Skip to main content

Apologies if this is already posted, but one of the things I thought would draw more attention from the DNC speeches was Vilsack's urging of Congress to cut off funding of the Iraq war. I know other Presidential candidates have opposed funding the escalation, but I believe Kucinich is the only other major candidate that has had the courage to stop the funding all together.

From ABC News:

"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately."

Also, there was this shot at some of the other candidates who aren't being nearly as aggressive on the issue:

Without identifying anyone by name, Vilsack used the non-binding nature of the Iraq resolution that the Senate plans to debate next week to imply that Clinton and Obama are ineffectual on the war.

"What is the point of a non-binding resolution?" Vilsack told ABC News. "Does that save a single life?"

Vilsack diaried on here and asked us all to contact our state/local governments and get them to pass resolutions opposing the escalation. It appears from David Sirota's diary that it is starting to happen - thanks to not only the Governor but many others on here and otherwise.

The tide is shifting and more and more leaders and 08 candidates are challenging the status quo. Keep up all the hard work!

Originally posted to KingRooRoo on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:12 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gov. Vilsack for Pres. or Veep (9+ / 0-)

    Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, is soemone I'm looking at for National office -- either President or Vice President.  He would be great to add to a ticket with a more progressive, non-DLC candidate, such as John Edwards or Barack Obama.  I'm very happy that he's taken a strong stand on the Iraq War problem.

    Yes, I'm one of those awful people who haven't made up my mind completely on whom to support for the primary in 14 months for now. lol

  •  agreed, Vilsack's stance deserves more attention (7+ / 0-)

    here. I know I noticed it!  I guess everybody's too busy with their own self-absorbed navel-gazing. Thanks for trying.

  •  I'm glad Governor (8+ / 0-)

    Vilsack is taking this position.  He is an excellent addition to a fine group of candidates.

    Thanks for the positive diary.  I enjoyed reading it.

    Stop the War NOW!

    by TomP on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:24:38 AM PST

  •  Wow! Vilsack's got a sack! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    possum, willb48

    First he quits the DLC, then he comes out strong to pull the troops out, now.

    Has he endorsed Kucinich's resolution?

    How about a Visack/Kucinich ticket?

    "You have to keep your knee on [Bush's] windpipe until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

    by tbetz on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:33:47 AM PST

    •  My Interest in Vilsack Just Perked Up! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      possum, willb48, Justus

      I am still waiting for Clark to declare and whether the 'Inconvienent Truth' about Gore will be that he gets drafted for 2008.

      More folks in the Dem nom race.

      Less 'sure thing' for the Money Party and more competition for our 'hearts and minds'.


      "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

      by LeftyLimblog on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:55:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He gave a good speech at the DNC meeting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    possum, willb48, Justus

    Besides proposing an immediate withdrawal, proposing to completely end No Child Left Behind. Pretty big proposals.

    Kyle Orton for Bears QB '07

    by TheJohnny on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:38:10 AM PST

  •  I also note - also came out against NCLB (7+ / 0-)

    in the speech before DNC.   Said we don't need more accomplished test takers, we need more creative thinkers.

    Oh, and on TV he pointed out that in Feb 1991 Bill Clinton was 11th in polls for potential Dem nominees.

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

    by teacherken on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:38:16 AM PST

  •  I've warmed up to Vilsack (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lilnubber, possum, willb48

    Being from Iowa, I think I tended to assume that Vilsack had no business running for president.

    But I think he's handled himself extremly well in several TV interviews.  He has a good position on the war as well.

    And he has endeared himself to me as to why he thought he could run for president.  This is second-hand information, but supposably, he met GW when he was running in 2000.  He didn't come away impressed and figured if GW could be president, he surely could be.

  •  Bush IS LYING about the surge (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We already know that he has lied about the number of troops he intends to deploy. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying, he is LYING about what he defines as the goals of the war.

    When asked to define "victory," Bush says that his goal is a free, stable Iraq that is an ally in the war on terrorism.

