Kucinich: President's Veto Threat Means War Funds Should Be Cut Off Now

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22323

Kucinich: President's Veto Threat Means War Funds Should Be Cut Off Now
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-05-09 19:26. Congress

From the office of Congressman Dennis Kucinich:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 9) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) released the following statement after President Bush's press secretary Tony Snow stated the President would veto the Iraq supplemental spending bill:

"The President put us into this war and he continues to insist that Congress send him a blank check despite the fact that the American people want out of Iraq now.

"Congress should not give the President another dime to continue his misadventure in Iraq. The only way to end this war is to refuse to appropriate any more funds. Refusing to appropriate money would force an end to the war and allow an expeditious return of our troops.

"Congress has the constitutional authority to end this war. Every time Congress appropriations more money, they are voting to continue the Iraq war.

"The President has made it clear from the start that he has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq. His refusal to recognize that the occupation is fueling the insurgency compounds the tragedy of the U.S. presence in Iraq. He refuses to recognize that the war, which he declared successfully completed more than four years ago, has been a colossal failure.

"HR 1234 provides a plan for bringing the troops home, ending the occupation and stabilizing Iraq."

Not to mention the DLC apologists.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

J/k :P

Keep up the good work, Kootch!

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

how would he (unilaterally) 'DO IT'???

I mean.. if he keeps vetoing the bills, the war will eventually be de-funded. Then he can *blame* Dems & still come out looking "strong" to the few hardcore Repubs that still support him. Imagine he *knows* the war is lost... would this not be a convenient way for him to end it... without being a flip-flopper, or appearing to have backed down? :shrug:

Of course, my better sense tells me that he doesnt want the war to end. Ever. But with this administration... I tend to think anything is possible. Unfortunately.

And welcome to DU!:hi:

wonder why.
And thanks! :hi:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:hi: :toast:

interesting...


Welcome to DU

I DO NOT CARE what Bush does or does not want. Let's get our soldiers the hell outta there.

Do we really want to wonder "how it will play"? Who will get credit?

THEY ARE DYING for a BS excuse.

Uh...let's let hundreds more people die every day for no reason cuz it might not be a slam-dunk political move to pull them out...nice.

I see that pretty soon the confrontation with Congress and Bush is going to escalate

that is what you get when you combine a penis with a potato

:spray::rofl:
:spank:
Yeah. That was a good one. :applause:

counts as funding??

And how long does he think the $70 billion in 'bridge funds' appropriated on October 1st lasted? Seems to me that he can't continue to claim 'money is in the pipeline' forever. He admits that money is needed to effect a withdrawal, but I don't think he gives it the attention it requires in this old proposal.

The problem with his proposal is that it's as DOA (if it actually managed to reach Bush's desk) as the Democratic withdrawal bill that's already advanced. He wants to 'cut off funds' as his supporters bandy, but he still is looking to achieve that in unsupported legislation which doesn't have the votes he needs to advance the proposal to Bush's desk, much less enact into law. It exists as a talking point in his campaign, but he doesn't appear to have achieved the necessary amount of support among his colleagues to move it forward. That may well serve as a challenge to folks in debates like this on on discussion boards, but it means next to nothing in this Congress. Anyone can bandy around unsupported proposals, as many of the candidates have, but they should be challenged at some point to tell average folks looking on, how they intend to advance them in the Congress. Otherwise, these proposals are just air.

Bush can only veto a bill, not lack of one.

. . . and yet, he hasn't gathered the necessary amount of support for that action. That makes that option moot, at least for this Congress.

We can debate these things back and forth, but if I were someone who is just looking in, wondering who has the ability to move the question of ending the Iraq occupation legislatively or otherwise, I would see Kucinich's proposal as DOA and of no use at all, at this time, except possibly as some inspiration for some future action. If he manages to get legislators on board with that then it would be accepted as a viable option. But, until then, it's just talk.

Most of these elected officials are intent on passing legislation, not just sitting on their hands and hoping Bush will take notice of that and end the occupation. He's already cannibalizing the Defense budget to limp our troops along. There's no guarantee that such an action - which directs Bush to do NOTHING - would move him off of his occupation. I suspect the majority of legislators recognize that.

And to be very truthful, so do most of the american public, as they are being propogandized daily by the powers to be to accept the idea of the US sending troops to such military adventures.

Still, there is no need to send a bill to Bush for funding the war. Period.

Even the Lee amendment that Kucinich supported provided 'funds' to effect the withdrawal in the initiative. I wonder how long he's going to continue to assert that there are funds 'in the pipeline' to enable the withdrawal he's advocating. The $70 billion that he cites which was appropriated in October isn't likely to cover it.

Actually, the polls released yesterday by USA Today/Gallup show only about 28% who believe in the occupation as a way to keep 'terror' from our doorstep. Majorities have said for months and months that they support a withdrawal this year. The rub is getting enough folks to agree with a bill which mandates that.

I would note that Bush is still without the money he says he needs to continue because he's rejected any call for him to end the occupation. Further, I would rather have a compromise bill which had a chance of becoming law this year than wait for this Congress to peter out. Potentially taking some troops out of harm's way with compromise legislation would be well worth the effort if we could (improbably) guarantee Bush's good faith.

Waiting for a 'clean' withdrawal bill to pass without the qualifiers that some demand for their votes will leave our troops in place anyway, with Bush limping them along, until at least noon on January 2009.

I'm frankly surprised he's presenting this as if it was some new proposal.

at this moment.

the troops to remain in Iraq. Even Feingolds bill promotes the use of troops to "train Iraqis".

I sure don't understand that... the Iraqis are fighting the world's most powerful army... they seem pretty well trained to me.

isn't that the truth.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

in case you hadn't noticed, Bush already vetoed additional funding for the Iraq War. What part of his NO do you and your colleagues not understand?

out. So another 35,000 troops go out there to be killed and in the meantime, our military is deteriorating quickly, no National Guard here in the US and we are vulnerable to anything.

We will not be marginalized! Will NOT!

I wish others would follow his lead.