Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feingold: Dems share blame

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:45 AM
Original message
Feingold: Dems share blame

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/06/feingold_dems_s.html#more

Feingold: Dems share blame


Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) took his turn this morning before a gathering of liberal activists on the final day of the progressive "Take Back America" conference.

Iraq, not surprisingly, was a topic that figured heavily into his speech. And while much of his address was devoted to a blistering critique of the Bush administration, he saved some of the blame for Democrats.

"I still cannot believe that Democrats helped facilitate this," Feingold said. "I didn't just write an op-ed on this. I didn't just decide it was a mistake. I just plain voted against it because I thought it was a terrible mistake."

...

Although the audience was about half the size as when Sen. Hillary Rodam Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Kerry addressed the group on Tuesday, Feingold was greeted with repeated standing ovations and sustained applause, particularly when he urged Democrats to step forward with a forceful message.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. *rock solid*
Damn, I like this guy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. God Bless Russ Feingold (and this from an agnostic)!
Impeach Bush and imprison him and his gang of murderous thugs.

Restore the Republic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. Feingold - proving once again
that he just doesn't get it. Or maybe he does get it, if "it" is:

"All the other Dems are evil (or stupid)...so pick me in 2008..."

:eyes:

CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD! READY, AIM, FIRE!

:banghead:

Okay, flamers to come...explain WHY when we are trying to take back the Congress, it makes ANY sense to bash Democrats? How does it help? It sounds like all he is arguing is "I am better than they are, so there." Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You're not alone
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 12:01 PM by Vash the Stampede


I posted essentially the same thing at the same time. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
91. So that's the theory behind not
admitting blunders, sticking with mistakes and cuddling up the republicans and then expecting dems support ($$)

Violent graphic fits, but not the way intended.

Feingold is an ethical, moral, strong Democrat. I never voted for Democrats just because they had the name "Democrats". They were supposed to be supporting what I believe in. Making nice with fascists is not something I'll support now or ever.

Those who support Democrats no matter what they do are no different from the republicans who support * no matter what he does.

No difference whatsoever.

The only way any change will happen is if we the people demand it and see that any politician who doesn't stand up for our values gets dumped, Democrat or Republican.

I guarantee if Cathy Cox, democrat in Georgia responsible for the Diebold vote stealing machines, gets the nomination for governor, I won't vote for her. I'm done with voting for democrats without evidence that they support democracy in more than rhetoric. The politicians who have supported the immoral and illegal war in Iraq, who have voted with the rethugs over and over, who have voted for the thugs on the supreme court, don't deserve to be supported.

Hooray for Feingold!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daylin Byak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. He's probally still pissed...
That only two other Democrats supported his censure motion on Bush and that Sen. Mark Dayton(D-MN) bitched him out about it on the Senate floor.

Let him vent, he's has that right cause Senate Democrats are nothing but pieces of DLC shit.(I prefer House Democrats over Senate Democrats cause the majority of dems in the house are more progressive and stand up for what's right, unlike Senate Democrats who are DLC hacks that just rool over and die (i.e Mark Pryor, Bill and Ben Nelson to name a few)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Are you saying he is wrong? That Dems had nothing to do with
getting us into this war?

We won't take congress back by say how much like the Repubs we are, but how different from them we are. And the only way we can say we are different is if we ARE different.

The best selling point the Repubs have is being able to point to the Dems and say "They voted for (whatever) too!" The only way to fight that is for those Dems to publicly stand against their own pro-Repub votes - making them vulnerable to "flip-flop" charges - or to replace those Dems with people who will stand up to the Repubs.

So I say, fire away!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. No, what he's saying is it does NOTHING positive to point this out.
Saying all Democrats not named Feingold or Kucinich isn't exactly differentiating US, it's differentiating Feingold and Kucinich. That's not positive at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Then put Russ under the microscope on every ProGOP stance he's taken.
And see how happy it makes everybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. I can't disagree! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. He did it without naming names.
That's a big difference, IMO. I don't think it hurts Kerry or Clinton or anyone else in their re-elections.

His record is exemplary and speaks for itself. Maybe he really IS better than most.

