SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan
Mar 05, 2010
On Thursday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.
Con Res. 248, a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors
that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to
continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected
early next week.
Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers,
Ron Paul, Jose Serrano, Bob Filner, Lynn Woolsey, Walter Jones, Danny
Davis, Barbara Lee, Michael Capuano, Raul Grijalva, Tammy Baldwin, Tim
Johnson, Yvette Clarke, Eric Massa, Alan Grayson, and Chellie Pingree.
The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon
wants Congress to fork over $33 billion
more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions
asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit
strategy.
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork
over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that
the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot
of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American
soldiers and Afghan
civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be
awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion
was hanging fire.
So it's a great thing that Rep. Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing
Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more
Members of Congress would be urged by their
constituents to support Kucinich's resolution. That would be a
signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war
and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership
should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a
fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the
United States Government plays Russian Roulette with the lives of American
soldiers and Afghan
civilians.
The British Government has more
urgency than the U.S. government about ending the war - and is
more supportive than the U.S. of a political solution to end the
conflict - because in Britain there is greater
public outcry.
If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the U.S., we
could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train
to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.
The first step towards bringing our troops home is for Members of
Congress to hear
from their constituents.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
On Thursday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.
Con Res. 248, a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors
that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to
continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected
early next week.
Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers,
Ron Paul, Jose Serrano, Bob Filner, Lynn Woolsey, Walter Jones, Danny
Davis, Barbara Lee, Michael Capuano, Raul Grijalva, Tammy Baldwin, Tim
Johnson, Yvette Clarke, Eric Massa, Alan Grayson, and Chellie Pingree.
The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon
wants Congress to fork over $33 billion
more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions
asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit
strategy.
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork
over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that
the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot
of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American
soldiers and Afghan
civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be
awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion
was hanging fire.
So it's a great thing that Rep. Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing
Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more
Members of Congress would be urged by their
constituents to support Kucinich's resolution. That would be a
signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war
and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership
should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a
fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the
United States Government plays Russian Roulette with the lives of American
soldiers and Afghan
civilians.
The British Government has more
urgency than the U.S. government about ending the war - and is
more supportive than the U.S. of a political solution to end the
conflict - because in Britain there is greater
public outcry.
If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the U.S., we
could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train
to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.
The first step towards bringing our troops home is for Members of
Congress to hear
from their constituents.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
On Thursday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.
Con Res. 248, a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors
that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to
continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected
early next week.
Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers,
Ron Paul, Jose Serrano, Bob Filner, Lynn Woolsey, Walter Jones, Danny
Davis, Barbara Lee, Michael Capuano, Raul Grijalva, Tammy Baldwin, Tim
Johnson, Yvette Clarke, Eric Massa, Alan Grayson, and Chellie Pingree.
The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon
wants Congress to fork over $33 billion
more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions
asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit
strategy.
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork
over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that
the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot
of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American
soldiers and Afghan
civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be
awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion
was hanging fire.
So it's a great thing that Rep. Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing
Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more
Members of Congress would be urged by their
constituents to support Kucinich's resolution. That would be a
signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war
and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership
should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a
fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the
United States Government plays Russian Roulette with the lives of American
soldiers and Afghan
civilians.
The British Government has more
urgency than the U.S. government about ending the war - and is
more supportive than the U.S. of a political solution to end the
conflict - because in Britain there is greater
public outcry.
If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the U.S., we
could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train
to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.
The first step towards bringing our troops home is for Members of
Congress to hear
from their constituents.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.