I know there may well already be diaries here and elsewhere discussing my decision to continue my important work in the Senate and not run for President in 2008, but I wanted everyone in the online community to hear from me directly.

Many of you know that the Senate is debating Iraq funding right now as part of a supplemental spending bill.  The last time we really debated the Iraq issue, back in November, we got 40 senators to vote for a flexible timetable to redeploy troops out of Iraq.  While that amendment didn't pass, it was a strong show of support by Democrats for an Iraq policy, and national security policy, that make sense. The online community had a lot to do with that vote.  Members of Congress heard from people around the country who stood up together and demanded a new course in Iraq - one that makes our country stronger.  

Now, six months later, without any kind of timetable or strategy, things in Iraq are only getting worse.  There is no end in sight for U.S. troops who have been asked to sacrifice so much in the name of a deeply flawed policy.  That is why today I introduced an amendment to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.

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.

My kids often tease me about the time I pre-heated a toaster before putting some bread in to toast it.  I deny it.  I still maintain to this day that I DO know how to use a toaster, but I also admit to some not-so-brilliant moments with technology, if you can consider a toaster technology.  But, today, even my kids would have to pause to give me a pat on the back for this first ever "Russ Feingold Blog Post."

I am enjoying reading many blogs, and am fascinated by their immediate reporting that is covering the important issues of the day. Many of the positive comments I have been lucky enough to read about my work relate to the fact that I was the only member of the U.S. Senate to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act.  That experience taught me a lot, but one thing I learned for certain is that millions of ordinary citizens support efforts to make sure the government doesn't try to take more power than it needs. Resisting overreaching by the federal government is appropriate and, yes, even patriotic.  I feel very strongly about this, and have made constitutional issues in general, and First Amendment issues in particular, one of the central focuses of my work in the U.S. Senate.

While the days of campus protests are not the same today as when I was in college, many people don't realize that campus protests are going on every day, all over the country, when thinking people, from all different states, generations, and ethnicities are drawn more and more to participate and exercise their First Amendment rights in an exciting venue:  the Internet in general and blogs in particular.

As one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, also known as BCRA, it is particularly difficult to hear the mistaken belief that the law was somehow an attack on our cherished First Amendment rights.  It is not.  The law was found to be constitutional and it accomplished what we wanted it to do without infringing on First Amendment rights: stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations.  Despite the naysayers, and despite shamefully poor and often deliberately harmful interpretations of this law by the agency charged with enforcing campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission, McCain-Feingold worked in the 2004 election.

McCain-Feingold and the blogs both had a positive impact on the 2004 election and many people don't realize how similar their impact truly was.  Both the blogs and BCRA empowered average citizens.  By channeling the power of average citizens to speak out on the Internet, the blogs revitalized the political process last year.  In the same way, the power of small contributions was greatly increased by BCRA, and someone who could only send $5 or $50 to a political party has become a sought-after donor.  Many parts of BCRA were handled irresponsibly by the FEC, and bloggers are understandably concerned that some members of the FEC may again try to cause trouble by overreaching in the area of free speech on the Internet.

So while I generally agree with the recent decision from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly requiring the FEC to redo its rules relating to political communication on the Internet, I am also concerned that the FEC will again create unnecessary concern and confusion.  Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision was not a result of problems with BCRA.  It was a result of poorly drafted FEC regulations that were challenged in court.

The FEC must tread carefully in the area of political communications on the Internet.  Political news and commentary on the Internet are important, even vital, to our democracy, and becoming more so.  For starters, the FEC should provide adequate protection for legitimate online journalists.  Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don't see any reason why the FEC shouldn't include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the "media exemption" rule.  

The definitions and rules relating to "coordinated activity" should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity.  Certainly linking to campaign websites, quoting from or republishing campaign materials and even providing a link for donations to a candidate, if done without compensation, should not cause a blogger to be deemed to have made a contribution to a campaign or trigger reporting requirements.  

Also, the FEC should generally exempt independent, unpaid political activity by bloggers on the Internet.  We must let this town square, which has added a significant dimension to our political process, continue to flourish.  When the FEC issues a proposal on this issue later this month, rest assured that I will be reviewing it carefully and offering detailed comments.

At a time in the country when we need free and open discourse, when the Senate is rubber stamping a bankruptcy bill which hurts those who have no power, when the country is involved in a war with no timetable for an exit strategy, we must be able to speak our minds without fear of recrimination from the government.