I like him. A lot. I hope he's our nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. I agree. This kind of crap just irritates me. Focus on the GOP bastards.
:eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Stop pontificating Russ.
We know you're running for President, but you're slitting your own throat by slitting the party's. You will get nowhere without having a Democratic Congress in your corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyuzoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I'm more loyal to Russ Feingold (i.e., truth) than the Democratic Party.
If that makes me a bad person, sorry to disappoint you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It doesn't make you a bad person.
But it's probably not very wise. If you think one man alone is going to push the country to the left, you're in for a rather rude awakening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyuzoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I don't really want to be pushed to the left. I'm a centrist.
But I hear Feingold talk about honest government and respect for human rights, and I gravitate toward that. I'd love to hear the rank-and-file Democrats follow suit and get this country focused on the things that really matter instead of falling into divisive GOP traps every single time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Moving to the center means pushing to the left.
Unless you think our current Congress/President are centrist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyuzoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
88. Indeed, I thought you meant left overall. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Do we have the transcript of the speech? How long was the criticism
of the Dems compared to the criticism of Bush?

Unfortunately, there is no surprise in the Tribune article. They will take any sign of dissension and exploit it.

Feingold should know better than that. He may have spent 99.9 % of his time criticizing Bush, corporate media will make their headline on the Democrats dissension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. My thoughts too. Why was it necessary to denounce Dem's at all in .
this forum. Unfortunately, the only reason I can think of is to promote himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. It wouldn't have been necessary if so many Democrats
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 12:56 PM by Benhurst
hadn't played handmaiden to Bush's agenda, especially the Iraq incursion and the so-called "Patriot" Act which stripped us of our historic rights.

Thanks to Bush and our compliant Congress, Americans now have fewer rights than Britons had in the Dark Ages. At least then, they could escape an evil monarch by seeking sanctuary in the Church. Americans have no such protections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Exactly. And if it wasn't for Rus and a few others,
there would be no reason to support the Democratic Party.

The rest are part of the appeasement wing of the party - what this country needs is more from the Democratic wing of the Democractic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. And other Democrats who play into his rhetoric
By calling the vote the war so that when the war actually came we couldn't advocate extending inspections. Or pretending any Democrats opposed all of the Patriot Act so that when we got a good alternative, the grassroots weren't there to support it.

Thanks to idiots, we've missed countless opportunities to change the course for our country. Thanks to the Hillary tough on war 2008 strategy too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
50. You know what would have stopped the original Patriot Act?
Feingold and the other seven Democrats not voting for its author: John Ashcroft, who is a complete wingnut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Ditto.
I'll be fair to Russ and say this might've been taken out of context. However, he should (and DOES) know better. It's become his agenda to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. What a breath of fresh air
It's so good to hear the unmitigated truth every now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
10. Gore/Feingold
a girl can dream...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Second that
a guy can dream, too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
weeve Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. Russ is our Hero !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
76. A belated Welcome to DU, weeve!!
What a great picture - too cute! :thumbsup: I love Russ, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
21. Too bad Russ believed Saddam had WMD
What a fool. Everybody on DU knew Saddam didn't have WMD. Too bad he voted to trust Bush to go to war in Afghanistan too. Nobody should trust Bush with war powers.

I won't support a candidate who plays political games with the war. Not Hillary. Not Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Ritter and UNSCOM only verified up to 90% clean


So to the extent that there was still some question, I don't think that Feingold was out of line.

More importantly, he voted against the invasion. That means everything to me.

I'm not interested in getting into an argument over this, but I am not a purist on this point, knowing that the inspectors never certified 100% compliance.

Feingold is an amazing Democrat with backbone, and voted against the USAPATRIOT Act and the use of force against Iraq. Those votes speak volumes.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Don't tell me
I know what the facts are on WMD. I also know what the facts are on the Patriot Act. Russ supports 90% of that too. The votes don't mean near as much as the plans to deal with terrorist threats and global wmd proliferation. Anybody who said Saddam had WMD but had no real plan to deal with that belief is not somebody I want in the White House. To turn around and play political games with these very serious issues is even more disturbing, it's why I didn't support Kucinich in 2003, he did the same thing then.

When the left blasts certain Democrats for believing the WMD intelligence, when people like Feingold believed it too, it shows that they're either uninformed or just being political. It's pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I find myself agreeing with you quite a bit on this one.
I'm tired of the pontificating over a vote that was made nearly 4 years ago now, one way or another. I want to hear about the future, not the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
54. well, in order to make informed decisions about the future, you must look
at the past. That is what history is all about.

If someone has a history of making good decisions in times of distress and debate, then they would theoretically be more likely to do the same in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
56. I think you're baiting people, but that's your business

UNSCOM never certified Iraq as 100% clear of WMD. That's a fact. Whatever you believe is certainly your business, but holding a purity test for someone like Feingold is a futile gesture of attempted political emasculation that ultimately won't change the beliefs of progressives who respect his general positioning.

Kucinich was one of the first politicians to come out completely against the invasion of Iraq. His "Prayer for America" in 2002 accurately predicted the Bush Administration's effort to scapegoat Iraq for 9/11 in order to justify an illegal invasion and occupation. He's been consistent on the issues of getting the occupation forces out of Iraq and forcing the occupying powers to pay reparations. There hasn't been inconsistency in Kucinich's positions on Iraq.

Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and he voted against its extension.

Dealing with the fake bogeyman put forward by Republicans and the PNAC nutballs as the "war on terrorism" is completely separate from offering resistance to the purposeful destruction of our civil liberties under the feigned threat from that bogeyman. Conflating the two represents an unfortunate giving in to the positioning of the argument favored by the "bad guys" who want everything to be flavored by their pet project for fear (and heir to the throne of the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", and the "war on the moral morality") - the "war on terror".

There is no war on terror. There is the flogging of terror by Republicans in order to force people to act against their self-interest because they are afraid. That, my friend, is terrorism.

Your positions smack of a red herring attack on Feingold to me. If you don't like him or his positions, that's certainly your business, but your rationale seems very full of holes.

:toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. He also praised the Patriot Act and is working to amend it!
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Administration Secretly Seeking Information
on 3501 Americans Last Year

April 29, 2006

"I am pleased that one 'sunshine' provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization has given the public a chance to see how often the administration has obtained the business records of Americans. It should not have taken an Act of Congress for this information to be made public. But it does demonstrate why Congress must make a few more critical changes to the Patriot Act, including a check on the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records. Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter has introduced legislation containing those modifications, and I hope that we can pass that bill this year."


# # #

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/04/2006429.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. amendments are tools to fix problems with current bills
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 04:13 PM by jsamuel
unless you think it has a chance of getting completely repealed?

There are parts I am sure he agrees with. He says something in it works, big deal, I'm sure it does.

He already tried filibustering twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #65
72. Yes, to fix a bill that
would have become another version of the IWR. If he opposed the IWR's intent, which was to further inspections and hold Bush accountable, he would not be submitting amendments to it. The same with the Patriot Act. He would have voted against it and be done, not try to amend a clause to fix it. That means he agrees with the rest of it. Feingold has said that he is not trying to get rid of the Patriot Act, he's trying to fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. What was their PLAN???
Kucinich also said we should have inspectors in Iraq. Now why would we need inspectors in the country if there was absolutely no possibility of a threat? What was his concrete PLAN to get those inspectors into Iraq.

What was Feingold's Iraq plan?

Feingold says "I voted against the Patriot Act" as if he really opposed it when he actually supports 90% of it or more. He says "I voted against the war" as if he was smart enough to know Bush was lying about WMD, when he actually said he believed Iraq had WMD. I am sick of the political posturing.

No war on terror?? You might want to read Feingold's statement on the IWR, because he believes there's a war on terror. Why do you support somebody who so stupidly believes such a thing??

Anti-war people have a political agenda too and being anti-war doesn't make them automatically right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. He did NOT vote to go to Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. He believed Saddam had WMD
I don't care how he voted. He believed Saddam had WMD so by the logic of those on the left, he was a dupe. He also voted to trust Bush with war powers in Afghanistan, so by the logic on the left, he was a dupe there too.

