Our Man Kucinich?

   As debate heats up around Bush's "New Way Forward," it's a good time to review the current slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls and their respective positions on the war in Iraq. So, here goes.

   John Edwards has talked at length about bringing the troops home and turning the responsibility for Iraq over to the Iraqis ("We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people. The best way to do that is by actually starting to leave"), but he's been noticeably mum on the issue of cutting funding for the war. Ditto Tom Vilsack, who's come out vociferously against more deployments, but avoided the subject of funding. Joe Biden, too, has maintained that a troop escalation would be "a mistake," but insists that a reduction in funding isn't an option. Then there's Mike Gravel. Mike's suggestion that we raze Gitmo, set up a single payer national health plan, and withdraw from Iraq immediately, is a welcome debate. But he, too, stops short of advocating funding cuts. As for Chris Dodd, he's called for an immediate troop withdrawal ("searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand"), but he too has stopped short of suggesting that Congress unfund the war.

  As for Hillary? Despite her belated regret for approving the war (if I knew then what I know now...yada..yada..yada), her opposition to a timetable for troop withdrawal, her vigorous support for sanctions against Iran, and her recent statements ("we need to ensure that we are providing [our servicemen] with the support and resources that they need to get the job done"--a euphemism for continuing the war's funding) make clear that she'll have nothing to do with funding reductions.

   Then, of course, there's Obama who announced today with Sen. Reid that his "office is investigating what tools are available...to condition or constrain appropriations" for the surge in troops. It sounded impressive on C-Span this afternoon. But when he added that he doesn't want troops already in Iraq to be "shortchanged," we realized his investigations probably won't recommend a cut in funding.

  That leaves one Democratic presidential hopeful who's come out in favor of cutting funds for the war in Iraq: Dennis Kucinich. And as much as we find his supporters at times...oh, I don't know...idealistic?...we have to admit he's on the right track. "The only way we can bring the troops home," he said. "is by cutting the funding to this war--just like the Vietnam War." He also said, "the Democratic Congress has a mandate from the people to stop the war, bring the troops back home, and help Iraq take a new direction. We cannot do that if we appropriate more funds which set the stage for a sharp escalation of the war."

  Regardless of his perceived chances or the idealism of his supporters, we at the Populist Review have to admit Dennis Kucinich is on the right side of this debate. This war won't be contained, much less ended, by rhetoric, investigations, or calls for immediate redeployment. It will only end when Congress cuts funding for the war. We only hope that Sens. Reid, Obama, and their colleagues in Congress will come to that conclusion before this "New Way Forward" gets off the ground.

                                                   

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at [email protected]

Comments

[Andrea Hackett]

"It isn't idealistic, but rather outside...the mainstream discourse."

Well put, BK. I stand corrected. I hear so many complaints about Kucinich from my friends on the left, yet no other candidate has been consistently opposed to funding this war. Obama has been wavering and Edwards may yet come around, but Kucinich has been there from the start and I think that will help his candidacy this time around. Hillary, of course, is so concerned with her centrist image she can't be trusted to do the right thing.
For my money, it's Kucinich, whether or not his discourse has hit the mainstream.

[big kitty]

I don't think "idealistic" is quite the right term; on the contrary, Kucinich is quite specific in his arguments. The other presidential candidates you mention in fact have much less specific arguments--that is, in the spectrum that runs from concrete to abstract, they are much more abstract than Kucinich. And idealizations are abstractions of concrete reality. This allows them to maintain the status quo while maintaining an appearance of change.

It seems to me that Kucinich insists on the obvious logic of the matter: which is to say that he insists upon the necessity of ending the war and international cooperation in the rebuilding of Iraq. It isn't idealistic, but rather outside of the mainstream discourse. And one has to admit that the Bush administration has made the mainstream discourse rather flabby and weak and, well, idealistic.