On Iraq: Feingold vs. Mikulski

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:25:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

And if you want to picket, you want to protest, you want to disrupt my life - better my life [in my spacious DC office] is disrupted than the lives of these men and women in uniform [fighting and dying in Iraq].

-Senator Barbara Mikulski (thanks Barb)

Booman is misled by the repeating of false GOP talking points from Senator Mikulski on the Iraq defunding debate and now uses the Beltway position to articulate his views. I stand with Russ Feingold:

Keeping our brave troops in Iraq indefinitely is having a devastating impact on our national security and military readiness.
That's why I have consistently advocated that we set a timetable to redeploy our troops from Iraq. But the president refuses to set a timetable, even though the American people soundly rejected his Iraq policy in November. Instead, the president has announced he wants to send approximately 20,000 more troops.

. . . We can't afford to wait any longer. Congress must use its main power - the power of the purse - to put an end to our involvement in the war in Iraq. . . . As the president made clear Wednesday night, he has no intention of redeploying our troops from Iraq. Congress cannot continue to accept this.

. . . Some [like Dem Sen. Mikulski and Booman] will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our service men and women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger.
Congress will continue to give our troops the resources and support they need, but by, for example, specifying a time after which funding for the war would end, it can give the president the time needed to redeploy troops safely from Iraq.

Impeachment proponent Booman stands with Sen. Mikulski:

Why I Will Not Vote Against Funding Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) . . . I cannot and will not vote against funding. I will not vote to in any way to harm the men and women in the U.S. military, nor will I cut off the support to their families. And if you want to picket, you want to protest, you want to disrupt my life - better my life is disrupted than the lives of these men and women in uniform. It is time to stop the finger-pointing and it's time to pinpoint a new way forward.

What's missing from Sen. Milkulski's statement? Why a "new way forward" of course. This is what Booman supports.

More of the same. I stand with Sen. Feingold. Congress should end the Iraq Debacle using its Constitutional power.

One way ends the war. One way does not. You pick what you prefer. I have. And so has Booman.

< Lieberman's Desperate Drive for Attention | Fat Lady Warming Up for Gonzo >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Iraq: Feingold vs. Mikulski | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Re: On Iraq (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by terryhallinan1 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:45:27 PM EST

Bravo, BTD.

No point in my reiterating what you have already been saying more eloquently than I might but there is something that may be of interest to you.

I misjudged you at the outset as I did Josh Marshall when first reading you guys. Much of your leaning is very much to the right of mine - though you might well characterize it differently.

That, by itself, is piddling stuff but it is hard to reconcile your saying what is dearest to my own thinking on war.

A few years ago I finally got to visit the Vietnam War Memorial in Vietnam. I thought I might be able to find the fellow soldier in Vietnam who was the very first to get his name on the Wall. I failed utterly. Besides not even being able to remember the name, something got in my eyes what with all those names of all those soldiers who had to be sacrificed for a strange kind of honor even after all was lost.

Another name for compromising with evil is acceptance.

Thank you very much, friend. We may not agree on many things but I will always recognize your heart is in the right place. Perchance your vision is much better too because mine gets clouded sometimes as mentioned.

Best, Terry

As I tell people (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:50:41 PM EST

I'll be thrown out of the liberal caucus on just about every other issue.


: Re: As I Tell People (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by terryhallinan1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:18:26 AM EST

I'll be thrown out of the liberal caucus on just about every other issue.
Goose-stepping liberals are oxymorons.
There is no liberal caucus that I am aware of. There is a Progressive Caucus so that liberals, who are too ashamed of the label, can find a place to escape censure. "Progressive" has much of its roots in Wisconsin inherited from the isolationist, racist, radical Bob LaFollete. LaFollete has left the isolationist brand on today's Wisconsin radicals who have been said to be so extreme that Berkleyites consider them Communist. :-) Whatever the case, The Progressive magazine pretty much shows the temper of the group. A distant cousin ran as a Progressive for President. He was far to the left of most liberals. His son, with the same name as my own, was a most unusual and entertaining DA in San Francisco. True crime writer Jack Olsen was really taken with the "two-fisted" DA, a onetime Olympic boxing hopeful, who was not loath to supplement his legal briefs with fisticuffs. My son once became a poll watcher for the Progressives in Chicago only because a roommate was roughed up by the Daley gang. A former Black Panther was running against the same old machine that continues to dominate Chicago politics. Vermont has the largest number of elected officials voted into office as Progressives.
Obviously this is a far cry from those Democrats now choosing to call themselves progressives to avoid the perceived shame of being called liberals. Republicans and the MSM are not so loathe to put the label on them and include others, like the Clintons, who are not liberal in any meaning of the word.
Best, Terry

