Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pelosi says Kucinich Resolution Will Satisfy Need for Afghanistan Vote
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's proposed resolution to pull troops out of Afghanistan seems to be getting a favorable reception from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced last week that he'll be introducing a resolution to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. (File) At a roundtable with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, Pelosi said many House members "are eager to have a vote soon on Afghanistan" and the resolution the Cleveland Democrat plans to introduce early next year will likely satisfy that need.
Since Kucinich announced last week that he'll be introducing a resolution to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, a dozen colleagues from both political parties have agreed to cosponsor his measure.
House leaders attempted to thwart debate on past resolutions that Kucinich introduced to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney by moving to table them. Pelosi said tabling his Afghanistan resolution hadn't occurred to her until a reporter asked about it.
Pelosi says it will be up to Obama to convince members of Congress to approve the money he needs to send extra troops to Afghanistan. Members of Congress will have to base their votes on their "consciences and constituents," she said.
"I have told the members to give the President room, to listen to what he has to say," Pelosi said. "This President was dealt a very bad hand because there was no plan in Afghanistan for years."
Asked how she plans to vote on Kucinich's measure, Pelosi replied: "I don't vote unless it's a tie."
- Posted in
61 Comments so far
Show AllGO Dennis.......a check is on the way.
The attitute that is is good to send a check to a politician with whom you agree is the major flaw in our political system. It is all based on money. Well, the bad guys will always win in this contest. They got to be the 'bad guys' by rape, robbery and plunder, which vastly improved their disposable income. They are rich. They have more than adedquate funds to buy the government---and they have done it.
We need a system of public finance for candidates for national office. There is a bill in Congress now HR 1826. Instead of sending a check to Dennis, I suggest you contact your representative and advise a yes vote on HR 1826.
"I don't vote unless it's a tie."
Such a statement - what leadership!
odoco
Actually, it was a savvy response. Pelosi has issued several statements concerning her misgivings about Afghanistan - to declare one way or the other how she will cast her vote only gives the Wing-nuts ammunition in advance so they can more effectively marshall their forces.
Yes - I have severe misgivings about Pelosi - but on this one - she is correct.
Nancy is a war-hawk and if a tie she would support the war.
Now, do you support the war?
"Pelosi has issued several statements concerning her misgivings about Afghanistan - to declare one way or the other how she will cast her vote only gives the Wing-nuts ammunition ..."
That's a somewhat FALSE argument, for all she'd need to do for the Wing-nuts to not be provided with ammo is to simply say that she won't reveal how she plans on voting. The answer she gave leaves a hint that she'll vote for the additional war funding, if there is a tie, for it's how she's always voted, so far. I believe it's how she's always voted, so far, and she surely voted for the over $600bn recently approved for the U.S. war machine, DoD and/or Pentagon, and for the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan; and the latter part of the funds is not for reconstruction.
You refer to her nice statements, lately, but nice statements are regularly used by politicians when wanting to lie to or deceive others; and Pelosi doesn't have a good political track record on these wars and other important issues.
If the president was dealt a bad hand,
the logical approach is to fold.
Go Dennis!
Kucinich2012! There is NO other option for "We the People"...PERIOD!
"Pelosi said tabling his Afghanistan resolution hadn't occurred to her until a reporter asked about it."
...and torturing POW's didn't occur to her until the CIA mentioned it.
Pelosi can't be relied upon, but let's hope the issue stays on the radar long enough for public discussion in the US (so that polls are taken, showing Americans want out of Afghanistan, which Congress will then duly ignore). Nevertheless, I 'heart' Kucinich. If lies, repeated often and long enough, are eventually believed, why can't the same be true for Truth?
Good to see Kuchinich leading the way to get some actual public policy debate going on the Af/Pak surge decision.
Rather than discussing and voting on a resolution to withdraw, isn't it really the Obama White House's responsibility to get a new authorization for use of military force resolution passed because the stated mission of the US military in this region has now so drastically changed?
The 2001 AUMF (the Congressional resolution currently in effect) limits the Pentagon's mission to killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda coconspirators who were involved in the attack of 9/11/01. Military force is also authorized against any government or other entity harboring those involved in the WTC terrorist attack. Period.
