This makes me sad. No, angry. Okay, both. Bear with me, this is a rantata for sure…
Russ Feingold, a Senator I respected for voting against IWR has just posted on dkos a diary on Iraq – Iraq: Looking Back, Looking Forward. So far so good, yes, we NEED to look back as well as look forward.
But he doesn’t. No, he specifically says this:
It’s important to talk about how we got into this war to begin with. But what’s more important now is that the President, who didn’t plan effectively for war in Iraq in the first place, acknowledge and respond to the current realities and get our Iraq policy, and our national security focus, on track.
Now, most would say, ‘well that sounds reasonable. We’re there now and we need an exit strategy.’ True.
But, it is NOT “more important now” for Bush to “acknowledge and respond to the current realities”, it is of CRUCIAL importance NOW that this treason never be allowed to occur again, or the Republic is lost.
The President of the United States LIED to send the country into war. He authorized torture that is still on-going and still official policy. He is holding people without trial or charges. He has destroyed liberty and the Constitution. And THIS is not what is IMPORTANT now? Bullshit Russ.
How about this, if you think what is most important is a timetable for withdrawl then take your plan to the people instead of hoping Bush will finally do the right thing… I feel like I’m watching the definition of insanity play itself out in front of me…
Instead of sitting on your hands waiting for Bush to tell the country what he plans to do in Iraq, perhaps the DEMOCRATS could come up with a plan to present to the American public? My fucking lord, what the hell is wrong with this party? Even it’s most liberal members have no clue what it means to be in Opposition… man I miss Wellstone.
But Feingold is parsing his words and playing the politician… how else to explain the following in the same, short, diary?
On Veteran’s Day, the President gave yet another speech trying to defend his Iraq policy. He uttered over 5800 words, but not once did he provide the American people any timeframe for our military mission in Iraq or any sense that he has a plan for bringing that mission to a successful end. Instead, he used the same platitudes and empty rhetoric that the American people have already made clear they don’t buy.
You know what else he did in that speech Russ? He laid out his case for invading Syria too… but I guess that isn’t a pressing issue to discuss either, let’s just let history repeat itself and move forward as Nero continues to fiddle.
One other thing… too bad your fellow Dems weren’t shouting about his empty rhetoric back when he gave his “Axis of Evil” speech… coulda saved a whole lot of lives… and the American people realized this on their own after Katrina… thank god for that hurricane to finally expose their criminal incompetence eh? ‘Cause hot damn, the Dems would never have been able to do it on their own since they keep talking about what a swell guy he is while accepting a new nickname… Sorry for being so harsh Russ, but this is not 1990, this is almost 2006, the country is in ruin, the whole world hates you, and people need to know that the Dems STAND for something other than asking politely that the president please do his job…
So, before I continue ranting about Russ, it’s only right to give his plan a fair hearing…
In August, I put forward a target date to complete the military mission there – December 31, 2006 – in an effort to break the taboo among my colleagues against even talking about a plan to complete that mission.
I am pleased that the silence has finally been broken and this week the Senate will be voting on an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill that, in part, calls on the President to report to Congress with a flexible timetable to finish the military mission in Iraq and bring American troops home.
While this amendment, which I drafted with several Democratic colleagues, is a pretty modest proposal, it is clear that an increasing number of elected officials are finally realizing what a majority of Americans already know – that the President’s “stay the course” rhetoric isn’t a strategy for success. In fact it isn’t a strategy at all.
Over two and a half years since the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were sent into war in Iraq, they are still waiting for what they should have gotten at the war’s onset- a clear, realistic military strategy with a flexible timetable for achieving our mission. The American people, and our troops in Iraq, have been waiting for that for far too long, and we can’t afford to wait any longer.
Sounds not so bad right? Not in my book. He is playing right into the neocons hands.
Is a timetable for withdrawl all that’s needed? Really? Wow, that’s awesome, I had no idea. So, just give the troops a flexible timeline and all will be right with the world? And as for that timetable… have we learned nothing from Bush yet people?? If you give him “flexible” as an opening then the troops are never fucking leaving. There will always be a reason to extend the timeline due to “changing circumstances”… like an invasion of Syria. Or “attacks” on the oil pipelines.
And then the coup d’ grace… what is it Russ that the troops should have gotten at the war’s start? Right, a strategy. All well and good of course, and absolutely true under normal circumstances, but you know what they really should have gotten at the start and what they deserve now?
