Russ Feingold: Democrats are going along with Bush on Iraq out of fear

Why the U.S. must leave Iraq

Sen. Russ Feingold says it's time to admit the war was a disaster -- and accuses his fellow Democrats of going along with Bush out of fear.

By Michael Scherer



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/10/feingold/index.html

Oct. 10, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold has latched his political future to the third rail of American foreign policy. This summer, he proposed a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq: Dec. 31, 2006. The date raises a specter that no one in Washington -- and especially no Democrat -- has been willing to broach: that the American people should begin to prepare for a political failure in Iraq, at least a failure by President Bush's standard of establishing, before the troops leave, a fully functional, democratic Iraqi state. It is not the first time Feingold has gone out on a political limb. In September, he was the only Democratic senator with presidential ambitions to support John Roberts. He was the only senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act. Before that, he spent nearly a decade fighting the culture of political payola, a fight he won in 2002 with passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation.

SALON: If President Bush came to you this afternoon and said, "I've got trouble in Iraq. What should I do now?" what would you say to him?

FEINGOLD: "Well, Mr. President," I would say, "we need to get the focus back on those who attacked us on 9/11." I would say to him that I was proud of the way he and his administration conducted themselves after 9/11. I thought his speech to the Congress after 9/11 was one of the best speeches I've ever heard by a president. I admired not only the focus but the bipartisanship of his approach in the lead-up to Afghanistan. We had a historic unity in this country, and I was pleased to be a part of it.

I would then say to the president that I believe the Iraq war was a divergence from the real issue. Unfortunately, in many ways, it has played into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. I witnessed the connection that has grown between Osama bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and now Iraqis who have been radicalized because of our invasion of Iraq. So I would urge him to think in terms of a strategy where we finish the military mission. I would ask him to put forward a plan to identify what that mission is, what the benchmarks are that need to be achieved and when they can be achieved, and that he publicly announce a target withdrawal date, so that the American people, the Iraqi people and the world can see that this is in no way intended to be a permanent American occupation.

F*ck this one more year noise. America out NOW! If we can admit that the war is a disaster, why prolong the tragedy for another 15 months? Does Feingold expect the situation to improve during those months? If it does, wouldn't that in itself suggest that a longer occupation might produce even better results?

This is not really the political courage to face the truth about Iraq-- it's an attempt to reinforce the proviso that the U.S. does not intend a permanent occupation. Of course, that's exactly what the neo-cons hope for, so Bush won't agree to an exit date, even one 15 months in the future. But why stay 15 more months if there's every reason to withdraw immediately? Does Feingold expect things to change between now and the end of 2006?

on edit-- I still can't get my head around this. Fiengold's statement can be framed in two equivalent ways. The first is: "Iraq is a disaster-- we should withdraw by next Dec. 31." The second is: "Iraq is a disaster-- we should continue to beat our heads against the wall for 15 more months." WTF?

While I want more of our leaders to speak up against the war, as Feingold is doing, the fact that they then turn around and propose essentially more of the same for some huge period of time is vastly frustrating. It is the endless shell game of co-option. The next latest excuse for why our children have to die for this disaster, for why we have to continue to kill Iraqis, is going to be: we have to continue with the carnage until our lease expires.

Out now.

I believe even Clark mentioned a "precipitous withdrawal".

and he's really starting to distance himself from the John Kerrys and Hillary Clintons who rubber stamped shrub's war. This will really work to his advantage in 2008. The tide has really turned against the Iraq War amongst the populace. An anti war candidate will really look strong in 2008...

our soldiers die for the next 15 months, without even explaining in which goal.

if Feingold has visions of leading the progressive left with this type of mediocrity against the war, he's living in fantasyland ...

I stopped reading my Salon premium when Manjoo completely dissed the election skeptic community after being amongst the first to report the dangers of Diebold.

Perhaps I will have to start reading again.

That's like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. You should start reading it again.

I lost interest as I read more and more at DU, incidentally.

Far cry from immediate withdrawal. Weird what people choose to hear.

He needs to ask both Bush and Kerry what the mission is. He is rhetorically asking his fellow Dems the question. Bush? Not so much, since he won't give an honest answer anyway. But you are right, he fundamentally agrees with the assumption that there is a mission.

Democrats of most stripes are in a pickle over the number one issue, differing only in shades of gray.

The US is prepared to accept even a fragmented Iraq if that leads to our control of the OIL in Kurdish and Shia areas.

This is one mission that should fail, is failing, and will fail no matter how many times we pray to Jesus for victory.

Bring the troops home NOW!

He gets a number of points right:

"...the military mission and the mission of having a democratic and stable Iraq are actually different things."

"I want the plan to recognize that drawing down our troops in a logical and safe way is a way to defuse the intensity of the insurgency."