    First, let's examine the fact that he is constantly arguing that the elections in Iraq prove that the government there is democratic. There are all kinds of caveats on that claim , and I'll leave that one alone while simply stating that the claim is misleading. But if we take Bush's word on it, that part of his "victory" is already accomplished, so it's a bit disingenous to claim that it's both proof of success and a goal to be reached.

    Now on to the outright LIES.

    I'll take the last one first. If "victory" is defined by a government that is an ally in the WOT, and Bush defines the legitimate insurgency against COLONIAL OCCUPATION as "terrorism," then there will NEVER be victory in that sense. Colonial occupation requires the military forces of the occupying colonial power. Bush's embrace of a Shia dominated government takes sides in a civil war. Bush is committed to colonial occupation, and that commits our troops to fight on one side of a civil war. Ahem! VIETNAM?

    Bush is claiming that the current SURGE will stabilize Iraq. He's claiming that the surge will defeat the other side of the civil war. He's claiming that we will be able to start drawing down forces once Iraq is stable.

    First, we HAD 160,000 troops in Iraq previously. OBVIOUSLY, that DID NOT stabilize Iraq. We tried "surges" before. THAT did not stablize Iraq.

    But here is the final proof that Bush is simply A LIAR about his intentions in Iraq: After arguing for a month and a half that his "new policy" will stabilize Iraq, meet his definition of victory, and allow our troops to be withdrawn, Bush TODAY requested funds to keep the war in Iraq going for TWO MORE YEARS.

    Prior to all his BS about a "new plan for victory," he was making public statements about committing the US, in real terms, to an occupation through 2011. During the past year, Bush and Rice made statements indicating occupation for GENERATIONS was likely.

    So there it is. I hope SOMEONE finally finds the courage to tell it like it is. SOMEONE needs to stand up and remind Congress what Bush said about this war for at least a month, point to this request for funds to keep the occupation going for TWO MORE YEARS, and openly call Bush what he is: A LIAR.

    No more "he's misleading." No more "he fudges the facts." No more "he's at odds with the facts."
    Bush knew DAMN WELL that what he told us before was A LIE. HE'S A LIAR.

    I don't care if it's considered "incivil." It's goddamn INCIVIL of him to LIE TO OUR FACES AS IF WE ARE FOOLS WHO DON'T KNOW THAT HE IS LYING TO US.

    •  This doesn't really seem germane (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  It's germane if you look at it this way: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Bush would do and say anything to keep this war going regardless of how bad it is for Iraq, the US, and every person being maimed and killed, as this pointless "surge" shows. Therefore, the only way to stop him is to cut off funding.

        The second step after cutting off funding is to repeal the authorization for this preemptive war/occupation.

        Surge happens in power lines. Escalation happens in unwinnable wars. -- ActivistGuy

        by PatsBard on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:02:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Germane was my favorite of all the Jacksons (0+ / 0-)
      •  It's not germane to point out contradictions? (0+ / 0-)

        Your diary offered the premise that Bush is planning to end the war, based on his budget request.

        I'm arguing that the budget request CONTRADICTS Bush's claims about his definition of victory, and his claims that the surge will achieve that victory.

        The budget request is NOT an indication that Bush is planning to END the war. It's a confirmation that he intends to continue it!

        Bush's request for declining amounts of money over the next two years is MEANINGLESS. What will happen, a few months from now, when Bush's surge doesn't stabilize Iraq? ANSWER: HE'LL REQUEST MORE FUNDS.

        He's hoping to punt this discussion ahead a few months, and then argue that Congress authorized funds to continue the war, and so the basic premise that the war should continue has been validated by a vote.

        And if the political tactic works this time, he'll do it again. AND AGAIN.

        He's requesting funds based on fighting forces. LATER, he'll request funds for support troops. And he'll argue that Congress must approve this later request, or place our troops in danger.

        We can't trust this LIAR to remain in office. He has to be confronted with the truth. He has to be confronted with an open acknowledgement that he HAS LIED TO US, THAT HE IS LYING TO US, AND THAT HE WILL LIKELY LIE TO US AGAIN.

        This LIAR is playing games with the lives of millions of people, and his friends are profitting from the carnage and profitting from his LIES. ENOUGH!

Click here for the mobile view of the site