Feingold Remarks in Support of the Levin-Reed Amendment to Redeploy Troops from Iraq by April, '08

[flpoljunkie]

Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Support of the Levin-Reed Amendment to Redeploy U.S. Troops from Iraq by April 2008

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/07/20070712.htm (Video of remarks also at this link.)


As Delivered from the Senate Floor

July 12, 2007

Mr. President, it has been 52 months since military operations began in Iraq. We have now been engaged in the war in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. Approximately 3,600 Americans have died and 25,000 have been wounded. More than 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes, and tens of thousands, at a minimum, have been killed. With President Bush’s surge well underway, violence in Iraq has exploded to unprecedented levels and American troop fatalities are up 70 percent. In short, Mr. President, from all sides the situation in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.

As if that weren’t bad enough, our national security continues to suffer as the administration’s single-minded focus on Iraq prevents us from adequately confronting threats of extremism and terrorism around the globe. Indeed, violence and instability continue to fester elsewhere and at great cost to our national security.

Last November, when the American people cast their ballots, they expressed their opposition to this war loudly and clearly. And as the situation continues to deteriorate, they have raised their voices still louder. I know my colleagues hear their voices, as more and more of them step forward to call for a long-overdue change of course.

But at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, those voices continue to fall on deaf ears. Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing – not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties -- will discourage him from pursuing a misguided war that has no end in sight.

Congress cannot wait for this President to change course in Iraq because he has no intention of doing so. He has made it clear he will continue to pursue massive military engagement despite the wishes of the American people, despite the fact that our military is stretched to the breaking point and despite the fact that our presence in Iraq has been, according to our own State Department, “used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries…”

It is up to us here in Congress to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to ensure our nation’s security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We have the power and we have the responsibility to act, and to act now.

That is why, Mr. President, I will support the amendment offered by Senators Levin and Jack Reed. By passing binding deadlines for both beginning and ending redeployment, the Senate can take a strong step toward bringing our involvement in this war to a close. I applaud Senators Hagel, Smith and Snowe for putting principle ahead of party by cosponsoring this amendment. I hope their example will inspire still more Senators to realize that it is not enough to criticize the war or to call upon the President to change course, and that we don’t need to – in fact, we cannot afford to -- wait for more reports and more time before taking decisive action.

The Levin-Jack Reed amendment doesn’t go as far as I would like. I am concerned that the exceptions in the amendment, particularly for “providing logistical support” to Iraqi troops, could give the administration too much wiggle room to “repackage” its failed military mission instead of redeploying our brave service members.

Nonetheless, I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues -- on both sides of the aisle – recognizing at last that the President’s course in Iraq has failed, that Congress needs to act and that we can and must safely redeploy our troops. Other amendments that have been proposed fall short because they don’t require troops to be redeployed. It’s not enough to pass something that sounds good but doesn’t move us toward ending the war. Weak, feel-good amendments may give people up here political comfort but that comfort won’t last long – we can fool ourselves but we can’t fool the American people.

Mr. President, it is increasingly clear that the war in Iraq has become the defining aspect of our engagement in this part of the world and that it, coupled with this administration’s inconsistent efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law, have alienated and angered those whose support and cooperation we need if we are to prevail against al Qaeda and its allies.

Our role in the war in Iraq has generated a level of political turbulence, throughout the region and beyond, that has given way to a new variety of al Qaeda-style militants. These militants are gaining prominence in many countries that have traditionally been our allies. The longer we remain in Iraq, the longer these new strains of extremism will threaten the security of the region, and in turn our nation. As long as the President’s policies continue, Iraq will continue to be what the declassified National Intelligence Estimate called a “cause celebre” for a new generation of terrorists.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are not a one-country franchise and yet this administration continues to pretend otherwise by calling Iraq the “central front” in the war on terror. Al Qaeda and its networks have not relinquished their global fight to focus exclusively on Iraq. By redeploying our troops from Iraq, we can refocus on developing a comprehensive, global strategy to combat them around the globe.

Mr. President, as I said, the administration’s policies in Iraq are an unmitigated disaster. But there is a way to mitigate that disaster, to lessen the burdens it is imposing on our troops, our national security, our taxpayers, and our country, and that is to redeploy our troops from Iraq. There is no reason to delay this process until September -- we know now what we’ll know then and what we know isn’t pretty. We have already read in the Pentagon’s first quarterly surge report that violence has increased throughout much of the country in recent months. And we know that there is no military solution to Iraq’s problems. The only question is how long we are prepared to wait – and how many young Americans we are willing to have killed – before we act.

As my colleagues know, the Majority Leader and I have introduced legislation that would safely redeploy our troops by setting a date after which funding for the war would be ended. That is what Congress did in 1993 with respect to our military mission in Somalia, and I continue to believe we must be prepared to take that step again to finally put an end to the war in Iraq. However, if the Levin-Jack Reed amendment wins the support of a majority of the Senate, that would be an important step forward, and I will likely not insist on a vote now on the Feingold-Reid amendment.

If our efforts to end the war now don’t succeed, however, I will offer Feingold-Reid as an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill when it is considered by the Senate. I hope that won’t be necessary, but it will depend on whether enough of my colleagues are prepared to back up their words with action, to listen to the American people, and to say enough is enough – this war doesn’t make sense, it’s hurting our country, and it’s time to end it.

[saltpoint]

1. Handsome address, astute political instinct by Russ Feingold.

God he's a great senator.

[welshTerrier2]

2. "could give the administration too much wiggle room to “repackage” its failed military mission"

The Levin-Jack Reed amendment doesn’t go as far as I would like. I am concerned that the exceptions in the amendment, particularly for “providing logistical support” to Iraqi troops, could give the administration too much wiggle room to “repackage” its failed military mission instead of redeploying our brave service members.

Let's be very clear on this: the statement Kucinich made about this was that the only way to end this war and occupation was to cut-off funding. If, in spite of Feingold's acquiescence to a bill he clearly isn't very comfortable with, his concerns about the bill's ineffectiveness are borne out, the bill will have accomplished nothing.

Moderates like to throw around the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good." They might see what Feingold said as some form of mature, reasoned compromise. But "the good" has a bigger enemy than "the perfect"; the mortal enemy of the good is "the bad." I'm afraid this bill just does not sufficiently constrain bush. He is not going to be moved by this legislation, and, of course, he's likely to veto it anyway. Making these little incremental gains is all well and good. It's nice that it takes a step toward building bi-partisan consensus to end the war. All that's fine.

But it's hard to see how this bill, or Feingold's support for it, will get the job done. The battle is whether Congress can stop bush before he leaves office. This bill, with its April deadline and the wiggle room Feingold cited appears to be too little too late. The point here is not either to agree or disagree with Feingold on how he voted; the point is that Levin's bill is inadequate and the madness will continue and too many more will die.