The vote isn't the end all be all to foreign policy, national security, or getting out of Iraq. In the scheme of things, continuing to rant on that vote is political propaganda and nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Not "caring" how Senators VOTE....
OK, you go ahead with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Governance is more than votes
It's reasons behind votes as well. You can't say somebody is a threat with WMD and then offer NO plan to deal with it. You can't pretend to be a champion of civil rights because of a vote when you actually support 90% of what that vote represents. It's bullshit. I care about more than votes.

I like Russ Feingold fine, but I don't like his political posturing on these votes. Until he starts talking about real issues that unify the party instead of playing the politics of leftist divisiveness, he's off my list. It's what got Howard Dean off my list in 2003, and off the list of a whole lot of other Dems too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Keep holding your breath for your "ideal" candidate.
Go on... keep holding it...

She/he will be here any day now.....

keep holding....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. I have my ideal candidate
Thank you very much. I exhaled in 2002, after holding my breath since 1971.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. So, share with us, who is the "perfect Democrat" in sandnsea's world?
Hmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. It's a secret???
I think my Presidential preference has always been quite clear. There isn't anybody with a better vision for this country than John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. So you have venom for Feingold for things that Kerry did, but way worse?
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 03:33 PM by jsamuel
Where as Feingold actually made the right decision at the time, where as Kerry has admitted that he should have done what Feingold did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. I have venom for poltiical posturing
Which Feingold was not so much engaged in until recently, as far as I can see. I have venom for people who pretend they "knew" there were no WMD, the people who "voted for the war" were stupid because they didn't; but intentionally ignore that people like Feingold said there were WMD too. They're either uninformed or liars. I equally have venom for people who play that same game with the Patriot Act, pretending that there's a difference between somebody who voted no on it when they actually support 90% of what's in it. Again, they're either uninformed or liars.

Kerry has recognized that there's no getting through to people that the vote wasn't the war. I don't blame him for that, I just don't agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. He didn't claim to know... that thread you are refering to by Prosense is
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 03:56 PM by jsamuel
misleading. He cut out 80% of the speach and highlighted the parts he liked.

THIS IS WHY HE VOTED AGAINST IT.



But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.

I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

...

But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.

My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. I know what these people said
I don't need anybody to post something today in order to know what was said at the time of that vote. I know that Feingold, Dean, Clark, and many others said Saddam had WMD. What they said and believed is as important as the vote, that's my entire point. What would Feingold have done as President since he believed Iraq had WMD. That matters more than that vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Then why did you say this up thread?
"He says 'I voted against the war' as if he was smart enough to know Bush was lying about WMD, when he actually said he believed Iraq had WMD."

The post above shows that the reason why he voted against the resolution was specifically because he didn't believe the administrations' shifting explanations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #68
77. He said he believed Iraq had WMD
He pretends he never said that. He pretends voting against the IWR is the same thing as knowing there were no WMD, or that Bush was lying about WMD. He clearly didn't know that because he said he believed there were WMD. He didn't "know" anything more than anybody else did. People at DU who say they "knew", and beat up Democrats who didn't "know", are inadvertently saying they knew something that not even Russ Feingold claimed to know. That's my primary point.

He had no plan to address his own believe that a dictator that hates the US has WMD. Governance is more than votes. I don't accept that it's okay to believe a dictator has WMD and offer no plan to deal with it.

He chose to vote against the IWR because he believed it would divert us from fighting terrorism and he wasn't happy with Bush's explanations. Good enough. Another irony though, for those who believe there is no war on terrorism, but support somebody who clearly does. But anyway, good enough reason to vote against the IWR. Why doesn't he run on that instead of pretending he knew something more about WMD that he clearly didn't know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. It wasn't misleading! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. ok, then "selective"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. Sorry, I'm sort of new and have not followed you closely enuff to
know who "your" candidate was.

I stand with Russ. In addition to being a general "fan" of his... I am also a constituent of his, and proudly campaigned and voted for him in 2004.

