Kucinich on Budget: I Will not Vote for the Expansion of War

[bigtree]

April 29, 2009

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today issued the following statement after voting against H.Con.Res 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 2010:

"I am committed to doing everything I can to put our community and our nation on the path to economic stability. I led opposition to the bank bailout program TARP, I worked vigorously in favor of the stimulus package, and I have worked to save the automotive, steel and aerospace industries in America.

"I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. We are ramping up the war in Afghanistan, and have yet to find an end to the war in Iraq. Recent media reports indicate that we may double our troop levels in Afghanistan by 2010. This budget helps to authorize that expansion, and I will not endorse a budget that sends more of our brave men and women to a war without an end in sight."


link: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/29-9


related:

US House to speed war funding bill to floor-Hoyer
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2935633120090429

[FamousAmos]

1. Thank God for Kucinich

Finally someone who doesn't tow the party line, but rather has real moral values.

[TahitiNut]

7. He doesn't toe the party line, either.

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

2. Fine. Enjoy the bench, DK.

It's not like we don't have a majority without you.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Bye

[bigtree]

5. What distinguishes the majority

. . . from the few is their inability to act according to their beliefs.

-Miller

[Telly Savalas]

15. What action?

He offered a soundbite and reduced the very large margin on a vote by one.

To call that an achievement is setting the bar pretty damn low, don't you think?

[bigtree]

19. called it an action, not an achievement

I think he's correct in the stand he's taken against including occupation funding in the operational budget. Including it is clearly a political move designed to eliminate any open debate on the amount or the intent of the money and force recalcitrant members to kowtow to the will of the majority and advance the questioned policy along with the budget. That effort may well serve the expediency wishes of the leadership and the White House in moving forward with the president's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's a shortcut which eliminates any meaningful debate on the scope and nature of our military missions; something which I believe is Congress' responsibility to manage with their appropriations.

So, they took the easy way out. Good for them, but not so good for those of us who believe Congress should be more than a rubber stamp on the administration's military ambitions and goals abroad.

[lamp_shade]

4. Dennis... Dennis... Dennis... n/t

[bigtree]

6. ^

[Greyhound]

8. K&R #5, welcome ot the greatest page. The truth will out.

Whether we will live to see it is another question.

Principles make life so much more interesting.

[Mari333]

9. knr for one dem with integrity nt

[sohndrsmith]

10. My first inclination is to agree with everyone else's posts, but

I'm guessing things are not as simple and easily delineated as this argument assumes. Obama inherited these wars - and they're both complicated and ugly. I do not believe for a moment that Obama would arbitrarily send soldiers into harms way - ever. Additionally, I have the utmost faith in Obama's intelligence, understanding and judgment in dealing with the unprecedented crises placed before him to solve (or at least manage). He ain't a war-monger, and he's smarter than any Commander in Chief I've seen in my lifetime, and I have come to learn that what I assume to be the obvious "right thing to do" isn't always was is truly the right thing to do.

From what I understand, a large part of the funding related to Afghanistan is supportive rather than combative... facilitating training, education and the like. Perhaps that's changed. I find it hard to believe that President Obama would choose accelerated combat action unless not doing so would be worse. I am as anti-war as anyone (early on in the primaries, I took an online test to see who I was most aligned with and it was Kucinich) but I know that there are more variables than I know about or can even comprehend, and I trust Obama to do what is necessary and/or prudent for the situation at hand. That the action may be disturbing or incongruous, I still trust that this is one president who does not make such decisions unless not doing so would be more harmful in the long run.

So I guess I won't have a dog in this race (or is it horse? Or fight? - I dunno - you get my drift).

Things are rarely black and white - or absolutely right or wrong. And I know Obama is fully capable of understanding all variables and making the best decisions based on all such intricacies.

Didn't we determine that we lost MORE brave men and women because they didn't have the strength in number at the onset? Shortchanging troop numbers when we're already involved seems to be a surefire way to put our honorable troops in further danger than anything else. I don't want any of them there, but since we ARE there and if higher numbers keeps all of them safer, then I'm for the funding and the larger troop levels. The last thing we should do is make a skeleton crew of soldiers try to manage when doing so puts them at greater risk.

Maybe I don't understand. I assume I don't have the answers rather than know better than the President...

[patriotvoice]

27. "I do not believe for a moment that Obama would arbitrarily send soldiers into harms way - ever."

Please tell me, then, why you think the Afghanistan theater enhancement is required.

[sohndrsmith]

58. The operative word in my post was "arbitrary". I do not and

cannot believe that the President would increase troop levels arbitrarily. That said, I don't have the knowledge, information or expertise to say what is or is not required militarily.

From what I understood (and granted, I could be wrong), Obama was increasing our presence and numbers much of which would be for non-military operations, which I think makes sense. Providing services and development within the tribal communities is probably the most probable way of having a chance at dissuading their opting to work with destructive groups and forces - likely doing so largely because they don't really have a choice.

