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.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.