I will refrain on my criticism of Kerry, but I now understand why voting record isn't "important" to you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. I like Russ
For a long time he was my second choice for 2008. But I don't like this recent jaunt down the left wing divisive path. He's misrepresenting his real views to pander to voters and it stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #58
82. Really? Pander? I know Russ and that's not his style.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 05:26 PM by IsIt1984Yet
He's very close to his constituents. Very close. And he works very hard to HEAR them and represent them. He holds "listening sessions" in every county in the state throughout the year. Seventy-two every year. He's held more than EIGHT-HUNDRED and FIFTY listening sessions with his constituents since being elected.

Did you know that during his 1st run he posted promises to voters on his garage door??

"...series of five promises written on Feingold's garage door in the form of a contract. These were:

I will rely on the Wisconsin citizens for most of my contributions.
I will live in Middleton, Wisconsin. My children will go to school here and I will spend most of my time here in Wisconsin.
I will accept no pay raise during my six-year term in office.
I will hold a "Listening Session" in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year of my six-year term in office.
I will hire the majority of my Senate staff from individuals who are from Wisconsin or have Wisconsin backgrounds"

He's a stand-up guy and has proven that to us time and time and time again.

I have NOT agreed with 100% of his decisions, and I don't expect there will ever be a candidate that fits that bill. I trust his sincerity and I am very proud of his voting record - more than any other contender from the Senate - including Kerry. And, I know you said it doesn't matter to you, but voting record matters BIG time with me.

My thoughts on Kerry in '04: I was angry that he didn't get as angry I did about the attacks during the campaign and about Ohio. I was angry that he has not CONSISTENTLY stood up against the thieves in the WH. He was duped into voting for the war and for the USA PATRIOT Act. I'd like to see a candidate who will FIGHT when we need it MOST. JK didn't in '04.

I really REALLY wanted Kerry to win... but he didn't and now I would like to see a real fighter.

I'll support the Dem candidate, no doubt... but I will work real hard to try to get my favorite player in the game. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Even DeFazio panders
He's my Congressman, he voted for the stupid logging bill to pander to our loggers. I know that. Doesn't change the fact that he's one of the most liberal Congressmen in the House and a great Democrat who runs as an independent who works with his constituents, listens to voters, etc. He is every bit as independent and progressive as Feingold. But he pandered on the logging bill, he had no choice. It's politics. Don't think Feingold doesn't pander when he needs to either, he definitely is trying to be the Dean of 2004, it's quite obvious.

I expect you to try to get your favorite player in the game. But don't expect others not to call bullshit when they see it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
89. I don't think you have any right to accuse anyone of....
Going down the "divisive path" after saying such things in this thread as

"When the left blasts certain Democrats for believing the WMD intelligence, when people like Feingold believed it too, it shows that they're either uninformed or just being political. It's pathetic."

and

"I equally have venom for people who play that same game with the Patriot Act, pretending that there's a difference between somebody who voted no on it when they actually support 90% of what's in it. Again, they're either uninformed or liars."

You say Feingold supporters are "either uninformed or liars", and then accuse US of being divisive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #89
93. Who went down the divisive path??
He did. If he didn't misrepresent his view on WMD and the Patriot Act, along with his supporters, I'd have nothing to say on the subject. Don't blame me for responding to the tactics others engaged in first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. "if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam...will actually be removed"
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 03:25 PM by ProSense
And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2661931&mesg_id=2661931



So he voted no on the version that passed. He voted yes on others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. well when you highlight it the way you did, it creates emphasis where none
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 03:52 PM by jsamuel
was...

Take a look at mine

Here is Senator Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution
by Sen. Russ Feingold
October 11, 2002


Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. From hearings and meetings on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications, after my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26, and, Mr. President, I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President, and I also used that opportunity to raise some very important questions, to which I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible resolution.

Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with really very minimal justification.

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.

I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations -- situations that surely need our serious attention but are not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.

Let me say that the President is right that we've got to view the world, the threats and our own national security in a very different light since 9-11. There are shocking new threats. But, Mr. President, it is not helpful to use virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest that the new threat is the same as other preexisting threats. Mr. President, I think common sense tells us they are not the same and they cannot so easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.

Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already voted for military action. I have no objection.

But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.

I'm not hearing the same things at the briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.

Then the Vice-President said, on September 8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen no proof of that.

And finally then, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad." I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.

The facts just aren't there, or at least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely, almost like a bootstrap.

For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and al Qaeda both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Well, who else are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?

Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively harboring or assisting the terrorists involved in 9-11, we have to act against them. But I don't think you can bring within the definition of harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al Qaeda members somewhere in Iraq. After all, Mr. President, apparently we have al Qaeda agents active in our country as well. They are present in our nation as well. How can this be a sufficient basis on its own?

Therefore, Mr. President, without a better case for al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merits, not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9-11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States.

An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.

In fact, I'm so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen of this viewpoint here in the Senate chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. He said, "Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein."

I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen? When we see the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself? And when we realize that we're not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism or just make them extremely nervous?

Mr. President, I had a meeting with a group of African ambassadors the other day in my role as Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and they told me that various people were placing bets -- placing bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new doctrine that the President is putting forward.

Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?

Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.

When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he said, "It is not clear to me what measures that are required in the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means." That's the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on this tough question.

But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question. He said, "So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of the campaign against terrorism." That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of our other military efforts and priorities.

What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President, all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.

An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

In Afghanistan, the government and President Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?

I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.

So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.

I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.

And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.

We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.

On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.

Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting -- anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality that this could happen again, that there are forces planning to do us harm, and that we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but sense that the future is uncertain, that our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs.

So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.

My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.


Russ Feingold is a senator from Wisconsin.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #45
59. Doesn't change what he said:
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 03:55 PM by ProSense
First two paragraphs:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. ok, in sum, what he said was
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 04:00 PM by jsamuel
From what I have seen, it suggests Saddam is trying to gain weapons and we need to stop him. However, I have not (and my constituents have not) seen enough evidence to justify invading, even though I would love to replace Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. And Kerry made the point
Two days earlier in much stronger language:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #64
71. yes Kerry deserves credit for saying that, but...
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 04:31 PM by jsamuel
what you end up voting for is what actually matters, not what you say

I also give Kerry credit for saying that he should have voted against it like Feingold did. I don't hold it against Kerry any more than anyone else who voted for it. The point is, between the two, one of them chose to vote against it, the other to vote for it. Maybe that doesn't mean all that much to you, but it does to me.

Those who made the best decisions in the past are most likely to make the best decisions in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #71
86. It's not discrediting his vote
to point out that the intent of the IWR was to further inspections and hold Bush accountable. It does a disservice to Democrats who were against the war to contiunously mischaracterize the vote as a vote for war, as supporting the invasion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. Feingold voted against the war in Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. I didn't say otherwise and so what n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. that is a mighty fine job of suggestion there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. ????
No idea what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Feingold just voted against that version
He voted for other versions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

Here is Kerry's and Feingold's speeches, they both were opposed to war!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2661931&mesg_id=2661931


People need to stop playing the blame game alright!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. voting for amendments doesn't mean voting for the bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #38
84. I never saw that before - yu should repost it - it's very enlightening.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. WOW. Accountability within the Democratic Party.
Maybe there IS some hope.
Telling the TRUTH, and STANDING for what is Right will win elections!

http://alternet.org/story/29788/
In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
27. IWR actually kept Bush from having war HIS WAY - no weapon inspections and
no diplomacy, and Iranand Syria targeted next.

Russ didn't step up to negotiate anything, and refuses to acknowledge that many Dems who supported IWR also did not want Bush to go to war without taking the steps to avoid it FIRST.

And, btw, Russ, what about all those issues YOU REFUSED TO lift a finger - like when Kerry called for Rumsfeld's firing in 2003 and 2004, or opposing Roberts, or Downing Street Memos inquiry you wouldn't even SIGN, or not preparing a filibuster of Alito out of your own committee?

