The Warnings are There, Will the President Listen?

Today, as Americans analyze the election results from my home state, I'd like to share with you the concerns I've been hearing from Wisconsinites at my town hall meetings. Again and again, I hear the same, often anguished question: When will we get our brave troops out of Iraq? The war is a top concern for Wisconsinites, and so many Americans around the country. Since the beginning of this disastrous war, people have asked me repeatedly why we are in Iraq, instead of going after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It's clear to many Americans that this war has warped our national security priorities. And top U.S. military commanders have started to acknowledge the same thing, indirectly, as they identify the serious threat to our security in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the strain that the war in Iraq is putting on our military force.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned that an attack on the U.S. will most likely come from al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. This solemn warning, from the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces, demands that we focus our energy and resources on eliminating this threat to our country. The resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a grave threat to our national security, yet our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq that we don't have enough resources to address it. As U.S. military General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, said, "The Army today is out of balance," and "We're deploying at unsustainable rates."

Despite these warnings, last week, Defense Secretary Gates said he thinks it "makes sense" to pause the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. Even faced with this dangerous threat, and this devastating burden on our military, the administration is still considering keeping at least 130,000 troops in Iraq -- a level which is unsustainable and undermines our ability to respond to contingencies elsewhere and defend our own country.

The administration can't seem to get its national security priorities straight, even with the increasing threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. But Congress is to blame, too -- we've been sitting by and watching as the administration bungles our national security strategy. The administration has had blinders on for too long, focusing on Iraq at the expense of our overall security. We have to force them to take the blinders off and come up with a new strategy, one that focuses on going after the threats we face, not staying mired in the mistakes they've made.

I'm working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the administration change course. We have introduced two new bills to draw down our troops in Iraq and force the administration to focus on the threat of al Qaeda and its affiliates. The first bill requires the President to safely redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq with very narrow exceptions for counterterrorism efforts against al Qaeda, force protection, and limited training of Iraqis. The second bill requires the administration to report to Congress on its global strategy for defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates. The report has to tell us where the threats are, and how we are going to make sure we have the right resources in the right places to address them. These bills are expected to get a vote next week, when the Senate returns from a week-long recess. I hope all Senators who oppose the President's Iraq policy are present for these important votes.

Admiral Mullen got a lot of attention in December when he said "in Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must." That one sentence summed up the misplaced priorities of an administration that profoundly lost its way in the fight against al Qaeda. While Iraq may no longer be on the front page, I know it's at the forefront of many Americans' concerns and will continue to be in November. Congress needs to end the president's failed strategy in Iraq, so that we can focus on improving our homeland security and denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This administration has got our security strategy dangerously wrong, and it's time for Congress, finally, to force them to get it right.

Comments

[MajorKong]

"Will the President listen?"

Short answer - No.

[provgrays]

Senator Feingold,

You already know that Bush will not listen to anything but his pathologically predetermined views. He is apparently unable to empathize with or even acknowledge the pain he inflicts on so many people.

He should have been impeached years ago, but power for its own sake rules the day in this country. We can only wait out this war criminal. Justice will not touch him on this Earth.

[lisakaz]

Exactly. If the Congress won't cut off funding, the only solution is to impeach. Bu$h cannot be changed. Our republic is in jeopardy in sooo many ways and Democrats in Congress are fidding while Rome is burning.

Given our frustration, it is no wonder why Nader is running. But instead of getting out, we might be in store for FUBAR-city if McCain emerges as the winner.

Gawd, DO SOMETHING ALREADY! What will it take for America to pull back from the cliff?

[Honza]

I hope the Senators that voted for the FISA bill will someday find out they were spied on, thats why Bush gloats, he knows more about us peons than is necessary. Also why is the word LIAR not used against Bush's statements. I find the Senate a bunch of lame ducks, as a Veteran against the war and want out throops back home defending our borders not killing for oil. Having watched the Senate on C-span, there is only a few that could stand up to Wellston, he was my champion.

