SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ

April 2, 2007

Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html

passes, but won't be holding my breath!

ww

Feingold noted in the interview that the center of gravity in the war debate on Capitol Hill has shifted steadily in the past year or two.

Feingold first proposed a timeline for withdrawal in 2005 and got little support even from his Democratic colleagues.

"Now a majority of the Senate has gone along with it," he said, referring to the language in the war spending bill passed last week.

"It's the same thing now with a binding timeline and the use of the power of the purse" to end the war, he said. "The very things considered lightning rods or dangerous, these things that in the past
were considered sort of extreme steps or premature steps, are now
considered mainstream," Feingold said. He cited Reid's co-sponsorship
of his bill as a sign of how support has grown among Democrats for more aggressive steps.

The Wisconsin lawmaker has been part of a small group of senators
in the party mapping out a legislative strategy on the war.
What emerged from those meetings several weeks ago was a consensus
to "move quickly from one level to another level" against the war,
to "ratchet up the pressure" by offering ever more ambitious anti-war measures.

"This is exactly what's been done," Feingold said.

Feingold called the looming standoff "a very major moment
in terms of not only this war but the relationship between Congress and the president."

The Democrat contended that "in the end the White House will
have to blink" because Bush will have to defend his own veto of the funding for the war.

"Congress can't afford to be characterized as backing down at this point. . . . If he vetoes it, he's basically challenging us to accept his will," Feingold said.>>>>>snip

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=585082

defend W on this one!

YESYESYES! Today, I am damn proud to be a Democrat.

Feingold is the real rockstar in democratic politics.

I want one!!! :patriot:

My only consolation is that Russ is young and there are plenty of potential runs in his future.

... then let him transition into his own White House once the country's back on track, where - of course - I'll be pleased to serve as First Lady.

Sigh. :loveya:

Otherwise I like your scenario.

:pals: I'm willing to share, for the good of the country ... :hi:

Ahem. :hi:

Can't resist guy who loves Sesame Street!


Or pug puppies! Hot damn!

:loveya: I'll let ya' have George, though, since my heart really does belong to Russ ...


:hi:

I am not giving up hope yet!

... it's Wisconsin :)

Good comment thread - 264 replies

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/2/85820/31816

but the idiot will continue to sail the ship of state onto the rocks. He's the self proclaimed "war President" and to withdraw from Iraq without him declaring "victory", in some way, shape or form, would be disastrous to his ego. And after all, this entire mess he's gotten us into is ALL about his ego. And oil, I almost forgot the oil. ;)

I thought the man had died in office, and was permanently petrified.

,

We absolutely MUST stick to our guns on this! There ARE adequate funds for our troops, if Bush did indeed support our troops and would use the funds, already appropriated to do so. But Bush doesn´t care. Bush doesn´t care about anyone except himself and his cronies. A parallel to this is the lacking effort as to rebuilding after Katrina and Rita and helping the victims of those storms. He doesn´t care. He never did.
So let us pressure Bush to "decide". Let us give him bill after bill, which he can veto or not. It is ultimately He who is the "decider" as to how to use the funds that are already there. Does Bush truly care about our troops or not, about our Country, e.g. the victims of Katrina and Rita or not?
WE must continue to act in a manner WE find responsible and if Bush wants to hang himself, let him.
What WE ultimately and ASAP must do, is to impeach Bush, ASAP!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Thank you for the welcome!

I am one displeased Texan. I DO wish that the Bushes would stop claiming their Texan identity. I sometimes wish they would move back to CT where they came from. But then that would be putting them in your backyard and wouldn´t want to do that to such a nice person.

something to bring these troops home and end this war.. He is also very much on top of the criminal activities of this administration... One day, he will help bring down this house of cards....

I too wish he would reconsider his decision to run in 08....

best part of this is that they (Dem's) can keep introducing similar bills regardless of the parliamentary dirty tricks we all know will come from the other side, it keeps the occupation and failures in Bu$h's face and in the eye of the public. I don't think the Republics will let it go on for too long before they start getting on board, election 08 keeps getting closer and it really hurts their reelection chances if they continue supporting Bu$h..

:toast:

"The Democrats have no plan."

*AHEM!* Yes we DO! Take THAT!:woohoo:

The Dems are playing this perfectly.

Give 'em hell, Dems! :headbang:

:toast: :toast:

Thats what I'm talking about. Now this is action and taking a stand. No doubt this will be hard to pass but if it does then its over. Finally.

... don't ask me I don't give a damn; next stop is Haditha Dam

And it's 5, 6, 7 open up the pearly gates; now it ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee y'all gonna die! :sarcasm:

It is time to stop the senseless wasting of human life.
It is time to stop the complete waste of American dollars.
It is time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis and invest our time, money, and effort in our own country.

But they don't achieve a damn thing. So, Reid and Feingold will send another piece of legislation through Congress, to much hoopla. Said piece of legislation hits the President's desk and dies an ignominious death under the veto pen. And speaking of dying, thousands and thousands more people will die in Iraq while these little pieces of political theater are played out.

The Dems need to stop fiddle fart fucking around and actually do something meaningful to get the troops home. Their best bet is to simply bury all supplemental war funding bills deep in committee. No votes needed, no need to go under Bush's veto pen. One simply starves the war beast and force the troops home.

It's part of what they need to do - a necessary part. MSM won't do it otherwise.

Doesn't look very flattering for DU.

The man knows what he's doing. If Bush vetoes this bill - which he will - he'll find a stronger version of the same thing on his desk in no more than two weeks. When he vetoes that one, too, it'll give the Democrats more ammunition and force a more active debate about Iraq - probably even forcing some of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates to show their hand on Iraq before they're ready or able.

I can think of 5 Democratic Senators that will vote against it as well as Lieberman and every last Republican. What good is a bluff when it is so painfully obvious? I'd like to think that Reid has secured the requisite votes for passage before making this gambit, but I don't see how that is possible.