I watched the President spew his tired rhetoric today in some vein attempt to garner support for "his" war. He attacked Democrats, highlighting their support as collaborators and questioned the patriotism of any naysayers. I would offer Russ Feingold as the perfect counter-point to these hysterical accusations. Actions, not words, with no need to apologize.
The vividly unhinged President today:
"
These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said.
"As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them," the president said. "Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory."
The Bush equation- criticism hurts the troops and emboldens the enemy. This is the classic Republican tactic to paint liberals as unpatriotic, with the inference that our criticism endangers the nation. Bush makes the point that the troops need to know we stand behind them, no matter what our political affiliation. Russ Feingold as the concrete counter:
The U.S. Senate has unanimously accepted a provision authored by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold to make permanent a benefit to help families of injured servicemembers travel to the bedside of their injured loved ones. Feingold's provision, based on his Injured Servicemembers Family Travel Act, was adopted as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Earlier this year, Feingold was successful in getting his family travel legislation into the Iraq and Afghanistan spending bill but the final version of that bill put a sunset on his provision.
"I'm happy that the Senate made these travel benefits permanent and I will push for this provision's inclusion in the final version of the Defense Authorization bill," Feingold said. "During an already difficult time, injured servicemembers and their families should not have to worry about whether or not the family can afford to visit their loved one."
This provision follows a logical constitency that Feingold has demonstrated since this quagmire began. Opposing the war has no relation to supporting the troops. Feingold supported the 87 billion appropriation because he saw it as a moral obligation to fund the serviceman. Feingold has recently asked for better funding for the national guard. All these actions, taken in concert, show a position resistent to any claim of undercutting our military.
Feingold has the rare position of moral high ground when it comes to his war criticism. His opposition to the war innoculates him from one of Bush's main criticisms of Democrats, that being their own support for overthrowing Hussein. But, apart from this position, Feingold's approach serves as excellent, tangible evidence of a perceived "liberal" who doesn't play politics with the wellbeing of people.
Feingold's position of openly call for a timetable for withdrawal is gaining limited support in some quarters. The Republican response mirrors the rhetoric of the President- talk of withdrawal undercuts our servicepeople and emboldens the insurgents. Feingold argues that watching people die is not a patriotic ideal, nor does it serve America's interests. When Republicans attack Feingold's position, he has ample evidence to show his compassionate support for the troops and their families.
The Feingold approach is one Democrats need to embrace because it defies the knee-jerk defensive posture we take when attacked by the right. The President's warped sense of nationalism has lost the support of most Americans, therefore the time is ripe to encourage politicans who have the moral authority to take him on. It is not un-American to question this war and any talk within this line should be exposed as unabashedly ridiculous.
The President is waving the flag, a politican like Feingold has shown repeatedly that we can yank it back and show that Democrats need not take a back seat to anyone. Feingold's example serves as the Democrats best approach in muting the GOP noise machine that confuses the electorate and paints us in a negative light. Basically, a how dare they proposition.
