Daily Kos

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Time to Pull Plug on Iraq War $$

Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:10:23 PM PDT

In an interview with truthdig at http://www.truthdig.com/... , Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich makes the perfectly reasonable argument that it is time for Congress to stop providing ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq:

War spending generates a forward momentum—the more you spend, the more you are going to spend in the future.  And so regardless of what anyone in the Pentagon is saying, Congress has the obligation here to cut off funds, and that’s what I’m calling for.  We have to stop this! We have to stop this war and we have to stop the potential expansion of the war and we have to stop this administration from getting another $130 billion to promote war anywhere [it] please[s].

More below the fold.

Far from advocating abandonment of the troops, Kucinich points out that the most recent "bridge" funding approved by Congress in the amount of $70 billion should last from October 1, 2006 through at least the end of June 2007, more that enough time and money to bring the troops home.

His real concern is the recent Pentagon request for an additional $130 billion in largely discritionary, off the books funds sought outside the normal budgetary process.  What might the Pentagon want to do with such unprecedented largesse, one wonders?

This ought to be of concern to everyone because this could be used for continuing the war, expanding the war in Iraq.  When you look at the England memo you see that they’re talking about costs to accelerate specific force capabilities necessary to prosecute the war.  But because it is not specific—and think about a $130-billion appropriation that is not specific!— this could be used to fund a potential attack on Iran. This $130 billion could also be part of a slush fund for an expansion of military spending and essentially taking it off budget.  

In other words, the ongoing, largely unaccounted-for special authorization money for the Iraq war and the ill-defined "global war on terror" may find its way into all sorts of shady, illicit and ill-advised adventurism on the part of the Defense Department, including an attack on Iran.

The global war on terror has become a license for the Bush administration to attack anyone anywhere, and there’s no accountability.  The special inspector general for Iraq recently notified Congress that the United States sent 370,000 weapons over to Iraq but only recorded the serial numbers of 10,000 of those weapons.  So what do you suppose that means?  That means that with no accountability on weapons these weapons can go into anybody’s hands and no one will ever be able to trace it, because the serial numbers have not been recorded.  This special inspector general has called corruption the second insurgency.  

Faced with a President who appears to be so stubborn, irrational and paranoid that he is apparently prepared to ignore the advice of his outgoing Secretary of Defense and his Daddy's own hand-picked blue-ribbon panel of wise men that the time has come to cut-and-run, in a graceful, peace-with-honor sort of way, Kucinich thinks Congress may have no other mechanism to carry out the recent mandate of the people than to turn off the tap.

To which I say:  Git 'er done!

Poll

Should Congress refuse to authorize more funds for the Iraq war?

85%73 votes
2%2 votes
5%5 votes
5%5 votes

| 85 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Iraq, war, defense, appropriations (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 56 comments

  •  Yet Again, A Congressman Who Is Usually Right (6+ / 0-)

    but very unconvincing to most people.

    If we just got someone with the people skills of Obama or Clark on this side of the fence, the war's days would be numbered.

    In the meantime, the GWOT has no clear enemies, no borders, no goals and no deadlines.

    Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

    by Nulwee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:15:02 PM PDT

    •  Kucinich is right, others would not help (6+ / 0-)

      The whole reason Obama is so popular is that he does NOT take controversial stands.

      Look at the scorn heaped on Murtha, and yet now the ISG and others are essentially adopting his plan, just too late to save all the dead over the last year or more.

      So any "people skills" of Obama, the flavor of the month, would be drowned in the heap of criticism that he or Kucinich will face for stating the truth- congress must cut off the War Department funding or we will have ever expanding wars, it's what they do in the Orwellian named "Defense Department" that  is all about waging War.

      •  Obama is popular because he's a ROCK STAR (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ThatSinkingFeeling

        the comparisons to JFK are really because both are pure charisma.

        Some people are immune to charisma's effects, (they tend to be charismatic themselves, or just extremely cynical, which can be a positive thing in this case) most people aren't. Hence the prevalence of hero-worship, valuing of "leadership" over "cooperation".  

        Children could read about the Civil Rights Movement and think Martin Luther King Jr. just dreamed of it one night and started it all by himself.  "Hey", other black people and liberals noticed, "look what's he's doing! Why hadn't we thought of that?"

        At any rate, Obama could do anything he wanted to. Sure, he could trade off some neutrality with Republicans by beating the anti-war drum but he'd pick up fanatical suppor from the left: then he'd just be RFK instead of JFK.  Neither were less loved really, just targeted different segments of the population.

        Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

        by Nulwee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:52:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Murtha was NOT scorned, he was re-elected (0+ / 0-)

        and most Americans know they were ahead of the Congress on this issue - exactly as he said.  He was practically the only Democrat not ignoring 54% of Americans when he came out against the war.  (Lynn Woolsey and Dennis were two others.)

        If Republicans in government and the media are the only  folks you listen to, every strong leader and good idea will come up "scorned".  Real leaders like Murtha and Kucinich ignore that crap.

