FEINGOLD: "If we are serious about opposing the war-we must be serious about ending funding for war"

[kpete]

"If we are serious about opposing the war, we must be serious about ending funding for the war."

-- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), in a statement published in today's Congressional Record.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/03/14/quote_of_the_day.html

[Raven]

1. Duh!

Makes complete sense to me!

[porphyrian]

2. How sad is it that he is one of the only Senators who will even say this? - n/t

[beachmom]

3. Because it isn't so simple. I'm glad that Feingold has marked

the left wing position, but I don't agree with him on cutting off funding, at least just yet. I don't like the idea of thinking of our troops without what they need. It makes me queasy. This is a work in progress, and at this time, the American people are opposed to the Congress cutting off funding. There are real reasons for this -- for me, it is about having a REAL PLAN to leave, unlike when we went in, how we're going to deal with refugees and Iraqis who helped us, how we contain the civil war to Iraq only, and so on. I like the Senate Democratic plan which is a binding resolution that calls for a deadline of March 2008 to get our troops out. This is not the end, but I can tell you many people are just not at Feingold's position yet.

[porphyrian]

4. Most of the troops have been "without what they need" since they were deployed.

How would forcing them home be any different? They won't stay there without funding.

[ClassWarrior]

7. How true. Let's fully fund a safe, fast, and efficient withdrawal.

NGU.

[porphyrian]

10. Aside from cleaning up the mess we've made, that's all we should be paying for over there. - n/t

[Just-plain-Kathy]

17. You're so right. We should fund the safe return of our troops and nothing else.

The way I understand it is...the war is still running on money granted by the last Congress.

Bush sent our soldiers in there and is holding them hostage.

[rodeodance]

9. troops would be supplied with Phased withdrawal plan (such as Kucinich.

[gravity]

13. Thats just for the troop withdrawal

What about Iraq?

What we really need is a plan for what Iraq is going to look like after we withdraw. It's not Vietnam, when at least the enemy had a stable governement.

We still have the same problem that we always had, instead of accurately assessing the situation in Iraq, our leaders are just concerned about their own political stakes instead of the problems actually in Iraq. The war policy is runned on politics instead of actual effective leadership.

I really want congress to demand accountability from the government, and accurately assess the situation in Iraq, to develop a realistic strategy. At least follow the recomendations of the Iraq study report instead of continuing the course. The democrats should promote bipartisan cooperation of coming up with a strategy, instead of playing more politics.

The democrats can use funding as a negtiation tool for the president, but having cutting the funds be the plan is just as reckless as going into the war in the first place.

[Mass]

16. Feingold's bill does not cut funds, it uses the funds for a withdrawal.

If the Reid bill is really a bill that forces Bush to withdraw, there should be no difference between the two.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Now or later. We leave or get kicked out. Cutting the funding is the shortest way out.

The double talk about "supporting the troops" by continuing to fund the war is not out of Rove's playbook, but Barnum's.

[gravity]

6. We don't need to cut funding

We need a plan to get them out.

[porphyrian]

8. That's easy. "You're pulling out now. Come home." - n/t

[hashibabba]

11. I doubt Bush will take them out of the war unless we do stop

funding. Just fund enough to get them all home. Bush can't keep them there with no money.

[goodhue]

12. Indeed

[Blackhatjack]

14. I'm convinced we will be right there in Iraq until Bush leaves office, unless....

Democrats crank up the investigations which lead to impeachment.

Bush is not going to listen to anyone, and he sure as heck is not going to admit a mistake. So you might as well expect that he will just send more troops and not withdraw unless concrete action is taken to stop him, and I do not think anything less than impeachment will do it.

[Mass]

15. Feingold's bill does not defund the troops. He funds the withdrawal so that soldiers will be

protected during the withdrawal.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

18. I wish we could have a grass roots effort to get Feingold to run for president.

A Feingold/Webb ticket would be great. ...Two patriots.

[Senator]

19. Serious Would Be Impeaching the WarMonger

The Cut the Funds Hoax is just a FigLeaf Fairy Tale that lets LieberDems and the rest of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy sleep through the night.

Actually admitting to the reality of "Rule By Signing Statement" has a tendency to wake one up with the cold sweats of real responsibility.

Dishonesty with oneself is still dishonesty.

===

[JNelson6563]

20. Rock on Russ!

:toast: I love that guy.