There's nothing in the existing statute about wiping out the Taliban, rolling back the insurgency's gains, stabilizing the civilian government of Pakistan, eradicating the poppy/heroin trade, advancing womens' rights, winning hearts and minds, nation building, securing oil and natural gas pipeline access, smiting jihadi evil doers wherever they lurk, or any of the other justifications commonly voiced by hawks in support of escalating the US/NATO military presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the frontier border region.
If President Obama wants a troop surge and/or a drone surge with US combat operations spilling outward from Afghanistan's borders, then he needs a new, revised Congressional use of military force resolution to do so. It really should not be Dennis Kuchinich's responsibility to draft a resolution to reverse the decision already made and publicly announced in Obama's West Point address, even though he and the withdrawal resolution's cosponsors deserve a gold star for their efforts.
Bill from Saginaw
2001 AUMF
-- the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines --
..he determines -- he determines
Congress declared war against enemies to be named later by the President.
The last President announced 'The war on terror begins with al-Qaeda'.
He also announced that 'the Taliban would be treated the same way'.
The current President said: 'Our war is against al-Qaeda and its affiliates'.
America is at war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and whoever these affiliates are (which some President will let us know when it's convenient). America will later be at war against whomever else the President announces (he just has to tie them to int'l terrorism).
--in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons--
Everything in Afghanistan - 'wiping out the Taliban, rolling back the insurgency's gains, stabilizing the civilian government of Pakistan, eradicating the poppy/heroin trade, advancing womens' rights, winning hearts and minds, nation building, securing oil and natural gas pipeline access, smiting jihadi evil doers wherever they lurk, or any of the other justifications...'
I repeat, everything, can be explained as tactics to prevent future terrorism.
I continue to suggest that this is insane and DAFT.
And COWARDLY
Why is it that countries which are MUCH, MUCH less strong militarily are not as scared of those outside of their borders?
Why is it that America continuously feels the need to bully others, while most countries are fine with letting others determine their own affairs?
I am an American who is getting really ANGRY at how mentally twisted most Americans are; being cowardly, being bullies, loving violence.
Sick
Rotten
Nancy's Lie:
Asked how she plans to vote on Kucinich's measure, Pelosi replied: "I don't vote unless it's a tie."
Just a spot check through this year's US House roll call votes for this past year show on occasion Pelosi does vote when she feels strong enough about an issue and her vote isn't needed to break a tie. Below is one of the handful of resolutions that I found she voted for without the need to break a tie:
H RES 34 - Recognizing Israels right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
On the otherhand, she had no problem a few weeks later not voting to recognize the achievements of MLK. However, in November, she voted to honor those at Fort Hood (non-tie).
My thanks go to you for looking into Pelosi's voting record. Pelosi, you are such an ugly soul.
Unfortunately, I was doing the reporter's job of the Cleveland Plain Dealer (challenging the veracity of Pelosi's statement).
Unfortunately for you, for you had to invest a little time to do and report what the Cleveland ... reporter should have done. But this is fortunately something you did; for CD readers who read your post anyway.
The Wall Street Journal today put out more of their destroy-Iran brainwash,
as article below shows, and if Obama does not end his Afghan War, surely
we will have to destroy such a high-tech and wealthy enemy as Iran
“Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones
“Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents
intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected
ommunications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=yhoofront
Bill says: "Rather than discussing and voting on a resolution to withdraw, isn't it really the Obama White House's responsibility to get a new authorization for use of military force resolution passed because the stated mission of the US military in this region has now so drastically changed"?
Bill, please study the 1990 US Supreme Court's ruling of Campbell v. Clinton because then you will understand that Obama does not need a "new authorization" each time funds are voted by congress for the war in Afghanistan.
This is logical. Once the congress gives the president funds for a war it expects the executive to execute that is to say start or continue the specific war. If the president uncompromisingly disagrees he must veto the funding bill. If congress overrides his/her veto the president must resign because he/she cannot execute the congress' order.
The votes I have referred to above make the war in Afghanistan legal by our constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1990. Whether that war is legal by international standards is obviously a totally different beast.
Pelosi: " I don't vote unless there is a tie" and then I always vote with the Military, Bankers,Big Pharma,Big Insurance and the rest of the corportocracy, because I proved that I was corporate quisling when I said the impeachment of Bush was off the table!
