Kucinich: New Funding will give Bush resources to attack Iran

[Luckyduck]

...It is imperative that Congress step up to its constitutional responsibility to restrain this abuse of executive authority by notifying the President that we will no longer agree to fund the war in Iraq. Members simply cannot say they oppose the war and vote to continue to fund it.
"The supplemental budget request of up to $100 billion, which is due to be voted on this spring, would enable the President to continue the war against Iraq through the end of his term. It would also give him the resources to attack Iran, in the name of defending Iraq and the region.
"Congress needs to challenge the position of the President and take the necessary steps to bring our troops home. We need to begin talks with Iran and Syria -- and not blame them for our misguided war in Iraq. Diplomacy is the only way to avoid a widening war. If we follow the President's path of war, we will get more war.


read more of Kucinich's response to the State of the Union
http://kucinich.us/node/2256

[marmar]

1. Thank goodness for Dennis Kucinich, telling it like it is.

I wish other Dems would borrow his spine.

[redqueen]

2. Hear hear!

Speaker Pelosi would do well to listen to him on this issue. This explains why.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/24/perlstein/

Every time congressional war critics made Congress the bulwark of opposition to a war-mongering president, they galvanized public opinion against the war. The same thing seems to be happening now. Already, the guardians of respectable opinion are sneering less; there are simply too many anti-surge bills on the table for that. The shame would be if today's only credible antiwar party, the Democrats, squander that opportunity by failing to harness their majority, not merely for a strong showing against escalation but in favor of a position to credibly end the war.

You know that whatever the facts, the right will blame "liberals" and "Democrats" for losing Iraq; that's as inevitable as the fact that we've already lost Iraq -- and as inevitable as an arrogant president playing into Democratic hands by expanding the engagement (he already is). What would be inexcusable is if wobbly Democrats managed to maneuver themselves timidly into a corner that made them only the right-wing's scapegoats -- and not the champions that truly made their stand to end the war.

In 2008, the Republicans are going to have to run either amidst an electorate convinced that Republicans will be staying the course or amidst an electorate they've managed to bamboozle into believing "peace is at hand." If they manage the latter, they'll have a good chance of winning the election. But the only way they can do that is if Democrats can't claim credit for ending it first. I hope to be able to watch the Democrats truly try to end the war; it will be glorious. Because even if they start losing votes in Congress, the president and the party that enables him can only become politically weaker by the day.

(snip)

It sounds crazy to say it, because anyone who knows anything knows that the 1972 election was a world-historic failure for the Democrats because McGovern lost 49 states. Put aside, for now, the story of that crushing defeat. (It is a story of the most tragically inappropriate presidential nominee in history, and the unprecedentedly dirty campaign against him -- the substance of Watergate.) What that colossal distraction distracts us from is that congressional doves, and Congressional Democrats, performed outstandingly in that election. Democrats gained a seat in the Senate, the McGovern coattails proving an irrelevancy. America simultaneously rejected George McGovern and voted for McGovernism: Democrats who voted twice for his amendment to demand a date certain to end the Vietnam War did extremely well. Nixon knew his fantasy of expanding the air war unto victory was over. In fact, those who saw him the morning after the election said they'd never seen him so depressed. Why? "We lost in the Senate," he told one mournfully. He lost his mandate to make war as he wished.

[KoKo]

3. The only way to stop Iran Attack is to stop those troops from going in

but Bush has enough money to mobilize them. Congress is caught in a bind. Not enough votes to defund and not enough time to twist arms. Calls for some clever thinking... How else can they stop them?

[Luckyduck]

5. Bush must be Impeached

That is the only way to stop him and the evil PNAC agenda

[Just-plain-Kathy]

6. I think the only way to stop the PNAC agenda is to make it common knowledge.

I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper about PNAC. They printed it the other day.

We have to take matters in our own hands and spread the word.

[Luckyduck]

9. excellent!

:applause:

[helderheid]

4. recommended.

[Fovea]

7. Attn Dem Pols!

Dennis is 100% correct again. Please pay attention THIS time!

[Luckyduck]

12. exactly!

:applause:

[Jcrowley]

8. Pretty straightforward

only the blind or corrupted can't or don't want to see this.

K&R

[fed-up]

10. kicking because WE are the MEDIA-spread this far and wide-n/t

[Luckyduck]

11. Why does Nancy Pelosi say we can't leave the troops there with no funding

when it is obvious we want to force Bush to bring them home.
That is the whole point.
Does she really not get that?

[Luckyduck]

14. Does anyone understand this excuse?

We don't want to leave them with no bullets, we want to force Bush to bring them home.

This is such a ridiculous excuse to continue the funding, especially considering Bush will use the funds to attack Iran.

[Luckyduck]

13. end the war-then we can move on to taking care of our own democracy

"We must focus on America's most basic needs: decent housing, healthcare for all, quality education, securing good paying jobs and providing retirement security," said Kucinich. "Our whole domestic agenda is being sacrificed to pay for this war."