SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
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.
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.