To counter Bush veto, Feingold introduces bill to 'effectively end military involvement in Iraq'

[bemildred]

Source: Raw Story

In a countermove designed to counter President Bush's expected veto of an emergency supplemental spending bill containing a timetable for US troop withdrawal, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is introducing legislation which would "effectively end military involvement in Iraq."

---

The language of the legislation reads:

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

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

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

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/To_counter_Bush_veto_Feingold_introduces_0410.html

[AzDar]

1. Russ Feingold has consistently shown such astute judgment and uncommon fortitude

throughout this shameful period in our Country's history...
I can only wish I had the opportunity to cast my vote for his Presidency.

[lyonn]

16. Me too, got my vote

It was bantered about that he wasn't electable because he is twice divorced, is that right? And the other issue was he is jewish. These are such non-issues anymore. The guy seems terrible smart and doesn't play word games. Clark and Feingold are my favorites. I have a terrible record of picking those that get bumped bad before the games really begin, like Howard Dean and Clark.

[drm604]

2. I don't understand what this will accomplish.

If it passes both houses Bush will veto it. Even if he doesn't the exceptions give him a huge loophole through which to continue his current course.

The exceptions include operations against Qaeda and other terrorist groups, training Iraqi security forces, and funds related to security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

He'll simply interpret those exceptions as widely as possible.

[bemildred]

5. Please see post #3.

It forces the debate to be open, it puts the notion of withdrawal squarely in the center of debate. It is political theater, like Bush's veto threat.

[musiclawyer]

3. This turns up the heat even more

If Bush vetoes existing bill, it's with knowledge that the next bill gives him even less. Time will show that Bush is the one who cares nothing about the troops. This is a game of chicken and Feingold knows who will blink first.

[lyonn]

17. Sounds about right. If the Dems just fall down like groupy chickens

we will be putting our seal of approval on what bush is doing. bush will continue to force Congress to pay him more money for His need to put More Troops over there for a longer period of time.

[Connonym]

4. Time for my obligatory Russ Feingold is god post

He hasn't ruled out accepting a vice presidential nod. Between that thought and the thought that he's plenty young enough to have lots more elections in front of him, I've been able to keep a nugget of hope burning in my heart.

[More Than A Feeling]

My heart just skipped a beat at the thought of Edwards/Feingold.

The world would never be the same if that came to pass. The dawning of a new era of progressive populism.

[BrainRants]

7. Gore/Fiengold still has a nice ring to it also!

Russ is my Senator, he's awesome!

[hippiechick]

9. From our keyboards to the Goddess's ears, my friend!

:patriot: :bounce:

[AndyA]

6. I do like Russ Feingold in so many ways.

He seems to have a very comprehensive understanding of what is going on in Iraq, and what needs to happen to end this senseless war.

I wish we had a bunch more like Russ. If we did, our country would not be in the sad state of affairs it finds itself in today, thanks solely to the Republicon Party.

GOP: Without the con, there is no Party.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. I lived in Madison, WI back in 1992, when he first ran for

U.S. Senate against the Repuke neanderthal Bob Kasten. He ran a very clever, humorous campaign and ended up shellacking Kasten in the race that brought Clinton to the presidency. Opinion in Madison was divided at the time as to whether Feingold rode Clinton's coat tails or whether, in fact, Clinton rode Feingold's coat tails. (Kasten at that time was pretty much universally detested, outside of Joseph McCarthy land in the suburbs of Milwaukee.)

[harun]

13. I was living in Western WI at the time

I remember it well, how the last polls showed him being beat but at election he won. Everyone wondered what kind of Senator he would be. Little did we know the absolute treasure of a Senator the state was getting. He absolutely works his behind off doing a good job for the people. I don't live in WI anymore and if any candidate can get him as a VP I would vote for them. He does such a good job in the Senate though I might not want him to leave for a while yet.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. I wish Feingold would run for Prez with Kucinich for VP. They

could run as the "honesty" ticket. In fact, if neither of them are on the Dem ticket in 08, I probably won't be voting Dem. I've had it with the DLC triangulating baloney.

[theaudacity]

10. This Wisconsinite loves Feingold

I would follow him into a fire.

[youngdem]

11. I am still very saddened that he decided not to run.

He and Dean consistently speak the truth months before it is fashionable.

GO RUSS!

[lyonn]

19. So agree, they "speak the truth months before it is fashionable".

[pat_k]

12. As John Yoo pointed out yesterday, impeachment is the ONLY way to do it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3207969&mesg_id=3208584

[lonestarnot]

14. Yes it is.

Answer as plain as a nose on a face.

