Earlier today I was reading the Authorization for use of Military Force:
“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
“(a) Authorization.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
“(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Read more...The most recent security council announcement was that the U.S. needs to remain in Iraq for at least one more year:
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday unanimously renewed the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq through the end of 2007, granting a request from the Baghdad government.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton welcomed the vote a day ahead of planned talks in Jordan between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on how to bring violence under control and whether Iran and Syria could help.
The vote showed all countries in the region that the Security Council strongly backed "stability in Iraq and continued progress toward democracy," Bolton said. "We all share the same objective and I think that is something the neighboring countries need to take into account."
read more...So, if Kucinich believes that we need to 'get out of Iraq' in order to afford a domestic agenda, he also allegedly wrote, "We must acknowledge that continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing", how does that translate into, "We must work through the United Nations and all the countries in the region" given that the U.N. has unanimously renewed the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq?
Perhaps he is saying we're staying in Iraq for at least 1 more year.