the soldiers aid for their injuries. Just call it supporting the troops funds, instead of war funds.

2) It's most important that the Congress retain its authority to prevent any strike against Iran. I'd rather that be added to the bill instead of the funding cut.

3) Sometimes progress comes in stages. I think the Democrats took a pretty big step with this bill. Its timeline isn't far off from mine. It also requires that Bush begin withdrawal within 120 of the bill's passage, even though I'd like the end of the occupation in 2008 to be binding.

[The Magistrate]

82. His Plan, Sir

Has no chance whatever of becoming law. The idea of an international force moving in is a fantasy, whoever proposes it, and payment of reparations from the United States to Iraq would get perhaps two votes in the Congress.

It is hard to see his 'Presidential' campaign, which most of recent statements are in service of, as anything but an exercise in posturing. He has no chance whatever of prevailing, or even being a discernable influence.

Regarding the specific points you raise, we would seem to be in broad agreement. The third is the most important, as we agree the Democrats took a big and useful steep with this Bill, and that criticism of it as unimportant, or 'pro-war', and the like, is mis-guided, and unhelpful. My preference would have been that the Bill conatin the explicit provision regarding Iran, but if dropping it meant a majority for the Bill that keeping it would have barred, its removal is acceptable to me. The fact is no authorization for an attack on Iran exists, and one is necessary under the Constitution. An immediate end to funding in Iraq is simply not a practical political possibility at present, but there is some chance, as the confrontation over this Bill progresses, that the outcome will be essentially that, sometime this summer: it would take only one or two miscalculations by the administration, and solidarity among the House Democrats on the present line, for this to occur. It is towards securing and maintaining that solidarity all agitation ought to be focused: neither the right nor the left of the Part has a leg to stand on in this, there is no excuse for peeling off this effort in either direction, for anyone.

[mvd]

86. That doesn't mean you stop making proposals

He has every right to put together what he thinks is the best plan. His campaign is not posturing at all. He's a good progressive who really believes in the cause of peace and making the country better. We can debate specific points in his plan/statements, but we will never agree on what his intentions are.

I think the Iran provision is pretty vital, as now we see him again sabre-rattling about those hostages. I think even they should know that they can't attack Iran with our army so extended, but things haven't stopped Bush before.

[The Magistrate]

88. Of Course He Can Put Together Proposals, Sir

But that does not oblige anyone to treat them as items of real weight.

If he cannot hope to become the nominee, Sir, let alone be elected President, than his campaign can only be regarded as a species of theater.

"Saints should be presumed guilty till proved innocent."

[mvd]

91. No it is not theater

He is in it because he really believes he has the best plan. By your philosophy, Biden and Dodd would also be in it for "theater." I don't think Kucinich would put himself through this if he didn't want his campaign to be taken seriously. By running, he's putting action where his mouth is. Kucinich can also help to keep the others honest at the debates.

[Seabiscuit]

92. Bingo. Yours are points I wholeheartedly agree with.

My faith in the DU moderators has been somewhat restored. Thank you.

[mvd]

94. Thanks

The Magistrate is well intentioned. I have a lot of respect for him. But there's no way to agree when he tries to get inside Kucinich's head. That's when we just have to part ways.

[Seabiscuit]

95. You're welcome; indeed...

that is the gist of my objection to the "Sir" guy - his presumptuousness about divining DK's intentions, and declaring that DK's speech was nothing but a sham, insincere "show" to promote himself. Disagree all one wants, express all the opinions about the issues one wants, but don't personally attack someone like that just because you don't see something the same way.

[BeFree]

100. Kucinich is a true leader

Not some pansy-ass follower. He speaks for me and many others when he tells of his disgust for this *step*.

If he does not prevail then millions more will die. Let us hope enough true believers in peace get behind Mr. Kucinich's ideas.

The time for politically safe posturing is over. It is why we are now mired in this fiasco.

[The Magistrate]

109. If He Were A 'True Leader', Sir

He would have a sizeable and powerful following. This he conspicuously lacks on the national scene.

[mvd]

113. But..

popularity is not a definite sign of leadership ability. Remember, when Bush was at 90%, he was still Bush.

[BeFree]

114. He would

If he looked like Robert Redford. Then the press would follow him around like lapdogs and America would be in love.


It seems the question is this: do we want out of Iraq now, or are we willing to keep playing this game? If it is time for ending the game, and since we see no other politico with the stature of Mr. Kucinich leading the way, he has become the leader.


But, like the 2004 elections when Kerry was beat up and slapped around even on DU, we do treat our leaders rather foolishly, eh?

[The Magistrate]

128. No One With the Stature Of Rep. Kucinich, Sir?

Probably best to leave that unengaged, and simply wish you well.

