Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: The Case for Russ Feingold (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  great (none)
    Great. Thanks for the resource. So I guess the Republicans can't get away with calling him too liberal.

    You have the power, so start using it. http://www.RussForPresident.com

    by peacenik23 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 04:15:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sure they can (none)
      and they will. Other than death and taxes, the one certainty is that Republicans will call any and every Democrat a liberal.

      The question is not how to avoid the tag in the first place, it's what to do with it. And this is where people make a rather large mistake in dismissing Feingold too quickly as "unelectable because he's (fill-in-the-blank)."

      The guy's been "unelectable" from Day One, from the time he first ran for the State Senate in Wisconsin. He's already been called every name in the book (and Wisconsin is not quite as progressive as we'd like to believe). Yet he's never lost an election. That should say something.

      Keep spreading the word.

    •  but they'll call him (none)
      a peacenik based on his opposition to the 1991 gulf war alone.
      •  Why did he oppose the '91 war ? (none)
        I don't think there were too many compelling arguments against driving Saddam out of Kuwait.
        •  Nation building (none)
          Totally opposed to nation building.  As Bush claimed to be while campaigning, so that's a popular item with Republicans.  Unfortunately, Bush is a liar.

          "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2120+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

          by Miss Blue on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 05:21:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  why (none)
          isn't invading a neighbor a compelling enough reason?
          •  World Policeman? (none)
            It's not clear that it's this country's job to step in every time a country invades a neighbor. There are plenty of conflicts where the US does not get involved.  Each case should depend on considerations of treaty obligations and national interest, and reasonable people could probably differ on our national interest in the case of Kuwait.  If Bush Sr. had decided to prosecute the war into Iraq and overthrow Saddam, we might have a different view of that war today.
            •  World is it's own policeman (none)
              "It's not clear that it's this country's job to step in every time a country invades a neighbor."

              But it IS the job of the world community to try and counter territorial aggression, whenever there is a clear cut case of breach of sovereignty of another nation. The US could lead a multinational push for doing that, being the world's most powerful nation/democracy.

              Let me remind you that US's costs and casualties in the 1991 war were less than 10% of the totals thereof.

              "If Bush Sr. had decided to prosecute the war into Iraq and overthrow Saddam, we might have a different view of that war today."

              They should've asked for Saddam's peaceful surrender in return for some cushy exile. That would've worked, and with most of the world nations on our side, we would've been able to amass the necessary troops (500K+) in no time, and defeat the insurgency in a short duration. And insituting a democracy would've had a better chance of panning out then.

            •  Bush Sr. did what he should do, IMO.... (none)
              ... i.e. build an international coalition, one that included not just nations eager to curry favor (I'm not scoffing at the Polands and Mongolias, because they do help us) but also those serving their own interests, and then do only what was required. To me, that is a model of how the US should behave. As much as people may claim oil is no justification for war, we do need it, and when international law is trampled on and it threatens our supply, it's worth fighting for.
      •  Sweet Jesus.. (4.00)
        Iraq I is so far in the past and blurred by the current debacle that no one is going to care how he voted on that.

        Why is being a warhawk equated with strong foreign policy in this country?

        It's quite possible to accomplish foreign policy goals without going to war.  In fact making a war an "option of last resort" (Bush's words) requires that you do so.  

        Using Iraq, and Bush's lies, Feingold is in a perfect position to explain why he supports a more reasonable foreign policy.

        (It would be nice if other Dems followed his lead.)

        •  see (none)
          "It's quite possible to accomplish foreign policy goals without going to war"

          diplomacy wouldn't have worked in 1991. Any measure such as sanctions would've also made kuwaitis pay the price. In fact, going by the events as they panned out, even a threat of war didn't make Saddam back down (he had several months to withdraw from Kuwait) before the hostilities began.

          As for Feingold, he will have a tough time explaining the 1991 war position, because waging a multilateral war to evict Saddam from Kuwait was the  justified position. Only they should've followed up with a smarter "end game" as I outlined in this comment.

          "Iraq I is so far in the past and blurred by the current debacle that no one is going to care how he voted on that."

          Quite to the contrary, the 1991 iraq war is intimately related to the current war, and his position will be called to question. If not by us in the primary and earlier, definitely by the republicans in the general election campaign.

          •  There seem to have been good reasons ... (none)
            for opposing it. I believe there were solutions involving Arab states intervention that were on the table (I heard Jim McDermott speak to this recently. I wish I could remember what he said. It was interesting but it zipped by too quickly.) And there was also that little matter of Bush1's ambassador giving the go-ahead to Saddam. I think, in light of that, the least we could have done is try to stop it without the horrid consequences of a war that, for all intents and purposes, seems to have been ongoing since then.

            Should a liberal Dem blog be driven into "safe zones" by a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

            by NYCee on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 05:00:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think (none)
              I'd still disagree with your conclusion, but what drew my attention was:

              "And there was also that little matter of Bush1's ambassador giving the go-ahead to Saddam"

              Do you know what the definitive last word on this matter was (or is)?

              We first heard something like US saying "we'll look the other way" should Saddam invade Kuwait. Then for some time, the records were sealed I think. Then what happened? Exactly what words were exchanged between the then Amby and Saddam? If it is known, it  should be looked at.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site