[CONDUIT]

Senator-
The U.S. will not leave Iraq. The Crown of England learned when Iran elected its own leader and nationalized its oil resources that its cheap oil evaporated; so they persuaded the U.S. to help change the Iranian regime by forcing the Shah as Iran's leader. Having learned that lesson, the powers that be will not make the same mistake twice. So the U.S. will be in Iraq for the forseeable future.
Near the end of 2007, Congress voted to not allocate funds for building permanent bases in Iraq and Pres. Bush with his customary signing statements went ahead and rechanneled funds to proceed anyhow.

One of these days you will have to face the reality that Congress, and especially all of you in the Senate have become IRRELEVANT. With signing statements, vetoes and the President's bullying very little gets done. Now the President even is attempting to tell the Courts what evidence they may and may not consider in the military trials and demanding that the U.S. Supreme Court hear oral arguments on said matters before the end of its 2008 term in June.
The Representatives in the House are slightly waking up because they have to be accoutable to their constituents every two years--so they allowed the Protect America Act of 2007 to expire and will fix it on their terms hopefully. But none of us should hold our breath. They still haven't gotten the courage to put impeachment on the table and that is the only action that will get us out of this quagmire. Our Representatives must uphold their oath of office and remove leaders, who refuse to follow our Constitution.

With all due respect Senator, you don't get it, you don't see what the majority of commentators this time around are telling you. You are wasting the Senate's time if you think another try at this will go anyplace. Taxpayers resources would be saved if you all went home for the next ten months.
The most productive action Senators could take right now is to do aggressive oversight on the Commerce and Transportation Departments changes in Administrative Code to block the automatic pilot agenda of the Bush Administration and the North American Union. If you don't address this now, we soon will no longer exist as the U.S.A.

Also oversight of the FDA would be extremely beneficial. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision that doesn't allow a remedy for defective devices when FDA approval had been obtained is disgusting. For years now, we all see again and again that the FDA approves drugs and devices based on corporate pressure and often doesn't even do investigations, e.g. the Medtronics heart leads received FDA approval yet were never investigated by the FDA. At least if more energies were focused on exposing the corruption going on inside the executive branch's agencies, your watchful eyes might cut down on the government corruption.

Another area that needs your watchful eyes is the Federal Communiations Commission. The monopolization of our public media is frightening and I appreciate that you already have been focused on some of these issues.

Senator, your ability to serve mankind in this job has been severly gridlocked and the beltway Democrats, who think that they will coast into a Democratic Presidency are fooling themselves. All it will take is the independent run of someone like Bloomberg and their inaction from 2006 will have reaped them their just due. Seeing two incumbents not even making it through the Chesapeake area primaries last week should tell all of you that the electorate are ready to dump everyone who has become too cozy and arrogant in their jobs. There is too much self-grandizement in Washington!

[retarius]

Excellent analysis. It really is high time that the Democrats in Congress grew a spine and did what they were elected to do and stood up to Bush...cut the funds off...

[grn1]

"We have to force them to take the blinders off and come up with a new strategy, one that focuses on going after the threats we face, not staying mired in the mistakes they've made." With this statement from the senator it doesn't look like funds will be cut off, just diverted into another middle-east disaster. Where people like Mukasey can torture at will, with the senators blessing.

[MrCoffeeCup]

Senator Feingold: How about doing something different other that complaining! How about re-instituting the draft! Why not, make it the responsibility of every able-bodied man and women to serve their country for two and one half years. College loans=military duty!

Just like Israel, every man and woman must participate in the defense of their country. Are you a Mexican immigrant; legal or anchor baby. Want to become an immediate citizen? Well welcome to the military!

It is a privildge to live in America! It is a honor to defend her against all foreign and domestic enemies.

It's time we realized that America is protected by only those who volunteer; the rest get a free ride like welfare cheaters, illegals, and lazy career college students.

It's time Senator to make everyone accountable to the fact that America needs all of us to insure freedom!

[Wulfstan]

Well, you can always volunteer yourself Mister Starbuck. Bon voyage.

