Feingold Introduces Resolution for Iraq Withdrawal

The country has decided that the Iraq war was not worth it:Gallup Poll. June 6-8, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"

Worth It    Not Worth It
  42		56
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 2-5, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Worth It   Not Worth It
  41		58
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). May 12-16, 2005. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
"When it comes to the war in Iraq, do you think that removing Saddam Hussein from power was or was not worth the number of U.S. military casualties and the financial cost of the war?"
Worth It   Not Worth It
  40	      51
Note that this is not the same question as whether or not the U.S. "did the right thing" to go to war. These three very similar questions simply ask people whether they think the war was worth it. With "worth it" hitting 40, 41 and 42 in the three polls, In each case, the response was the same, resounding. This is despite Gallup's sample being weighted slightly in favor of Republicans.

The country does not like the war, and they want to start withdrawing troops. While Americans understandably are frustrated that most congress critters fail to address this fundamental concern to the nation, they should feel a little better that at least one of their representatives in Washington is listening:

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold announced today that he will introduce a resolution in the Senate tomorrow calling on the administration to report to Congress on a timeframe for achieving its military goals in Iraq and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The resolution calls on the President to identify the specific missions that the U.S. military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq, as well as the timeframe in which those missions can be successfully achieved. Most critically, Feingold's resolution calls on the President and his administration to report to Congress with a plan and timetable for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Feingold was in Iraq with four of his Senate colleagues in February. He has long called on the administration to level with the American people regarding the nature and length of the U.S. military commitment to Iraq.

Feingold issued the following statement on his resolution today:

"While I was in Iraq in February, I was able to witness firsthand the truly amazing resolve all of our troops in Iraq - I cannot describe how very proud I am of all of those who serve. It is with that trip and those soldiers in mind that I will introduce a resolution tomorrow that calls on the President to clarify the objectives and timeframe of the current U.S. mission in Iraq, including a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. And I will work with my colleagues to hold the Administration accountable for meeting our goals and achieving clear standards of success.

We owe our brave servicemen and women a concrete timetable for achieving clear goals, not vague, open-ended commitments. Having a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and having a timetable for Iraqi elections have resulted in real political and strategic advantages. Having a timetable for the withdrawal of troops should be no different."

This is both the right thing to do, and an eminently moderate approach. All he is asking for is a timetable. It will be interesting to watch this resolution in the Senate, just as it was interesting to analyze the first vote on withdrawal in House. Hopefully in the Senate will be be closer than we were in the House, but I'm not holding my breath.

We all have our favorites in Congress, and Feingold is mine, despite our struggles with campaign finance reform. For more from Feingold, check out his new Progressive Patriots website.

Tags: World (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

Baghdad Bob
"Bush knows that he is standing in quicksand when it comes to his baseless talk on Iraq"
- "Baghdad Bob," 2,003
by steve expat 2005-06-13 03:45PM | 0 recs
Simple Scotty says...
During the WH daily press briefing today, a reporter asked Simple Scotty McClellan to clarify his statement that setting a timetable for leaving Iraq would send the wrong message to the terrorists. Simple Scotty explained that the U.S. military must stay in Iraq to make sure the Iraqi forces are training well enough to provide adequate security for the Iraqi citizens.

That response struck me as odd and phony, because the Iraqi security forces under Saddam's rule were not only well trained enough to protect his totalitarian regime for many years, but they were very effective in suppressing insurgent and terrorist activities within its prescribed borders.

Thus, Simple Scotty's excuse suggests that the Iraqis under Saddam did a better job of protecting the country than they are doing under Bush, which is to say that Iraq would be better off today if the U.S had not invaded.

Reconstituting the Iraqi forces with an allegiance to and support from the governing Iraqi body is a political issue that can and should solved internally without U.S. intervention.  Since Bush's motivation for invading and occupying Iraq is economic and strategic, the Iraqi forces will never become sufficiently trained to allow the U.S. military to leave Iraq.

by fafnir 2005-06-13 04:14PM | 0 recs
Well, it's kinda a restating of...
..."The Pottery Barn Rule", that is, we broke it, so we have to fix it.

Obviously, we shouldn't have broke it in the first place.

Personally, I don't think we can ever fix it, so we should pull out now, but...

by Geotpf 2005-06-13 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Simple Scotty says...
A huge mistake was dismantling the Iraqi Army after the fall of Saddam.

Now, it is an endless reinvention of the wheel

by v2aggie2 2005-06-13 10:39PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads