DK: Urge and send messages to the democratic leadership of the house and the senate, that ending the war doesn't take legislation-- that it takes the will of the leadership to go to the president and say that they are not going to offer a bill-- that the president has to take the steps to bring the troops home. Now a parrallel process must ensue, and that is a peacekeeping and security force in the region would have to be assembled that would come in as our troops leave, because you don't want to leave a vacuum.
Now some people will say, if the congress takes this action, the president is just going to refuse to do anything.
And I would say that's a direct path to his removal from office, because he can't leave the troops out there without protection. And if he's keeping them there, despite the will of the congress being expressed, then he would be in kind of a tough way.
RK: So, the will of the congress will be basically be stated by one of the leaders in either the house or the senate...
DK: Actually, that's what's being done right now, by continuing to fund it. If they determine they're not going to fund it anymore, and tell the president that, then it's over.
RK: The one question I want to be relly clear on, either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, individually, could stop this war by going to the president and saying, I'm not going to bring legislation to the floor that will fund the war any further. Either one of those individuals could do now, right?
DK: Nancy works on consensus, with the other democratic leaders. But if the democratic leadership, and I don't work with Harry Reid, so I'm not sure how he works, but if the Democratic leadership went to the president and told him what I told you, we'd be on the way to ending the war.
RK: IF this happened, if we got this to happen, what would you expect the president to do? The Republicans? The media? How would they respond to this. It seems to me it is important to plan how to respond to their response.
DK: The American people already made the decision to get out of Iraq by voting for a Democratic house and senate, so the way you respond is to say you are just bowing to the will of the people as expressed in the 2006 election.
Now, Kucinich says they would also have to inform Bush. That would make it official.
Then everything would hit the fan.
I asked some leading progressives their opinions. Here's the email I sent them:
I'm working on an article on the day after-- the day after the house or senate refuse to fund the war anymore.
What will it look like? What will Bush, the republicans, the media, the pentagon, the troops, the retired generals do? What will they say? What can the dems do to be prepared? As weeks turn to months, what will it look like?
We ought to have an idea about this, if we're going to advocate and plan for it.
You can answer any part of the question you like. I hope to integrate some of the answers into the article I'm putting together.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
All of the comments talked about the political situation within the US, as though that were all that mattered. But, there will be repercussions in Iraq if the US pulls out prematurely and those repercussions will work their way back to the US and then what? What I read was completely self-centered. "How can we use this to our advantage" was the only real concern. This bespeaks a complete indifference to what happens in the rest of the world and that is the defining characteristic of the sociopathic personality. Charlie Manson is running the Democratic Party.
by
Joe Zingher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 8:55:03 AM
Will you ask the same question 6 months from now? 6 years from now? Iraq will never be stable with the presence of foreign troops. Let's punish the neocons and those who started this war, not the American people, who have to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters. Those who predict disasters in Iraq are the same people who predicted it was going to be "a cakewalk". Those who want to support the continuation of war funding need to enlist now. It's time to bring our troops home, not just from Iraq but the rest of the world. Americans will not like it if foreign troops are on our soil.
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 12:13:01 PM
Sociopath, thy middle name is neocon .... or dubya.
It is generally wise, before making a major decision, to think through the consequences, to consider how it will affect your self. You think this is pathological? And what qualifications do you have to make such a remark?
The article DOES discuss consequences in Iraq-- Kucinich discusses getting an international force in.
Even without that discussion, raising this question is reasonable and certainly not part of a total plan, merely one discussion among many on considering contingencies-- something that the right wingers running the US have clearly failed to do again and again.
by
Rob Kall (857 articles, 3983 quicklinks, 343 diaries, 1821 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 2:34:05 PM
The democrats are not scared of the people. They won't defund because they do not want to end the war in Iraq and they don't care what their constituents think.
by
Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 8:58:08 AM
Your article should've been titled "Why the Dems Won't Refus
Refuse to Fund the War." That's really what you wrote about. I guess at the last second, some wishful thinking kicked in, and overpowered you. Every person you spoke with told you the Dems won't stop the funding.
People who want the war ended must understand that the Democrats (with a very few honorable exceptions) are our enemies. Begging them, or looking hopefully towards them for help, is a self-deluding waste of time & energy. Pelosi & Reid, and MOST of the Democratic Party, are in effect the allies of Bush & Cheney. That's why they protect them from impeachment. That's why they support travesties like warrantless wiretapping. That's why they don't fight to re-establish habeas corpus, or to stop torture. That's why they refuse to censure Bush & Cheney, but are willing to condemn MoveOn and Pete Stark. That's why they won't take attacking Iran "off the table." (etc etc)
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1210 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 10:03:41 AM
Rob, is it not long past time for you to understand that looking to the Democratic Party for solutions to the myriad of problems besetting our nation and our world is a fatal flaw? What more proof do you need to arrive at this conclusion, which I have held for years and years now. The Democratic Party is a part and parcel of the problem and not the solution.