The country is, what, 70% illiterate? That is the sort of thing that is worth changing. If it doesn't change, progress isn't possible on any level. I don't think it's right or reasonable to just dismiss these people and communities simply because doing the right thing is difficult. Continuing to dismiss these issues keeps our troops at an increased and prolonged level of danger they don't deserve.

My assumption (which may very well be wrong) is that all of our troops in this region are more at risk without adequate support. Is thinking of the troops in terms of numbers (the assumption that "lower is better" is doing them justice? Maybe I'm mixed up, but my concern IS for the safety and speediest return for all our troops. I don't necessarily think that compromising either of these because we assume less is better - is the most prudent view.

-------
Excerpts from Obama's speech, March 27, 2009:

"This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort."

"So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground."

"At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. And that's why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run"

"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. And that's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans -- including women and girls."

Full transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/

[Greyhound]

57. So, what is the goal in Afghanistan? What exactly constitutes victory there?

His actions and proposals so far only indicate more of the same, protect our puppet regime and corporate energy assets.

Blind faith is simply foolish. All of "our enemies" in country know that we cannot defeat them militarily and they aren't going anywhere, so what is the plan to end this slaughter?

[sohndrsmith]

60. Victory? Personally, the idea of "victory" or "success" doesn't

seem to be an appropriate measure. It doesn't make sense to me, especially when it was defined in terms of a "War on Terror" which is like declaring war on dishonesty or evil. But the label was used deliberately in order to justify any and every action the previous administration cared to initiate.

The closest thing to victory, whatever that means (in my view) would be increased growth, literacy, independence and strength for these most vulnerable communities. An educated, self-reliant and progressing population is the Taliban's worst enemy, don't you think?

That "his actions and proposals so far only indicate more of the same" seems simplistic to me. You're equating Obama with Bush and that's something I don't understand.

Who of us knows better than Obama what should or should not be done? Who of us has access to all information the president does? If we don't, how reasonable is it to assume we have a better understanding of the situation - or can declare ourselves right or the president wrong? What we do have is the ability to assess what we see and hear and determine our level of trust, agreement, allowance or distrust, opposition and protest.

I completely agree that blind faith is absurd. I wasn't describing blind faith, I was describing confidence in the president, based on everything I've seen and heard over time. That isn't blind faith.

The assumption that Obama (or anyone) is or will be always right is absurd. He is fallible and human. But I have found his perspective, philosophy and the manner in which he addresses issues to be more exemplary than not. We have a President who is more intelligent than many of us (certainly me), and in that we are inordinately fortunate. Can he screw up? Of course. Will he screw up? Absolutely. He gets no automatic carte blanche from me on anything. But I do afford him a certain amount of confidence because he's earned it based on what he's offered thus far. That I'll maintain this belief despite in the face of proof otherwise isn't reasonable.

[lostnotforgotten]

11. One Of The Few Representatives With Courage In Washington - Go Dennis Go

eom

[Orsino]

12. More courage than almost any ten other "representatives" we could name.

War = bad.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Courage would be if his vote were the deciding vote.

This is a political statement that takes very little courage. It's in line with his beliefs and it's good that he sticks to his beliefs. It's more than can be said about a lot of politicians. But it doesn't take much courage to oppose something that is going to pass anyway.

[bigtree]

21. you should know damn good and well

. . . that IF he WAS the deciding vote, he would take the very same position. Rep. Kucinich has always voted his convictions, no matter which way the political winds were blowing. That's as good a representation of courage as you'll find on Capitol Hill. He can't help it if his actions are eclipsed by the politics of expediency.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

39. Do you fault lefties in swing states who may find themselves more aligned with the Greens but vote

Democratic in the presidential election?

Do they lack principle?

I personally don't think so.

[bigtree]

41. well,

that's a bit astray from the subject of his objection (which my point was directed to). What 'principle' was observed in supporting including the funding for the occupation in the operational budget?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

42. The question was: Would have have voted the same way if he were the deciding vote?

You seem to think that I'm implying that he's an unprincipled hack because he wouldn't. He might, he might not. But that wouldn't be because he was unprincipled, it would be because the choice would be a lot harder and affect a lot more people.

Here, his decision doesn't do anything but good and any negative consequences would only affect himself. He brings attention to a critical issue. But if his decision were to actually determine an outcome, could actually sink the budget, then his decision would have negative consequences no matter what he chose.

Likewise, N. Carolina lefties may really have significant problems with Obama. I know several that do. But they still voted for him because this election was so critical. If they lived here, in IL, they probably would have voted for the Greens because it wouldn't have mattered and a closer margin would have sent a signal. But when the entire country is at stake, then you have stop making perfect the enemy of good.

[bigtree]

47. I doubt the budget process would just end at that point

Either the leadership would come up with an additional vote, or they'd have to consider his position on the funding and work to accommodate his view in some way. That's where standing on his principle would pay off - for the Rep, and the country, I believe.

[Ikonoklast]

43. Hmmm. Dennis votes his convictions, sure.

Except when he decides not to. Or change them for political expediency.

Like when he was anti-choice before he was pro-choice?

