Kucinich:"WE COULD EXIT IN 60 DAYS-People NOT Looking For Dems To Manage War-WANT Dems TO END WAR"

[kpete]

Kucinich: We could exit Iraq in sixty days
RAW STORY
Published: Monday December 18, 2006


Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich detailed the platform on which he plans to once again seek the Democratic nomination for President in an interview conducted last week with Congressional Quarterly.

Kucinich followed Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa as the second Democratic office holder to announce his run for the presidency. He told CQ that "People aren’t looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war, they want the Democrats to end the war and to bring our troops home."

To further this point, the Ohio Congressman emphasized that his plan for withdrawing from Iraq in sixty days was feasible. He explained that "if you go back to Oct. 1 when the appropriation of $70 billion began, the money’s in the pipeline right now to bring the troops home. Not only is it in the pipeline to bring the troops home, but to simultaneously provide for the security of the Iraqi people through supporting an effort by the international community and through inviting the international community and helping to sustain it. ... So why would we leave the troops in the field if we have the money to bring them home? Why would we continue the war by supporting another appropriation?"

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kucinich_We_could_exit_Iraq_in_1218.html

[TAPat]

1. Dennis has my vote in the '08 primaries

just as he had it in '04!

And yes, bring them home now.

[burythehatchet]

26. mine as well

[donsu]

32. me too - bring them home now - empty the green zone

nt

[MethuenProgressive]

2. And what of the resultant Ethnic Cleansing?

It would make Darfur and the Balkins look like a pajama party.
Kucinich fails here - he's sporting rightous blinders.

[babylonsister]

3. Do you have anything to back up your claim that the situation

would be worse if we left? I'm not so sure.

[JacksonWest]

4. To be fair-

How would we prevent Sunni's and Shiites from killing each other? Outside of occupation and force...

[babylonsister]

5. Occupation and force that would be neverending. Nope, that

cannot be the answer.

[JacksonWest]

29. I agree. I think we should withdraw-and except that there will be genocide.

There's genocide right now. You have two religious factions that are dead set on murdering the other at any and all costs. When we leave, it will become bloodier, for a little while.

[Zodiak]

15. We aren't stopping that as-is

and 20-30,000 more troops aren't going to stop the killing, either. We are just going to let it go on for two more years, with more death of soldiers and (mor eimportantly to the elite) two years more war profits and failures to address domestic issues.

What part of "there is no military solution for Iraq" do we not understand?

[JacksonWest]

31. I agree. I'm saying that we can't use "genocide" as a reason for

staying. These factions are going to keep killing each other and anyone that gets in the way. But let's not pretend there will not be some epic violence in the region. Iran is Shiite, Everyone else Sunni. Sunni considers Shiite Apostates, and want to install governemnts that rule under the Koran. So, basically, this fight will just get worse when we leave. Until one side wins. I don't see a way of stopping it right now, short of killing a lot of innocent people who happen to fall on a side we disagree with(that week).

[MadHound]

18. Sunni's and Shiites are killing each other now.

And they will continue to do so when we leave, no matter when we leave. We have made a mess that we cannot fix, and our ongoing occupation only exacerbates the situation. Best to take the hard medicine sooner and leave. Yes, there will be bloodshed in Iraq, but like I said, that's going to happen whenever we leave. But by leaving we will save the lives of those who would die at our hands if we stayed.

[K8-EEE]

49. Exactly! What an argument...

"what if what is happening now happens then?"

[mikelgb]

36. we aren't preventing them now

so what is your point?

[badgerpup]

75. We can't control everybody. And we don't have the right to try to do so.

I know that sounds cold, heartless, isolationist, and probably a lot of other things that aren't 'nice'...but I'm going to assume that the Sunni's and the Shiites are adults and are eventually capable of settling things between themselves WITHOUT U.S. provocation intervention.

Yes, this probably does mean there's going to be a lot of killing going on still, but sometimes there is no right or good choice.
This time, thanks to the fact that Bush has us where we never should have been in the first place, it's choosing the lesser of two evils.

There are probably a lot of other groups around the planet whose 'religious differences' are leading them into just as deadly, if not so flashy a conflict...but we aren't involved, and we won't be getting involved, since they have nothing that we want.
:sarcasm::banghead::puke::cry:

[cali]

6. It would make Darfur look like a pajama party?

Do you have any idea how many people have perished in Darfur. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing, that would make Darfur anything less than it is: GENOCIDE.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. The banner ad says 400 K.

Do you have any idea how many Iraqis have died since Bush invaded? He has our troops standing between the genocidal warring factions of a civil war. What's the plan Dennis?

[roody]

51. I guess we will have to reinstall Saddam.

[Bjorn Against]

55. About 650,000 civilians have died in Iraq according to the Lancet...

This war certainly has NOT saved the lives of any innocents, and you haven't presented any evidence to suggest that staying will save lives. You want to know Kucinich's plan, well he just laid it out for you. I want to know your plan because quite certainly the current plan is not working.

[Dhalgren]

8. So how many American soldiers do you think should die in as

effort to TRY (repeat, TRY) to keep the Iraqis from killing each other? 5000? 10,000? 59,000? The Iraqis have been kept, over the years, from killing each other by having a brutal dictator force them not to. Lord Bush steps in and removes said brutal dictator (and every one HAS to admit that it is better that Saddam is gone - right? Bullshit!), and now the US military is unable to keep the Iraqis from killing each other. So "good Americans" want to become brutal occupiers in order to keep the Iraqis from killing each other. But the Iraqis are killing American soldiers and in all of this hellish mix Iraqi civilians are dying by the thousands.

So, go ahead and make the case for continued American occupation of Iraq in the mist of a civil war. And tell us how US troops in Iraq are preventing a bloodbath, because it is a bloodbath right now. The US CANNOT (repeat, CANNOT) stop the Iraqis from killing each other. Only a world-wide effort can do that and, of course, no other country will even touch upon this topic while US troops are occupying Iraq. So, let's hear your plan for "fixing" Iraq and give us your number of dead US troops that would be justified in the failing attempt. TIA...

[MethuenProgressive]

10. So how many Iraqi civilians does Dennis think should die?

After all, it is *his* plan.

[Dhalgren]

22. If the Iraqis cannot find a way to work and live together, that is

their burden to carry. They are adult, human beings - not children that you or anyone else must "care for". We fucked up their country badly, granted, but our continued occupation is doing more harm than good. You cannot say that the presence of US troops in Iraq is "helping" anyone but the insurgent recruiters. We should help the Iraqis as much as we can, from a distance, and with UN backing. Not one more Iraqi should be killed by an American soldier and not one more US soldier should be killed trying to force the Iraqis to do what they so obviously do not want to do. The US presence in Iraq is a huge part of the problem - not a part of any sane solution. It always makes me crazy to hear someone say that "if we leave there will be chaos" or "lots of people will die" - for the love of the gods, that is what is happening right now with the US over there! Kucinich is completely correct, 60 days is enough and too much! US out of Iraq NOW!

[MethuenProgressive]

25. If the Sudanese (Darfur) cannot find a way to live together (??)

I'm just saying - we're the ones that caused this in Iraq. Should we really just turn our backs on the victims we've created? What about them, Dennis?

[Yavin4]

30. Then, What's Your Plan?

Stay until the warring factions like each other? That may take centuries.

[Dhalgren]

37. This guy has no answers. His is just a lame attempt to justify

Bush's war and occupation. This is an even lower tactic than Trojan Horse...

[treestar]

52. The term genocide does not apply to warring sides

Isn't genocide one-sided?

[Tom Joad]

40. Edwards plan was to support Bush with the IWR. His plan cost

650,000. So Far.

US troops are making things worse.

[Vincardog]

50. How did Bush's blunder and illegal occupation of Iraq become Dennis's fault or plan?

I do love the reich wing's inability to take responsibility for ANYTHING.

[Bjorn Against]

56. None, he has opposed this war from day one.

Again where is your evidence that the killing will increase if we pull out? 650,000 have died since this war began, how many more will die if we stay?

[MadHound]

16. Don't you get it yet? Don't you understand?

It matters not when we leave, next week or next decade. When we leave Iraq, that country is going to immediately devolve into chaos and bloodshed, period. All that our continued presence is doing is prolonging the inevietable, killing more innocent Iraqis, and getting our own troops killed.

