EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
Popular content
Today's Top News
House to Vote on Pullout From Afghanistan
WASHINGTON - In a test of congressional support for President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy, lawmakers are set to vote on Wednesday on a resolution that would direct him to pull U.S. forces out of the war.
"This (debate) is a first step. It's like an alarm going off and people begin to wake up," Kucinich told Reuters. (AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito, File) The resolution by liberal Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich is not expected to pass. But it could be an important indicator of how Obama's Democrats feel about the war, particularly ahead of November congressional elections in which Republicans are expected to make gains.
It is the first legislative challenge by the Democratic majority Congress to U.S. involvement in the conflict since Obama ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and an offensive began last month to retake the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province.
Supporters of the resolution say it is time for U.S. lawmakers to consider if they want to continue the nearly nine-year-old war in which about 1,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed. The United States is already planning to pull its forces out of Iraq by the end of next year.
"This (debate) is a first step. It's like an alarm going off and people begin to wake up," Kucinich told Reuters.
Although Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 11 attacks by al Qaeda on the United States, "that wasn't intended to be a blank check for war without end," Kucinich said. He voted for the 2001 resolution.
Aware that many liberal Democrats are unhappy about the continuing Afghan war, Obama has said the plan is to start pulling out U.S. forces from Afghanistan from July 2011.
But Kucinich does not want to wait and says Congress must not just be a compliant partner of the president, a role for which it was criticized during the Iraq invasion under the Bush administration.
'SHAME ON YOU'
Supporters also reject the view they are undermining Obama's strategy with debate about the war.
"There should be no excuse to avoid debate. Debate is not undermining anything," said Representative James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposes Obama's Afghan surge.
"If you don't raise questions, shame on you," he said.
Kucinich's resolution would direct Obama to bring U.S. forces home within a month of the measure's passage by both houses of Congress, or at the latest, by the end of the year.
The proposal is based on the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which Congress passed in response to the Vietnam War. Some experts have questioned the 1973 resolution's legality under the U.S. Constitution.
Republicans, whose leaders sided with Obama in his surge strategy, are expected to mostly oppose Kucinich's measure.
(Editing by Sue Pleming and Jackie Frank)
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
27 Comments so far
Show All"...since Obama ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and an offensive began last month to retake the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province."
Response: Can 30,000 troops fit into Marjah?
"stronghold" = scruffy collection of buildings in a tiny community..
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/forces-hold-afghans-prove-town-safe-gates-visit/
It will still probably take 30K to hold...
Must See:
rethinkafghanistan.org
Lucky 1:48 ------ I appreciate your post, its message and spirit.
Having been to Afghanistan, their compounds are anything but scruffy.
In general they are quite elegant with intelligent refined inhabitants.
Besides killing so many innocents we are destroying some very old mud compounds with intricately carved ancient irreplaceable doors and woodwork.
Negative terms when used in conjunction with the enemy nation Du Jour only enhances the demonization of the USA's current victim.
"Scruffy" is very minor but in general we need to use positive terms to counteract the avalance of demonization propagnda.
The fixed fight is on! I agree with Jesse Ventura that Congress is like a phony wrestling match between Repulsives and Dem O Rats! In the end, only the MIC wins.
Oligarchy at work. "Let them have their say, then do what you're told." That is the sad tale of "democracy" in our time.
Go Dennis! Be our Moses, get us out of there...
Of course Kucinich's motion should be suppoted; but consider this: when you go to war you have an objective, and it makes no sense to leave until that objective is met; otherwise it is tantamount to a surrender -- and America's chauvinism will never accept that. So to fix a date to leave, any date, be it this year or next, that makes no sense. Here is what will happen. When whatever date agreed upon arrives, the military will argue that the US cannot leave because things will get worse; and the war will then go on infefinitely. Watch and see if the US ever really does pull out of Iraq. Permanent war, the Bush Doctrine, now adopted by Obama.
Do they even HAVE an objective?
Maybe turn the entire country in Jesus lovin, Wallmart Shopping white folks?
The last sentence of this article is all you need to read.
It could also have been written as - Obama's support among his beloved republicans will ensure continuous global warmongering and oppression.
this is known as bipartisanship by the war-mongering duopoly.
It's those that treasonously vote to fund this illegal warcrime who belong in Nuremberg.
In listening just now, I heard Rep Walter Jones, a Republican, from Cape Hatteras, make the best speech ever for the reason to leave. He said we cannot be the world's police any longer at the expense of denying those who have been injured security for their future... HALLALUJAH and thank you for some sanity from that party.
Good call, good test. It'll be interesting - however depressing - to see who votes how.
As I watch the debate on CSpan the Repugs keep bringing up 911, and "cut and run" FEAR!!! {takes me back..}. According to the opponents we are UNPATRIOTIC, and we hate the troops!
