Excellent Oliphant op-ed covers Feingold's call to withdraw from Iraq

[paineinthearse]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/23/when_should_troops_return/

THOMAS OLIPHANT
When should troops return?
By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | August 23, 2005

WASHINGTON
SENATOR RUSS Feingold has shattered a taboo as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. That taboo involves talk about ''completing the mission." No more. Says Feingold, ''It's time for senators and members of Congress, especially those from my party, to be less timid while this administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq. ''We need to refocus on fighting and defeating the terrorist network that attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001, and that means placing our Iraq policy in the context of a global effort rather than letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time."

Feingold is a Democrat, comes from a state (Wisconsin) that has reelected him twice, is the guy who, along with John McCain, banished soft money from its pernicious role in federal elections, and could easily end up running for president three years hence. He was not a supporter of President Bush's Iraq war resolution three years ago but sought other means of bringing things involving Saddam Hussein to a more effective head. During the deceit-dominated run-up to the invasion at a time when the Democrats narrowly ran the Senate, he presided over a Judiciary Committee hearing to remind Americans that presidents are not supposed to go to war on their own authority under our system of government.

Now Feingold has become the first senator to put a specific date next to his call for a road map designed to complete the undefined US mission in Iraq. That is an oversimplification. Feingold is a notoriously precise speaker, and it's worth letting him make his own case. A great many conflicting signals have been coming out of the military and the Bush administration about the war in recent weeks --specifically the duration of our involvement and the size of our deployment over time.

In what he acknowledged was an effort to ''jump start" a national discussion, Feingold proposed setting a specific goal for bringing US forces home. His suggested date: the end of next year. Equally important is his call for a detailed road map to that moment. Feingold emphasizes that his suggested date should not be put in concrete, that there could be factors or events that make it sooner or even a bit later. This is the kind of discussion that Bush has avoided. But it is now going on all around him -- among some of our allies, within the military, and at the catalytic encampment of critics near his Texas ranch that has hit a nerve with a frustrated public.

more..........

[greekspeak]

1. Georgie may end up having to "pick up his toys" and come home

Clearly he sees soldiers and equipment as playthings for his own discression. Thankfully there are those like Feingold who will stand up and say to George that they are not toys, that it is time to stop using them as such. Good for you Senator. Lets see how many dems jump on the Feingold bandwagon, and how many "dems" keep whining for more ass kissing time with Georgie-poo.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Feingold has "jump started" a national discussion. Good for him!

As it is obvious to anyone rational human being, that the Occupation of Iraq is not working!

More from Oliphant's article:

Light at the end of the tunnel would also be most likely to draw in Iraq's neighbors and may be the last chance the United States has to involve Europe in Iraq's reconstruction.
Politically, Feingold's initiative is delightfully disruptive. Until now, the Democrats' Big Four possible factors in 2008 -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton -- have concentrated on a critique of the status quo and a variety of suggestions for a more effective reconstruction and security effort. By now, however, it should be apparent that Bush is again turning a deaf ear.

Already, officials are talking in terms of a military presence in Iraq of at least 100,000 troops for the next four years. Surely the United States can do better than that. The real meaning of Feingold's challenge is to see who will step forward to insist that we do better than that.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped... /

[paineinthearse]

3. The real meaning of Feingold's challenge

Perhaps that "someone" will be Russ himself. I certainly will not support a DLC candidate.

[kerrygoddess]

5. Last statement by Oliphant

I thought that last statement by Oliphant was very telling: "The real meaning of Feingold's challenge is to see who will step forward to insist that we do better than that."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=317

How different was Feingold's proposal from others? Not much really he just put a date on it, and not one that is the NEAR future. It will be interesting to see who steps up with a better proposal as Oliphant suggested.

[paineinthearse]

9. Please square "no difference" with Kerry's 12/3 statement

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/

Democrat assails Bush policy; aide keeps open possibility of sending more U.S. troops

by Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - In a major national security address Wednesday Democratic presidential contender John Kerry was sounding an alarm about premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. “I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy,” Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”

He contended that it would be “a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle” to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqis so as to allow “a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops.”

Send more troops? Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers told reporters Kerry “would not rule out the possibility” of sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq. “It is very clear the number of troops is inadequate” in Iraq, Beers told reporters in a telephone conference call previewing the speech. Kerry’s first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans. But by not foreclosing the possibility of dispatching more U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry seems to have changed his position and to have repositioned himself as a more hawkish alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean.

more....

Is Rand Beers' statement still operative?

[Supersedeas]

6. Courage Mr. Feingold courage...America need your voice now.

[jane_pippin]

4. Can I just say one more time that I love my Senator?

Russ,

:yourock:

[B3Nut]

11. I second that!

Russ ROCKS! Feingold for Prez!

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Massacure]

14. I third that!

[Mass]

7. Great editorial by Oliphant!!!

And happy that he took the time to read and listen to Feingold. This is more than many people on all boards have done until now.

And thanks to Feingold to try to get his colleagues to start a conversation on this issue.

[paineinthearse]

8. Lowry falsely claimed Feingold's position on Iraq is "get out now"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230002

Lowry falsely claimed Feingold's position on Iraq is "get out now"

Appearing on Fox News' Dayside with Linda Vester following coverage of President Bush's August 22 speech at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, National Review editor Rich Lowry falsely claimed that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said that the United States should "get out now." In fact, Feingold has proposed a goal of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, but did not propose a date by which the United States should start withdrawing troops.

As Feingold noted on the August 21 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, his proposed withdrawal date is a "target" not a "deadline." In other words, the timeline could be pushed back if circumstances require it:

FEINGOLD: here could be flexibility. There could be ... Look, what we're doing with the constitution right now, it wasn't achieved by a particular date, so you add a little more time. Look, let's say they have to train up a few more troops. Let's say that the administration is open and tells us exactly what's going on and says, "Look, we think we need to stay there two more months"; so be it. But without any sort of a time frame in place, we'll never even get to that point.

Perhaps Lowry was confusing Feingold with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who said on August 18 that "he longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop" between Iraq and the Vietnam War.

From the August 22 edition of Fox News' Dayside:

LOWRY: Politically, though, what's most interesting is not, you know, what Bush is going to do, because we know he's going to stay the course, and that's what he wants to do. It's what happens to the Democrats. I think they really risk a split on this. Do they go Hillary's route and say "stay the course," or do they go with Russ Feingold and these left-wing groups around Cindy Sheehan who say "get out now"?

Video clip is available at http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230002

[flpoljunkie]

10. Notice how today Dubya condemned those calling for "immediate" withdrawal.

This would be in contrast to the GOP plan to "cut and run" before the 2006 mid-term elections in November.

[paineinthearse]

13. Are you accusing * of being a flip-flopper???? nt

[mmonk]

12. I am reminded of the following quote

by Norman Solomon in his article, "Close the Door on Escalation","And the United States government does not need a "strategy" to get out of Iraq any more than a killer needs a strategy to stop killing."