Cross-posted on Iowa for Feingold
Well, not long after Russ laid out a clear and compelling case as to why the current course of action in Iraq is making us more imperiled (here's a
transcript), the RNC decided to hit back with this response, which can be found
here. It would have been nice if they had actually listened to what Russ said, especially when they're trying to discredit it. Let's take a look at what they said about Russ' talk with Tim Russert, shall we?
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) Falsely Accuses Army Gen. George Casey Of Supporting Kerry-Feingold "Cut And Run" Plan:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "Not only does it make sense, but it sort of shows that all this talk about a timetable being unreasonable or ridiculous is just wrong. Even General Casey is talking about how realistic it is to bring the troops home. And our timetable that we proposed last week had to do with bringing the troops home within one year. I mean, how is this different?" (NBC's "Meet The Press," 6/25/06)
Army Gen. George Casey: "I'm confident that we'll be able to continue to take reductions over the course of this year." ("U.S. Forces In Iraq To Shrink, Casey Says," United Press International, 6/23/06)
- "But Casey Added He Had Made No Final Decision On Troop Withdrawals. He Said He First Wanted To Discuss The Security Situation With Iraq's Recently Named Defense And Interior Ministers." ("U.S. Forces In Iraq To Shrink, Casey Says," United Press International, 6/23/06)
First of all, Feingold did not, in fact, say that Casey supported or endorsed his plan. He said "Even General Casey is talking about how realistic it is to bring the troops home," and questioned how different the thinking between the two is. What is true, according to the White House itself, is that Casey
has drafted
a withdrawl plan for Iraq.
Secondly, he "accuses" General Casey of agreeing with him? Isn't that a bit...harsh? Is this how the RNC plans to keep their precious little "cut-n-run" meme going, by trying to make the idea of withdrawl so terrible that if
anyone says that someone else is in favor of withdrawl, it must by necessity be an "accusation?" Okay, moving on:
The Kerry-Feingold "Cut And Run" Plan Overwhelmingly Rejected By U.S. Senate:
Thirteen Senate Democrats Voted For The John Kerry-Russ Feingold Plan To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq By July 1, 2007. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 13-86: R 0-55; D 12-31; I 1-0, 6/22/06)
Well, um, how exactly does that disprove the arguments in favor of withdrawl? By showing that it's unpopular in the Senate? Look, I've data too! See
here? 53% of Americans want a timetable. But maybe Americans are just too aloof from the problem to judge it accurately. I mean, it's gotta be easy to say you favor a timetable when you don't have to live with the consequences, right? I mean, I'm sure the Iraqis see the wisdom of an open-ended occupat-
What? They want a timetable
too?
70% of them? Oh well, at least we know that 86 senators want us to stay without a timetable. Sadly, that's the only "poll" that really matters right now. I'll grant you that, RNC, there are in fact 86 senators who are willing to stand up to the will of the Iraqi
and American people, and do what the Bush administration says is right. Okay, let's finish this up.
Sen. Feingold Previously Supported Troop Withdrawal With "Flexibility" And No "Hard Deadline":
"The United States Should Set A Target Date Of Dec. 31, 2006, To Complete The Military Mission In Iraq And Have All U.S. Forces Removed From The Nation, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold Said ..." (James A. Carlson, "Senator Calling For Iraq Pullout By End Of 2006," The Associated Press, 8/17/05)
Sen. Feingold Said His Previous Proposal Was Not "A Hard Deadline" And Had "Flexibility." "`I'm not proposing a hard deadline,' he said. `I'm proposing a target date, with flexibility.'" (James A. Carlson, "Senator Calling For Iraq Pullout By End Of 2006," The Associated Press, 8/17/05)
And, if they had actually bothered to listen to Feingold's speech, the RNC would have known that he still favors "flexibility." As Russ said:
SEN. FEINGOLD: When he gives--we give total flexibility to the Pentagon and to General Casey in terms of what order he wants to do this, what time frame within the year that we have proposed. And the fact is our amendment does not call for the complete elimination of all troops. We allow exceptions to protect American facilities, to conduct anti-terrorist activities, and to help in a limited way in terms of training the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police. So the fact is, we do provide the flexibility that General Casey needs. Our plan is so similar to what he's talking about it makes me wonder what the Republicans of the United States Senate and others were talking about when they said a timetable was a sort of a crazy idea. It's a perfectly reasonable idea. MR. RUSSERT: So you'd be content with 50,000 American troops on the ground at the end of next year?
SEN. FEINGOLD: No, I didn't say that. What I said was we'd give him substantial flexibility, and if there are some troops that are still needed for the purposes I just mentioned, that is something I can accept. Of course, the Congress would also listen. Of course, the Congress would also listen if General Casey and the president said, "Look, we're almost there, we need a little more time." We could obviously extend the deadline. But having a public deadline that the American people could see, that the Iraqi people could see, that the world could see, so that people couldn't use the idea of a so-called "American occupation of Iraq" as an excuse to recruit terrorists, that would be good for us, it would help us in the fight against al-Qaeda, which should be our top goal, Tim, fighting al-Qaeda and its affiliates, not being bogged down in Iraq.
He even elaborates a little later, countering another right wing attack meme:
MR. RUSSERT: If things did get worse, would you consider going back in? SEN. FEINGOLD: Sure. Look. You don't just lock this down permanently. I'm trying to propose what makes sense at this point. My guess is that things would not get worse. My guess is that when the so-called American occupation, which the terrorists like to call it, ends, that the interest of the international terrorist community in Iraq is not so focused there anymore. It would allow us to pursue them and be on the offensive.
You hear that RNC? We can change the plan to deal with what happens. A timetable wouldn't be a deathmarch out of Iraq with no regards to how it's affecting the situation. Just because you guys like to make a plan (or the first stage of a plan, as you all seemed to do for this Iraq misadventure), and then follow it despite what the results say, that doesn't mean that it's how the Democrats operate. We can actually change course, adapt to the situation at hand, be part of the reality-based community.
Writing this entry was on one level, incredibly easy. I have an IQ that is greater than about 40, I have Google, and I had about an hour to research and write this thing. Sadly, that was all I needed to debunk the arguments put forward by the national office of the party that is running our country. Is the best they can do to defend themselves? Are their ideas so dead that the only responses they can give to honest criticism must be so transparently flimsy?
RNC, I think it's safe to say that you lost this one. You made no attempt to disprove the points Russ made on Meet the Press, but instead tried to accuse (yes, I do mean accuse) him of lying about General Casey, when he did nothing of the sort, then you called his and Kerry's plan unpopular in the Senate (one of the few places that it actually
is unpopular), and finally, you say he's no longer "flexible" when he bent over backwards for Tim Russert to show the flexibility in his plan. I notice you never tried to argue in your response that the Iraq war
has made us safer. You haven't gone after his assessment of the situation in Somalia. All you've got is a blinding, binding ideology and a few attack dog writers who go after anyone who criticizes a non-plan that you can't even seem to defend yourselves. If that's the best you've got, then enjoy your time in the sun, because I don't think it will last much longer.
Okay, I'd just like to take a moment and say hi. This is my first diary, so please, be gentle (but not too gentle. I want to get better at this!) I'm a contributor to the Iowa Feingold blog ('laying my biases out in the open). I've also been a lurker and sometimes commentator here for about a year, and thought that this post might be a good way to take the plunge into being a diarist. Now, blast it apart so I can start to improve my writing/researching/whatever-else-needs-fixing!