Don't Count Russ Feingold Out Yet
(US News) The Democrats' maverick senator, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, surprised many when he finished a national listening tour by pulling his hat from the ring of 2008 presidential candidates, claiming he lacked the fire in the belly.
Well, don't count him out yet,--at least as a provocative vice presidential candidate. That's because a new biography paints the coauthor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law as one of the leaders of the progressive movement spreading in the nation as activists look for lawmakers who don't play politics safe.
Feingold, out next week, opens with a gripping clash between the leading character and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as she looked for loopholes around the McCain-Feingold law. In a closed-door meeting in 2002, Feingold objected to her efforts.
"You're not living in the real world," shouts Clinton. "Senator, I do live in the real world, and I'm doing just fine by it," responds Feingold,...continued
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Feingold: Presidency in reach for blacks, women
Democrat says he prefers Senate to vice presidency
By Kelly McBride kmcbride@greenbaypressgazette.com
The United States is ready for either a black president or a female president, Sen. Russ Feingold said Thursday, but he's not necessarily endorsing the candidates that fit those descriptions — yet.
Back in his home state to host several listening sessions this week, Feingold, D-Wis., spoke to the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board about a variety of foreign and domestic issues — including the 2008 presidential race.
"I think a woman can win this thing. I think a black person can win this thing," Feingold said. Then, with a laugh, "I think a Jewish person could've even won this thing."
Although no longer talking of a presidential bid, Feingold — who is Jewish — insists he's right where he wants to be. He won't completely quash the notion of becoming someone's running mate — if the opportunity arose — he said. But for now, he's happy being a senator.
"It's not what I want," he said of potential running-mate status. "You know, it wouldn't be an awful thing. I'm not saying that. … But I obviously prefer this."
Feingold isn't currently endorsing anyone, he said, but tends to lean toward people who support his views — he mentioned former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by name.
"But whether or not I'll actually endorse somebody — I might," he said. "But I'm very anxious to see how people will perform."
During his listening sessions — Feingold is holding one in Door County and one in Kewaunee County today — he hears about a variety of issues from constituents, he said.
And while the Iraq war has come up more frequently during the past couple of years, there's one concern — health care — that remains the most talked-about topic overall.
"People are so frustrated with the employer-based system," he said. "… I have always believed in a universal health care system."
Feingold and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are working to introduce a bill that would peg three states to pilot different types of health care systems — for instance, health savings accounts — to see what works best.
"We'd have real facts, on the ground, to compare what's working and what isn't," Feingold said.
By Kelly McBride kmcbride@greenbaypressgazette.com
The United States is ready for either a black president or a female president, Sen. Russ Feingold said Thursday, but he's not necessarily endorsing the candidates that fit those descriptions — yet.
Back in his home state to host several listening sessions this week, Feingold, D-Wis., spoke to the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board about a variety of foreign and domestic issues — including the 2008 presidential race.
"I think a woman can win this thing. I think a black person can win this thing," Feingold said. Then, with a laugh, "I think a Jewish person could've even won this thing."
Although no longer talking of a presidential bid, Feingold — who is Jewish — insists he's right where he wants to be. He won't completely quash the notion of becoming someone's running mate — if the opportunity arose — he said. But for now, he's happy being a senator.
"It's not what I want," he said of potential running-mate status. "You know, it wouldn't be an awful thing. I'm not saying that. … But I obviously prefer this."
Feingold isn't currently endorsing anyone, he said, but tends to lean toward people who support his views — he mentioned former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by name.
"But whether or not I'll actually endorse somebody — I might," he said. "But I'm very anxious to see how people will perform."
During his listening sessions — Feingold is holding one in Door County and one in Kewaunee County today — he hears about a variety of issues from constituents, he said.
And while the Iraq war has come up more frequently during the past couple of years, there's one concern — health care — that remains the most talked-about topic overall.
"People are so frustrated with the employer-based system," he said. "… I have always believed in a universal health care system."
Feingold and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are working to introduce a bill that would peg three states to pilot different types of health care systems — for instance, health savings accounts — to see what works best.
"We'd have real facts, on the ground, to compare what's working and what isn't," Feingold said.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Feingold Calls War Bluff
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."
By: ROGER SIMON @ Politico
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Feingold Pushes Plan to Cut Off War Funds
By: John Bresnahan
January 25, 2007 06:57 PM EST
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's escalation of the war.
Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider an option many consider politically suicidal: denying funds to the military and U.S. soldiers to force a quicker end to the war. Democratic leaders have privately called on members to restrain from cutting off funding and focus on congressional resolutions condemning the Bush policy. The resolutions are nonbinding and therefore symbolic.
Republicans "would like this debate to be as whether or not we are going to be cutting off money for the troops," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently told The Politico. "The logical conclusion is that a lot of things can happen. But right now, the most important thing is to tell the president that what he has done with the escalation is wrong. And that's what we are doing, bi-partisanly."
Feingold, who chairs the Subcommittee on the Constitution, will question several witnesses, including a Library of Congress official and legal experts from Harvard, Duke, and the University of Virginia, on the issue. Senior Bush administration officials have publicly argued that Congress' has no such right, but Feingold plans to introduce legislation to force President Bush to American forces out of the troubled country.
