Feingold Ups The Ante On Iraq Funding

Wisconsin Democrat's Bill Would Cut Off Funding After Six Months

(The Politico)  By The Politico's Roger Simon.

---

Senate Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, they just don't plan on stopping it.

They have discovered that standing up to the president is not quite as easy as vilifying him.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has decided, however, to challenge what he calls the "timidity" of Democratic leaders. He is going to introduce legislation cutting off funding for the Iraq war and he may do it, he told me, as early as this week.

I reached him by telephone Monday in Fond du Lac, Wis., where he was conducting one of his "Listening Sessions" with voters during a snowstorm.

I asked him whether Democratic voters were further to the left than their elected leaders, especially their presidential candidates, when it came to the war.

"That is not only true of Democrats," Feingold said, "it is true of the public as a whole. The mainstream view of the American people is to get out of Iraq."

Cutting off funds only for the planned 21,500 troop surge in Iraq and passing resolutions condemning the war has become the fallback position of Senate Democrats who are fearful of being portrayed as unpatriotic, cowardly, "Mommy Party" haters of the military.

And they have reason to be afraid. The White House plays hardball. The White House is never reluctant to accuse those who oppose its policies in Iraq of being bashers of our troops and abettors of our enemies.

The Bush administration released a statement last weekend saying that even those who just want to prohibit the surge are sending "the wrong message to our troops, our enemies, and the Iraqi people."

In Iowa Sunday, Hillary Clinton said: "At this point, I am not ready to cut off funding for American troops. I am not going to do that." She said that even if Congress passed such a bill, it would be pointless because we have "a president who will veto anything that impinges on his authority."

Feingold is not impressed with that argument. "It is not true this is a futile exercise," he said. "We can say no."

If, for instance, the Democrats attached an Iraq funding cutoff to an appropriations bill, the president would risk shutting down the government by vetoing it.

But some Democrats are worried. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told my colleague John Bresnahan Thursday, Republicans "would like this debate to be as (to) whether or not we are going to be cutting off money for troops."

And others, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., who is running for president, says a funding cutoff probably is unconstitutional.

Which is why Feingold is chairing a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday to "help inform my colleagues and the public about Congress's power to end a war."

Feingold has gathered various legal and other experts to testify, but the result is a foregone conclusion. "I am going to lay out the reality that Congress does have this power," Feingold said. "The president does not have the unilateral power to (continue the war) without our consent."

Feingold said a cutoff of funding six months after the law is enacted "makes sense, it is constitutional, and our troops will not be left in the lurch."

Under Feingold's plan, the administration would have to safely redeploy troops from Iraq except for those needed to target counter-terrorism operations and provide security for U.S "infrastructure and civilian personnel" there, and a "limited number" to train Iraqi security services.

Feingold is going to put his fellow Democrats to the test: If you are really against this war, he is going to tell them, now is the time to show it.

"Those (Democrats) who are timid on this, who are they listening to?" he said. "The people don't want us to talk just about ending the escalation. They think this whole war is wrong."

[houser123]

Wheither youagree with Senator Feingold or not, you have got to admire his bravado. He opposed this war from the beginning, voted to not allow the president to take us to war and is now favoring presenting a bill that will cut the funds for the "WAR" not the "Troops" within six months of inactment. I said this before, we need more Senator Feingolds out there that will take a stand and make a commitment. A non binding resolution will not do anything to end our involvement in this civil war any sooner. Take away the pocketbook and that will send the right message. Kudos to the great Senator from Wisconsin.

[dallison7]

CUDOS RUSS!!

[karlimhof]

Well ,mighty-me, we got ourselves a regular A-merican patriot this Russ Feingold - and he's sayin' like it is: AMERICANS WANT IT STOPPED - YOU GOT IT ? THAT MEANS WE WINDING DOWN BOYS WITH PROFESSIONALISM

[bluestardad]

Make the Congress and the Administration define who the enemy is in Iraq. The Neocons cannot tell you who we are sending our troops to fight. It is a sure bet that the Chicken Hawks are not going to go fight. Saudis are aiding the Sunnis and Iran is aiding the Shiites and the 12 former members of Saddam%u2019s regime are running scared hiding in caves! So how do we tell our troops to fire upon? Why is America even there? OK here is your chance, don%u2019t just set in front of your computer and complain spouting meaningless rants of sludge, do something about it! This is the contact address for your Senator! Send them a message of your opinion. All Class Two Senators are up for Reelection in 2008. Be respectful even if they do not deserve it because their office does! http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[bluestardad]

GOD bless Russ Feingold! Do it!

