 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 8, 2007 at 16:41:28
by Dennis Kucinich Page 1 of 3 page(s) |
|
 
|
There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity.
The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without establishing an ending date for the so called troop surge. By definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation, more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents who practice against our troops.
What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision is not President Bush's alone to make.
Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has the war-making power. Congress appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in Iraq.
There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them home.
It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.
If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of disaster.
The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created a financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are talking about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten. Their country has been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the Lancet Report which surveyed casualties from March of 2003 to July of 2006] the shredding of the social fabric of the nation, civil war, lack of access to food, shelter, electricity, clean drinking water and health care because this Administration, with the active participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, without conscience, without international law.
The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community.
I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die.
These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:
1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.
2. . US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.
3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.
Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
I agree
Let 2 + 2 be 4! by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 8, 2007 at 5:49:58 PM  (0+)
|
|
No, Thank You!
Mr. Kucinich: Thank you for having the courage, tenacity, fortitude, and wisdom to develop a plan to begin bringing our men and women home to safety and the process of healing our nation. I hope that many hear, understand, and support your message and commitment to affecting peace. by Lisa W. (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 60 comments) on Monday, Jan 8, 2007 at 7:35:09 PM (0+)
|
|
The missing part of the plan.
"the false and illegal basis of the United States war against Iraq," I'll be expecting to read, Congressman, your Articles of Impeachment for Crimes Against Humanity in the newspapers, forthwith. Crimes of the State Blog by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 9, 2007 at 2:50:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Impeaching Bush and Cheney
I feel that Mr. Kucinich is just the man to file the articles of impeachment against the two worst terrorists in the country. It is simply beyond belief that the Senate, Congress and the people have let them get away with all the criminal acts they have committed. I admire Mr. Kucinich for his courage and integrity. Go after them Dennis - we are all behind you. by Patrinka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 9, 2007 at 5:26:58 PM (0+)
|
|
I Respectfully Disagree Dennis
A Different Opinion of President Bush Take for instance the notion that we have no right to be in Iraq. We claim to be a Christian Nation. Do Christian's turn their back on other people like the Iraqi's, who are being rounded up and murdered by Saddam Hussein? Do Christian's turn their back on Iraqi people who have never really known peace in Iraq? You know I have been anti Bush for the past 6 year's; but then I tried to start thinking about the reasons why President Bush thinks the way he does. Iraq has been nothing but a hellhole since 1534 when Iraq was added to a conquest list of nations conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Iraq became a British territory after WWI, when the British did the same thing we are doing now, in setting up a government. They put Prince Faisal on the throne. Britain did a restructuring of Iraq's boundary's, by separating Kuwait, and making claim's to the Oil in Iraq and part's of Saudi Arabia. To this Day Iraq still disagrees with the taking of Kuwait. Throughout the 1920's and 1930's the Kurd's, the Shiite's, and Sunni's have been doing the same acts of murder and violence as they are doing today. I dare say that Iraq has been in a Civil War since the 1920's, even up to this period in time. How dare democrats blame the United States for the troubles in Iraq. From the 1940's to 1970's Iraq has seen coup after coup. Saddam came into power in 1968, and the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War unfolded; when the Shah encouraged the Kurd's to rebel. In 1975 the War ended when Iran agreeed to stop supporting the Kurd's if Iraq signed over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, on the Persian Gulf; a waterway essential for oil export. Then Iran's Revolution ousts the Shah, and Ayatollah Khomeini now became the leader of Iran. Iran is now declared an Islamic Religious State,and denounces all secular Arab countries. Saddam