God awful disgusting as I watch Chinook after Chinook go over my home, headed for Ft. Drum!
"God awful disgusting as I watch Chinook after Chinook go over my home, headed for Ft. Drum!"
Yeah, I know. We have jet fighters flying low over our home, rattling the crockery and scaring the cats, dozens of times a day. They used to all be Navy Grey, but now some are in desert camouflage, so I suppose they are training marines for the Iran attack now, as well.
But, by God, The MIC will be able to have the government squeeze the last few billion$ out of us! Pure profit! How about that?
It's Reuters, so no mention of Afghan casualties.
Don't blame me. I voted for Kucinich in the Calif primary. As I campaigned for him during the 2008 election, I was told time and again how he was unelectable. I guess I was hoping for a different kind of change that I was believing in.
I won't ask if you followed Kucinich's advice and ultimately voted for Obama.
I like and respect Dennis, and wish I could be more enthusiastic about his contributions. But his justification for remaining lashed to the mast of the Democratic Party is becoming less tenable by the day.
As he becomes increasingly alienated and isolated in his chosen wing of the corrupt duopoly, he's increasingly trapped in the unsavory "judas goat" role. And that necessarily undermines his credibility.
And there's the rub.
Obedient Servant,
In case you missed our response on a previous, now buried thread, we take the liberty of reposting it here, appropriately updated in token of our appreciation for your contributions:
"Coupling artistry, high style and an indefatigable humor– all laced with steely insight–your postings alone make the "Common Dreams" site a must read. We will certainly pass on your regards to Jill. Many and sincere thanks.
Perhaps the recycled, absentee intervention we posted from Jill Bains on the Tom Hayden article of a few days ago would have been more apposite on this thread. What was the final vote to defeat the Kucinich amendment? 365 to continue the American terror war and 70 opposed?
It seems her points were entirely prescient: Go to the place where there is no hope and develop an appropriate politics that commences from there. Or, put another way, even if there were 500 votes in the American Congress to end the Afghan war, the war would continue unabated, perhaps with even more virulence, terror and criminality.
We see here, going over her filed and saved archives from her tenure on this blog that she appropriately, delegated your work its own 'folder.' Sioux Rose, along with a few others, also has a designated folder. Stay well and keep the masterpieces coming as the spirit moves."
Warmest regards,
-Vashkar and Kim
OS,
Spot on.
Thwe windown dressing continues. Until Kucinich leaves the Dem
Party, I can't repect the man.
Chelsea
I,too, believe that participation within the Democratic Party is not the road to success for the progressive agenda. But I do acknowledge those who stay in that party are trying to alter its course. However futile that attempt may be the trying should earn at least a modicum of respect.
- Although Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan in 2001 -
Hooray!
Someone has mentioned Public Law 107-40. Too bad they didn't read it, first.
There was nothing about Afghanistan in the declaration of future war.
Congress authorized force against enemies to be named later by a President.
Bush named al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and said that Afghanistan was the place to find them.
The US military is in Afghanistan because the mission it was given by Congress was to 'prevent future terrorism', a mission which obviously can never be finished (and thus there is never any 'exit strategy', nor can there be one).
What Mr. K and his dimwits are doing is only to weaken and embarrass the true anti-war sentiment of the American people.
Once again, the Dims are positioning themselves as cowards who would have the US military retreat from the face of the enemy.
The only way to get enough multi-partisan general public support is to blame the system, in the form of the flaw of a law that started this insane and DAFT war and propels it ever onward toward our doom.
If you want to stop this madness, show America that this is DAFT.
Sorry Dennis, but I'd much rather spend our tax $ on killing innocent civilians than on health care, education, or clean energy.
Sorry ezflyer your buddy Dims copt out again.
Makes voting third party an absolute no brainer.
Only if you are for peace and against war of course.....
Kucinich's effort on Afghanistan merits our support. The same holds true for the efforts by Jim McGovern (D-Mass) and Dave Obey (D-Wis).
It's the beginning of a long effort. It took 12 votes on the Vietnam war before a date certain was enacted, withdrawal achieved and the power of the purse exercised in a way that ended that senseless war.
It took a lot of effort by those of us who wanted to work within the political system to change it. We believed it could only be changed by constantly trying. In Vietnam ours was not an effort for the short winded.
Short windedness won't work in Afghanistan either. We should reinforce those House members who opposed the Emergency Supplemental and those who supported Kucinich today. Those who didn't support Kucinich need not be attacked but persuaded that absent a serious exit strategy by the Obama Administration, Congress has no choice but to set a date certain for withdrawal.
The lessons of the Vietnam and Iraq wars are all too clear. They should not be repeated.
David Cohen,
Washington DC