[hillaryin08]

Russ Feingold is dreaming

Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOjmDsPg_s

[hillaryin08]

bluestardad

Russ doesent have the balls to cut food, fuel, ammunition and water from the troops in combat any more than you have the balls to spit on a grunt in public.

Your in a liberal dream world. Now, check this out. Here is a real story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOjmDsPg_s

[cbsnews69]

Sounds like treason to me. I do not applaude his bravdo. Hanoi Jane and now Sen. Russ Alqueda.

[randalds]

This is good news. As a democrat I want to pull my hair out sometimes at how gun shy the ones in Washington can be. The people sent a clear message last November and in every reputable poll. We want out of Iraq as soon as practicable and the only way to reign in the madman in the White House is to take his money away. Still it's not likely to stop him all of the way as he'll then just provoke a war with Iran, which he's trying to do now anyway and use that as a reason to stop this cutoff in funding. Bush is addicted to war, death and destruction and needs his fix as much as any heroin addict would.

[randalds]

Russ doesent have the balls to cut food, fuel, ammunition and water from the troops in combat any more than you have the balls to spit on a grunt in public.

Posted by hillaryin08 at 12:48 PM : Jan 30, 2007

The idea that this would somehow cut off nee3ded supplies and leave our troops just hanging is absurd and an out and out lie. His proposal, as well as every other one the democrats have put forward, contain plenty of money to keep the troops supplied during the withdrawal. The White House is putting out complete Bullsh*it that this is not true, but anyone who can read knows it is. To say otherwise is a Rush/O'Rielly type lie.

[hillaryin08]

RandalDS

Check out your new president

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOjmDsPg_s

[gdmoore2]

I prefer a direct confrontation between Congress and the President on permission to continue the Iraq invasion. If Congress removes its permission to continue, then the President may not continue, or so I believe. This confrontation would result in an honorable direct debate with substantial constitutional interpretation, and might result in a Supreme Court ruling. It is time to settle this.

Cutting off funding for the troops too directly involves the military. Our military has not done anything wrong.

[bluestardad]

RandalDS; exactly true! Cutting off funds for the war is not cutting off funds for the troops! that is the old if you aint with us you are for the terrorist! ************ the president and the neocons have been spewing against anyone who challenges them!

[randalds]

RandalDS

Check out your new president

http://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=2rOjmDsPg_s
Posted by hillaryin08 at 01:04 PM : Jan 30, 2007

Why bother? I doubt it's about Obama anyway. And youtube is a waste of my time.

[randalds]

Posted by bluestardad at 01:15 PM : Jan 30, 2007

It's a spin off of the Lee Atwater school of politics. He is the republican strategist who pushed ideas like any lie is OK as long as it helps you win and that if you tell a lie often enough it' becomes true. His thing was "conventional wisdom" in that if you kept repeating something about the opposition (the Democrats), true or not, often enough people will eventually accept it as conventional wisdom. This includes beliefs like the democrats are soft on defense, soft on law and order, favor big government, are pro-welfare, want higher taxes, want to take your guns, etc. These are all bullsh*it of course, but he pushed them out there so often and so agressivly that most people who are too stupid or weak-minded to look into things for themselves accept them as the truth. His biggest protege was Karl Rove. No surprise there. Ironically enough he died of a brain tumor and apologized to all he hurt before his death. Too little, too late.

[rharrin1]

That statement about a pay raise is simply *********
go soak your head in the toilet.

[randalds]

That statement about a pay raise is simply *********
go soak your head in the toilet.
Posted by rharrin1 at 02:11 PM : Jan 30, 2007

Soaking his head in a toilet wouldn't be a change for fartknocker. It's where he goes for breakfast, lunch and dinner anyway. He lies so much that he wouldn't know the truth if he tasted it.

[rafterman1]

"That statement about a pay raise is simply ********* go soak your head in the toilet."

Actually, that story is true - sort of. It was the House, not the Senate. And the pay raise was an automatic - a vote was only needed to stop it, not trigger it. Dems and Repubs had an unwritten rule to not go after each other about pay raises. But the Dems made that a campaign issue last year and the Repubs got pi$$ed, so after an"unofficial" tally of votes, led by House Repubs, the pay raise was stopped. This according to the AP.