[Loeb]

Mr. Coffee Cup:

In between some cogent remarks assuming intentions
are well-meaning, you reach more wrong-headed
conclusions than are imagineable.

Impeachment gets no one anywhere. The reasons
are there from my own perspective but they were
there for Bill Clinton. They are there for
torture. And on and on.

I do not know the constitutional basis for
"signings". The process makes a mockery of
our checks and balances system of government.

I reject blaming "politicians" for everything in sight. Patriotic ads (during prime time
football games for example) emanating out of
the Pentagon no doubt play a massive role.

Why must we have someone to kill? Did we rejoice
when Sadam Hussein, a former employee of the
US/CIA was promptly hanged?

What about the tens of thousands of Arabs
massacred and tortured by Israel, our client
state? What about the massive military aid
we give Israel and the funds for the settlements?
Is legislation pending to end this US-backed
policy. Or do we just feel that since they are
Arabs, they don't count, are subhuman???

(See: Noam Chomsky: "Fateful Triangle")

I cannot prove this on incontrovertible evidence
but I have no doubt myself that had we wanted to murder Osama ben Laden, we could have done so.
But why would we want to? And is it legal to
murder those in foreign nations at our pleasure?

Not to mention "extra-ordinary renditions".

Get to work and forget revenge as a basis for
murder, massacre, torture, pre-emptive actions.

In your conclusions, you are being mislead by
your emotions. You are not following facts.

[provgrays]

We weren't defending the country from anything when we invaded Iraq. They did not attack us. MrCoffeeCup, your patriotic jingoism is devoid of thoughtfulness or context. The government relies on blind patriots to carry out its many crimes.

Why is bin Laden still running around? Don't you think we could find him if we truly wanted to?

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

Senator Feingold -

Thank you so much for being the prow of the ship of state in our Senate, and for tirelessly (though you are, I'm sure, beyond tired) breaking through the battering waves of democracy-hostile corruption and lies, which you necesssarily tackle and battle in your effort to return us to the bearings - and thus the wise, more humane and compassionate course - that our Constitution set out for our nation.

I'm commenting on this post of yours because of something I witnessed a week ago during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing held on Valentine's Day with DNI Mike McConnell, that has bothered me ever since. Thinking I might have missed some context, I went back and viewed the whole hearing again - it's available in C-SPAN's video collection of recent programs. My first impression held up on second viewing, days later.

My concern relates to the behavior of Jay Rockefeller, the (extremely-powerful and clearly autocratic) committee chair, and, in particular, to how the other members of the intelligence committee respond to his dictatorial running of that vital committee. Especially, at the moment, where FISA is concerned. [The only members who showed up for last Thursday's hearing, besides Rockefeller and Bond, were Whitehouse, Feingold, Feinstein, Wyden, Snowe and Warner.]

I know you stated publicly in the Judiciary Committee that the FISA bill voted out of the Intelligence Committee was basically the agreed-upon product of Rockefeller and Bond (the senior Republican on the committee) - and obviously of the White House - with, alarmingly, little or no input solicited or accepted from the rest of the membership of the intelligence committee. Red Flag #1 (and what a situation that warped process has placed us in).

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

This time I was able to watch the dynamics of the Senate Intelligence Committee myself, in this rare open session, and it was a very disturbing scene drawn by Mr. Rockefeller. If there is one message I hope you will heed, and share with your colleagues, it is that your membership on that committee is not about you or about any other Senator personally, but is instead about representing your STATE and the NATION on EVERY SINGLE SECRET MATTER to which the rest of your Senate colleagues and the American people are forbidden access.

