Yesterday, US Senate Republicans agreed to begin debate on the Feingold-Reid anti-war bill because they said the debate would give them time to hail progress in Iraq.  The bill would "provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq."

Now, Feingold is asking for help in the anti-war effort.

Gosh, oh gee.  You would think that Iraq funding would be worth voting on.  You would think that Feingold/Reid would be voting on.  You would think that standing up to Dick and W would be worth voting on.

If you're a Senator and running for President, you'd think that they would think these issues would be worth voting on.

You'd be wrong!

Because Senator Feingold just re introduced the Feingold-Reid amendment again after the cloture vote failed. The Senate is working on the huge spending bill HR 2764, trying to get it finalized before they go on their extended December Holidays break.  You may follow the list of Senate Roll Call votes here:
http://www.senate.gov/...

I had it on mute, and noticed he was speaking, brought up the volume, and heard the phrase "and we'll bring it up again, and again, and again..." and perked up up and started listening.

He spoke at length about our policy in the Middle East and why we must not continue to do the same thing.

For those of you who consistently read Jonathan Schell, you will not be surprised by position he lays out in his most recent article in The Nation.  In his piece, one of the very few that The Nation sets behind a subscription wall, Schell essentially argues that the Democrats, if they are legitimately and sufficiently of a mind to affect the outcome in Iraq, should force an implacable president to a Constitutional confrontation over which branch of government will determine the war's future course. He argues that the half-measures proposed by the likes of Levin and Jack Reed (and, by extension, Feingold and Harry Reid) are constitutionally dubious, militarily illogical, and politically disastrous.

I believe Schell is correct, and that the time for finessing this war is over.

Here we go again.  So, wrapped up in moveon.org that we are totally clueless.

Yesterday, Geekesque, posted a very in your face diary called, You idiots.

Well, we are idiots.  We are so busy arguing back and forth about a bullshit lame amendment, involving moveon.org, that we had two things happen yesterday.

Feingold/Reid Bill and Jena 6.

Over the hump....

Cross-posted at Talk Left

I'm talking to you, wingnuts, for caring more about a stupid newspaper ad (and yes it was stupid) than you do about the well-being of US soldiers.

I'm also talking to more than a few people in the progressive blogosphere.

Why?  

Because you're talking about the wrong vote today.

There was a vote today that was important and had direct relevance to ending the Iraq war.

But, if one paid attention to the blogosphere's self-interested whining, one would think that the big news was the Moveon vote.

The vote you SHOULD be talking about described below.

CP W/P DNC PB

I received this from Russ Feingold. Seeing that he already is my senator, I am extending this to everyone here. Please contact your senator and ask them to support Feingold-Reid to block further funding of the war after the troops are safely redeployed.

More Below The Fold

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) is the only member of the Senate to have lost a relative in the Iraq War. His nephew, Marine Cpl. Philip E. Baucus, was killed in Al Anbar province last year. He was just 28 years old.

Senator Baucus is in Iraq this weekend, along with Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).  It is Senator Baucus's first trip to Iraq.  He has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (who, by the way, "has refused to meet with visiting members of the U.S. Congress for a month").  The delegation has already met with Iraq President Jalal Talabani.  Here are some of Senator Baucus's comments:

"I and others repeatedly made it clear to the [Iraqi] leadership that they’ve got to do a lot more than they are doing now," said Baucus, who is on his first visit to Iraq. "They need a bigger nudge. They could stand a greater dose of reality to move them."

He added, "The clock is ticking as far as I’m concerned."

Based on what he has seen, Baucus said he doesn’t believe President Bush’s "surge," or increase in American troops in Iraq, has worked. In January 2007, Bush announced he was sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. As of last week, the United States had 168,000 troops in Iraq, the most ever.

"It was supposed to give breathing room for the Iraqi government," Baucus said. "It did not work."

Baucus said it wasn’t at all clear to him that maintaining the same U.S. troop level "will result in its desired effect."

"Our troops are getting thin with the desired rotation," he said, adding, "The army is getting very strained."

Senator Baucus co-sponsored and voted for S.J. Res 9 back in March, which was a non-binding resolution requiring redeployment within 120, with a goal of completing redeployment (with limited exceptions) by March 31, 2008 (The bill failed to pass).

Less than two months later, he voted against Reid-Feingold, which required that redeployment begin  within 120 days, and which contained the firm requirement that no funds be used "to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008."

A revised version of Reid-Feingold will again be introduced in the Senate, and Senator Baucus will get a chance to vote on that "bigger nudge" he says is necessary.

Call Senator Baucus and explain to him that it is the  will of the majority of Americans that a firm timeline be set for withdrawal.  

Contact Senator Baucus:

• The toll-free switchboard number is 888-355-3588.
• The direct number for Senator Baucus is 202) 224-2651  (leave a voicemail today, call back tomorrow).
• You can also email Senator Baucus here.

Back in May, I wrote a diary (September arrives. Then what?) about how Congress could have a reasonably coherent strategy that would end the war. Since I am a nobody, my recommendations were ignored as expected. Now looking back at what Congress has done, it's pretty clear to me that the Democratic Congressional leadership has to be one of the most politically inept I've seen in my lifetime.

Here we are, now talking about the Levin bullshit compromise which will do absolutely nothing to end the war. Lets compare what I would have done to what they actually did:

With Senate Democrats increasingly united, it looks as if for the first time, a majority of the Senate will support binding legislation with a firm end date for our open-ended military presence in Iraq, something I first called for, with support and input from so many of you, back in August of 2005.

This would be a watershed moment but we all agree that it has taken far too long to get here. The binding language in Levin-Reed makes this amendment significant and I will support it. But there are aspects of the amendment that are cause for concern – in particular, the exception for "providing logistical support" to Iraqi troops could give the administration too much wiggle room to "repackage" its failed military mission instead of redeploying our troops.

From the fourteenth floor of the Milwaukee Hilton, I bring you a few of the highlights of tonight's speakers, including Russ Feingold, Tammy Baldwin, Governor Doyle, and a Daily Kos poster from this morning, WI-8's Steve Kagen.

Some of the points speakers emphasized to day were the "+3" needed to turn the Assembly Democratic in '08, the recent vote for universal health care in Wisconsin, outrage at the reversal of Brown vs. the Board of Education and, repeatedly, the fact that the Congress would not be Democratic today were it not for the public's overwhelming will to end our occupation of Iraq.

Below the fold: Feingold vows to push Feingold-Reid again

cross-posted at The Richardson Solution

writer's note: The Richardson Solution is an advocacy-oriented and policy-cataloging blog that promotes the presidential candidacy of Bill Richardson, former U.S. Congressperson, Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy and current Governor of the great state of New Mexico.

Nothing like coming home from work and finding your blog got about a thousand hits.  Especially with this:

   Also, you'll want to let this pro-Richardson blogger know about the change in policy. He still has the old, pro-Feingold-Reid plan posted.

Richardson took some swings at major Senate Dems at the Take Back America conference and Lizza thought the Governor "scrubbed" the website to modify for his new stance on Reid-Feingold.

Trouble is - there is no new stance.  

Following up on the supplemental fiasco, Senate Dems are regrouping for a new round of Iraq votes in the coming weeks. In a conference call with bloggers yesterday, Sen. Reid laid out the four pronged approach they are planning to take as they consider the Defense Department authorization bill.

Most of these measures are intended to keep the pressure on Republicans, forcing them to vote again and yet again on Iraq, since obviously they will all be opposed by the majority of Republicans and, in the unlikely event they make it through the Senate, vetoed. Nonetheless:

The first is a new take on timelines being developed by Senators Kerry and Reed. Given Bush's allergy to timelines, it's likely to be little more than an opportunity for the Dems to have another responsible, reasonable approach to ending this fiasco to present to voters in '08. Second, Reid will again bring Feingold-Reid to a vote, and he promises more than 30 votes this time. Third, Webb is leading an effort on troop readiness, that would require troops to have as much time at home as in theater. Finally, they will consider rescinding or revising the AUMF that took us to Iraq.

Reid acknowledged the role the blogs have played in driving the Iraq debate in a press conference following the call, and also noted that leadership made mistakes in the supplemental fight.

"I understand their disappointment," Reid said. "We raised the bar too high."