We cannot manage the situation, we cannot rebuild this nation. Any institution or organization that we set up is going to be considered illegit on the face of it, and will be torn to shreds as soon as we leave.

So why should we continue to prolong this madness? All that we're going to achieve by doing so is increase the body count on both sides.

Kucinich is right, it is time to bring the troops home NOW!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. So we should stay in Iraq?

Are you planning on enlisting?

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Another course-stayer.

So about that ethnic cleansing, exactly what do you think is happening right now? According to the Lancet study, as of the date they published theor report, 650,000 Iraqis were dead as a consequence of our destruction of their country. We are causing the violence and our continued presence there just makes the situation worse. We cannot fix it. We have demonstrated that, it is a simple established fact.

[rodeodance]

7. umm.. wonder if the 'international community" will join? or if JR will even

ask them (as dennise assumes)

[Warren Stupidity]

73. The regional powers will be forced to get involved.

Turkey, Jordan, Syrai, Iran, and the gulf states will have to figure out what to do with the mess we have made. At least they actually live there, have a vested interest in a peaceful resolution, and actually understand the people and culture of the region.

What is absolutely clear, proven by three years of complete failure, is that we cannot resolve or fix Iraq, we cannot even prevent it from getting worse every month. Demanding that we remain and fix it is insanity or idiocy.

[Cameron27]

9. This isn't a plan, it's a wish list.

"Not only is it in the pipeline to bring the troops home, but to simultaneously provide for the security of the Iraqi people through supporting an effort by the international community and through inviting the international community and helping to sustain it. ... "

What effort by the international community and exactly how are they going to provide for the security of the Iraqi people?

What kind of mechanics are involved in withdrawing the troops while simultaneously getting an "effort" by the international community up and running--all in 60 days.

edited: spelling

[Junkdrawer]

11. We screwed the pooch...The longer we stay, the worse the bloodbath...

when we leave.

Had we left in 2004, it would have been a smaller bloodbath than it will be now...

If we leave in 2008, the bloodbath will be that much larger...

No happy endings to this one. We are the problem.

[Cameron27]

14. That's the truth

but he's making it sound as if he's going to prevent the blood bath by some unknown "effort" by the international community; I'd like to know what he's talking about.

[jsamuel]

17. not that you are, but that is a clasic repub line "Raising the minimum wage

{fill in the blank} isn't a plan, it's a wish list."

"That's all well and good, but how are you going to pay for it?!"

[Cameron27]

19. In this case, I DO want to know what the hell he's talking about.

He's flinging out a lot of nothing. What are the specifics, and how is it only going to take 60 days?

[Nederland]

58. Exactly

The simple logistics of getting everybody home in 60 days is unobtainable, let alone the rest of his claims.

[bettyellen]

68. not if we don't insist on hoggiing the oil profits ....

we have been too greedy and wrongheaded to attain allies in this. that could change n the blink of an eye,
because of the oil.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Uh bullshit.

I guarantee that there are workable plans in the table in the pentagon for packing up and moving out, right back down that road to kuwait, in about the same time it took to move in, which was something like two weeks. Oh of course we leave or blow up a lot of shit we brought in over the last three years, but that is what you do when you are retreating.

[Nederland]

81. Bullshit yourself

The troops didn't move into Iraq in two weeks. Bush and Co. planned this disaster for years...

[Warren Stupidity]

84. March 20 - April 9. 2003. Kuwait -> Baghdad.

Ok 20 days. Call it three weeks. So I'll give them three weeks to haul ass out. Note that was three weeks including destroying the Iraqi Army, getting stalled by a sandstorm, and being real cautious about moving into Baghdad after reaching the city April 2.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The money is certainly there. The courage to withdraw isn't.

The absurd idea that the presence of our troops is preventing sectarian violence is belied by the daily reports of the carnage they engendered.

[tabasco]

20. A true and courageous leader.

That's the kind of guy that I want running this country.

[QuestionAll...]

35. the only kind of guy

to save the country or at least get on the path to.

last chance.

If america still doesn't 'get it', and elects yet another war-monger lite dem - it's just plain sad and tradgic and I for one will certainly be looking upon the whole country with different eyes because you know the score, you know what that beast in the wh has been doing, you know the seriousness of this all but if you also knowingly choose to stay on the same path of destruction, but with another name that happens to be dem, you're all dead to me.

you have a chance, take it for god's sake.

