Congressman Dennis Kucinich after opposing H.J.Res. 52, the continuing resolution for FY2007:

“We do not have to fund the war. The Democratic leadership must tell the President NO to any additional funding. We can separately appropriate money to bring the troops home. The only thing required is honesty, integrity and a willingness to end the war,” Kucinich said.

“The Democratic leadership is playing into the Bush Administration’s hands by continuing to fund the war. What this Congress must realize is that we do not have to fund this war. We must leave Iraq now. That is what the American people want. That is why they voted for Democrats to take control of Congress last November."

What do you think?

Did Americans put the Democrats in charge to end the war?

How's that going?

It did seem to be in the air that the Democrats, if elected to a majority, would pull troops out of Iraq.

One problem seems to be that - given the lack of any political progress - things are likely to get worse, or stay as bad, in Iraq before (if) they ever settle. The Democrats appear to be terrified of taking any initiative because it would mean any subsequent problems in Iraq would be "theirs" rather than You-Know-Who's.

Another problem is actually defining what 'an end to the war' means. Troop numbers will be coming down next year, more or less because of logistics - there's nobody left to send. But will they ever reach zero under any government? Having weathered (maybe) the worst intensity of anti-US violence, does (sorry if this begins to sound conspiracy-theory-ish) the Democrat leadership want to now pull out empty-handed; no oil deals, no friendly puppet-government, no permanent military bases for the US?

There's the right thing to do, and then there's realpolitik.

The Democrats are in a real dilema on this one. They chose to play politics on the war in Iraq. Should one of their own get in the White House, that could be a bigger problem for them than having another Republican to attack, which is really what they're all about any way.

To up & abandon the war in Iraq would be a huge mistake & they know it. Yet the Democrat Party anti-war base will be the ones who are deeply disappointed and feel a sense of betrayl. Which could open up a possibility of a 3rd party in 2012. What's to say some kind of a 3rd party anti-war candidate couldn't emerge in '08. While 3rd party candidates usually don't have a chance of winning, they do have the potential impact of siphoning votes away from one of the major candidates.

Although I see a certain amount of truth in what both LR and nnn say; it seems to me that Dubya and Co have created a mess that no one wants to be identified with, or has a clue to solving neatly.

LR says the Dems "chose to play politics on the war --".
Isn't that what politicians of every stripe DO, everywhere, all the time??

NNN says: "There's the right thing to do, and then there's realpolitik."
Isn't that the case with Dennis Kucinich? He knows he can't win the nomination - so he can afford to be gutsy and principled!

First of all, you've got to get elected!!!