Iraq: Looking Back, Looking Forward

Now that 15-20 campaigns post diaries on MyDD, I have generally developed a "no front page" policy for said campaigns, in order to avoid playing favorites. However, in the case of a possible Presidential candidate discussing a major piece of legislation on Iraq, I will make an exception--Chris

On Veteran's Day, the President gave yet another speech trying to defend his Iraq policy.  He uttered over 5800 words, but not once did he provide the American people any timeframe for our military mission in Iraq or any sense that he has a plan for bringing that mission to a successful end.  Instead, he used the same platitudes and empty rhetoric that the American people have already made clear they don't buy.  Rather than putting his efforts into a major media spin operation, the President should concentrate on getting our Iraq policy straight, and putting our nation's national security on track.  

Earlier this year I called on the President to provide a flexible, public timetable for our military mission in Iraq, one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks.  In August, I put forward a target date to complete the military mission there - December 31, 2006 - in an effort to break the taboo among my colleagues against even talking about a plan to complete that mission.  

I am pleased that the silence has finally been broken and this week the Senate will be voting on an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill that, in part, calls on the President to report to Congress with a flexible timetable to finish the military mission in Iraq and bring American troops home.  

While this amendment, which I drafted with several Democratic colleagues, is a pretty modest proposal, it is clear that an increasing number of elected officials are finally realizing what a majority of Americans already know - that the President's "stay the course" rhetoric isn't a strategy for success. In fact it isn't a strategy at all.

Over two and a half years since the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were sent into war in Iraq, they are still waiting for what they should have gotten at the war's onset- a clear, realistic military strategy with a flexible timetable for achieving our mission.  The American people, and our troops in Iraq, have been waiting for that for far too long, and we can't afford to wait any longer.

The President insists that he didn't mislead the country into war.  From my perspective, the Administration's aggressive efforts to sell the war in Iraq didn't match up with the intelligence briefings I received.  I never bought the administrations shifting justifications in the lead up to war and I voted against the resolution in the Senate.  However, the President's recent efforts to suggest that those who question the basis for war are undermining our troops smack of desperation.  It's important to talk about how we got into this war to begin with.  But what's more important now is that the President, who didn't plan effectively for war in Iraq in the first place, acknowledge and respond to the current realities and get our Iraq policy, and our national security focus, on track.

The Senate can take the first step toward an open and honest Iraq policy by voting on Tuesday to demand clarity about our military mission there.  We are finally breaking the taboo against debating a plan to complete the mission and bring the troops home from Iraq.  Now we can start to put our Iraq policy on course, and refocus on the pressing national security threats that the President has neglected.



Display:


great to see (none / 0)

Sen. Feingold,

It is great to see the tough questions being asked and put to a vote. We need more leaders of conviction and strength in Washington. It is high time we had a plan to deal with the situation in Iraq.

Chris Carney has a different plan, but the same goal--a benchmark for moving forward on security and exiting Iraq:

For every new fully-trained member of the Iraqi Security Forces, a member of the United States military should come home. This will allow our brothers, our sisters, our children, and our parents to come home with honor and the knowledge that they are leaving behind a better Iraq.

Keep up the good work.  

http://www.carneyforcongress.com/

by DrewEM on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 10:54:04 AM EST

Breaking News! Bush is a liar (2.00 / 2)

It is way past time for Democrats to step forward and plainly state that Bush is flat out lying about Democrats having the same intelligence that he had about WMD and Saddam's connection to Al Qaida.

From Digy, Rinse and Repeat: (click through for links)

Reason, ultimately, is not that effective on people whose brains have been set to refuse admittance to reality. Sooner or later, you need to follow a variation of Sean-Paul's intelligent advice:
The President is a liar. The Democrats did not have the same intelligence as the White House did.

And that's all any Democrat has to say. Don't try to explain it. Don't let the Republicans misdirect you into the details or distract you in any way. Just keep hammering the same line over and over and over because the public already knows it's true: The President is misleading the American people. The Democrats did not have the same intelligence as the White House did.

Rinse and repeat all the way to 2006.

Again, establishing a fact is not the same as persuading others to accept that fact. The fact - the president is a liar - has long been established. Now, how do you get others to accept it? Say it: The president is a liar. Say it again: The president is a liar. And when someone demands proof, you repeat: The president is a liar.

Now, suppose they say, "But you've shown me no proof. That's just your opinion. Prove it." Now what? You say, "The president is liar."