[endarkenment]

21. Dennis speaks for me.

he has more support. No Democratic candidate who supports this war in any form will get my vote in the primaries. So far Dennis stands alone.

[Hideboh]

23. He is exactly right as always

To protect specific population is not the right strategy at all.
We all Know that the sole purpose for this is to prop up the poppet government to exploit Iraqi people.
This whole "war for oil" endeavor is just so disgusted:puke:

[newyawker99]

33. Hi Hideboh!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MethuenProgressive]

24. DU sez: Darfur genocide - Bad. Iraq genocide - Good?

No one here "supports Bush's war" or wants a single more American casualty.
But the Iraqis deserve more than abandonment, and that's all Dennis offers.

[Karenina]

28. The U.S. *MIC is committing genocide in Iraq

NOW. What the Americans have ALREADY DONE is GENOCIDE. Iraqis who survive the bloodshed are condemned to slow death as the U.S. has turned their land into a toxic waste dump.

[Dhalgren]

38. Ok, we have heard you trash Kucinich's sane idea - so what do you

support? And if you don't answer we will know who you really are. If you do answer and it involves more troops for a longer stay, are you willing to join-up and go participate, in uniform, in the plan you support?

[MethuenProgressive]

43. I'll support a sane plan - and I've yet to hear one.

You and Kucinich want us to abandon the victims of Bush's war which will result in a genocide of Iraqis, and the Repubs want us to stay forever and pound in more troops and cash.

None of that is "sane" - only the insane would support either option.

[Bjorn Against]

59. So you say there is no sane option...

Yet you tear apart Kucinich for not having a plan when you don't have one yourself.

Kucinich did not start the violence in Iraq and he can not magically make it go away, but you do not have a plan to make the violence go away either. No one does.

However at the very least Kucinich has a plan to stop the violence which is initiated by our government.

The blood is on the hands of Bush and everyone who supported his war, Kucinich's hands are clean.

[MethuenProgressive]

61. I said I've yet to hear one, DK hasn't offered a plan, just a slogan

"Yet you tear apart Kucinich for not having a plan when you don't have one yourself."
Nice echo of the pro-Bush talking point...
And naught for nothing, but:
"...tear apart"? By commenting on this one issue? You DK people are in for a rude awakening if you crumble into tears over someome simply pointing out the obvious flaw in his logic.

[Bjorn Against]

69. How am I echoing a pro-Bush talking point by supporting Kucinich?

Wow, I never thought someone would claim that supporting Kucinich's plan is echoing a pro-Bush talking point.

You have consistantly attacked Kucinich on this thread for not having a plan and then when someone points out that you don't have a plan they are echoing a pro-Bush talking point.

So tell me which plan is closer to Bush's, your idea of keeping troops in Iraq for who knows how long, or Kucinich's plan of withdrawing them. This ought to be interesting. I must say you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that Kucinich was anywhere near Bush's position on Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

39. Abandonment? that is the word for ending US aggression?

echos of Nixon et.al. talking about those who wanted US troops out of Vietnam.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Abondonment? Like the Germans "abandoned" Poland?

Or, the United States "abandoned" Vietnam?

[Tom Joad]

47. Or Saddam abandoned Kuwait.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Indeed.

When exactly did an illegal invasion and occupation become the moral authority for further occupation?

The circular reasoning of the china shop idiots is amazing.

[pberq]

27. Go Dennis! - a voice of sanity - K&R

[mike_c]

34. DK speaks for me-- U.S. out of Iraq NOW....

eom

[NotGivingUp]

41. Dennis has my vote, and I'm gonna do all I can to get this man elected.

[MethuenProgressive]

44. We all want our troops out & Bush's war over - so f*ck the Iraqis?

Is that the DU group-think? Support DK's plan to abandon the victims of US aggression? If that's the best DK can come up with, you'll have to pardon me for wanting to hear someone to come up with a less Republican idea.

[eridani]

53. With what we are now spending on a war of aggression, we could spend--

--on compensating Iraq for the damage we have done there. To not withdraw our troops is to assert that after you have taken your hammer and smashed a set of dishes to smithereens, you are therefore obligated to make another set with nothing but the hammer as your tool. Would the owner of the dishes want you to stick around to try to do this, or just get the hell out and give him the money to replace them?