        Obama is worthless on Iraq, as far as I can see.  At this rate it will become his war and suckers will be fighting there till 2012.

        Or, an anti war candidate will actually sweep us into a democracy, and the worthless Democrats and Republicans will finally be defeated.  I would vote for Kucinich or Gore as an independent.

        levity defies gravity

        by Levity on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 04:07:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      oysterface, Ninepatch

      Usually right, but very unconvincing. That's the perfect synopsis of Kucinich. Even I've read the guy's words before and agreed with them, but when I read who wrote the words, I kinda had a reaction -- "I agreed with that guy?!"

      I can't put my finger on why he's so unconvincing. I guess he just has this sort of "Dude at the bus station who carries an Aldi sack filled with melty candy bars that he eats noisily" kind of a vibe.

      Founder of the Committee to Save asdf

      by droogie6655321 on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:50:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  always thought if kucinich was played by (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Nulwee

        alan alda, he'd be a formidable candidate.

        Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

        by rasbobbo on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:10:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's Simply A Bad Public Speaker (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Captain Nimrod

        He just is not persuasive in his body language, tone and the other subtleties of rhetoric.  The mere dynamic of salesmen and saleswomen in this country attests to any position ultimately being defendable.  If you look at the leaders of the evangelical community they're all theatrical in some way, and even if you don't take them seriously, people listen when they talk.

        As shallow as that makes politics seem, it is very important and very damaging to Kunicich, Sharpton, even Jackson, and why they're so quickly dismissed by the MSM, the same MSM that puts up Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan all the time.  The latter are intimidating, serious without seeming inherently "angry", plain-spoken, good at making soundbytes, lots of other things that do well in the radio/tv mediums.

        It's stark contrast that the newer Democratic big names, like Obama, Edwards, Clark, Tester, Webb and McCaskill are simply persuasive people, to varying degrees.  Some of them are outright charming.  Kerry is persuasive in a debate, because he's old-school like that, but public speaking is now only taught to people in more or less a business environment with those sorts of goals, much more manipulative and far less eloquent.

        It's much harder for us to reach out to people, than some of our predecessors.

        Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

        by Nulwee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:15:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, Dennis is a terrific speaker (0+ / 0-)

          But his elfin appearance makes him unconvincing to those in our society brought up to respond to a certain kind of macho handsomeness. And that includes most of us including those here hyping the very bland, unexciting Barack Obama. If  you put Kucinch's words and delivery style into Obama's mouth, people would be flipping out over them.

          We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

          by anastasia p on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:05:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd Say His *Speeches* Are Terrific (0+ / 0-)

            but his delivery is usually blustered, poorly adapted to camera (Nixon 1960?) too long for television, which revels in ADHD-inducing shortness.

            "Angry Left" meme relates big time to Kucinich.

            Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

            by Nulwee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:54:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Poor Dennis :-> (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Nulwee, ThatSinkingFeeling

        Kucinich is my rep (OH-10) and he's nothing at all like that at home.  He's definitely not super-star material, but he's fairly articulate, represents his constituents, and is unbelievably accessible to anyone in our district.

        He is much more saavy, skilled, and able to play with the big dogs than his meek appearance would suggest.

        Old soldiers do die. Elizabeth Gavin Cunningham 06 Nov 24 - 06 Aug 08

        by Ninepatch on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:24:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's short (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Nulwee
        and he has a little-boy haircut and ears that stick out like an elf. People sadly judge people by their looks. Look at how convincing a lying sack of shit like Oliver North was to some people because he was handsome and looked like a "good soldier."

        Also, at times, I think Dennis's proposals just take in too wide a sweep and while you might agree with everything in principle, they come across just a bit too touchy-feely to be convincing in an insecure society where everything is about seeming macho. Case in point: his Department of Peace proposal. All the things contained within it are good things, but the whole idea is too broad and too symbolic and not practical.

        That said, I like Dennis. I am sitting in his district as I write this. He's not my congressman; he represents the other side of town. My congressperson is the equally liberal but morre nuts-and-bolts Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

        by anastasia p on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:03:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  GTFO is, was, will be the only (4+ / 0-)

    option left. Even the Iraqis don't want us. they voted yesterday, 19 out of 20 want the US out! Is there a clearer message out there??

    Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:15:16 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich is correct (5+ / 0-)

    Authorizing $130 billion with no specific use intended is nothing short of insanity with Bush as President.

  •  Tips if you like pie. (9+ / 0-)

    Thanks.

    I loves me some Marxist Utopian Mush!

    by Captain Nimrod on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:17:06 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich is against the war now? (5+ / 0-)

    The tide must be turning.

    New Frame: McCain thinks he is entitled to the presidency, and will say anything to get what he thinks he is owed.

    by coigue on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:19:13 PM PDT

  •  Of course he'll be accused of not supporting (5+ / 0-)

    the troops (by those who think that supporting the troops means making them die for nothing).

