The Senator from Wisconsin continues to lay it out on the table
MR. GREGORY: Senator, how do you define success in Iraq?
SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I define success in Iraq as being what is most consistent with the security of the American people, in general, and that means whatever we do there should be consistent with the fight against these terrorists all around the world. In other words, the people that have attacked us in London and Madrid, those who are upsetting the government in places like Mauritania, the problems in Thailand and all around the world–whatever we do in Iraq should be consistent with that.
One of the reasons I was opposed to the Iraq War in the first place is it wasn’t even on the list that the president and the State Department put out of 45 countries where al-Qaeda was operating. Now, of course, they’re there. What we need to do right now is figure out a way to help the Iraqi government get on its feet and become stable, but also take away the presence of foreign troops as soon as is reasonable, because if we don’t do that, they will be able to continue to recruit terrorists, who are then–let me just read what Porter Goss, the present director of the CIA, said in February: “The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists. Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraq conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists. Those jihadists will survive and will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of terrorism. They represent a pool of context to build trans-national terrorist cells, groups and networks all around the world.”
So basically, we have to figure out a way to do as much as we can in a reasonable period of time, without doing too much, to allow these terrorists to promote and train people who are going to try to kill Americans.
[snip]
Well, of course, I haven’t proposed a deadline. But, you know, the Democrats are making the same mistake they made in 2002, to let the administration intimidate them into not opposing this war, when so many of us knew it wasn’t a good idea. And same thing with this taboo on talking about a timeline. It doesn’t make sense. If the terrorists and the insurgents really thought that, why wouldn’t they just stop blowing us up right now? Why wouldn’t they just let us leave and then take over?
Previously:
The Gut Primary: Dec. 31, 2006
Party of the People : A History of the Democrats
Russ Fiengold is a no BS, tell it like it is kind of guy. He is the one who did not take any soft money in the Wisconsin senatorial campaign, because he wanted to practice what he preached. A lot of media “experts” predicted he would lose, but the Wisconsin voters proved them otherwise.
If he decided to run, he would have my vote over Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, or anyone else that I can think of in the democratic party. Of course there is no guarantee that’s going to happen.
So… he says that Al Qaida is in Iraq “now” and his answer is to leave?
How on God’s green Earth does that “make sense”?!?
SaveFarris, al Qaida will be in Iraq as long as we are. So, by your logic, we’ll always be there.
Let’s follow your “logic” then. If alQaida is staying in Iraq only because we are there, if we leave, where does AQ go?
Feingold can be a bright guy, but I’m not sure he thought this out real well or at all:
“why wouldn t they just stop blowing us up right now? Why wouldn t they just let us leave and then take over?”
C’mon. Think! Because the terrorists/insurgents/ Baathists know they can’t defeat us militarily, they hope to be able to “out will” us. By making us pay a high price for staying the course, we fat , dumb and happy Americans will begin fighting within and lose our will and pull out. If we are not attacked while in Iraq, we don’t need a large military presence; the cost in terms of money and lives is low. We could stay the course almost indefinitely and certainly long enough to build up the democratic Iraqi state – with an effective army and police force. Don’t quit your Senator job, sir.
Dugger, Sheesh
If we tell the whole world right now that we have a plan to be out of Iraq By Dec 06, that makes it look like we are calling the shots and determining how our involvment will come to an end on our terms. That should motivate the Iraqi Army to be fully ready to take over by that time. It also tells the terrorists that we do not intend to be there for many years.
The whole purpose behind the 9/11 attacks against us was to draw us into a holy war on their turf. Besides, we already won the war in Iraq in April 2003.
What is going to cause the Iraqi’s to suddenly wake up and all go out and crush the resistance? If they don’t want democracy and freedom bad enough to fight for it themselves, its never going to happen.
As long as our soldiers are there to do most of the heavy lifting, most of them are going to sit around and bitch because there’s no water or no power.
This quagmire belongs to the chickenhawks and this adminstration. As Colin Powell said, they own it. But its American soldiers who are are having to pay the bill.