A Democratic party who didn’t buy the fucking lies that Bush was spewing back in 2002. You know, like the millions of the rest of us around the world didn’t buy it. Remember all those anti-war marches? Not everyone was drinking the kool-aid and THAT is what the brave American soldiers deserved.
Not to be sent to Iraq to begin with, not a fucking military strategy to win the war. Or are we still on the “Powell Doctrine” kick to make you seem like you aren’t “soft on the military”?
And if you, the most “liberal” member of the Senate left doesn’t get that, I weep for the Democratic party all over again… because you know what, you don’t deserve to determine national security strategy if you don’t.
And finally… how on earth can you say “achieving our mission” in Iraq with a straight face? The mission was bullshit. The mission was a power grab & oil. The mission was destroying Mesopotamia. The mission was giving Halliburton and KBR new contracts. The “mission” was based on LIES. So excuse the fuck out of me Russ if I care not one bit if the US ever achieves that mission… well, I should say… continues to achieve that mission.
For the parting words, I leave you with this interpretation of Bush’s “revisionist history” schtick…
However, the President’s recent efforts to suggest that those who question the basis for war are undermining our troops smack of desperation.
No sir, it does not smack of desperation, it smacks of McCarthyism, Orwell and fascism and it’s about time the Oppostion party realized, truly realized, what they are dealing with here.
2006 is right around the corner and if you lose then (which, if you have any kind of brain on your shoulder you would be screaming about Diebold and the suppression of minority votes, but whatever, that’s too much to ask I suppose), the Republic is finished. I would appreciate it if you and your fellow party members would take that to heart.
Cross posted @ Jaded Reality
having to focus on attacking those on “our side”, but it’s just killing me that they never seem to understand, think for themselves, stop playing politics, come up with solutions, or LEAD. Goddammit.
The “Powell Doctrine” flowed from the Weinberger Doctrine:
The proximate event leading to Weinberger’s speech was the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut airport on October 23, 1983, in which 241 marines died.
The doctrine was, and is, valid. Powell on Gulf I:
It is important to remember the 25 million Iraqis whose country, and lives, have been nearly destroyed over the past 2+ years. They are not glassware, and they don’t live in a china shop.
I agree the doctrine is a valid one for a “just” war, but it is not a catch all solution for imperial adventurism which is how the Dems have been using it… “if only they had listened to Powell and just invaded the oil fields, or had more troops, everything would have been peachy…” That is just being an apologist for an illegal, immoral war, not practicing sound policy…
</rant>
This is dead on… “It is important to remember the 25 million Iraqis whose country, and lives, have been nearly destroyed over the past 2+ years. They are not glassware, and they don’t live in a china shop.”
Pottery Barn indeed.
We won’t be getting any. The nation is not interested in resolution.
The French, as with all nations, have their faults, but ti is possible to hve rational, intelligent, comphrehensive discussions about Vietnam (their nightmare AND ours) and Algeria.
In fact ordinary French used their knowledge to try to counsel us against Iraq. I am nto speaking of the government. A 65 year old Parisienne friend said to me,
they will be picking you off on the streets of Iraq, like bunches of carrots, slaughtered.
IN the 04 run we furhter obscured ANY truth, on both sides, of Vietnam. There is literally no hope of consensus on the horror of that war. NONE.
Spain proved in the face of 11 M what sanity is:
they pulled together as a coherent and cohesive nation, they identified that Aznar was lying to them about internal strife (ETA) and they voted the bastards OUT. The pay off, they get a forward moving liberal social democrat who defied the Catholic Bishops and they have gay marriage.
America is locked into a death dance.
Exactly. And I think your points about Spain are in direct contrast to what so much of America has become… McAmerica.
Death dance indeed.
The jist of McAmerica is that in an environment where dissent is not tolerated and people are becoming more and more accustomed to just “shutting up and following orders”…
If we had kept Democrats feet to the fire they might not have just passed the most wretched bill since the institution of slavery. So it is complete HOGWASH to sit idly by and not say something when these autrocities are happening IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY… I for one am not yet a McAmerican.
I’m really starting to suspect that the Democratic party politicians aren’t seriously opposing these measures because they agree with them. They just like being able to play the underdog, so they can line their own pockets with campaign donations.
LOL Yes there is not much proof that 06 and 08 will be substantially different. Wins or no wins. OVer and over the R grab both the extremist position, and, when it falters, a more moderate voice and thus get both sides (in a twisted way) of the argument.