Your silence wasn't even noted, because many Democrats were USED TO YOU BEING SILENT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
31. Oh, shush, Russ. It upsets the moderates when you tell the truth.
Doncha know we have to get the south, and the moderates, and the conservatives, and the NASCAR dads, and the NRA, and...and..everybody but the those durn lefties who are trying to destroy the party and everything that it..well...kinda....maybe..check the polls...STANDS FOR??? What'll happen to our courageous party if you come out there tellin' the truth? Rush will be really, really, angry and say bad things about the nice Dems.

Golly, Russ, you're supposed to be a politician. You know, one of them guys that consider honesty a handicap and know that telling the truth to the common folks is far too painful for them. Why, they might think that politicians SHOULD tell the truth!

Even if it hurts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
35. He is right.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 02:57 PM by jsamuel
And no one else within the Democratic Party is willing to admit it.

We helped Iraq happen, Democrats. We need to change too. We don't need to be 100% right all the time for people to vote for us, we need to be truthful and immediately admit when we were wrong and pledge to fix it. Then we need to actually fix it.

As for "shouldn't be doing it during election season"...

It is always election season. And it isn't October 31st.

"Don't play the blame game"...

If not now, when? Never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
52. Russ earned the right to gloat about war and Patriot Act...but...
...that's not going to help him in 2008 when he needs the heavy lifting by the Democratic party bigwigs...no matter how you see it, that remains a factor in getting the nomination and mobilizing more than just the net community.

He should temper it down a little...he is a funny guy, so he could use humor a bit more and leave the red meat speeches for particular venues...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
70. He was wrong about WMD
Just as wrong as anybody else. And he doesn't oppose most of the provisions in the Patriot Act, so that's rather a bullshit argument too. I am just tired of pretending that a vote represents the whole of a particular reality when it just doesn't.

If everybody at DU "knew" about WMD and anybody who didn't is a dupe, then Russ is a dupe.

If trusting Bush with the IWR was stupid, then trusting Bush with Afghanistan was stupid too. Everybody except Barbara Lee trusted Bush with that one.

I'm tired of the political games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. The only thing people knew here was that the administration was lieing
And that is what Feingold said in his speach. That he didn't believe that administration and that he needed more evidence before invading a country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #73
79. Oh no no no
I see it every single day. DU "knew" there were no WMD, why didn't the people who "voted for the war" know.

Well Feingold didn't "know" either.

That's been a pretty big load anyway, I was here in 2003 and there were very few people who "knew" WMD weren't going to be found. You might want to know I "knew" there weren't enough WMD to create an imminent threat, primarily because of the way we went into Iraq. I spent the bulk of my time around here arguing with people in a panic over "what if they find WMD", every single time they supposedly "found" something over there. It's quite ironic to me that I found myself arguing now with people who pretend they "knew".

Political posturing and pandering. The left plays that game too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. Considering Russ' overall track record...
...I think he needs our support more than ever. I didn't fall for the WMD argument, either, but a lot of people on the Hill did, and bullshit tends to be more contagious than the truth. At least Russ voted the right way when the hour of decision came.

Russ, I've got your back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. Again
Russ believed Iraq had WMD. So I guess you knew something he didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. That's right, I did. But where do we go from here?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If we have to smack Russ a little bit because he was swayed into thinking Iraq had WMDs without checking the evidence, that's fine. But we still need a Democratic President come November 2008. What's the plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Tell the truth
And let the voters decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. I agree...Russ isn't perfect...
Good points on the Afghanistan war...I'm with Lee on that one...

Russ is well-liked and is certainly a likeable guy in person. I just hope he doesn't turn into a one-trick pony. He's better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. He certainly is
That's the biggest disappointment, he is better than that and the Democratic Party desperately needs for him to be better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarcoated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
87. No matter how many times the hairs get split
Russ is still the best of the bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
90. I look forward to voting for this person. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
92. Dem straw poll
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:30 PM by chill_wind
Small sampling, been around for quite a while, but the positions haven't moved around much among its registrants if at all since it started that I can recall. Only one guy's been, and remains, ahead of him so far in that one.

http://www.democrats.com/ (right-hand column)

Do we have one somewhere? If anyone has links to others, I hope they'll post them.

I like his spit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC