Dennis Kucinich: There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part I

[G_j]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/there-is-only-one-way-to-_b_35299.html

There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part I


On November 7, 2006, the American public voted for a New Direction for our Iraq policy. That direction is--out. As Democrats prepare to take the majority for the first time in twelve years, Democrats now have the responsibility to act on the overwhelming mandate issued by the American public.

Will that new direction mean an exit from Iraq? Because, if not, America will be held hostage by the skyrocketing cost of the war in Iraq even as President Bush leaves office at 11:59 am on January 20, 2009. And, the voters will not forget who let them down.

I.
There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq, prior to the end of President Bush's term: Congress must vote to cut off funds.

History and the law give a clear guide on how to end the war in Iraq.

In Campbell v. Clinton, a case in US District Court in 1999, twenty six members of Congress, including myself, sued President Clinton for continuing to prosecute the war against Serbia without a declaration of war. The Court ruled in favor of the Administration because it could find no constitutional impasse existed between the Legislative and the Executive branch requiring judicial intervention. Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces. The 'Implied Consent' Theory of Presidential War Power Is Again Validated. Military Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 202, September 1999 Geoffrey S. Corn. South Texas College.

..more..

[bryant69]

1. This is even more a pipe dream than immediate impeachment

Kucinich is asking Democrats to vote in favor of cutting off support to troops that are already in the field. It's a huge bluff - and I think Bush is crazy enough to call it, by leaving them out there and explaining to the American people that Congress has stabbed our troops in the back. He might be right as far as this being the only way to bring troops home, but I really don't believe that congress would ever actually do it.

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

[G_j]

2. $$ in the pipeline

he clearly states here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1459243
that enough money would be left in the pipline to not 'abandon' the troops on the ground.


Wednesday, November 15th, 2006
Out of Iraq or More Troops? A Debate on Withdrawal with Fmr. Senator George McGovern, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and AEI's Joshua Muravchik

[bryant69]

5. OK and if Bush refuses to remove troops?

If he, in effect, calls congresses bluff? "Look Congress has spoken, and I intend to bring the troops home as soon as I can, but I cannot right now abandon our allies in the Iraqi government. I hope that Congress will change their mind and not let our troops suffer."

Bryant

[G_j]

6. still

is there any other way to get the troops the hell out of Iraq?
I don't think so.

[bryant69]

There are a couple of other ways

But none of them offer more hope than this one - it's a Belling the Cat situation - it all relies on our allies in Congress showing a lot more tolerance for risk than they have in the past.

Bryant

[Greeby]

8. You forgot the stuttering, stammering and badly pronounced words

:evilgrin:

[oc2002]

23. If he does, Bush will be defiying Congress and Amercian people and abandoned the troops to die.

No, it is not congresses role to protect the troops, since they do not have authority to give them orders. THAT IS THE COMMANDER AND CHIEFS JOB, NOT CONGRESS.

so, if you think the GOP or Republican senators would ALLOW Bush to sacrifice the military for political reasons, your nuts.

Its an empty threat to call a bluff that is NOT A BLUFF, but a legitimate exercise of a DEMOCRACITIC GOVERNMENT.

Kucinich is absolutely right.

[bryant69]

25. Which party is more comfortable letting the troops suffor

to score political points, the Democrats or the Republicans?

We both know the answer - given what they've done in the past why would they change tacks now, solong as they can blame the troops suffering on us?

Bryant

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. I am quite certain it would not be seen nor spun that way.

And we'd have no adequate defense. None.

[porphyrian]

3. I'll kick that. - n/t

[wuushew]

4. Why not just repeal the IWR and impeach Bush after 90 days?

The funding cutoff route will just result in ammunition and fuel shortages for American troops in theater and invariably cause x numbers of deaths from material want.

Being broke doesn't force Bush to do anything. Republicans have brought Enron style accounting to a fine art. Who is to say the Pentagon couldn't finance a war on IOUs to repaid on the presumptive retaking of Congress by the Republicans?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. IWR is not binding.

Bush does not need Congressional approval to take military action. We haven't had an official war since WWII, yet I still recall Korea and Vietnam occurring, as well as Gulf War I.

[wuushew]

18. Not according to Wikipedia

Apparently Congress was able to limit Clinton via the War Powers Act. The IWR is much more expansive and permissive in scope than the WPA. Repealing the IWR would be a good first step in reempowering Congress.


On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently, war powers have been at issue in former Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo, Iraq, Haiti, and in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. After combat operations against Iraqi forces ended on February 28, 1991, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions remained a War Powers issue, until the enactment of P.L. 107-243, in October 2002, which explicitly authorized the President to use force against Iraq, an authority he exercised in March 2003, and continues to exercise for military operations in Iraq.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. You'll need to do better than wiki.

It has mountains of erroneous information.

[wuushew]

20. The House action is a matter of public record

why would that War Powers provision be enacted if cutting off the appropriations was equally effective? This was 1993 mind you not the Congressional cesspool that was the aftermath of the 1994 midterms.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. 1) War Powers is universally held as being unconstitutional.

If anyone tried to enforce it, it wouldn't hold up. 2) The appropriations part ended our involvement, not the House citing the War Powers act.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Repeal can be vetoed or fillibustered.

It is an affirmative legislative action. The war funding can be defeated by a simple up or down vote.

[Nederland]

7. Removing US troops will not "end" the war

It will merely make it easier for Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other. But I suppose Dennis only cares about Americans...

[G_j]

9. easier?

could it get any easier?

I strongly reject the idea that keeping troops there is the way to show how we "care" for the people of Iraq. Also they themselves don't want us there. Why can we not honor what the majority of Iraqis want?

I do agree that "ending" the war is not possible. This "war" will not "end" soon, troops or no troops.

[Nederland]

12. Absolutely

Right now we have a situation where around 5,000 Iraqis are dying every month. In an all out unrestricted civil war those numbers could go way up from that. When the Hutus and Tutsis went at it, a million people died in less than 100 days. So yes, it could get much "easier" and much worse.

[NotGivingUp]

11. sounds like you are already doing your own spinning

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Yeah they are having a real hard time doing that now.

Removing US troops will end one of the exacerbating reasons for the conflict, by removing the foreign army of occupation.

[NotGivingUp]

10. I agree with Dennis...cut off funds.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Kucinich really isn't looking for any sort of credibility, is he?

Really, this is just a flat out dumb idea. Completely and totally. Look, if he wants to commit suicide, he can do it by himself without dragging the rest of the party with him.

[G_j]

16. in the mean time,

the troops continue to die.

is the "Party" more important than actually facing the reality of this?

Shall we let Bush the war criminal and his cohorts continue to have their way?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Yes.

You kill the party, you allow another Bush clone automatic entry to the White House to continue the war crimes. You kill the party, every other issue on the progressive agenda is dead. Perhaps that's what you want, but I do not. No single issue is worth the entire agenda. The lives and livelihood of MILLIONS of Americans is at stake, not just the troops.

You are not thinking big picture at all.

[info being]

26. Selling your soul 101

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. I call it "Not being a total fucking moron 101"

Potato, Potahto.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. By your reasoing we would still be in Vietnam.

Perhaps we would have 500,000 of ours dead and 20,000,000 of theirs. Better that than to actually do the right thing, huh?

[G_j]

31. the big picture

is people dying
the Democrats have yet to prove to me that will be saving lives
the Democrats supported the war

Continue to put politics first,
and more will die

prove to me they are serious about ending the illegal and destructive occupation
instead some would rather attack anyone with the guts to tell it like it is (Kucinich, Carter etc.)
fuck politics, show me some results!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Uh, that ain't gonna end the war in Iraq.

It'll just extricate us as a party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Dennis is right. The "war" is over. We lost. Get out.

Throwing more lives and money at it isn't going to change the outcome. The American presence in Iraq is now serving as the common enemy of the people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

Not only is it the moral position but the most practical.