Hussein takes back the 1975 agreement of the Shatt al Arab waterway, and another War begins with Iran. Good old Uncle Sam comes to the rescue with Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Who is the protector of human rights there? When has the United Nations been able to do anything for Iraq? You really expect a United Nations Peace keeping force to do something now after all the years diplomacy has been a mere thumb up a donkeys nostril? If we do or did nothing and allowed Saddam free reign to assert his authority we would be as guilty and complicit in his crimes, wouldn't we! And as far as pulling out, to leave Iraq to its own vices is certainly a status quo play in the history book of Iraq. It would solve nothing. It would do nothing to make a positive change to Iraq through the many years it has been whipped from one dictator to the next. How is it right that we allow terrorists to control a vast amount of natural oil resources? I think it is beyond comprehension to let that happen; because they would sell the oil, to buy more, and more sophisticated weapons; maybe not from us; but from China, Russia, or whomever. I think the idea the US is stealing Iraq Oil is an outlandish lie. My point is that inaction is just as evil as what people claim the Bush administration as doing; claiming they are lying, murdering, and spreading their corrupt agenda, in order to take over a sovereign country. I find that to be a pretty weak assumption, because really Iraq has never been a sovereign country. Iraq has always been a hotbed of warring sect's and religious fanatics. Saddam being the latest and one of the most uncompromising; I think in all fairness didn't we give him a chance to come around? We tried to be the good guy to him. We supported him, even provided him weapon's, on a war we didn't want to get involved with in Iran. Instead he went quite overboard and started mass murders throughout Iraq, invaded Kuwait, and refused to cooperate with weapon's inspectors for 12 horrendous years. The people suffered. I could go off and start saying we should have been fighting against Britain for their bungling through the year's in Iraq...but I don't think that would be a remedy either. They had their agenda for the era and times they were in Iraq. They simply fumbled the ball by trying to appoint Prince Faisal, instead of educating them about Democracy. The more obvious thing to point out is how does a nation know how to govern when the people in charge never had a good education. Iraq has had no educational institution's that could actually teach about governmental responsibilities. In order to make positive change to Iraq, the leadership and the people need an education. That would be the first order of business, with American troop presense in the region. The only education they have learned is fighting and terror activities. Troops are necessary to broaden the effort to educate the people and guide them toward their own self autonomy. How much more can we stand by and allow this to continue? Then 911 happened in the United States. George Bush admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 911. And the Democrat's say he lied to take us into Iraq. Is that really a lie? Come on think about it! He did not say he was invading Iraq because of 911, but we invaded to stop all terrorists in the World. Saddam was a terrorist. All terrorist do not work together, or have the same ambition's, or make claim's to the same target's; but they still all want to commit terror and push their envelope of political dominance. Whatever the case is in concern to sexing up intelligence to make the case for war; I think those allegation's can easily be born on the side of anti Bush people. The fact is the crisis in Iraq already has been looming over the world for centuries, and to think Scooter Libby or some forged yellow cake document is going to be the last straw to take us into battle; is about as foolish as thinking Santa Claus will be crashing his reindeer sleigh into the new Freedom Tower. The frequent lie that has brought the most attention is where are the Weapon's of Mass Destruction? Where did they go? Do we really know? I remember the first invasion in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. I recall a number of Iraqi jets flew into Iran and landed. They were never destroyed or targeted by the US, since they were in Iran. Seems to me a similar thing could have happened with the WMD's. Now that Saddam was taken from power, Iran suddenly publicly announces it's nuclear development. Is it possible that Saddam's scientific technology and equipment could have crossed into Iran? That is a viable question to consider! I think we need to be real about these political attacks against President Bush, because the possibility exists. I really don't think any American wants to take the US into a false war; including George Bush. Leaving Iraq will not change the fact we will have to return to deal with Syria and Iran. I think it was necessary for the US to intervene in Iraq. The only thing I don't agree is in the planning. We failed miserably. But that does not mean we should give up. On the contrary if we gave up, Iraq would return to it's pre Saddam condition with other Saddam wannabe's grabbing for power, and asserting their wills on the