Feingold Warns Congress

[SHRED]

===

The people spoke last November.
It is time for them to get off their asses.

===



Feingold Warns Congress: Oppose ‘George Bush’s War’ Now, Or We’ll ‘Start Owning’ It

He added, “You know what? If the Democrats don’t use their power, when we’re in the majority in both houses, we’re going to start owning this war. It is George Bush’s war, but if we don’t get serious we’re going to start owning this war.”

Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/01/feingold-bush-war/

---

[Hubert Flottz]

1. He's right again.

Smartest democrat in congress!

[HereSince1628]

4. Unfortunately, DC is not about being right, it's about being liked.

The DCDems leadership's mantra seems to be "Nice is good."

I wonder if they've realized how hard it is to get a sense of where the national wind is blowing when they're sitting on both their thumbs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Check out Radical Fringe Cartoon today

very apropos.

[hippiechick]

3. Russ.

Sigh. :loveya:

[radfringe]

5. sigh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x321691

[porphyrian]

6. But did any of them listen? - n/t

[rodeodance]

26. so so VERY few listen to him!

[dogday]

7. Bless his heart he keeps on swinging

Why oh why did he withdraw his nomination?

[leftchick]

8. it must be lonely being Russ

the only sane voice in the senate about war.

[BlueJac]

9. The hard of hearing Congress.............

Didn't hear the American voters in November. The weakness in the knees is very apparent. Russ should of stayed in the race, the people need him.


What the hell is wrong in DC? Do something damn it!

[robinlynne]

10. Russ you rock!!!!

[bdamomma]

11. these guys better do something and listen to us, and not

ignore us any longer, or will we find our guts and do something to show them this is our country.

[Individualist]

12. We no longer have government of the people,

by the people and for the people. We have government of the corporations, by the corporations and most especially FOR the corporations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. So you think the people are now ready to take that

last fateful step?

Personally I think not, Survivor and American Idol are on

[bigtree]

13. I agree with his legislative 'plan' for Iraq, but he's wrong to push off of his own party

who arguably cares about holding Bush responsible as much as he does. They just have a different strategy for getting something legislatively accomplished which will either box Bush in politically or deny him the means with which to wage his militarism in Iraq.

What's striking about Sen. Feingold's comments, though, is the admonition that Democrats will "own" Bush's war if thy don't 'use their power'. What power is he talking about? If he means to legislatively confront Bush on Iraq, then he has to know that his plan (as good and reasonable as it is) is a non-starter with the 10 or so republicans who would be needed to allow it to proceed anywhere near Bush's desk.

If Sen. Feingold is talking about pulling funds or rejecting the Bush's budget requests for Iraq he's ignoring the measure and share of responsibility Democrats would assume if they succeed in actually blocking the funds as they insist the money is already there to ensure the safety, security, and well-being of the troops who are left at the will and whim of Bush.

The dilemma for Democrats is that any action against funding alone doesn't actually direct Bush to do anything and would likely be ignored as Bush would claim he's continuing the original mandate on the original IWR. Unless Congress successfully rescinds the original IWR and replaces it with an approved withdrawal plan Bush is free to continue with his occupation and disregard whatever 'conditions' are attached to legislation.

One solution to end the endless funding Bush uses to fuel the occupation supposes that Democrats just turn the supplemental budget request down flat in the House. But, it's not at all credible to claim that that action wouldn't have any impact on the troops when the manufactured 'authority' Bush has used to keep our troops bogged down in Iraq is still in place. That's why Sen. Feingold's comprehensive approach makes sense. He marries his intentions for withdrawal with the effort to restrict funding.

The problem for Sen. Feingold is that his proposal would require more than tinkering with or rejecting a budget request. His approach, if it makes it through the republican's obstruction, would be subject to a veto, making the entire exercise an act of protest. That's just fine, and I think, necessary to take the Senate's demands directly to Bush. He needs to be told by the Senate in Legislative form, what their intentions are in Iraq.