My Senator (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by BarbinMD on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:57:45 PM EST

I'm disgusted with this:

better my life is disrupted than the lives of these men and women in uniform.

She doesn't think being in the middle of a civil war thousands of miles from home is "disrupting" their lives?

What an e-mail eh Barb? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:02:27 PM EST

A dkos post in it perhaps? Not pushing or anything . . .


I'm definitely (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by BarbinMD on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:38:00 PM EST

...adding it to something I've been putting together.


: Cool (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:24:32 PM EST

Hey Barb (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by TexDem on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:57:25 PM EST

My Rep. is Lynn Westmoreland and my Senators are Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isaakson, see it could be worse. At least your's is a "Democrat".


Again... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Jay Elias on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:38:36 PM EST

...while I am disappointed in Sen. Mikulski's stance, this is not what I think the problem is.

If the Democrats are seriously going to attempt to end this war, I feel utterly certain that it must start with explaining to the American people that the sort of endgame in Iraq that is desired by President Bush and his supporters is not possible or beneficial.

That's the case no one has made. It begins and ends with the question of whether or not there is any more possible good that our soldiers can achieve there. And, more than anything else, it is the fear on the part of many Democrats to say that "victory" is not possible in Iraq at any cost or sacrifice that prevents them from taking real action to withdraw the troops.

I do not agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:17:15 PM EST

The PEople want OUT. Not explanations.

But Mikulski only gets it from me because Booman tried to use her as a cudgel on me.

I think he g ets properly pummelled here by me.


: I don't think it is about that (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Jay Elias on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:49:58 PM EST

Hell, I don't even know if I think it should be about that.
The reason they aren't doing what you want isn't because they think they will lose the people in the short term. The reason they aren't doing it is either because they don't think they can justify it long term, or because they aren't convinced it is right.
And just pointing to the polls doesn't convince anyone. It has to be about why there isn't hope there. Otherwise, it isn't about much but popularity. And this is bigger than that.

I watched a bit of coverage today (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:46:09 PM EST

the media consensus seems to be that the bill Pelosi and Hoyer are pushing now does set a timeline. What could the possible advantage be if people believe this, but it isn't true?

It is a disaster is what it is (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:15:59 PM EST

bush can save us though.


you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:24:27 PM EST

Suppose Miller's threat was right, and the next verson of this bill really is "clean"?

I think we need to war game the scenario where bush vetoes the bill Leadership is pushing right now (though I don't think he will--he gave some stupid warning about earmarks today). The problem is: who are "we"? I assume you saw the ~50:50 poll from yesterday at Dkos? You may be getting through, but I wonder if it's soon enough.


Clean and 6 months? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:47:29 PM EST

I'm on board.


: You're more generous (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:56:13 PM EST

than I would be. My first reaction would be "you vetoed, so beg us for a dime. Let's start with a new Secretary of State."

Re: Scum (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by terryhallinan1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:24:01 AM EST

The scum such as Senator Barbara Mikulski will soon be explaining the relevance of Khartoum to what happens next in The MeatGrinder to the American people.

Why label misguided friendlies in a sea of hostiles as scum?

It is truly very sad that people who pretend, probably even fooling themselves, that they are voting against the war when they are actually voting to extend it. Ahh but folly is the human condition.

Two senators in all of Congress voted against the Vietnam War. Previously impregnable, the two mavericks were defeated first chance the voters got to do them in. Gruening of Alaska is even remembered most as being one of the few incumbents defeated in a primary.

: The Real Enemy (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by terryhallinan1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:43:00 AM EST

The real enemy has already been pointed out most clearly by BTD.
That is liberal bloggers who support the war when there is no need to do so except out of some strange kind of expediency.
Harold Ford, who ran far to the right of his Republican troglodyte opponent, was supported by liberal bloggers even to the extent of fundraising.
Supporting those who call themselves Democrats no matter how far away they are from any imaginable Democratic Party values gave us the like of Zell Miller just as it once did Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. The lesser evil of Joe Lieberman is now apparent to all liberals but far too late.
The war will continue to its inglorious end.
That may not be so far away as many think. The war continues to go very, very badly as it must.
Before the last presidential election, I asked a group of rabid female Kerry fans, who were nearly all veterans, why they would support Kerry while being against the iraq War. Wouldn't it make more sense on that ground alone to support Bush? Kerry was far from anti-war and would be far more competent in prosecuting a horrendous war.
The ladies used simply horrid language in response.
BTW I voted for Kerry because he was a Vietnam War veteran like myself and suffered a vile attack because of it. No worthy reason for such a vote comes to mind.
Best, Terry

I love Booman (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:56:02 AM EST

Seldom is he off on issues concerning the Iraq War. Only because I currently live within the system of the military right now do I understand that Mikulski is blowing hot air soooooo totally up my whazoooo! Just read this but I will reiterate what I posted to an earlier BTD diary moments ago....please don't be worried that my family will go without pay or benefits if this supplemental isn't passed because the military fiscal year runs from October to October and all that stuff has already been funded for the year. We in the military know this drill well and if you are attempting to get employment on post in a civilian position it is best to begin applying around that October time frame because everybody is about to be funded and taking new hires. Our basic needs have already been funded! Knowing that.......what is this supplemental needed for and you guys/gals on the Hill have plenty of time to ask hard questions! The only thing I can figure out is that nobody wants to have to work too hard or dig into things too hard and shame on you all to hell and back because if you really want to know what a day of too hard is all about you ought to put in a full days work in Iraq! So is it a lazy thing or a cowardice thing?

Here's a question (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:35:48 PM EST

What would it take to get Feingold to put a hold on the new spending bill--if it ever gets to the house?

: Not something he could hold long (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:01:25 PM EST

The action's in the House, and the Conference Committee.

: <<<out of the House>>> n/t (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:36:13 PM EST

: Dunno (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:51:03 PM EST

House Appropriations (none / 0) (#7)
by walt on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:32:08 PM EST

Rep. Obey's committee has 64 members--it's an unruly mob that has no "center." Things get done because even the rethuglicans have to make their own pork barrel projects obtain money, so they let bigger stuff pass in order to attach their (and the GOoPerz leadership) pet amendments to fund highways to heaven (a snarky Dobson & Falwell project, fabricated by me).

The subcommittee on Defense bucks is not very helpful. The minority ranking member, Young, is a total whack job (term of art in psychotherapy) & the Democrats have a couple of Blue Dogs in Cramer & Bishop.

Democrats
John P. Murtha, Chairman, Pennsylvania
Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana
James P. Moran, Virginia
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Bud Cramer, Alabama
Allen Boyd, Flordia
Steve Rothman, New Jersey
Sanford Bishop, Georgia

Republicans
C. W. Bill Young, Ranking Member, Florida
David L. Hobson, Ohio
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey
Todd Tiahrt, Kansas
Roger F. Wicker, Missouri
Jack Kingston, Georgia

Rep. Murtha (a retired Marine Corps colonel) has the chops, but the House is not like the Senate in rules & one activist cannot stop a bill.

It's very, very grim for the good guys in this mad-House; thus the pussy-footing by the leadership (puns intended). Bad luck all around here.

Don;t follow your point (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:40:09 PM EST

Wthout 218 votes, none of that matters.


My point is (none / 0) (#11)
by walt on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:14:25 PM EST

There's no way the committee, the subcommittee, or an individual representative can "hold" the bill. That train left the station.


: OF course (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:25:05 PM EST

If Dems buy the War (none / 0) (#24)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 12:48:11 AM EST

There'll be another '68 scene outside the '08 Convention.

Feingold said... (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:37:36 PM EST

Keeping our brave troops in Iraq indefinitely is having a devastating impact on our national security and military readiness.

Following that logic, we would have brought them all home in 1943...

Logic is a commodity in short supply among the anti-war folks now days.