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:21:11 PM PDT

  •  He would make a GREAT VP. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oysterface, Junior Bug, Hens Teeth

    Gore/Kucinich 2008

    Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

    by mattes on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:28:19 PM PDT

  •  vote will be in the spring sometime (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    grayslady, Ninepatch

    according to the full article. And the MSNBC link above states:

    The measure will give Democrats, who take control of Congress next year, an early chance to try changing the conduct of the war. But they are limited and do not want to be cast as unsympathetic to U.S. troops.

    "We're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds," says Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

    So we have time to organize even though Reid is not yet behind this. Things in Iraq will continue to get worse and the momentum will build.

    And I can't wait to start calling my new Senator Casey; finally  I get someone to push.

  •  another reason to oppose the Gates nomination (0+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oysterface

    But because it is not specific—and think about a $130-billion appropriation that is not specific!— this could be used to fund a potential attack on Iran. This $130 billion could also be part of a slush fund for an expansion of military spending and essentially taking it off budget.

    Gates already has Iran-Contra on his resume, Bush (or Cheney?) knows exactly what he's doing with this nomination...

  •  Look up "Progressive Democrat" in the Dictionary (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, Ninepatch, ThatSinkingFeeling

    and you should see Kucinich's face. Take notes people.

  •  Someone please educate me (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oldjohnbrown

    We're about to get a Democratic House and Senate, right? The convincing win we all fought for, right?

    So, can't the Democratic Congress end the Iraq war themselves? Pass a resolution or something? If Bush is saying No, I won't end it, and Congress stands against him and says Yes, you will, who wins? I mean I thought this was the whole purpose behind checks and balances, that if the country was embroiled in some stupidity like this war the Congress could check executive powers and get us out of it.

    So what's stopping them from ending the war come January 2007?

    Signed,
    -Greviously Untutored

  •  Kucinich is the man. Too bad (4+ / 0-)

    he doesn't get the credit he deserves.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:59:34 PM PDT

  •  Looks like Pelosi took that option off the .. (4+ / 0-)

    table today : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    I like Pelosi, but I think it was not a very good idea to make this statement. She just limited herself and backed herself into a corner. Bush is so insane that nothing short of cutting the funding will stop him from waisting more lives and money on his lost war.

    Don't complain about the media, BE IT

    by terhuxtim on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:59:43 PM PDT

  •  Another option? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch, ThatSinkingFeeling

    State you'll support the extra funding as long as it isn't discretionary and make the DoD budget it out. The Administration will have a tough time spinning "they want to know where your tax dollars are going" and we're not directly denying money "for the troops".

  •  Kucinich (0+ / 0-)

    Is there a politician in America today that is less relevant than Dennis Kucinich?

  •  Thanks - a critically important diary. Recommend! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    It's kind of amazing that no one posted it before now.  Dennis is on Part III of his Huffington Post series on this today.

    If we don't listen, this January we'll transit from a Republican led Iraq debacle to a Democratic led Iraq catastrophe, and the Congress "win" will be for less than nothing.

    Meanwhile, it looks like 9 out of 10 Kossacks here understand that stopping the funding is the way to get the executive branch out of this war.

    levity defies gravity

    by Levity on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:54:56 PM PDT

    •  Thanks! I appreciate the recommendation and (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Levity

      am glad this issue has gotten a little attention here at DKos, although I wish it had been more.  The longer Bush buries his head in the sand, the more important it will be for Dems to consider these sorts of solutions.

      I loves me some Marxist Utopian Mush!

      by Captain Nimrod on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:19:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  </sigh> (0+ / 0-)

    To which I say:  Git 'er done!

    You don't listen to "The Power Hour",by any chance do you ?
    Dennis Kucinich,in 2004,was the first Democrat I ever supported financially for President.In spite of the fact,he was pretty much out of the running,when my primary rolled around here in New Mexico.There is an issue or two,I cannot support him on,like guns,but other than that I love the guy like a brother.He is the only real heir to the Adlai Stevenson,Eugene McCarthy,  George McGovern type of liberal on the scene today.I am a left Libertarian.As such,I am passionate about what I believe.We are usually extremists,and I am no exception.The left Libertarian blogosphere has been starting to buzz a lot of late,about teaming up with Greens,as we share so much in common.Like a Green,I have a hard time supporting "electable" "moderates". This thread has been a real wakeup call to me,about Kucinich.I can never fully support the Democratic Party,until there are a lot more like him in it,and unfortunately they either do noyt run,or gain approval of the "kingmakers".

  •  No, but I will start! (0+ / 0-)

    I share the feeling that the hour is long past for tip-toeing around the electorate for fear we are going to offend someone's sensibilities by telling the truth.  I will support any candidate who will base his positions on an honest assessment of the truth and a willingness to attempt real solutions, however painful.  Thanks for the info!

    I loves me some Marxist Utopian Mush!

    by Captain Nimrod on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:13:42 AM PDT

Permalink | 56 comments