Pelosi is a sellout, she always has been and will vote whichever way lines her pockets with the most money. Now ask yourself what profit she can reap with peace? Also find out what stocks she has investments in. (by law it is suppose to be public record but I bet she covered it up)
Then look at some of her other voting record. When she voted for an increase in minimum wage she excluded the Solomon Islands. Why? Because she has stock in tuna canning and guess where that is done.
Do we need leaders in this age of direct and decentralized Global Online Democracy (G.O.D.), or just good examples to follow?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pathetic and an awful leader.
Her tenure has been one of FAILURE. Taking impeachment off the table in the case of George W. Bush showed just how appeasing the Democratic Party are in quite serious matters which confront the health of this nation.
This is kind of late and nothing but shallow window dressing.
You go, Dennis!
Those who vote against the resolution will be on record.
Dennis has influence, tenacity and the people's best interests at heart.
He's out there fighting for us.
This vote will never take place, precisely because "Those who vote against the resolution will be on record."
(See: Sanders, Bernie and single-payer admendment)
I don't know the method that will be used to frag the Kucinich amendment, but he is congress's Charlie Brown and Pelucy WILL yank away the football once again.
This announcement is just a little feel-good greeting for the holidays.
Merry Festivus, all!
You may be right. If that happens, THAT will be the time to criticize Pelosi, not now.
PEE- LUCY
WAKE UP Naturally and smell the shit. She's a crime boss! power is her game.she was always in bed with the profiteers.Hell she's one of them!Get a clue "That will be the time to criticize"blah blah blah. Are you really missing this many marbles?
Kucinich2012! There is NO other option for "We the People"!!!
Didn't the House just pass the Military Plunder Bill?
Talking about Afghanistan is a Moot Point now as all of our children have been condemned to a lifetime of indentured servitude for the pleasure of Daddy Warbucks and his merry band of War Profiteers.
Military Plunder Bill?
Double plunder, at least - we're talking about the $600-billion plus behemoth Congrefs just passed: plunder of the taxpayer at home; plunder of whichever victim 0's sponsors find convenient abroad.
Gee, did someone just wake Pelosi up from her coma that she was in during the entire Bush administration? Has the hypnotic drug made it out of her system now?
Here's an example of Pelosi doing something good. Maybe. She will allow Kucinich's resolution to come to a vote.
If true, that's a good thing. We'll know which congressmen vote to support an illegal, immoral, counterproductive and stupid war, and which vote to oppose it. Very useful. We can use it to defeat worthless militant jerks in coming elections. We can use it to make Obamastein a one-term jerk.
Yet, a majority of posts here spit Pelosi hatred. What's the point? Do you want her to bury the Kucinich resolution?
Not sure why you are sticking up for Pelosi.
- You say, "Here's an example of Pelosi doing something good." What did she do? All Pelosi said is that Kucinich's resolution will likely satisfy the need of many members of the House to have a vote on withdrawal from Afghanistan. She didn't promise anything.
- I disagree a majority of the posts spit Pelosi hatred; and that the possible intention is to bury the Kucinich resolution. In the comments, she has been described a war-hawk, lier, ugly soul, sellout, pathetic and awful leader, and can't be relied on. Not sure about the "ugly soul" but the remaining skeptical comments she has earned. CD posters have reason to be skeptical that Pelosi is going to do anything to support the Kucinich resolution because of Pelosi's war-hawkish behavior:
- - Prior to the Iraq War, Pelosi was among those drumming up the war: "Pelosi categorically declared on NBC's Meet the Press in December 2002 that "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."" CD Archives Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/25-4
- - June 16, 2009 San Francisco Chronicle: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House will try to muscle through a $106 billion war funding bill today, hoping to quell a rebellion among liberal Democrats against further support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." CD Archives Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/16-2
- - December 2009: Not a peep from Pelosi during this recent Defense spending bill that authorized more money for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What did she do that's good? She said she will allow a vote on Kucinich's resolution. I've said that, and I've said why it's good.
I certainly don't defend Pelosi. Far from it. But when she allows a vote on a resolution opposing Obama's war escalation plans, she should be applauded, not condemned.
If she plays Lucy to Kucinich's Charlie Brown, and pulls the football away at the last second, that is the time for criticism, not now.