[lyonn]

15. This has got to work.

Bush is already planning to extend those troops that will have served a year in Iraq to 4 more months! I hate this president.

He has suggested this "surge" (sick joke of a word) may last until nest year at this time.

Do you recall bush said last week if the supplemental wasn't passed it would cause extended time over there for our troops? That they would be fighting without the proper equipment? Like they have proper equip. now? Not according to Murtha and others. Why does our media not draw attention to this stupid bush speak? They are purely lies.

When Feingold speaks, I listen!

[pat_k]

18. How could it?

Bush and Cheney are outlaws who have proven over, and over, and over, and over that nothing short of impeachment can even make them blink. Why should they blink? They've been caught "red-handed" committing War Crimes and criminal spying and Congress has refused to impeach -- the ONLY power that can stop them.

If you repeatedly caught a kid shop lifting, but let them keep the goods (perhaps after wagging your finger at them and admonishing them that stealing is illegal), why wouldn't the kid keep coming back for more of your goods?

That's effectively what Congress is doing. They are letting Bush and Cheney "keep the goods."

The only Senate resolution that could possibly make them blink would be a resolution calling on the House to immediately convene impeachment hearings.

The only House resolution that could possibly make them blink is one that contains articles of impeachment.

Related:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3207969&mesg_id=3208584

[lyonn]

20. Actually, I like your idea Really Well, but,

I'm afraid Impeachment has less of a chance of being started than a possible "bitch slap" or hammer to bush's head to stop this freight train of a disaster in Iraq. That is all these amendments will do but it is better than just signing the money over without a fight.

Whether we got him impeached doesn't matter as much as putting that ba*tard through the process where he will have to finally answer questions. Talk about the "deer in the headlight" look, this would be so perfect, watching this illiterate President try to explain something without his minders taking care of him.

[pat_k]

23. We make impeachment a reality by relentlessly. . .

• contradicting the wrong-headed assumption that impeachment can't, won't, or shouldn't happen.


• contradicting the rationalizations that allow the people on the Hill to remain trapped in the group-think, self-censorship, and denial that is keeping impeachment "off the table." Rationalizations like:
  • "We'll get Cheney"
  • "The public will rise against us"
  • "We'll lose the White House"
  • "Impeachment will tear the nation apart"
  • "We don't have the votes to remove"
  • "It would be a futile waste"
  • "We need to focus on stopping the war"
  • "Impeachment is a distraction"
  • "The public is not behind it"
  • "Now is not the 'right' time; maybe later"
  • "We must investigate first"
  • "It will take too long"
  • "It's not gonna happen because it's not gonna happen"


• rejecting the pretense that Congress is "doing something" when they are not. (There is no way around it. Bush and Cheney are impervious to anything but "lethal" force. Impeachment is the ONLY "lethal" weapon in the Congressional arsensal.)


• challenging denial of the grim reality that the USA has become a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens. (And all those who resist immediate impeachment are trapped in a vicious circle of denial -- i.e.,"We aren't impeaching, therefore it cannot be that bad. Things are not that bad, therefore immediate action isn't necessary.)

Making impeachment a reality is not just about lobbying Members of Congress. It is about unequivocally rejecting rationalization and pretense "out here." It will become more and more difficult for Members of Congress to refuse to impeach as fewer Americans applaud their impotent gestures and more of us proclaim the truth -- that Only Impeachment can stop the outlaws in the White House, enforce the dictates of our Constitution, redeem ourselves in the eye of the world, and make it possible to extract ourselves from Iraq.

The bottom line is that if we truly want our troops out of Iraq; if we truly want the USA to be capable of serving as a force for good, then we must FORGET Iraq and focus 100% on making impeachment a reality. When we have taken the massive power of the American Presidency out of the hands of Bush and Cheney doors of possibility will open that are currently shut tight. There is no good way out of a quagmire, but until we have restored legitimacy to the Office of the President we cannot even begin to find the "best" of the bad options.

Related:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">Impeachophobia

[Big Pappa]

22. The question

is do they have "balls" to go forward with this?

[pat_k]

24. Does it matter? As long as impeachment is "off the table" what . . .

. . .do they imagine they are accomplishing?

[truthisfreedom]

25. bush's strategery v.s. Feingold's strategy...

Little boy posturer is going to get taught a lesson.

[pat_k]

26. What lesson would that be??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2801635&mesg_id=2801961">Post #18