Thus, when a colleague - even when it's the chair who is nominally of your political party - attempts to CENSOR questions you have for a high-level witness testifying before the committee (DNI McConnell re FISA/PAA and torture, in this case) because allegedly 'off-topic' - AFTER that same chair (Rockefeller, not to mention Bond) has already raised just such 'off-topic' questions with the witness - the answer is NOT, as Ron Wyden unfortunately did, to "defer" to that corrupt, autocratic chair and to decline to ask your questions. It is instead, to politely but firmly inform that chair that the citizens of your state demand answers about the actions of their government, especially by way of those few members chosen to oversee the now-sprawling SECRET operations of our government, and you will decline to defer to his wish to keep any such unclassified information out of the public realm (never mind any private arrangements the chair may have made with the administration's witness to limit the questioning, and thus the level of difficulty of his testimony). And then to proceed to ask your questions, whether or not that chair threatens to dictatorially gavel down the meeting as a result.

It is imperative that these committee hearings and meeting debates be conducted fully, fairly and inclusively, ESPECIALLY in the (mostly-secret) intelligence committees. Someone obviously should have objected to the way Bond & Rockefeller concocted their FISA bill in the first place. The same undemocratic process threatens to infect the House/Senate 'negotiations' now under way.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

I find the conduct of Rockefeller, and the deference to that conduct, ominous and alarming. Every public board meeting in America has to potentially contend with the same dynamic between autocratic abuse and democratic debate. Members too weak to challenge a dictatorial chair or to insist, in the face of bullying, on full and fair democratic process, are failing to do their duty and are betraying the public trust they hold. Obviously, the stakes are exponentially higher on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and there is absolutely no excuse for Senators to be worrying about 'saving face', or to be tolerating such abuse, when treated as an inferior by a sold-out Chair - of either party - who is abusing his authority to get his own way, the rest of the committee be damned.

I commend Senator Whitehouse - despite the fact that I condemn his vote for cloture on immunity-laden FISA in the Senate - for at least proceeding to ask his questions last Thursday despite Rockefeller's preemptive attempts to muzzle the remaining members of the committee once he and Bond had had their go at DNI McConnell. I completely condemn Rockefeller's peevish and nasty (if veiled) reaction to Whitehouse's asking two reasonable and fair, and very timely, questions (both simply following-up on those of Rockefeller and Bond) to DNI McConnell. Especially as compared to the fawning treatment Rockefeller later gave John Warner before and after Warner also launched right into a comment/question about FISA, without rebuke. I appreciated your immediate response - "I won't let that happen" (however it was meant) - to Rockefeller's threat to adjourn the meeting if Senators didn't stick to the 'DNI authority' topic he decreed, after Whitehouse finished his five minutes.

[deminmo]

What is needed is honesty about why we need to
remain in Iraq.
Is it to protect American oil companies while
they start the process of oil production?
Is it to prepare for a strike on Iran?
Why do we need the large numbers of military
support from the US, if Iraqi's have been
trained for those duties?
How does the Bush administration explain to
those troops and their families, that there is
no end in sight?
Why is the Congress so reluctant to demand the
answers?
Why are so many Democrats and Republicans
still supporting the war the way it is being
run in Iraq?
When enlistments fall off even more, where do
you get new people; go to gradeschools?

[Garvagh]

The stubborn ignoramus in the White House wants to transform Iraq into a docile client state even if most Iraqis oppose this scheme. The relentless squandering of further hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on this adventure is a disgrace and poses a threat to the nation's security.

[research]

Russ, you know Bush won't listen.

Impeachment is the only remedy.

[mgsorens]

Before 911 al Qaeda was a relatively small potatoes terrorist outfit compared to Hezbollah. That is, Hezbollah had been responsible for more U.S. casualties than al Qaeda.
Since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq, neither group has been able to launch substantial attacks, against U.S. interests, outside of those two countries. Both of those groups and other terrorist groups have pledged to attack the U.S.

Public opinion of al Qaeda has dropped precipitously in the last few years. This is mostly due to the terrorist group's humiliation in Iraq.