"Congress holds the power of the purse and of the president continues to advance his failed Iraq policy, we have have the responsibility to use that power to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq," Feingold said in a statement released by his office on Thursday. "I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation's foreign policy."
Politico.com
January 25, 2007 06:57 PM EST
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's escalation of the war.
Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider an option many consider politically suicidal: denying funds to the military and U.S. soldiers to force a quicker end to the war. Democratic leaders have privately called on members to restrain from cutting off funding and focus on congressional resolutions condemning the Bush policy. The resolutions are nonbinding and therefore symbolic.
Republicans "would like this debate to be as whether or not we are going to be cutting off money for the troops," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently told The Politico. "The logical conclusion is that a lot of things can happen. But right now, the most important thing is to tell the president that what he has done with the escalation is wrong. And that's what we are doing, bi-partisanly."
Feingold, who chairs the Subcommittee on the Constitution, will question several witnesses, including a Library of Congress official and legal experts from Harvard, Duke, and the University of Virginia, on the issue. Senior Bush administration officials have publicly argued that Congress' has no such right, but Feingold plans to introduce legislation to force President Bush to American forces out of the troubled country.
"Congress holds the power of the purse and of the president continues to advance his failed Iraq policy, we have have the responsibility to use that power to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq," Feingold said in a statement released by his office on Thursday. "I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation's foreign policy."
Politico.com
Friday, January 19, 2007
Feingold to Bush: Get our troops out
Just one day after President George W. Bush announced the deployment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wis., proposed Congressional intervention using "the power of the purse."
In a Jan. 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Feingold criticized the Bush administration's new strategy and asked Congress to use its financial capabilities to restrict the war's funding.
Feingold has long been one of the nation's most outspoken critics against the war in Iraq and has consistently introduced legislation for a withdrawal timetable of troops. Earlier this year, he promised to draft legislation to the 110th Congress that would redeploy troops from Iraq to other parts of the world.
"Congress must bring an end to what has been one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation," Feingold said in a statement shortly after the president's Jan. 10 address. "It is time to bring our troops out of Iraq and refocus on defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten this country."
In an e-mail to The Badger Herald, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said she supports Feingold's call to restrict the war's funding.
"The power of the purse strings is the only means Congress has to end this misguided war," Baldwin said. "Certainly that will be in the forefront of our minds when the president sends us his next request for funding."
Baldwin also said in a statement that she supports a measure by U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., that calls for Congressional approval of any escalation of the war and a specific plan for a phased withdrawal of American forces.
U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., expressed sincere confidence in the president's new strategy in a Jan. 10 statement, calling it "the first step to removing our soldiers from Iraq, and bringing them back home for good."
The president hopes his strategy of increasing American forces in Baghdad and the Anbar province -- the "home base for al-Qaida" -- will place continued pressure on Iraqi insurgents.
"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush said, according to a transcript released by the White House.
Bush also called on the Iraqi government to uphold its key benchmarks this year, including provincial elections, shared oil revenues with civilians, $10 billion on infrastructure and the responsibility of securing all provinces by November.
More so than in previous announcements, Bush also conceded the failures of past strategies.
"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," Bush said. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
by Keegan Kyle Badger Herald Friday, January 19, 2007
In a Jan. 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Feingold criticized the Bush administration's new strategy and asked Congress to use its financial capabilities to restrict the war's funding.
Feingold has long been one of the nation's most outspoken critics against the war in Iraq and has consistently introduced legislation for a withdrawal timetable of troops. Earlier this year, he promised to draft legislation to the 110th Congress that would redeploy troops from Iraq to other parts of the world.
"Congress must bring an end to what has been one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation," Feingold said in a statement shortly after the president's Jan. 10 address. "It is time to bring our troops out of Iraq and refocus on defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten this country."
In an e-mail to The Badger Herald, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said she supports Feingold's call to restrict the war's funding.
"The power of the purse strings is the only means Congress has to end this misguided war," Baldwin said. "Certainly that will be in the forefront of our minds when the president sends us his next request for funding."
Baldwin also said in a statement that she supports a measure by U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., that calls for Congressional approval of any escalation of the war and a specific plan for a phased withdrawal of American forces.
U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., expressed sincere confidence in the president's new strategy in a Jan. 10 statement, calling it "the first step to removing our soldiers from Iraq, and bringing them back home for good."
The president hopes his strategy of increasing American forces in Baghdad and the Anbar province -- the "home base for al-Qaida" -- will place continued pressure on Iraqi insurgents.
"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush said, according to a transcript released by the White House.
Bush also called on the Iraqi government to uphold its key benchmarks this year, including provincial elections, shared oil revenues with civilians, $10 billion on infrastructure and the responsibility of securing all provinces by November.
More so than in previous announcements, Bush also conceded the failures of past strategies.
"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," Bush said. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
by Keegan Kyle Badger Herald Friday, January 19, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Feingold calls for cutting funds to end U.S. involvement in Iraq
Sen. Russ Feingold said Thursday that he will seek to end the U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq by cutting off funding in Congress.
