Russ Feingold on Bush's threatened veto

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann a few nights ago to talk about President Bush's promised veto and rhetoric about the emergency appropriation for the War in Iraq. Feingold is as spot on and articulate as anyone I've heard on the subject.

Feingold rightfully points out that there is plenty of precedent on ending funding for combat operations during war time, most notably during the Clinton Administration when we had forces in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. After we lost 18 U.S. troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. (By the way, I tire of hearing Repubes deride Clinton for the loss of those soldiers - he deserves some blame, but it was President George H.W. Bush who put our troops in Somalia in December 1992.)

Anyway, Feingold hit it right on the head - if Bush vetoes the spending bill, it's going to be on his head, or at least partially. He rightfully reasons that the Democrats were sent to Congress to do the bidding of the people, and that's to end this war:

Well, it's just incredible to me that the president of the United States is planning on vetoing a bill that actually provides the funds that he wants for this next phase of the war. And the reason is, is, that he thinks he shouldn't have to follow the will of the American people, which was expressed in November, and that is that somehow this war has to start to end.

The bill is a very reasonable approach, and the president is being beyond stubborn in saying that we have to provide the funds and have no reaction at all to the fact that the people of this country want us out of this war. It's incredible to me that the president is this detached from reality.

Of course, some hear this and get all hysterical, that the Democrats are simply Bush hating. No, they are not. What we are seeing now is a president who had no oversight for the first six years of his presidency. Bush is totally incapable of compromise, or reaching across party lines. For a man who ran in 2000 as "A uniter, not a divider," he's shown a shocking indifference to even having a dialogue with the Democrats. More from the interview:

OLBERMANN: He referred to, in this news conference, in some of the questions, some who believe our strategy there is not working, a group who believes that we should not be there in the first place. Is it possible, do you think, Senator, that the president does not realize that this group of some people constitutes about seven out of every 10 Americans?

FEINGOLD: Well, he must know at some level, but he refers to the fact that we're back in our states, listening to the people in our states, as a vacation. Well, he needs a vacation like that, or he needs to get back onto a place like Wisconsin, in the rural areas where I am this week, Keith, doing town meetings, where people are telling me, For God's sakes, when are you going to get out of there? How can you possibly have this thing continue? What is the president thinking?

He is truly out of touch with the people of this country. This is not a position of a few people in the Democratic Party. It is virtually a consensus of the American people that we have got to have an orderly end to this war, safely redeploy the troops in the next few months.

[...]

Senator Harry Reid and I have concluded that a bill or an amendment that would make that date a year from now, March 31, 2008, is the next step, if necessary, if he truly does veto the supplemental bill.

OLBERMANN: To the power of the purse, for all the president's talk of alleged irresponsibility on the part of Congress in his news event this morning, it would seem, in his answer to that question about the power of the purse, the president was forced to admit that what you and your colleagues are doing is, in fact, entirely legitimate. And if that's true, and he says it's true, doesn't that make his veto the cause of any interruption of funding for the troops, in the unlikely event that happens?

FEINGOLD: Absolutely, Keith, unless we've shifted into a monarchy. The whole idea of our system is that these powers are divided. The president's the commander in chief, but the Congress is given the power of the funding, the appropriations power. We had to provide the funding in the first place, and if we decide this war is a bad idea, which I think just about everybody's concluded, then it's our—not just our right, but our responsibility to say, "Well, by X date, we will no longer do the funding."

And if you—you can ask Republican senators who say this is a bad idea, why did they vote for a date to cut off the funding for Somalia in the early '90s? Remember Black Hawk Down, we lost those 18 brave Americans, and we said, You know, this isn't working out very well, we ought to stop this.

And so John McCain and John Warner and all of us voted for a date certain by which the troops were safely redeployed. And at the end of it, the funding was cut off. They've already voted for this approach. It's not extreme. It's right in the absolute core of our constitutional powers and our responsibilities as members of Congress.

###

Uh oh - I'm bringing up those pesky 1990s again. How inconvenient. I not-so-fondly remember Repubes howling and screaming whenever President Clinton did anything militarily. No matter the cause, he never, ever had the support of a Republican-controlled Congress - Somalia (which he inherited), Bosnia, Kosovo or any actions to combat terrorism.

At every turn, it was Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's misuse of the military, or worse. Funny how I never heard "When troops are in harm's way, we don't question the operation - we get behind the president." Feingold rightfully reminded viewers of this the other night.

Speaking of supporting the president, one final thought. I realize that it's difficult for most of us (myself included, on most occasions) to reflect on our foreign policy in the 1990s through a 9-11 looking glass. Fine.

But, what really roils me is the persistent, idiotic rumors that float around the Internet about Clinton not doing enough about Osama bin Laden while he was president. Part of that is a valid point - he even admitted as much during his contentious interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace last September.

However, I also vaguely remember President Clinton wanting to do more to fight terrorism, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House wouldn't give him the budget increases he asked for. I also remember his missile attacks on Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of President Bush Sr. in Kuwait, and also the missile attack on a bin Laden compound that missed the terrorist by hours.

But again, to hear Republicans talk about it, they all wanted to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden immediately, but Clinton didn't want to. Lies, lies, lies. In fact, when Clinton was leaving office, the one thing that the Clinton team told the incoming Bush administration to pay particular attention to was bin Laden. Call that one Operation Ignore, as the Bushies did nothing.

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, served under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and until 2003, President George W. Bush. He's confirmed the current Bush administration's willful indifference to bin Laden during the first eight months of the administration. And this has also been confirmed by Bob Woodward and Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. But, they're all lying, right Mr. President?

For more reading, I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies; and Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

These are two fantastic books, told by former Bush administration insiders, and they both offer insight into how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq before 9-11, a conveniently forgotten fact.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the far right want perpetual war, with no end in sight. It's hard to conclude otherwise, considering their stubbornness and obfuscation in the face of Democrats' attempts to end this war.