[zulchzulu]

115. By Kucinich's "strategy", the war will go on as long as the Repugs want it

If you keep making paper airplanes that don't fly, you're wasting your time.

If you keep voting against legislation that at least incrementally puts limits and benchmarks on the war, you may as well not vote.

If you keep wanting legislation that has no chance of realistically passing and don't show actual leadership skills to make it possible, then you aren't really doing your job.

Talk is cheap. These are times real actions need to be taken, not a time for poseurs.

[mvd]

117. I don't agree with everything he says here

But it's ok for him to vote to make a statement as long as he isn't the deciding vote. Personally, I would have voted yes, but I would also be prodding the Congress like Dennis is.

[BeFree]

120. You do see

That you are emasculating a party leader who is speaking for those who want to see the occupation over, now?

That your words are the type that the Publicans so dearly love to read?

That you have taken this bill that may be vetoed and used it as your sole course of action?

In passing legislation, it pays to go for all you can get and then compromise back to a position that gets a majority buy in. You never leave the table until it is a done deal. Well, the deal is not yet done.

And, if you are truly for ending the occupation then there is little compromising that one should accept. Kucinich is not compromising.

[zulchzulu]

143. Perhaps you don't see the long view

I want the occupation over...four years ago. I was in the streets protesting the wars before they started.

The wars started without millions of us wanting this madness ever to begin. We knew then... we saw it coming.

Flash forward to now.

Do I want a politician that cares more for legislation that has a rat's chance in hell of passing and condemns those that actually understand that the real way to end the madness is through a very good game of politics to checkmate the King? Like life, not everything is perfect and problems never have a magic bullet that zaps away the pain without consequences.

Do we need a politician who cares more for the sound of his voice and political theater than actual solid legislation that yes, actually has to compromise a little to achieve steps to end the occupation and bloodletting for Exxon, BP and the rest of the treasonous war profiteers?

Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Meanwhile, the war continues and further expands. And the self-appointed grandizing charlatan bangs his chest with gibberish that will never fulfill what is needed. Like a child that can't quite make a paper airplane that can fly two feet, we hear mutterings from those that only offer dud designs and recipes for failure.

Should we listen to someone who I feel cares more for getting campaign contributions based on shoddy unpassable legislation and a presidential campaign doomed to infinitesimal obscurity?

Now is not the time for charlatans and naysayers. It's time to step up and face the political reality that has to be squarely wrestled with. Name me one war that ended without incremental historical legislation.

I firmly think that the Democrats and others who voted for the latest bill REALLY want the war to end...not see it as a political cash cow to fund a vanity campaign.

[The Magistrate]

102. Sens. Biden And Dodd Are Engaged InTheater As Well, Sir

Mostly to enjoy the grand feeling of being introduced as Presidential contenders. They are not too serious about it, that anyone can see. As no one here makes much play about them, occassions to point this out are scarce.

It is hard to see what Rep. Kucinich is putting himself through. He receives plaudits in quarters he cares about, and clearly ignores the rest.

[mvd]

103. I disagree about all of them, then

At least we are both being consistent. We both want the war to end, which is the important thing. But being in an election campaign is not easy. I commend Dennis. As I said, I'll debate the issues, but can not agree that Dennis is in it for theater. All politicians strut their stuff a little, but Dennis is quite serious.

[The Magistrate]

107. Politics Is Theater, Sir

People are moved by spectacles and manifest examples, that shape and focus their minds. From the pomp of ancient courts to the present day 'photo-op', this has been true. The only difference is the size of the audience, and the real impact had on them: some are Broadway plays, so to speak, and some off-off-Broadway only --- aimed only at niche audiences, without mass appeal. Impact in politics, of course, requires the latter, particularly where universal suffrage is involved.

[mvd]

108. Certainly not all of it

It would be cynical to say that everything is done for show. Certainly things like photo ops and speeches can be. But in this case, Dennis really believes in what he is proposing. I firmly think so.

[The Magistrate]

110. His Belief Is Not In Question, Sir

The wisdom of his course at present is. He can believe it all he wants; that will not make it wise, or apt to the political struggle at present underway.

[mvd]

111. I don't mind him going his own way

The Republicans did the same thing on certain bills when they had power. Some would cross over when needed. Now if Dennis prevents the bill from passing, then I would call it wrong.

[warren pease]

121. Now that's a worrisome idea...

You write:

>The fact is no authorization for an attack on Iran exists, and one is necessary under the Constitution.

Why would you believe that president stumblebum, whose mission in life has been to thumb his nose at congress and the Constitution as often as possible over the past six years, would suddenly develop respect for the rule of law? Signing statements, hideous stuff like the patriot and military commissions acts, suspension of habeas corpus; you know the list.

So if he's unconstrained by the rule of law, what's to prevent him from deciding some evening that Tehran might look really cool with a slight radioactive glow, and what's the use of having all these nukulur weapons around anyway if you don't get to use them.