Mehlman's attack on Democrats and his claim that they had access to the same intelligence that Bush had is just a flat out lie and Democrats must call him on it. Digby explains the process of breaking through the denial and cognitive dissonance of Americans who still believe anything Bush or any other Republican says about Iraq and WMD intelligence:

Now in dealing with someone on the emotional level, there's no reason to be cruel, but you need to be firm. You need to weaken, in the face of enormous resistance, the emotional glue that binds the deluded to his/her delusion. You don't humiliate as in, "Schmuck! Any moron can see the president is lying through his teeth. WTF is wrong with you?" That further binds the delusion to the person's sense of self, which now feels attacked and therefore becomes defensive. Instead, you simply repeat, "The president is a liar."

Eventually, the repetition will permit the idea to seep enough into their consciousness to make the deluded start to wonder whether it is worthwhile investing their sense of self so deeply in someone who just may be, in fact, a liar. Your clue that this is happening is a change in the way the way the discourse is conducted. Instead of, "Oh yeah? Prove he's a liar!" you'll start to hear things like, "I guess he did cherrypick the intelligence a bit and in a sense, that's a lie. But you don't think Bush made stuff up out of whole cloth, do you?"

At which point, you respond, "The president is a liar" but, as Sean-Paul says, don't go into the details. Remember, they've already heard them but they can't reason about them properly yet and the problem they are having is emotional, not intellectual. They've started to wake up, but they are still entangling their own sense of integrity with Bush's.

They are also getting reinforcement from the RWNM as well as the major newspapers and networks that act as if there is still room for doubt about whether or not Bush led America to war based on a lie.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 01:10:18 PM EST

Thanks for stopping by Senator. (none / 0)

Many thanks for your continued good work.

I will post some interesting ideas (plus some personal opinions) that I have come across for responsibly resolving the qaugmire in Iraq and bringing our troops home in a steady and gradual manner.

A. Train one, bring one home: Here is an interesting idea from Chris Carney who is running for Congress from PA-10. LINK


Chris has a plan to succeed in Iraq and to get our troops home. For every new fully-trained member of the Iraqi Security Forces, a member of the United States military should come home. This will allow our brothers, our sisters, our children, and our parents to come home with honor and the knowledge that they are leaving behind a better Iraq

The idea/theme makes good sense to me. Some followup questions and thoughts:

  1. precisely what steps have been and are being taken to train Iraqi military/security forces?
  2. How many Iraqi forces are currently on the ground?
  3. As I recall, NATO as well as a few other countries offered to help train Iraqi troops. What happened of those offers?
  4. Why aren't a few members of the Congress including some with active duty experience sitting down and working out a solid plan for training 20K or so per month?
  5. Unfortunately, it's going to be a while before peace prevails in Iraq, but one should also start working towards forging a UN peacekeeping force for the period following our departure (assuming somewhat wishfully that this will materialize in the next couple of years).

B. Iraqi Civil Law and Natural Resources: How much progress has been made in establishing a working charter of civil law in Iraq, and in particular the management of Iraq's natural resouces including the oil reserves? It would be good to see the Democrats in congress take the lead in putting together a working committee to explore this aspect of the reconstruction effort before too long (or too late).

I would be pleased to see your responses to these  questions (perhaps as an update to your diary?).

Thanks again and best regards.
---------------------


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:26 PM EST

Appreciate your leadership on Iraq (none / 0)

as well as civil liberties.  Thanks for the "no" on the Patriot Act.
McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:35:18 PM EST

Thanks for speaking clearly (none / 0)

An issue as significant as a war of choice requires straight forward talk.  You meet that standard. Thank you.
UWA: Maryland's poor organizing for freedom from poverty and human rights for all.
by Tom Kertes on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:43:31 PM EST

I adore you Senator... (none / 0)

And I appeciate your amendment.

Sadly, so long as the GOP is in charge of your chamber, it will very likely go ignored and there will not be consequences for the administration's failure to comply.

But the alternative is to give up and that is not acceptable. So you have my support in this and I ask you to demand that the requirements of your amendment be taken seriously by the White House/Pentagon cabal.

Now get back to work and do something about this nation's tax policies!

Kind regards, the Muse.

New on EWM: Bush: "Democrats Killed Jesus, Invented Disco and Drove Me to Drink"  

by The Muse on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:44:30 PM EST

Same Old Tricks (none / 0)

Because bush did not live up to his ORIGINAL promise of firing anyone on his staff that had a hand in "leaking" a CIA agents name, he still has rove advising him. And a classic rove tactic, like a rat, is to attack when you are cornered (i.e. bad poll numbers). They don't know how to admit the truth, just as they still don't know how to get out of Iraq. So it's great to see the Democrats taking the lead on this issue. Two weeks ago we were cheering "give "em hell Harry" for Reid's bold move. Now we can give Russ Feingold the same standing ovation.  
Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.
by blogus on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:59:01 PM EST

I applaud your work (3.00 / 1)

But I'd like to repeat a call I made in another forum:

No permanent military bases in Iraq.

If the Senator would lead a legislative and rhetorical charge on this, it would be a very important development. Because, really, the subtext to all of this is: are we ever going to leave, or not? Many in the Middle East don't believe we ever are, and the Bush Administration won't give any sort of statement unequivocably stating that we won't open permanent military bases. This is a definite flash point of anger for Iraqis and other Arabs.

I think there should be a bill (or more likely an amendment) introduced that states that the US Congress will not appropriate funds for the maintenance of any permanent bases in Iraq. This really is a fault line, and it's a foreign policy and political imperative that this issue gets brought into the light of day.

There seems a strange reluctance in Washington to confront this. I hope the Senator can lead the charge on this, as well. It would really expose the goals of the Bush Administration.

by BriVT on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 04:30:48 PM EST

Um ... nevermind (maybe) (none / 0)

From Harry Reid's remarks today:

Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

A good start, overall. I hope this continues to be a point of emphasis.

by BriVT on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 04:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

troop withdrawal timetable (none / 0)

True testament of actual Cheney/Rumsfeld plans, as to when US troops are to be withdrawn:

"Well, never, actually."

by manonfyre on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:01:55 PM EST

Great work, Senator! (none / 0)

Kudos to a Badger from a Minnesota Gopher.

Your courage on this issue have long inspired us. Now other Senators are beginning to join you so you don't stand alone.

We welcome those Senators to the cause.

But we remember the Senator who led the way!

Thank you, Senator Feingold. You do the Upper Midwest proud.

by Thresholder on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:53:37 PM EST

Keep the pressure on (none / 0)

Don't let these weasels get away!
by Paul Goodman on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 07:35:23 PM EST

Thanks to everyone for their comments today. (3.00 / 1)

I spoke on the floor of the Senate about our amendment this evening.  You can read my speech here.   What's clear, and what I think many of us can agree on, is that the President's recent media spin operation and his continued suggestion that those who question the basis for war are undermining our troops, smack of desperation.  Tomorrow, the Senate can start to put our Iraq policy on the right course by demanding a public plan and a flexible timetable for achieving our military goals and bringing our troops home.  The absence of any kind of timetable is not fair to our troops and their families.  It's making America weaker.  And it's hurting, not helping, our Iraq policy and our broader national security strategy. I encourage all of you to let your voice be heard prior to tomorrow's vote by doing what you can to help our efforts on this important issue. Thanks again.
by Senator Russ Feingold on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 07:59:04 PM EST

And yet I always wonder, (none / 0)

Why aren't there more congressman and senators like you?
by KainIIIC on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks to everyone for their comments today. (none / 0)

Senator,
Thank you. A virtual hug to you for doing what's right.
Sara in Illinois
by ssm on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 01:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On Bush's simplistic speech (none / 0)

The platitudes the senator mentions remind me of a great line from Jon Stewart, during his stand-up act:

(paraphrasing)
"When Bush says these things, like, in answer to a question: Mr President, how do you reconcile your vision of a growing democracy in Iraq with the dire situation currently there, and what are your plans to improve the security there?

Bush (as done by stewart): You see, people love freedom.  Freedom tastes like ice cream.

Stewart:  when he says these things, I don't think he's stupid, I think he thinks we're stupid.

So I'm so glad the nation has started to show him that they're NOT stupid, and they won't be pawned off by vague platitudes with no substance to back them.

by scientician on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 12:17:57 AM EST

Iraq (none / 0)

Please review Senator Joe Lieberman's comment on the floor last night.

What we need is support for the Mission - Will a timetable really accomplish the Mission. Can we not take the Warner amendment and go from there. Voting tfor the Warner amendment will be progress for Bi-partisan approach to foeign policy.

When Congress tries to micro-manage a war it goes bad, See the Civil War.

by Gaelhouse on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:54 AM EST

Re: Iraq (Mission?) (3.00 / 1)

What we need is support for the Mission - Will a timetable really accomplish the Mission.

What we need is support for the "mission" - Will a Timetable really accomplish the "mission?"

Which way is the above poster going here? What is "the Mission?"

When Congress tries to micro-manage a war it goes bad, See the Civil War.

I guess we just have to wait for "King George" to finish it up on his own. Oh well, it's none of our business anyway...

by blues on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 12:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold's courage and integrity (none / 0)

Senator Feingold, I applaud your continued integrity and courage.  I've been an admirer since 1992 when I saw you leapfrog Jim Moody and Joe Checota in the Senatorial primary.  Thanks for continuing to speak out against this misguided and tragic war.
by dkamionk on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 08:12:36 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.