Allow me to refer to your own article:
Emanuel has actually said that-- that Bush in power is good for Democrats and that the war is good for democrats.
So, the deaths of four thousand of our children and perhaps a million Iraqis is nothing more than a campaign tool...support that!
Kucinich: But the leadership has made it very clear that they are not going to cut off funds. They made it clear that they are not going to tell the president that they are not going to fund it. They are going to keep funding it and keep funding it under the notion that notion-- under the fatal notion that this is the way to support the troops.
Dennis is correct that the abysmal leadership willnever take that step, but see the first quote for the real reason.
Budowsky notes: "Sadly I do not believe the current Congress will ever vote anything remotely resembling a cut-off of funds or a dramatic change in policy for the Iraq War. The most likely scenario is that a Democratic President announces a schedule for withdrawl in the next Inaugural Address which will stimulate national celebration from anti-war activists to military families and the rejuvenation of America's image, prestige and influence throughout the free world."
A resounding maybe...When JFK announced he was going to end the Viet Nam war, thus bringing the era of huge profits for the military industrial complex, he was conveniently murdered.....Im just saying here....
Rob and all,
It is far past time to reevaluate our loyalties and decide that we who are still members of the Democratic Party have been brutally used to selfish purpose and our own trust betrayed. Those of us who love this nation must perforce want better for it than Emanuel, Pelosi and Reid.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 10:20:50 AM
First, I agree and desire the intent of a funding refusal. That is EXACTLY how the constitution was structured - so the Congress can JUST SAY NO without being trumped by a veto.
As far as Nancy refusing by her own little self? She is NOT the Speaker by decree or for life. Any such declaration by her alone would not cut off funds but simply trigger her immediate replacement by the House leadership backed by a majority of the Democrats. Nothing, however, would please me more than to see her go down in flames to Cindy Sheehan in 2008.
So Kucinich was not dodging the question about her, or Reid, acting alone. He said it required the decision of the leadership and that is accurate.
As to how we'd get a suitable UN force assembled with a redemptive mission while Bushco is still running things, I cannot even imagine.
And what would Bush do? Massive assault on Iran/911 II/Pearl Harbor 3/WWIII/martial law come to mind as options. Maybe Nancy could be the first one incarcerated under HR 1955 - the new thought crime bill.
The media? I'd say grab 'em by the collar and start slapping. Whatever the strategy, it should be an OFFENSIVE.
Assuming that Hillary wins in 2008, she has already stated that the troops will still be there at least til the end of her, ahem, first term. Her domestic program? If it doesn't include single payer universal health care - and it doesn't - what more can you expect? A little less worse than Bush, maybe. Will she demand repeal of the Patriot Act and the endless flood of Bush/Republican legislation that has eviscerated the Bill of Rights? End Military tribunals? NSA spying? torture? Don't hold your breath. Some pork barrel domestic spending? Sure, but not much more.
So the question becomes, how can overarching US imperial policy be changed regardless of whether Reps or Dems are running things?
Pulling out of Iraq would be a great first step but if the underlying US imperial policy remains the same, the problem will just reappear in another time and place. Pulling out of Vietnam (thank God, at last!) simply shifted the focus of US policy to the middle east and then fired things up in Central America a few years later. Start by considering the Defense Department's new Africa Command that has just been established.
Warfare is just economics in another form. Free Trade/WTO/cannibalistic capitalism, etc are at the root here.
If the US and its allies - and by that I mean their complacent, consumerist populations as well as their governments - cannot face the very, very real crisis, - the clear and present danger - of climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, destructive development, environmental degradation, and population increase, then they really needn't worry about terrorism, Islamo-fascism, Russia, the Chinese, or a nuclear Iran. They've got maybe 20 years before EVERYTHING starts breaking down, maybe 50 till the collapse, and then centuries to ponder how they can ignore their stupidity and try it again in the same self-destructive manner.
Good night and good luck.
by
Kyle Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 10:57:18 AM
Let's Not Overlook Bill Richardson; he is showing Leadership
Bill Richardson argued persuasively in an Op Ed published in the Washington Post in September that the U.S. must exit Iraq now. Richardson wrote:
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months.
by
Stephen Cassidy (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 11:05:55 AM
Must agree with Malloy that the illegal occupation of Iraq will NEVER be ended by an act of Congress because they were complicit in its origination. Many outwardly or secretly still support the occupation because of oil and military-industrial special interests that copiously fill up their campaign coffers.
So our only hope (besides removing most of Congress from office) for an end will be a future President that actually cares about something besides power and knows when something is ethically and legally wrong. And one that is willing to stand up to the fascist media interests.