people. It is as plain as it is today, with the numerous car bombings, suicide hit's, roadside bombing's and sniper's, attacking at will to push their respective cause. It would become worse if we left, and it would not solve one single thing. After all the effort's we have made in nursing this to a reasonable conclusion and the year's that have added up toward this moment in time would all be done for what? Believing Michael Moores film? Believing that fellow American's such as the Bush's are murderers and liars? I beg to differ! We can go on claiming it is about Oil. OK it certainly does have to do with oil. Keeping it out of the hands of terrorist's. Would you think George Bush to be more of a smart President if he invaded North Korea because they have a nuclear weapon, and no oil? I mean at least he is smart enough to realize that our troop's are dying for something, that has value which is Oil, and keeping it out of the hand's of terrorist's. Whereas N. Korea has nothing, except a possible Chinese mini nuke going off, luring us into another War on the Korean Peninsula, while the Chinese secretly and silently standby watching a war unfold. Then they will demand aid from America to help solve the issue. Chinese are like that. They are ready to do anything to expand their commie agenda...even flooding other countries market's with their cheap export's. Now think about Michael Moore's film, which called Bush a traitor to the US, because he appears to be making more money from the Saudi's than from the American taxpayer's. Well would you want him to be an enemy to Saudi Arabia? I mean after all; they sure have more Oil than Iraq, and probably a stronger army than Saddam's. Would that be smart to not have good relations with Saudi Arabia? I think not. I think George HW Bush Senior has done the right thing in befriending the Saudi's, and his interest's are truly for the United State's. The more we think we have the Bush's pegged and nailed, the more we should start thinking the other way about it, and hopefully we will see that what is at stake is; America. We need to have a unified America. The entire negative thing about George Bush is essentially in my opinion not really the truth. Let's consider the impeachment objective. Who in their right mind thinks GW Bush is going to be impeached? I certainly think it hasn't a dog's chance in the zoo. When we consider impeachment we look at our past and situation's that would bring comparisons. I am reminded of Vietnam. We had 58,000 soldiers die in Vietnam. We are nowhere near that number; that has died in Iraq. And Bush has only 2 more years to serve. We did not impeach Johnson; and Nixon was not prosecuted. In fact impeachment hearing's would bring these fact's to the table, and charge's would be leveled that the impeachment of GW Bush is really about the missed opportunity in impeaching Johnson and Nixon. It would become a historical witch-hunt to bring some sort of justice to the War hawk's who have taken us to war in the past. I just don't think GW Bush is anywhere near the comparison's of the Vietnam Era. With our sanctimonious quest to bring him down; it will divide the country further, as we have an unsettled Iraq, with looming political debris haunting us from Iran, N. Korea, and China's friendly sneaking tactics around the globe planting seeds of communism. Not to mention the troubles unfolding in Africa's Darfur region, Ethiopia, and Somalia genocide's. We need to come together as a country, and say hey perhaps George has not been able to tell us exactly like I have tried to today, but he is right that terrorism need's to be stopped, and it is a world problem. Being in China, I agree we need to strengthen our military, and expand it. And China is not at War. I only see the trouble that China cause's internally to it's people, as it entices the West with it's cooperation bs to help them become stronger. The United State's should always have a strong and mighty military. Also I just think we need to join the President, even if we think they stole the election. Al Gore certainly did not have landslide number's to support his win, so I think either candidate would have complained if they were on the short end of the count. Why is it popular President's don't have voter fraud, but suddenly the end to 8 year's of the Clinton year's, lawsuit's enter the court's to remedy election count's? We have become over dramatic to the theft of Democracy. Thinking about it from another point of view only strengthens our hand in the long run, in assuring we have the dignified and honorable democracy that American's strive and live for. If we do not think about it from all perspectives, we might as be like the people in Iraq always at war, with no hope in sight. God Bless America... May we take the resolve to love thy enemies even at home, and be broad enough in mind and stature to know which side of the law we; support. If we go off in accusing our local police of killing innocent people to stop a gang war, while gang's wipe out the neighborhood, and then we want our police to do nothing but leave the neighborhood, it tells me that people really know nothing about the rule of law. by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, Jan 12, 2007 at 6:53:08 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