There are some here -- I don't mean you -- who manipulated and lied to help get Obama the Democratic nomination. Now they are hard at work deflecting blame for all of President Obama's abhorrent actions. They still try to paint him as a "progressive" who isn't strong enough to control less-progressive Democrats in Congress, when the opposite is true. If it's not congressional Democrats' fault, it's the bad advice Obama gets (from the people he appointed). Or, it's Hillary's fault. Or, it's Rahm's fault. When all else fails, it's "the White House" that's to blame. Obama is the new Teflon President.
I see people like Pelosi as morally compromised politicians who are willing to sacrifice public interest for party power, but only to a point. The question is "where is that point?" I've argued that the sooner the majority party in Congress begins to distance itself from Reagan-cum-Obama, the better ... for both the public interest and the party's chances in coming elections. How about making Obama a one-term president? How about Howard Dean in 2012? Or Russ Feingold?
You don't really expect anyone to bite at your overloaded question at the end, do you?
I understand the principle of fairness animating the rule of giving credit where credit is due. Glenn Greenwald, whom I admire, is a stickler about this.
But there are always devils in the details, including the pitfall of being deliberately misled and manipulated by the ruling class, especially our Elected Misrepresentatives.
The problem with giving credit is that it presumes the existence of fundamental and mutual good faith that utterly contradicts observation and experience. Sarcasm aside, at times it can be very difficult indeed to distinguish charity from folly.
In the present corrupt, degraded, and surrealistic Amerikan political process, the empowered benefit from uncertainty, opacity, occlusion; they quite deliberately and aggressively practice mystification.
Indeed, our professional politicians are so given over to the arcane and convoluted practices of modern government that they manifest occupational psychosis: they believe that reality itself is contained in, or arises from, the exclusive and esoteric process of government.
Just listen to über-technocrats Barney Frank or Tom Harkins or Max Baucus, and you'll hear an institutional hive-mind in which Doing Business is no mere "means", but the be-all and end-all.
Put more simply: politicians are amoral actors. They lie. They mislead. They manipulate. They bullshit. They fool. They betray. They sandbag. They do all this stuff before lunch, every day, and to the extent they think about it at all, they think they're right to do so. It's their job.
If there's a universal Prime Directive, it's this: reasonable persons must be reasonably "pragmatic".
In a reasonable world, all of this could be blown off as the worthless rantings of a seriously pissed-off cynic with a bad attitude. But this year has been one long bumper crop of politicians on every level tripping over themselves to get caught lying, misleading, betraying.
Pelosi is a maleficent Ruling Class Gorgon. That's not a particularly kind or flattering label; it's a harsh description. If you interpret this as "hatred", so be it.
And if it pleases you to think of Pelosi as a well-meaning, hard-working administrator busting her butt to do the best she can in a tough spot, be my guest.
But no way the likes of Pelosi, Reid, or even Kucinich are going to screw up a Democratic president's prospects for a second term. Especially with a Warlord-in-Chief riding atop the bucking and plunging Military Beast like Major Kong riding the H-bomb in "Dr. Strangelove".
I simply see no reason to believe or hope that Congress will reverse course sufficiently to even de-grease, much less dismantle, the Military-Industrial Complex and the Bush-launched Global War on Terror bandwagon.
I'd like to be more upbeat, but what can ya do?
· Yr Obd't Servant
"I'd like to be more upbeat, but what can ya do?"
You can decline to produce invectives when a person with compromised morals does something good. You might even acknowledge that she did something good.
Yeah, but for ME, that would require first being Willfully Stupid.
Why would I "acknowledge" something that I don't know to be the case?
I've belabored the point enough, but given Pelosi's "compromised morals", her actions only seem "good" in a dim, trusting light.
In the twilight of lowered expectations, one might see Pelosi helping a little old lady cross the street, and think, "See, Pelosi CAN do good."
But one who recognizes Pelosi as a habitual criminal would realize that she probably intercepted that little old lady leaving her bank, with the intention of picking her pocket.
And having accomplished this feat, walking away into the dusk with a smile and the applause of gratified passers-by.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Well, reports in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and other news outlets say she did something good. We may subsequently learn it was just a ruse (as one poster says, Lucy will pull the football away just before Charlie Brown tries to kick it), but for the moment it appears to be good.