"If we don't leave, our not leaving is a big part of the political instability. So it's an absurdity to talk in terms of, "How can we leave before it is stable?"

Here he changes the role of US military -- secondary to Iraqi government and military:

"...the current troops-on-the-ground military mission is not really the future for Iraq. ...it is our intention to continue joint military operations with the Iraqi government, with their permission, but targeted, laserlike attacks on terrorist elements, just as we are doing with other countries around the world, in the Philippines, Indonesia and other countries. In other words, we are not invading those countries. We are cooperating."

The PROBLEM: The US military cannot operate secondary to Iraqi government and military -- the Iraqi gov & mil isn't capable of leading right now and the blood is much too bad. We have to draw down US troops and leave UN/LAN troops in our place.

As long as he leaves the window open for ANY US troops/operatives to remain in the country - the oil conglomerates will maitain iron-fist control over the country.

No guts, just "positioning". The other alternative explanations for this bunch such as their stance being a well-considered strategic thinking just show you wouldn't want any of these people in a position to be applying that kind of intellect as our President. Because they are dead wrong.

his target date is just that and he said it depends on the politics working out there.

bunch. We need new leadership on Iraq, not a cabal pushing snake oil in different shaped bottles. Repackaging the same old shit.

What mission? Or rather, which mission? What a joke. Out now.

I notice that Feingold again refers to "some" plan, but refuses to acknowledge that Clark has put forward a plan. It does little to name a date, an action that puts the burden on us rather than the insurgents/Iraqis, if you can't identify a way out. We do need to make it clear to Iraq and especially its neighbors, that we will not establish any permanent military bases. That can take some of the heat off our forces.

As for setting benchmarks, while that sounds great, once the puppet government took over, all of the options are no longer in our control. So setting benchmarks may not serve us well.

Today, the formulators of "game theory" have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. Diplomacy is applying that theory, and thus must be part of "getting out." It's time to get serious about this. It's time to call every friggin Democrat including Feingold and demanding that they point out in every interview the lack of international smarts revealed by the bush bullying non-diplomatic approach. A staged withdrawal isn't going to serve the troops well if people are trying to kill them on the road. Get a friggin agreement already; apply some diplomacy. Hey, maybe we don't have to wait until 2006...how about that?

and too many DU'ers are such reactionary screamers they won't grasp what the Dems are doing regarding political strategy and Iraq (with advice from Clark).

Levin who's on Armed Service Committee is now saying we must make Iraqi politicians understand we're not there indefinately AND goes on to criticize Bush for sending mixed messages.


I believe that if the Iraqis fail to reach a political solution by the end of the year we must consider a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces. This does not mean setting a date now for departure. It simply means conveying clearly and forcefully to Iraqis that the presence of our forces is not indefinite and that our staying there requires them to come together politically, since Iraqi unity offers the only hope of defeating the insurgency.

The administration has been sending the opposite messages with repeated statements that we will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed. We should not mislead the Iraqis into thinking they have unlimited time to reach a settlement. As long as they think that way, they are less likely to make the necessary compromises. Gen. Casey acknowledged that that message is not being communicated forcefully to Iraqis.......

probably. We need some damn diplomacy! And you are correct, this huffing and puffing by the current players is not a plan.

pssst! Have you read "NonZero" by Wright?

1/ He did not propose a withdrawal plan. He is proposing that may be we can leave Iraq in 15 months, but we will still be there to help the Iraqis. He is totally silent on what happens during the 15 months to come and even imagine situation when we would stay later.

2/ Concerning his vote for Ashcroft: voting for Ashcroft allowed the Patriot Act to happen. I understand the senator has to justify voting for Roberts, but this is this type of BS that does not help. BTW, thanks for thrashing implicitly Wellstone.

3/ Voting for the $ 87 B: why I understand why he did it, this is not a consistent message with his supposed anti-war message, anymore than the fact that he considers that people who voted for the war cannot become strong antiwar people.

Feingold was long n 2 in my list for potential 2008 candidates. This interview will help me to position him just before Clinton.

contradict himself in this interview and with some of his recent votes. One big question looms in my mind concerning Feingold's positioning this war-does he speak from first hand knowledge and experience? Has he visited and revisited Iraq? Has he spoken with the soldiers over in there to gain their perspective on the situation? Or, is he just posturing, thinking that he made the right call the first time around and he "thinks" he is right this time to. Just some observations on my part. And, where is his plan to insure withdraw within his time frame? Lets face it, even a pull out over a couple of years needs a plan, a pull out within a certain time frame most certainly requires one.

said that 3 million south vietnamese were killed after we pulled out of there. Was he correct? He also gave me some insight into why they are still supporting busihie. He does not even know that bush has admitted lying about WMD and the link between ben Ladin and the Iraqis. He actually thinks that ben Ladin was in Iraq when we attacked them. He gets all his information for bad sources! Then when I started to ask him why we went into another country first if ben Ladin was in Iraq he starts with this bullshit "a marine always obeys his commander in chief" - they are hopeless. If all marines believe that shit then I am more afraid than ever. Do they not understand that countries often loose their freedom from an enemy within not from the outside? Look at Hitler.

