FEINGOLD Statement: On Feingold-Reid Being Brought Up for a Vote

[kpete]

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Feingold-Reid Being Brought Up for a Vote
May 14, 2007

“I appreciate the Majority Leader’s work to bring up the Feingold-Reid legislation for a vote. The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our brave troops.”

The Feingold-Reid amendment will mirror legislation the Senators introduced last month with eight other cosponsors. The text of the original Feingold-Reid legislation read:

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(a) Transition of Mission- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq- The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes- The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/05/20070514.htm

[leftchick]

1. this is all such bullshit

I am sad to see Russ capitulating as well...


http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/051407Floyd.shtml

<snip>


Raimondo also correctly pegs the deeper darkness behind the Beltway debate: both the Democratic and Republican Establishments want to acquire Iraq for the American Imperium, now that the prize has been set in play by Bush's war of aggression. The "leadership" of both parties still believe that some kind of ill-gotten gain can be wrought from this maelstrom of ruin and murder, and so they continue to dither over dinky details of meaningless bills while the war rages on, killing its thousands and tens of thousands, driving Iraqis from their homes in a Biblical-scale exodous, and engendering lasting, embittered hatred for the United States around the world. As Raimondo notes, in voting down the recent bill that would have required a withdrawal from Iraq in nine months, the Democrats have acquired part-ownership of this war – and in moving to endorse the final funding bill, they are becoming full partners with the GOP in the annexation of Iraq to the American empire. That's what these famous benchmarks are all about: they are essentially instructions to the Iraqis, telling them what they must do before the funding spigot gets turned on. The benchmarks dictate to the Iraqis how they will "reform" the process of "de-Ba'athification," how they will divvy up their oil resources, and when and how to hold local elections, among other things.

Of course, the Iraqi parliament could always vote down the American diktat, but then there would be no money forthcoming – including, as Hillary Clinton has proposed, no money to protect our Iraqi sock puppets from their countrymen, who consider them collaborators and traitors. Under the circumstances, it doesn't take much of a tug on the leash to bring the Iraqi leaders into line. This is how the Americans conduct their battle for "hearts and minds" – by making local satraps so widely and deeply despised that they are totally dependent on their Washington overlords for their sheer physical survival. The real "benchmark" the Iraqis have to display to the Americans' satisfaction is an infinite capacity for obedience.

Or as we noted here last week: "This is the Iron Law of the Bush Imperium: you can do whatever the hell you want – rob, rape, torture, murder, chop off heads, boil prisoners alive, enslave children, strangle your people's every desire for personal and political freedom – as long as you play ball with the Beltway boys and cut them in for a taste."

And Raimondo makes clear that the "Beltway boys" include the Democratic leadership. As he notes, all the Democratic proposals on offer now involve a continuing, essentially permanent American military presence in Iraq -- which is precisely the war aim first publicly voiced by the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group, "Project for the New American Century" in September 2000. Democratic proposals for "withdrawal" invariably contain language about leaving behind troops to "train" Iraqi security forces, to "fight terrorism," and protect American installations -- such as the largest embassy on the face of the earth, the Fortress America being built in the heart of Baghdad, which will require thousands of soldiers to defend it.

[pinto]

2. fwiw, Raimondo is editorial director at antiwar.com. Their background:

"The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of "Left" and "Right." At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet, even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. We strive to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements that many respected institutions have forgotten."

And, fwiw, I take their editorial stance with that historical grain of salt.

[leftchick]

3. fwiw

he is speaking the truth here. I don't give a crap about his background. Truth is truth. The dems are capitulating for a generation of Iraq occupation. period.

[pinto]

5. I tend to disagree. I don't think we are capitulating, though I understand the impatience

we all hold for real, observable, timely change in our policy in Iraq. And an end to the killing.

(Truth be told, I don't think any intent of a generation of Iraq occupation holds a snow ball's chance in Hades. Too many players, too many competing interests, too many local interested parties. That's a strawman argument.)

I'd rather see us play a role in fostering some local, regional solution in Iraq, under UN moderation/oversight, with all factions in play.

This unilateral operation *is* madness.

But the immediate isolationist POV is short sighted, imo, however viable in the long term it may be. We're there now.

Are we Dems negotiating a way out? Yes. Are we capitulating? No.

Thanks.

[blm]

4. We've been seeing Feingold and Kerry do what they can from every angle they can

to advance DOABLE legislation, and taking most of the hits for it, too.

They are constrained by the key word LEGISLATION.

I don't see this bill as capitulation - I see it as keeping the pressure on in ways they CAN get traction.

They bumped up their Iraq withdrawal vote from 13 last June to 48 last month, so their persistence does count for something. Of course, it is never going to be enough when people are dying, but doing what you can do does matter.