I trust him implicitly -- to choose the most destructive possible option in any situation; to continue to demonstrate his utter contempt for little brown people; to absolve himself from any consequences of his actions, like the true sociopath he is; and if things really go south, to actually believe the fairy tale that our blessed tax deductible savior will take him and his fellow religiously insane fundie brethren to a better place.

Rule of law? That's for chumps and liberals. Real men issue signing statements.

God I can't wait for president malaprop to finally self-destruct -- preferably by collapsing into a quivering puddle of neocon slime, live, on camera, replayed a hundred billion times over the web, every sordid detail of his warped little strutting machismo persona revealed as the phony affect of a clinically insane fascist.

That may still be too good for him, but it's a start.




wp

[John Q. Citizen]

96. And when bush vetoes the bill as he said he would before it even passed the full house,

then this makes the bill "political reality?"

No, it makes the bill dead. Just as dead as any of the other bills offered that weren't acted on by the house leadership. Just as dead as the bills authored or co-sponsored by Kucinich.

The "baby steps-to keep the war going until 08 " Dems knew this before they started. They knew full well this bill has zero chance of being enacted into law.

Or are you unclear on this?

If you care to talk about posturing, lets talk, by all means.

But first, please check your hypocrisy at the door.

[Unvanguard]

99. Yeah, the whole thing is political theater.

A lot of politics is. The difference is that the bill is useful political theater; it forces Bush to make an unpopular decision in front of the public.

Kucinich, on the other hand, has no power, and has to know that his position is marginalized. I happen to agree with it, but it isn't going to go anywhere; he should have voted with the others.

[John Q. Citizen]

122. I agree with your first part of your thesis, but I disagree with the second part.

Here's why.

The whole thing is political theater:
It seem pretty apparent, by the way the votes went in both chambers, that this whole thing was choreographed down to the vote. Dennis said how he was voting and that went into the overall calculations and deal making apparent in all the unrelated spending attached to the supplemental and in the other provisions(some of them pretty bad) that went into this political theater bill.

It is obvious that this was intended to force bush to make an unpopular decision in front of the public. True. It was not passed to end the war or to stop the occupation and related injustices, costs, pain, etc.

To believe the public wouldn't notice this unless Dennis pointed it out is both extremely chauvinistic, elitist and naive. If (and that's a big if, because it inherently relies on illusion to pull it off) it works as intended, it could make passing a better bill feasible, or could even precipitate outright revolt and widespread demands for an actual complete withdrawal. It could also backfire and allow the Repos to argue that the Dems are just into political theater and are just as much to blame for the war as the Repos are.

Dennis' position on the bill makes this charge harder to stick on the Dems as a group, since he's a Democrat, and a candidate for the Party's nomination. It does make it possible to stick it onto individual Dems, perhaps, but it's obvious that all Dems didn't try to pretend to try in order to try to embarrass bush.

Kucinich's position realize on a lot less deception and illusion. If they'd send his bill to the floor, then it could be debated and voted on. While enough pro war pro empire democrats would probably cross over to the Repo side and defeat it, at least everyone would be on record as to where they stood as to beginning withdrawal now, and as too complete withdrawal as opposed to just a perception of withdrawal.

Maybe then those who vote for more and longer war and favor waiting for whatever it is we are supposed to be waiting for before we maybe get mostly out of Iraq would have to tell us why?

So as you yourself agree, Kucinich has the power of truth on his side. And the truth, while not always victorious, has a strange way of coming back to bite those who ignore it's power. So he's not powerless. He also has a number of people both inside the Democratic party as well as independents who agree with his views on the war, that we should leave now and replace American troops with UN peacekeepers. So he has some people power. Dennis chairs a house sub-committee, he's authored and co-sponcered bills with many of the powerful members of the house. So yes, Dennis does have some power. And the fact we are having this thread proves Dennis has power. Who would waste time and energy demonizing someone unless they felt it was necessary? ( i don't mean you, by the way.)

Dennis was right to vote against funding more war. In the long run it will help the Democrats that he did. It will also help the left that he did. The others should have voted with him, but they didn't. They will now have to face the consequeces of their vote. Hopefully it will all come out like they all plan. But if it doesn't, I sure hope they don't try to blame it on Kucinich.

[BeFree]

105. I'd bet

The bill will not be vetoed. They like how it keeps the money flowing and has easily severed strings attached. And by not vetoing the bill it will look like bushco has compromised.

However, as you have stated, Mr. Citizen, vetoed, the bill is nothing. Dead meat.

[Unvanguard]

97. So where is his revolutionary army?

Who's going to storm the Capital and make it really stop?

No one? Then why bother with the posturing?