“I have consistently called for the redeployment of our military from Iraq,’’ he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “... But that advice has not been heeded. And now Congress must use its main power — the power of the purse — to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war.’’
Feingold’s comments came a day after President Bush announced his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
“And I’m not talking here only about the surge or escalation,’’ Feingold said.
“I have consistently called for the redeployment of our military from Iraq,’’ he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “... But that advice has not been heeded. And now Congress must use its main power — the power of the purse — to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war.’’
Feingold’s comments came a day after President Bush announced his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
“And I’m not talking here only about the surge or escalation,’’ Feingold said.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
We should have listened to Feingold
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Opposing the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq
From the Senate Floor
October 9, 2002
Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. From hearings and meetings on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications, after my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26, and, Mr. President, I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President, and I also used that opportunity to raise some very important questions, to which I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible resolution.
Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with really very minimal justification.
Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.
And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.
I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.
But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.
I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.
But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.
Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations -- situations that surely need our serious attention but are not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.
Let me say that the President is right that we've got to view the world, the threats and our own national security in a very different light since 9-11. There are shocking new threats. But, Mr. President, it is not helpful to use virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest that the new threat is the same as other preexisting threats. Mr. President, I think common sense tells us they are not the same and they cannot so easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.
Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already voted for military action. I have no objection.
But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.
I'm not hearing the same things at the briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.
Then the Vice-President said, on September 8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen no proof of that.
And finally then, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad." I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.
The facts just aren't there, or at least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely, almost like a bootstrap.
For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and al Qaeda both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Well, who else are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?
Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively harboring or assisting the terrorists involved in 9-11, we have to act against them. But I don't think you can bring within the definition of harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al Qaeda members somewhere in Iraq. After all, Mr. President, apparently we have al Qaeda agents active in our country as well. They are present in our nation as well. How can this be a sufficient basis on its own?
Therefore, Mr. President, without a better case for al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merits, not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9-11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States.
An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.
In fact, I'm so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen of this viewpoint here in the Senate chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. He said, "Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein."
I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen? When we see the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself? And when we realize that we're not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism or just make them extremely nervous?
Mr. President, I had a meeting with a group of African ambassadors the other day in my role as Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and they told me that various people were placing bets -- placing bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new doctrine that the President is putting forward.
Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?
Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.
When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he said, "It is not clear to me what measures that are required in the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means." That's the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on this tough question.
But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question. He said, "So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of the campaign against terrorism." That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of our other military efforts and priorities.
What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President, all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.
An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.
In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.
In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing W.M.D. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.
As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the W.M.D. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to W.M.D.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?
Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
In Afghanistan, the government and President Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?
I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.
I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.
And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.
Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting -- anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality that this could happen again, that there are forces planning to do us harm, and that we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but sense that the future is uncertain, that our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs.
So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.
My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.
From the Senate Floor
October 9, 2002
Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. From hearings and meetings on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications, after my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26, and, Mr. President, I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President, and I also used that opportunity to raise some very important questions, to which I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible resolution.
Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with really very minimal justification.
Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.
And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.
I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.
But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.
I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.
But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.
Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations -- situations that surely need our serious attention but are not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.
Let me say that the President is right that we've got to view the world, the threats and our own national security in a very different light since 9-11. There are shocking new threats. But, Mr. President, it is not helpful to use virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest that the new threat is the same as other preexisting threats. Mr. President, I think common sense tells us they are not the same and they cannot so easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.
Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already voted for military action. I have no objection.
But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.
I'm not hearing the same things at the briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.
Then the Vice-President said, on September 8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen no proof of that.
And finally then, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad." I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.
The facts just aren't there, or at least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely, almost like a bootstrap.
For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and al Qaeda both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Well, who else are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?
Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively harboring or assisting the terrorists involved in 9-11, we have to act against them. But I don't think you can bring within the definition of harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al Qaeda members somewhere in Iraq. After all, Mr. President, apparently we have al Qaeda agents active in our country as well. They are present in our nation as well. How can this be a sufficient basis on its own?
Therefore, Mr. President, without a better case for al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merits, not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9-11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States.
An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.
In fact, I'm so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen of this viewpoint here in the Senate chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. He said, "Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein."
I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen? When we see the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself? And when we realize that we're not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism or just make them extremely nervous?
Mr. President, I had a meeting with a group of African ambassadors the other day in my role as Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and they told me that various people were placing bets -- placing bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new doctrine that the President is putting forward.
Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?
Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.
When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he said, "It is not clear to me what measures that are required in the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means." That's the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on this tough question.
But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question. He said, "So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of the campaign against terrorism." That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of our other military efforts and priorities.
What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President, all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.
An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.
In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.
In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing W.M.D. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.
As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the W.M.D. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to W.M.D.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?
Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
In Afghanistan, the government and President Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?
I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.
I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.
And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.
Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting -- anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality that this could happen again, that there are forces planning to do us harm, and that we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but sense that the future is uncertain, that our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs.
So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.
My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