[Bjorn Against]

60. The violence is consistantly getting worse in Iraq the longer we stay...

A "less Republican idea" are you kidding me?

You are promoting a position much closer to that of the Republican Party than Dennis is.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. "Republican Idea"?

The Republican idea is to escalate our presence with a massive new infusion of combat troops. The centrist position appears to be 'do nothing and hope the problem goes away'. The sane position is to get our troops out of Iraq where they are doing nothing but harm, get the regional powers involved in reaching a peaceful resolution to the mess we have made, and of course to pay for the costs involved. Did you even read Kucinich's plan? I think not.

But what is your plan? How exactly are you proposing to 'fix' Iraq?

[no_to_war_economy]

45. go Dennis go !

[diane in sf]

46. thank you Dennis

I agree. Let's put the money in developing new, clean energy sources.

[Clark2008]

48. No - we couldn't.

I like Dennis, but I'm afraid he doesn't have any practical knowledge of the military.

It would take about four to six months to get everyone and all the equipment out. And that's just a rough estimate - it probably would take longer.

[eridani]

54. The execution of tactics and strategy is what we pay our military experts to do

We are the ones who have to set the goals, and the only way to do that is to elect representatives who advocate those goals.

[Cameron27]

65. The goals have to be realistic though.

Since we have only the goal, but not the logistics of how it's going to be done, how can we judge whether the plan is realistic or not?

Is he aiming for a UN support team, or another multinational effort and how is he planning on recruiting their support? Will this be a military force or diplomatic? How long will this "effort" be in place?

We all want to get our forces of Iraq, and I'm not even suggesting that this is a bad plan, there's just not enough here to judge.

I haven't made any progress in googling the total amount of equipment and personnel that needs to be transported out. I'd appreciate any info on that if anyone has it.

[eridani]

79. What is realistic changes minute by minute

Not an excuse to avoid setting troop withdrawal as a goal.

[Clark2008]

80. Yes, but it's still not LOGISTICALLY possible.

Look, I asked several people, my husband included, who all served in the military before I made this comment (well, actually, I asked months ago) and they all, to a one, said it would take a minimum of four to six months just to physically get everyone out. Period.

It's not that the military cannot be a well-oiled machine, but when you consider the ships, the planes and the manuevers, the tactical pullout cannot be physically accomplished in 60 days. No way.

[eridani]

82. The important thing is making a firm commitment

If realities on the ground change, 90 or 100 days is fine by be. Everyone else seems to be waffling on the subject, and tiptoeing around the issue of permanent bases and that atrocious palace of an embassy.

[Capn Sunshine]

57. Well, the snails pace of CENTCOM might get preempted

It wasn't our decision to get out that fast in Saigon, either, but events overtook military process.

The way things are going in Iraq, there might be more similarities to Vietnam yet.

[Vidar]

62. Good for Dennis.

[Disturbed]

64. Kucinich 10 point plan

Kucinich 10 point plan

1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2.The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.

10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.

[Cameron27]

67. And he's proposing that will be accomplished

in 60 days?

It may take longer than that just to get it through the UN Security Council, and then how many days to withdraw our forces, and equipment out of Iraq?

[Warren Stupidity]

74. We can get out in less than 60 days.

It took two weeks to get in. Out should be even quicker.

[Pachamama]

78. I think its a great plan...but I do think it would take longer than 60 days - more like 120 days

From what I have been reading about "re-deployments", it would take atleast 3-4 months to completely redeploy and withdraw our troops. Also, if we were to follow the plan above (which is great) it would require some work with the members of the UN etc. to implement and could take about 2 months just to get agreement on the plan.

But at this point, even if it was 6 months, that is far better than what Commander Cuckoo Bananas is proposing for us by sending in MORE TROOPS!

[eridani]

83. The important thing is the commitment to withdrawal--

--not splitting hairs on exactly how long it will take.

[EndElectoral]

63. I'm seriously considering voting for this guy...I wish the rest would wake up

[OzarkDem]

77. Thanks, Dennis!

He's the only one thinking clearly on this topic right now.