[John Q. Citizen]

123. Suggesting dissent that doesn't include a popular uprising is somehow useless is

a ridiculous position.

Code Pink has been storming the Capitol, much to the chagrin of the authority freaks and neo-con philosophers from both major parties. And they've just begun to fight. So stay tuned....

[Unvanguard]

125. Can Kucinich stop the war?

If not, what's the point?

[John Q. Citizen]

129. I'm not sure I understand your question. It reminds me of those who asked

if MLK could stop racism, if Cesar Chavez could stop farm worker exploitation, if Gandhi could kick out the British Empire.

The point is to do what's right. That's how the right things get done.

You suggest that Kucinich should do what's wrong, since there are no guarantees that doing what's right will result in the right thing being done. That makes no sense.

[Unvanguard]

141. Words are not "right." They're just words.

Action is right - real, substantive, meaningful action - and there is none here.

And you're forgetting a crucial factor: the "right" stance Kucinich is taking here is in reference to time.

MLK, Gandhi, and the like didn't win immediately; it took them years. If it takes Kucinich years to build up enough support for allegedly "immediate" withdrawal, why bother? RIGHT NOW we can get support for a withdrawal in a few years' time.

There is no possible way for Kucinich to get Bush to withdraw immediately at this point, and the only way to get a withdrawal before March 2008 is to trap Bush in a mistake - and that would require the full cooperation of all Democrats.

[Vidar]

101. Tell it like it is, Dennis!

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Rusty MacHenry]

119. WTF?

Sorry Enough but what are you trying to get at? I don't understand your post one bit.

[ncteechur]

127. I like Dennis Kucinich but it is easy for him to say all this because

he knows it ain't gonna happen. He know that the House needs 218 votes and the Senate needs 60 votes to get anything done and he knows that isn't going to happen so he can run his mouth about congress and the war and he is safe to do so. He also know that he isn't going to win the nomination no matter how great a candidate he may be--and I think he would be a great president in most aspects. However, it is easy to preach to the anti-war choir. Maybe he should convince some of the opposition in private instead of bloviating in public.

[lovuian]

131. They not fooling Anybody and their greedy oil

its one party system
Cause democrats have power and not doing anything

the bills coming out are meaningless
Not fighting their capitulating

[Rusty MacHenry]

142. So vote the Republicans back in

Seriously if you hate the Dems and what there doing, vote the Rethugs back into power in 2008 so they can continue this bloody war with no withdrawal plans whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is this: there is only so much you can do in a narrowly controlled Congress, the Democrats are only working on a plan that's in there reach and I strongly commend them for it.

I bust my hump to get the Dems back in power, I bust my hump to get Bob Casey in the Senate, I donated money I didn't even have to numerous sucessful and not so sucessful candidates running for Congress, I helped out with the Young Democrats and everything to get the Democrats back into power and i'm not going to see that get freaked up just because some people here don't like the Democrats plan for withdrawal, whatever it's a year or two days it's a plan, it's more then what the Republicans have which would of just been just a clean funding bill with no strings attached or any plans for withdrawal whatsoever.

So you just go and praise Dennis for critizing a funding bill that dosen't even having a chance of passing because of the stubborn WH and i'm going to support my party that a work tiredless to get back into power, that's cool right?

[Cascadian]

166. Great attitude!

A little bit Neoconish though....

Either you're with us, or with the Republicans. Some choice to have in this DeMOCKracy!


John

[Rusty MacHenry]

168. FOR THE LAST TIME

I'm not a neo-con, i'm not a Republican nor i'm DLC, i'm a goddamn Democrat. What is the matter with everyone here. Everytime I post something people disagree with i'm automatically a neo-con, Republican or DLC.

Answer me this Cascadian. If I was a neo-con what the heck would I be doing here? wouldn't you think I would be at the free republic with other neo-cons that concurr with the views of the neo-con Republican ways?

[Cascadian]

165. Hear Hear!

I will concur with your comments! It's becoming a one-party, corporate run country. Didn't Dwight Eisenhower warn us all about this?


John

[Freddie Stubbs]

144. Why doesn't Kucinich use his considerable powers of persuasion to

convince fellow Democrats in Congress to end the war?

[Cascadian]

161. Kudos to Kucinich!

There ought to be more people like you in the Democratic Party and Congress. Then maybe we wouldl finally have peace if we did! If Al Gore decides not to run, then Kucinich has my vote!


John

[SaveElmer]

163. Who to trust...Dennis Kucinich...or...Jim Webb...

On the one hand we have a former Navy Secretary, highly decorated Marine who has made national security and foreign policy his lifes work...who voted for these restrictions...

Or a grandstanding Congressman, running for President, with little actual accomplishment...who consistently has been shown as willing to sacrifice progress simply to make a political point.

Not really a tough choice there!