Please don't tell me that Dennis doesn't know which way the wind blows.

[G_j]

45. what a load!

enlightened people sometimes change their viewpoints.

but do tell us about all these other issues he has changed on.

can't?
I didn't think so....

:thumbsdown:

[Greyhound]

53. Before he was educated by the women in his life, he was wrong on

that issue and voted those incorrect convictions, too.

Religion is a very dangerous thing.

[patriotvoice]

28. It takes very little courage to vote with your beliefs instead of the majority?

So, when your friends say "We're going to go rob that faggot then beat him senseless", and you say "No, I won't do that; it's not what I believe", you're saying that takes "little courage"?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. I think it's obvious that a vote in the house is slightly different than that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Which speaks very poorly of the courage of the majority.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. This is true.

[Echo In Light]

13. K&R for DK!!!

[LWolf]

14. Another thank you for DK.

One of the few politicians in Washington worth supporting.

[barbtries]

16. i don't get this refusal or inability

to end the warmongering. i can only surmise that DC is owned by profiteers.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Once again, I must wonder what his vote would have been if this vote mattered.

[JonLP24]

23. It wouldn't of mattered. If you have to ask the question then you don't know Kucinich very well

During the first Democratic Presidential debate at South Carolina State University,<93> none of the other candidates' hands went up when the moderator, Brian Williams, asked if they would support Kucinich's plan to impeach Cheney. In response, Kucinich retrieved a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution from his coat and expressed the importance of protecting and defending constitutional principles.

This is a pocket copy of the Constitution which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. We've spent a lot of time talking about Iraq here tonight and America's role in the world. This country was taken into war based on lies. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda's role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn't one at the time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution, we have to protect and defend this Constitution. And this vice president has violated this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on the stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there's at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its goodness, with its greatness, with its highest principles, which currently are not being reflected by those who are in the White House.
—Dennis Kucinich, New York Times, April 27, 2007<94>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kucinich#Impeachment_proceedings_against_Dick_Cheney

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. I like Kucinich. But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that passing legislation through both

houses is like pulling teeth. If there was one vote that halted proceedings, they wouldn't strip military funding out to get that vote because that would cost *MORE* votes to be lost. It is much more likely they would strip something good out to please some moderate. So what would this have accomplished except to make a good budget worse?

It sucks. It's not the way it should be, but it is the way it *is*.

[JonLP24]

35. Either way he supports legislation he believes in regardless of compromise

[SemiCharmedQuark]

38. Right, but one decision carries a lot more consequences than the other.

One actually carries near zero consequences.

The other is a ridiculous no-win option. Do you support the legislation that will help a lot of people but continue two wars that you disagree with? Or do you vote against it and let this good legislation that a lot of people would benefit from fail, but stand up for your convictions?

Either way, people will suffer for it. So what do you do?

[gulfcoastliberal]

30. You must be ignorant of DK's bio. He defended against privitizing Cleveland's utility co & paid for

it with his job. The man has integrity and there is no spinning it.

[JonLP24]

37. Not to mention he saved the city of Cleveland millions

I trust his judgment.

[Greyhound]

54. You have been given multiple source that answer your question, yet you continue

to post this rhetoric, why is that?

Throughout his career, DK has consistently voted his principles, even when those votes cost him that career and even when he was wrong.

[bvar22]

20. DK is one of the very few reasons I'm still a Democrat.

Thanks, Dennis.
K&R

[Individualist]

22. Same here

[LeftyMom]

55. Same here.

Getting fewer all the time.

[flvegan]

24. Thank you, Dennis.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. He's a troublemaking non-conformist. Too bad there's not more like him. K&R

Rather than the "go along to get along" cattle that infest the legislature.

[Wind Dancer]

29. Indeed!

The way he's treated by the DLCer's is shameful! I sure wish we had more like him representing us!

[spanone]

26. has dennis ever voted for a budget?

[JonLP24]

36. Did you read the article?

It says he rigorously supported the stimulus package.

[astonamous]

40. K & R !!!!

[960]

44. Dennis is such a troublemaker!

Too bad we don't have a few hundred more like him in congress.

[G_j]

46. DK is the best!

:applause:

[Vidar]

48. Bless you, Dennis.

[Dr.Phool]

49. I know Dennis personally. He ALWAYS stands by his convictions.

He's the only Congressman that I will donate money to next year. I voted for him in every election he's ever run in, from his first City Council run, through Mayor, against his recall, and Congress. Until I moved to Florida in 2003.

If I remember correctly, we all expected the Iraq war to end in 2007, when we elected Dem majorities in the House and Senate. How many excuses have we heard since then?

In the big scope of things, his vote may be only symbolic. But rest assured, he's voting his principles.

[bluesmail]

50. K&R Dennis Kucinich stands very tall for us little people. eom

[Karmadillo]

51. Nice to see someone representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

nt

[arikara]

52. I can't R anymore

but I can K for Kucinich!

[Norrin Radd]

56. kr

[bridgit]

59. well good for him