Don't hold your breath.
by
John F Howes CPA (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 20 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 11:27:36 AM
The Democrats love the anti-war posture and then they turn around funding the war and pushing for the next one. The top-tier presidential candidates are the worst.
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 12:06:29 PM
I hope this was not e-mailed to any of our troops trying to complete this mission.These kinds of thoughts coming from"back homein America"is psychologically devastating to our troops fighting.Since I’m speaking to children I can use this for an analogy; when you tell a two-year-old child "no more baby bottle, big kids use sippy cups".Every time the child reaches for the cup, will you slap him/her in the face? These mindless mixed messages that our troops are receiving from back home in safe America are more psychologically devastating to our troops than the war itself.How does it feel to be the biggest contributor to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?Especially when our military is doing a damn good job!
by
Pat Smith (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 41 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 12:25:44 PM
The main point is that the war is a dishonest crime, and the US government is committing horrific war crimes to steal Iraq's oil. That's the main thing, and everything else is far secondary to that.
As far as "the troops" go, we are not the slightest bit obliged to pretend that what they are doing is justified, simply because they are "our men and women in uniform." If their mission is just, we should support them in the mission. If their mission is unjust -- as it is -- we should show our support for them by bringing them home.
You're confusing the justice of the mission with concern for our troops. These are two very different things.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1210 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 12:54:24 PM
You talk about those of us who are trying to extricate troops who are being betrayed by right wing leaders and voters who stupidly, or for partisan or for-profit reasons want to keep the war going? We know and have written how a significant percentage of right wingers have been abused and now suffer from PTSD, but it appears that YOU are engaging in what is called projection-- seeing in others what may very well be in your self.
The troops are waking up. More and more of them know that BUshco is betraying them and being supported by right wing profiteers and religious nuts who keep the war going as part of their pathetic apocalyptic beliefs in the rapture.
I wrote about this almost exactly two years ago, here:
Mr. Mynick has rebutted this right wing talking point very well indeed, yet , in spite of the many times this garbage gets slapped down,the stale and false talking point keeps rebounding.
Does this point to a refusal of those on the right to actually think things through? Are they incapable of processing thought and must rely upon the propagandists like Limbaugh et al for their political opinions? Have they no shame at blatantly displaying a total and complete lack of depth or any grasp of the political and military situation?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 5:42:47 PM
The anger management problem of the corporate profit machine
This article has gone astray from its inception and does not serve it's goal. Never-the-less, I have absolutely 0 faith, let me repeat 0, 0, 0, (can we see the zeros yet?) in the Republicans and Democrats to do anything good for the people of the United States of America, and indeed the people of the world (which is how we should be looking at Government now). Everything I hear and read, even the most outside the box sources fail to realize that we already have a major vacuum of fear and pain in this country that can only be filled with another civil war against corporate America. Because it is corporate America that has attacked the people. Like a common bully going after the week and small, America has 0 honor and integrity.
Allowing the Government to be founded to any degree of profit has caused this collapse. The only legitimate reason for any government to exist is to SERVE THE PEOPLE! A PROFITING GOVERNMENT does NOT SERVE THE PEOPLE! IT SERVES PROFIT!
The press's only reason for existence was to SERVE THE PEOPLE! Freedom of the press was instituted to stop GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOT SERVE THE PEOPLE! The press has been orchestrated into a fine tuned regulated conservative indoctrination media outlet that empowers the Government to control the people through guilt, shame and fear (terrorism). Legal help is regulated to those who have money, and labor earnings are reduced to increase the bottom line of those who are economically patriotic to those who create and support the laws that have usurped ALL of the Constitution's basic foundation of human rights.
ALL OF THIS IS BY DEFINITION AND ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, and the FOUNDING CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
The purpose of creating the United States Government was quite clear to the founders of this country. Put THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE in charge of the GOVERNMENT, NOT THE WILL OF THE GOVERNMENT in charge of THE PEOPLE!
The above statement simply is not a reality, that is, to anyone with honest open eyes and a real education straight from the two documents that started it all.
by
Darin Walker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 1:10:37 PM
During the anti-war march yesterday a chant broke out "Fuck the Republicans - Fuck the Democrats!
The feeling out on the streets, and indeed in the populace at large - other wise explain why 50% don't even bother - is that neither party gives a rat's ass about what the people think.
With very few exceptions, Kucinich, and yet even though he's the been right from the get-go and is the smartest of the bunch, no one gives him a snowball's chance in Hell (?), which says a lot about our screwed-up collective mental state in this country, not one of these so called representatives of the people are anything but. It's the money and their own asses they care about as innocent people die, as these cretins position themselves for their self-serving reasons.
War baby! Every state benefits from war. Hence we won't see an end to it until it consumes and destroys us. And all the postulating in the world isn't going to change that.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1684 comments)
on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 1:13:59 PM