OMFG. This is my head: :nuke:

All.

instead, i think what Democrats are doing is sitting on "de fence" ... they need to get off of "de fence" and take a real stand ...

Feingold is right that instead of showing Americans how tough we are, we are showing them how afraid we are to stand up for what we believe in ...

are afraid. There may be things going on that we are not hearing about from the usual media sources and conflicting reports abut the success of the vote coming up. This vote could change the whole perception of this war if the Iraqi's want and vote for the constitution.

not with things "we are not hearing about from the usual media sources" but rather about things we are not hearing from elected Democrats ...

the proposed Iraqi Constitution should rot in hell ... it's bullshit ... it's US manufactured oppression ...

do Democrats really believe the Sunnis will be stupid enough to support the US efforts to federalize Iraq and leave them with nothing?

hoping for peace, stability and democracy may be fine objectives but they cannot be achieved via imperial foreign policy imposed by the US military ... it's time for the US to get out of Iraq and let Iraq's future, however bloody, evolve ... as things stand now, elected Democrats are doing nothing but enabling the PNAC agenda and the neo-cons' quest for oil and global power ...

kettle black.

It's pusillanimity, pure and simple, that brought Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and the rest of the DLC crowd to support this horrid, and unacceptable war, even advocate for expanding it.

We need someone like an Al Gore or a Wes Clark, who has opposed this war from the get-go.

is interviewed and it comes out today....already, we're shooting each other in the foot.

Frankly, I'm not all that enamored with Feingold...just last week, he was all over Raw Story talking about a plan coming out of the Dem caucus. Around the same time, he was quoting dissing Clark's plan.

So, where is this guy's self-control or sense of timing or savvy? Or is he drinking some kook-aid and is it inflating his ego a bit much??

...but like many Democrats, he lacks foreign policy creds., and in today's world, if you're planning to run, you need them. I just think he's trying to build his resume. Hillary is trying to do it by calling on us to "punish Syria" and some others seem to be rushing to join organizations. But really, I don't think they "get it."

What I'm missing is Feingold's actual "plan." Saying...well we gotta get out, and we need some plan so we can start doing it in 06, is not A plan. So I keep reading these threads, but so far it's much ado about nothing. Sorry, folks...that's my take. Blaming other Dems cannot be the plan. The Dems aren't afraid, they are just protecting their "stars" who all voted to give bush a blank check, instead of standing up for what right for the country.

Also, I question all of this buzz about "time tables." To my thinking, coming out with an arbitrary time table doesn't hold bush's feet to the fire, but allows bush to blame Dems for being wishy washy.

I don't quite get that.

Being on the Foreign Policy committee provides photo ops an long trips and surface knowledge. Foreign Policy is a huge body of knowledge, a life-time study. He also is rather light on military strategy.

I give Feingold huge kudos for his understanding of Constitutional Law. He gets it. His votes to me are in line with our law and ideals. It is crazy-making unfortunate that people who vote to uphold our laws are now considered "too liberal." I honor Feingold for standing his ground for us. Anyone who voted in favor of the Patriot Act betrayed their oath of office.

While I can appreciate his desire to boost his creds., this piece goes too far. Many Dems. have been on our side in this, and they have spoken out.

"Some" plan is not "A" plan; which makes it not a plan at all.

As usual, Russ Feingold is a leader.

read the whole thing in it's entirety, that's my conclusion.

What is the Insurgency? Feingold has no plan.

Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense
by Michael Schwartz

1.The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;

2.The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;

3.Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;

4.The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0922-32.htm

not happen. Probaby this picture has been seen everywhere in the world but here.
There's no head-in-hands smilie for that.

no cojones.

!!!

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Those who agreed with the statement were also more passionate: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June.  (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos.

 

Ipsos 10/8-9
Zogby 6/27-29
Net Change
Support Impeachment
50%
42%
+8%
Oppose Impeachment
44%
50%
+6%
Impeachment Margin
+6%
-8%
+14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment "was much higher than I expected." At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment.  Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns. 

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.

The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).

"We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll," said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.  "But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress.  Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war.  The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war.  We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.'  What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush."

The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the Ipsos poll. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.

AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.

Footnotes:

1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.

3. Zogby asked: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment."

4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so "if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media."

n/t

It did happen. Also in about 20 other Mosques recently.