Democrats speak up late or never. By then the (twisted) conversation is ongoing and they are not part of it.
They ARE getting it. Not as fast as we all would care for them to but they are. Feingold has gotten it from day one, just look at his votes. Can you imagine how frustrated HE must feel being one of a handfull that get it? He, imho, does not deserve this type of calling out. At least he is doing all he can to bring an end to this illegal occupation. give the guy a break. Go beat up on the ones that voted for the war and are still backing it to this day.
Well, I disagree. Based on what HE wrote, he most surely does deserve to be called out.
Didn’t he vote for Roberts as well? He certainly ain’t an innocent bystander here who should be given a free pass just because sometimes he acts like a progressive.
I didn’t know this was about his vote on Roberts. I know Feingold’s diary most certainly was not about Roberts. Wasn’t the issue about the war?
Did you write a comment on that thread at Dkos? If not, why not?
Because I chose not to post at dkos anymore for many, many, reasons. If he had posted his diary here I most certainly would have.
Sorry you have such a burning need to defend the guy leezy, I happen to see his words in that diary as a serious problem, so I expressed that. As you do in a democracy where everyone (including people you might normally agree with) should be held accountable.
Just asking some simple questions Spider. You and I just disagree on this one and I expressed my opinion just as you have. Don’t I too have that right? I asked if you commented over there because, imo this place is becoming a safe haven for people that are uncomfotable to express their opinions over there.
And I have no problem with that… which is why I was responding to you… but I stand by that I have every right to not “give him a break”, just as you have every right to disagree with me.
In terms of uncomfortable to express my opinions over there, far from it, I just don’t see a point when I was told quite pointedly that “my kind” isn’t welcome there – women’s studies set, fraudster, peacenik, you name it, I’m not welcome. But, regardless, an elected official puts a policy statement out there and I have a right to respond to it, no matter if it’s here, there or at LGF.
It wasn’t, I was responding to your suggestion I look at his other votes. So I brought up the most recent one.
I should have made my original post statement clearer I guess. I was referring to his ‘votes” on the war and the Patriot Act. I thought that would have been clear seeing the topic of the diary. My mistake.
I did get that, but I chose to highlight that not everything he votes for is perfect, and therefore, while yes, I appreciate his original vote on IWR (as I mentioned at the very top of the diary), it doesn’t mean the guy is untouchable. And his “solution” now just exacerbates the problem the Democrats and America has imo.
I just cannot agree here. Senators like Feingold are at least trying to do the right thing. He is fighting for the troops and to bring them home as soon as possible. We can all call BushCo whatever we want. The reps don’t have that luxury. They have to work as diplomatically as possible. Seems to me that you want him to speak up but when he does that is not good enough. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I just don’t get that way of thinking.
fair enough. but what is he speaking up for? a “flexible timetable”; a “modest proposal”; for the president to make ‘everything better’… Them sure are fighting words heading into 2006.
If the Dems have any chance of reversing this course they need to speak more bluntly vs. diplomatically because you can bet your butt the Repubs will have no problem being undiplomatic about them… and they don’t even have the TRUTH on their side, but as history has shown, the public will buy rhetoric more than “measured and intelligent responses”… just ask Senator Kerry… or Senator Boxer who went the other way and spoke her mind and called a lie a lie and ended up with a huge victory margin.
The time to “speak softly and carry a big stick” is when the big stick is actually in your hand. Until then, you need to work your ass off to get people to understand they should take the stick away from the other guy and give it to you.
(man, these mixed metaphors are killing me…)
I am totally frustrated too Spider but part of the problem is being in the minority. Until we are the majority little of what we say or do will mean crap. Someone like Lieberman or Nelson deserve our wrath. Feingold speaking at this very second on CNN. I am going to listen to what he has to say.
Kerry going off on Bush on CSPAN right now saying Bush mislead us into war. Oh my God, it is great.
Kerry is one magnificent senator! He is calling Bush out in no uncertain terms. Bush made statements that went beyond what the intelligence agancies told him. He is bringing up every lie that we have been told. This is magnificent. This Democrat GETS IT!!!!
Not as long as they have elections to worry about…..
It is not in their interests to be a true opposition party — the system isn’t set up that way and it is being solidified into a one party (monied interests) ruling elite with little to no hope of recovery in its current form.
I expect to see many dems approach the issues that we want them to over the next year, but don’t expect them to pull back the curtian and expose the BS for what it is, they have too much invested in it themselves.
They will say all of the right things to make some think they are “getting it”, but I expect that many of them will miss the larger point, just as you point out in this diary, spider.
The bifurcated one-party system seems to have been solidified for some time now. Divisive domestic issues work to obscure that.
Both parties seem determined to carry on the business of empire. They wrangle more over how best to accomplish that.
The debate over America’s imperial role in the world is one I doubt we’ll ever hear in mainstream establishment political circles.
Let’s not forget that Mr. Clinton was bombing & starving Iraq & killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis before the Bush gang entered office.
So what is your solution? Shall we just throw the towel in and say oh well, do what you want? Are YOU willing to run for office? Be the change you want to see in the world?
Well, opening forbidden topics for discussion, along with a truly functioning multi-party democracy would be steps in the right direction. I despair of either possibility happening in my lifetime.
Should one not point out that we killed more Iraqis under Clinton than Bush? Is that too impolite? Shall we not question our posture in the world?
I have no idea how to “Be the change” when the left in this country has been so effectively marginalized. It’s a nice slogan though.
“Think global, act local” was the one I grew up with. What activism I’ve been involved with has revolved around specific issues.
I’m certainly not the only person who’s tired of voting for someone like Diane Feinstein (& I was a resident of SF, so knew very well what I’d get) out of self-defense, only to be appalled by & opposed to much of what she stands for. The Ron Dellums sorts are few & far between.
Throw in the towel? Nanh. I prefer to stand with humanity & voice opposition to injustice.
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here, Arcturus, but the first step to solving our problems is to not limit our political discussions to debates about the voter standing in the booth trying to decide between a Diane Feinstein and a Pete Wilson. The key is working toward a day when we are not faced with such non-choices.
Anytime one brings up the possibility of real change, within the Democratic Party or — more realistically IMO — outside of it, “pragmatic” “progressive” Democrats always bring up the “who are you going to vote for?” question. Lesser evilism is, unfortunately, on occasion a necessary tactic. But it is an unacceptable strategy. And the willingness of the so-called left to adopt it uncritically as their chief form of political activity is one of the main reasons we are as stuck in the ditch as we find ourselves today.
If only both the furks could come to understand that on the basics they agree: Muslims should be bombed, the poor should be starved or cooked alive, and these operations should generate large amounts of revenue for key US businesses.
We need to develop a plan, regardless of if we leave Iraq now or next year, that takes into account the complexities of the situation. What would be a good way to leave in a way that doesn’t plunge the numerous factions into civil war? Is there a way to do it quicker than Feingold’s plan and not turn Iraq into another Rwanda or Kosovo?
Any plan we discuss has risks. Leaving longer would allow the kind of foot-dragging you mention, while leaving tomorrow might plunge Iraq into civil war.
If you think both alternatives are risky, why not take the one that assures less humans will die. Stop the carnage plan now.
There are many admirable things about Russ Feingold. On key occasions he’s been willing to stand up for what’s right, even against his own party’s leadership.
But his chief flaw, and it seems to be deep in his character, is a tendency to act as if his political opponents were sensible adults, worthy of being taken seriously. This seems to be less an analytic position than an ethical one: perhaps if I treat these folks seriously, and generously assume that they are arguing in good faith, they, too will take me seriously and we can rescue our politics from the morass into which it has fallen of late.
This sort of ethical leap has underwritten many of Feingold’s most baffling votes and statements. His key vote in favor of John Ashcroft stands out as a good example, as does the statement that spiderleaf quotes here.
Feingold probably sees this as a kind of political Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In a perfect world this would be a great assumption to take. Assuming good faith on the part of one’s interlocutors is an essential part of any serious argument.
But our politics today is not a serious argument. Nor will it become one simply by pretending that it is. The GOP — and many Democrats — are not in the least arguing in good faith. Nor will any amount of good behavior toward them make them behave well toward progressives.
While Feingold may think he’s operating under a sort of political Golden Rule, he is instead building a career around a kind of political panglossianism. But simply assuming that this is the best of all possible worlds does not make it so.
Feingold is somewhat refreshing in that his political faults are very different from those of his party’s leadership (which tends more toward ineffectual center-right cynicism). But in American politics today, a party of Russ Feingolds would, I’m afraid, find itself on the losing end of every political struggle, however well intentioned and intelligent they were.