Reid and his caucus need to understand that it's not just the bloggers' disappointment they are feeling--it's felt by each and every voter who voted for an end to the Iraq war last November. That's reflected in the series of new polls we've seen over the last week, including an LA Times/Bloomberg poll released yesterday that shows public approval of Congress the lowest level in over a decade.
He admitted to us that it was a mistake to raise expectations and that it wouldn't happen again. Reid also acknowledged, in a response to a concern raised by BarbinMD, that it was wrong to try to spin the supplemental bill as a "victory," even though he pointed out the veteran medical benefits in it as important.

Reid also broke the news that the Magical September was likely to bring just one thing--another supplemental request by Bush. So we can look forward to another round of the "fund the troops" canard timed for exactly the moment at which Republicans keep telling everyone they're going to give up on Iraq if it's "not working."

The depressing upshot of the conference call was that we are essentially treading water on Iraq. There aren't any great parliamentary cards for Reid to keep up his sleeve on this one, just a long, hard slog of forcing Republicans--and the recalictrant Dems--to continue to vote to keep this abysmal war going.

There is, of course, one course of action Reid and the other Dem leaders are not prepared to take: use the Feingold-Reid and Iraq Study Group framework to change the course of this debate by setting a date certain for redeployment, and reframe the debate as a change in mission to get us the hell out.

Jon Soltz responds to Bush's unending Iraq war:

Public confirmation that the White House sees an American military presence in Iraq without end is the single greatest motivating and recruiting tool given to insurgents in the history of the war, and must be recanted....

The president and vice-president like to say that insurgents in Iraq listen to what we say over here. If they do, there's no question that this morning, those who seek to kill our troops are buzzing with talk that America plans on occupying Iraq forever. The bulls-eye on the back of our troops just got a whole lot bigger, and the president is to blame. He has to recant these kinds of statements, so he doesn't embolden the enemy more than he already has....

Here's something you can do for VoteVets.org. If your Representative or Senator has been voting to give the President a blank check on the war, call them up and ask if they endorse the President's vision of a war without end in Iraq....

If they say they do not support the president's vision, urge them to put out a public statement rebuking the him. Enough public statements like that will help show Iraqis that America does not support the president's vision of endless military involvement in Iraq.

Soltz is absolutely right. The only way to end this debacle is to keep the heat on the ones who will respond to us--the Dems in Congress. Put them on the spot. Urge them to do more than issue a public statement--urge the Senators to join their colleagues who have gone on record with their votes on the McGovern amendment and Feingold-Reid amendment to actively cosponsor the legislation and to set a date certain for the occupation to end.

On May 19, 2007, Sgt. Justin D. Wisniewski, 22, of Standish, Michigan, was killed in the Sunni Triangle by an improvised explosive device.  Sgt. Wisniewski was from the the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Infantry Division (light), of Fort Drum, New York.  Three days earlier, the Feingold/Reid amendment failed to pass the United States Senate by a margin of 29 to 67 votes.  After that loss, and the veto of the last funding bill for the war in Mesopotamia by the President, the view of the Congressional leadership appears to be that a bill appropriating $95.5 billion for further military operations without any binding language about withdrawal will be the next step.  Many people in the press and the blogs, including Markos, have described this as a capitulation, a defeat, and a surrender.

In some ways, it is those things.  But not for us.  

Tester, Webb and McCaskill
In November of this year those were the three names we heard over and over.. powered by the Netroots, big sweeping changes in the Senate.. lots of big talk.. proves it meant nothing

We have an old saying in my adopted state of Texas and you may have it in your own state too: "Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it." America is not unique for perpetuating a history that was founded on genocide and where violence is constantly relied upon for problem solving, but this is our country and how can we finally learn the lessons of war and corrupt regimes?

*NOTE:  I acknowledge that the use of the term traitor as specifically applied to Jim Webb is excessive.  Nevertheless, I still feel betrayed by him.  The main point of this diary though is not Jim Webb, but all politicians who use and abuse those who support them.

Last year when I was unemployed and dead broke I charged a donation I could not afford to my credit card for Jim Webb’s Senate campaign.  I did so because he held himself up as an antiwar candidate and I thought he was different – not a politician but an outsider who would act in our best interest, and a man of genuine character who would in every case do the right thing.  I was wrong and now I feel utterly betrayed by his vote on Feingold-Reid.  I want my money back Webb.