Doubting her sincerity is fine. She has earned that. But condemning her in advance is something else. It seems counterproductive in that pols like Pelosi are given dispensation to ignore the Left. She can say, "it doesn't matter what I do, the Left will still condemn me, so why should I pay any attention to them?"
The other thing, as I outlined in response to Progressive 101 above, I wonder if people have an ulterior motive. Here we have the Speaker of the House allowing a resolution which "directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan" to come up for a vote.
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Privileged_Resolution_Afghanistan.pdf
She certainly does not have to allow that vote. It puts her at odds with the President's policy. Yet some on the Left condemn her for it. Are some people condemning her BECAUSE she dares to defy Obama? Is making Pelosi the villain just a way to deflect attention away from the person who is leading his party and the nation into a stupid and tragic escalation of the Afghanistan occupation: Obama?
Having studied and known Pelosi's tendancy to play politics with a wishy washy twist, it won't be long until Pelosi trashes Kucinich's efforts on his resolution just like she did with Anthony Wiener on single payer health care. I will be surprised if she doesn't.
There will be lots of talking, but in the end, Pelosi will never let that bill see the light of day.
It's nice when politicians do the right things, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
To ease suspicions of a political candidate for a single largely symbolic gesture invites trouble, though. We may assume that Pelosi can hedge her bets with a largely antiwar constituency because she knows the bill cannot pass and because she personally can withhold a vote, but I would say there's more to this.
Details, anyone?
I am sorry but the White House can answer: "pulling the troops out, well that is exactly what we have promised to begin in 2011"! Ergo the Kucinich resolution is useless as long as the war in Afghanistan gets funded. The only way to "pull out the troops" is for congress to refuse funding. I rest my case.
As someone else mentioned above, this will put names to the war-mongers so they can be disposed of.
I love Dennis Kucinich, but there's no way that he could ever get elected as president. Not in this country, with the Republican hit-men, and the corporate media assisting them. He is a good, honest man, and the Republicans detest goodness and honesty. They have none. And the American people are great about sitting back and complaining, but most of them don't have the dedication or the willpower to get involved in changing the system. The only way that things are going to turn around is for the people to rise up en masse, and demand it. Do we really think that's going to happen anytime soon?
If not now, when?
We demand the "democrat" party nominate Dennis or we vote Republican.
That is the only way the "democrat" party will take us seriously and they'll still have a democrat as president.
Wall Street/Big Oil Companies/with members like Bush/Chaney/ the CIA/Ze/Gates/McChrystal/-will make sure that Obama fails and the wars continue. Occupation and control of the Middle East, and Oil for the next Republican president to enjoy, -- our young and the innocent will continue to suffer for the greedy GOP. I wonder if bilogical weapons will be used against all Arab nations? Some of the tactics that have been used in the past 8 years, are similiar to the ones used in Germany years ago, when their leader wished to conquer Europe. He too created hate against a certain nation of people.
IF Unctious Uriah OBOMBA HAD A brain or a conscience,he would get himself a BULLET PROOF SPACE SUIT ,BULLET PROOF HELMET,BULLET PROOF BOOTS,A FOOD TESTER and suit up at all times.Then take on all the WAR CRIMINALS AND WAR PROFITEERS in a public forum.Send most them off to the pokey or torture camps without charges.If that didn't work then we could send him off to outer space where he belongs.
Any one who reads my posts knows what I am and what I do.
for those that dont
I am a soldier, I spend a lot of time in Afghanistan.
She will not vote against a military bill. My reason? Deep Throat said, 'Fallow the money'. She and others like her play lip service to their constituents while lining their own pockets.
She will make money off of blood, mark my words.
here is an answer
a copy and paste, but no less true for the source
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
I am sending this to virtually all my close friends and relatives and that includes conservatives, liberals, and everybody in between. Even though we disagree on a number of issues, I count all of you as friends. The proposal is to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2009." It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (but not the incumbents).
I know many of you will say, "this is impossible." Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.
We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes.. Please add any ideas on how to get this done.
***********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 2009
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans..
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people..
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/10.
Did I mention?
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
Note the "Serving"
working for a nation is public service, not public rape
abnsmith
out