John Nichols (The Nation): Feingold vs. Bush

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Dated Monday August 22

Feingold vs. Bush
By John Nichols

US Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, will turn up the volume on his challenge to the Bush White House's failed approach to national security when he delivers a high-profile address Tuesday in this West Coast city.

The speech on national security, which will be delivered at LA's prestigious Town Hall forum, comes on the heels of Feingold's announcement that he will press for an Iraq "exit strategy" that would see US troops withdrawn from that country by December 2006. With his willingness to discuss a specific timelime for withdrawal, Feingold says, he is "breaking the taboo" that has stymied honest debate about the US mission in the Middle East and the point at which it can be declared complete.

The maverick senator is also drawing attention to a potential--if still decidely uphill--run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination as a progressive alternative to prowar Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh.

Predictably, Feingold's decision to endorse a timeline has drawn criticism from those who believe that the only way to "support the troops" and "keep America safe" is to maintain an open-ended occupation of Iraq--no matter how deadly it is for Americans and Iraqis, no matter how unstable it makes Iraq, no matter how much it does to stir resentment toward the United States.

Read more.

[endarkenment]

1. 90 days Russ. 90 days.

No more should die for this criminal blunder.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. General comment

Whatever the merits of invading Iraq (and I still maintain there were none at the time), Bush's policy isn't working. Where there was no effective international terrorism in Saddam's Iraq, it is a principle feature of US occupied Iraq and it isn't getting any weaker. This is not the result for which we had hoped.

The question is whether we stay or leave. Over this, we can have legitimate open discussion. What do we mean by "getting the job done"? That's a slogan, not a program.

Broadly speaking, the US invaded Iraq for because Saddam's regime was deemed to be an immediate threat to US national security. Had there been any truth to that, it would have been a legitimate reason to go to war. However, Saddam's regime was not such a threat and any such that has arisen in Iraq has arisen as a result of invading.

The immediate problem is the ability of international terrorists to do in Iraq since the invasion what they had not been able to do before: use Iraq as a training ground for new terrorists and as a staging area to launch future attacks that destabilize the Middle East. The attacks on London last month invalidated any claims that it is necessary to remain in Iraq to contain terrorists to Iraq and eventually defeat them there. A rocket attack launched in Jordan on military targets by Iraqi-based jihadists shows that since the US invasion of Iraq, the menace of international terrorism has spread and strengthened.

This is unacceptable.

By leaving, will we strengthen the new Iraqi government's ability to subdue international terrorists now operating in Iraq? If the answer to that question is no, then what do we need to do bring that event about and keep terrorist subdued in the meantime? Is it possible to prevent Iraq from disintegrating into civil war? Indeed, has she already disintegrated into civil war? The recent terrorist attack on a Baghdad bus station were clearly aimed at other Iraqis, not foreign troops; it was not an act of resistance to colonial occupation.

Mr. Bush's policies, like his reasons for invading Iraq in the first place, no longer have credibility. While it does no harm for Mr. Bush to propose remaining constant in the policies he had followed thus far, it is hard to take them seriously any longer. It is moments like these, when confronted with a leader who is an idiot intent on stubbornly pursuing what has failed miserably that one sees the advantages of a parliamentary constitution where, when things are going this badly, the Prime Minister and his government fall on a vote of no confidence and another government under new and hopefully wiser leadership put in its place.

Senator Feingold's proposal of a timetable for withdrawal, right or wrong, is a legitimate part of the discussion we need to have. So are, right or wrong, proposals of increasing troop strength.

It's time to piss or get off the pot. Let the discussion begin.

[stray cat]

3. Feingold on MTP: "Our soldiers deserve a good policy"

"Our soldiers are doing their job and doing it well - our government needs to do their job and design a rational policy.