The leaders of all major western countries and even the Secretary General of the U.N., support a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

[baylaw73]

Is it that neither group has been able to launch attacks outside Iraq and Afghanistan, or is it that neither group has had a reason to? U.S. targets abound in Iraq and Afghanistan, why go elseswhere? It seems you are suggesting the occupation of Iraq is making us safer, in the short term. Even if that were true, which it probably isn't, the long-term consequences will be far worse than had we not gone in to Iraq. A.Q.'s "esteem" in public opinion polls (by the way, where are you getting the data?) may have as much to do with the fact that they are psychopathic terrorists, who made the mistake of turning against Arabs/Muslims. They were heros when they struck the U.S., and will be againb I fear. "Deafeat" in Iraq has little to do with it, I suggest. Lastly, the only opinion that matters vis-a-vis U.S. occupation of Iraq is Iraqi opinion. What do your polls say about that issue?

[FOXYLADY]

BUSH WILL NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE!! HOW MANY OF HIS CABINET HAVE BEEN PUSHED OUT OR QUIT IN DISGUST DURING BUSH'S TWO TERMS? BUSH, CHENEY AND RUMSFELD HAVE BROUGHT DOWN THIS COUNTRY TO WHAT IT HASN'T BEEN SINCE THE "GREAT DEPRESSION" OF '29......THEY HAVE GIVEN THE U.S. A BLACK EYE TO ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD....EXCEPT AFRICA, WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KEPT ENSLAVED AND IGNORANT FOR GENERATIONS BY THEIR CROOKED POLITICAL LEADERS (MANY SUPPORTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT WHEN IT SUITED THEM). HOPEFULLY, BUT I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IT, OUR COUNTRY WILL IMPROVE, EVEN IF SLOWLY, WHEN BUSH IS GONE..........

[Hoelder]

Senator Feingold,
I have always appreciated your straight forward approach on major issues. What worries me most right now is the rearming of Sunni tribes men with money and weapons. As the arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation bore fruit in our terrorist problem today, I see the same mistakes being repeated. On one hand there is the call for democracy and on the other hand the administration supports groups in a Machiavellian manner to suit its goals. Foreign policy is an intense discipline. It requires sensitivity to build sustained relationships with other countries. A war pushed down all other nations throat, an environmental and humanitarian disaster does not make friends and sooner or later, the money will run out to buy people off.

[repearwo]

Harry Reid is not to be trusted.

[drkazmd65]

True repearwo,... I still don't understand how he has remained 'leader' of the Senate Majority.

He must know where a lot of Democrat skeletons are hidden. Nothing else makes sense to me why he is still in charge.

[Wulfstan]

Cut the war funding.

Do not send any funding Bills to Bush.

The troops will come home.

Cut the bullshit.

[rjcrane]

Senator Feingold,

It's real simple why you and other courageous Dems in the Senate don't get enough support to get the troops out of Iraq. The Senate Dems are a dysfunctional group that has managed to allow Bush with his 30% approval rating and high job disapproval numbers and the GOP to sell the surge as working bumping Iraq news off the front pages. This happened because Democratic leadership wasn't willing to sell the war as a lost cause wasting trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives - probably because they didn't want to have to defend themselves from charges of being unpatriotic or weak on defense. The morality of the war was never debated. The costs of the war were never brought home nor born directly by most Americans except maybe at the gas pump. Also the majority of Senate Dems authorized the war because they didn't want to appear weak in defending the country and now have had to flip-flop on this support. Even your buddy Harry Reid backtracked when the GOP went after him for claiming the war wasted lives.

Instead of trusting Harry Reid to try and bring the troops home why don't you ask him why he didn't support a real anti-war Democrat, Ned Lamont and instead cut a deal with Joe Lieberman to allow him to campaign as an Independent by claiming he would keep his committees and seniority if voters put him back in office? Wouldn't it have been much better for you if Ned Lamont were in the Senate and not Joe Lieberman? But Harry Reid wasn't alone. There were about 13 Dem Senators who were privately or publicly backing Lieberman. And you wonder why you don't get enough support from your own party to end the war. I don't!!!

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

[baylaw73]

19%, not 30.

[BigTuna]

The pollsters who came up with 19% are always far off the mark. While it would be nice, it's wrong.

[BigTuna]

Best of luck to you, Senator, but watch your back when working with Harry Reid.