But to represent what Sen. Feingold is doing as, somehow, more 'courageous' than the other Democrats determined to hold Bush accountable with their own strategy and approach is unfair and, I think, counterproductive.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[cascadiance]

14. His plan is about isolating those Republicans who would thwart it...

The more Democrats that support proposals like his to constructively stop the war effort, the more we can isolate those Republicans that continue to support this puke of a president. Republicans have a lot more seats to lose in 2008 than the Dems do. If we put pressure (out in the public if necessary) to bend them in our (and the country's populace's) direction, then something could be done. But if we continue to "compromise" and not do anything substantive, we'll be looked upon as useless, and those in the technical minority will have won. This is the difference between congressional leaders like Reid and those on the other side like Gingrich. Though I detest the man, Gingrich at least would have been "on a mission" for certain agenda, and would have sold his mission to the public ("Contract for/on America", etc.) and would have put added pressure on an opposition president and party to bend more his direction. Reid by contrast seems to be more about trying to do most everything for appearances and not trying to substantively play strategies to change things. Perhaps thats Lieberman standing in the way with his threats, but that could be answered by a full effort to recruit someone like Susan Collins into the Democratic Party to mitigate that threat. The last time I saw Reid do something constructive in this fashion was when he invoked rules to invoke a closed session discussion a year ago or so, which was brilliant. We need more efforts like that one from him to really see a leader at work with what he has to effect change. If we can start affecting change by making these efforts, even if we lose at times, people will like that and reward us in 2008. That I think is what Feingold is trying to say.

[bigtree]

18. he has the right approach, but it's not his party who would obstruct it

Reid is not the dictator of the Senate or the party. He's a manager of the disparate views from the diverse body. I don't think you can argue that we need a more strident leader and then wonder about enlisting republicans over to our side.

The hold-up right now is because of competing Democratic proposals which Sen. Feingold rightly criticized as providing cover to Bush with undirected funding. But, his problem is that he doesn't have the votes for the withdrawal component of his legislation to overcome the present REPUBLICAN obstruction. His posturing is the difference between someone with NO official leadership (manager) role, and that of Reid who's job it is to reconcile all of the initiatives, intentions, and actions of the entire Democratic Senate membership.

[halobeam]

24. Yes...

I saw this from the beginning.. too many other Democratic proposals... Reid ought to have sat down with the complete Dem party and hashed out ONE unified proposal. It may have taken time, but less than I suppose it's taken already, and they certainly would've been more effective.

IMO.. Reid is the bottom line on the hold up.

"The hold-up right now is because of competing Democratic proposals which Sen. Feingold rightly criticized as providing cover to Bush with undirected funding."

[Horse with no Name]

15. I have never been a fan of Feingold

For no specific reason, but lately I find myself wishing he was a contender.
He is truly a breath of fresh air.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Does he mean that they should actually DO something other than pretend they are?

Gosh, that would be novel.

[Golden Raisin]

17. He's like the proverbial voice crying out in

the wilderness. Thank God at least 1 person in Congress has a brain and backbone.

[BurtWorm]

21. And the rest have cobwebs in their brains

and wax in their ears.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Why oh why don't you run for President

and he's right on the moeny

I'll add one last line to this

If they don't get off their asses, they will loose that majority in 2008 and deserdevly so

[EFerrari]

22. I wish you guys would run Russ. Not only could I vote for him

but I could scrape money up for him and work my @ss off.

:shrug:

[Generator]

23. I had this same epiphany awhile ago

Feingold is exactly right. And of course, all the decent Dems-Kerry, Feingold understand you can't spend your time running for president and thus triangulating if you want to save lives, money, stop the next war and on and on. Hillary promises to end the war WHEN and IF she's elected. Why should I believe she's willing to do something then she's not willing to do now? It's always tomorrow with the DLC Dems. It's always I'll stop these evil men when you give me all your money and I have power, now I'm helpless to do anything against the big bad man.

The Dems are always blamed by the media, framed by the media, and unless they actually DO something it won't matter who started it, but who continues to abide it.

[caligirl]

25. Whats the difference between the dems and the repugs if one isn't

pushing for war and the other trying to stop it?

walter reed is a chance to turn things around, before dems are painted as enablers of mass incompetence.

[Time for change]

27. He should be our next President!!