Feingold wants to cut off Iraq funds

This Tuesday, the Iraq war debate will take another interesting turn.  Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) wants the Judiciary Committee to consider the idea of cutting off Iraq war funds:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has scheduled a hearingnext Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whetherCongress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. militarycampaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on acongressional resolution opposing President Bush's escalation of thewar.

Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider anoption many consider politically suicidal: cutting off funds for themilitary campaign in Iraq.

Politically speaking, what Feingold is doing is suicide.  All of us want our soldiers out of there ASAP.  So the question then becomes how do we achieve that objective?  Holding these hearings would give the President an excuse to go on the attack against Democrats, which could buy him more time to stay the course.  Yes, we have to fight this policy.  However, like it or not, public policy is a gradualist's line of work.  Over-stepping ourselves politically could buy the President an extra month of political capital on his war strategy, therefore ultimately prolonging the amount of time that our troops would remain in the line of fire.  Harry Reid said it best:

Republicans "would like this debate to be as whether ornot we are going to be cutting off money for the troops," SenateMajority Leader Harry Reid recently told The Politico.

The President is looking for every excuse possible to shift the spotlight onto someone else.  His approval rating is at 28%, according to CBS News.  He is desperate.  On Tuesday, Feingold's tactic might actually give the President extra breathing room.

I don't dislike Russ.  He is one of the few remaining senators with a spine.  We need more people like him.  But you watch: this proposal, unless it is done one month from now, will be a net negative and buy the White House more time.  We aren't quite there yet in terms of having the political capital to cut off funds.  We can chip away at the Iraq policy little-by-little.  Yes, it is frustrating.  But if we want our troops our ASAP, then we had better not over-play our hand.  We will get there eventually.

Comments

[George]

Todd, I'm not sure I agree with you but I hear what you are saying. A recent Newsweek polls shows that over 60% of Americans think Congress is too passive when it comes to getting involved in the war.

The Democrat Party has a bad recent history of being total pushovers too. At some point they have to show some nerve. If they wait too long, they might as well just hold off until the 2008 election and let the public decide what they want to see happen. Maybe that's what will happen.

[Administrator: Todd]

George, what I'm worried about are potential GOP presidential candidates like Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback, who sort have realized that they may have over-played their hand in opposing Bush's war policy. If Hagel is serious about running, then he will be looking for excuses to attack Democrats. Feingold will have given him one on Tuesday.

Economically speaking, America is as strong as its weakest links. The same can be true for politics. We need every Senator that is currently opposed to Bush's war policy to remain unified -- even the ones on the outside like John Warner, Democrat Ben Nelson, Democrat Bill Nelson, Susan Collins, Chuch Hagel, and Sam Brownback.

Also, we need to realize that Hagel, Brownback, Collins and Warner are making a huge investment. They are putting their political asses on the line. It would be like stabbing them in the back to go overboard and drag them into supporting a policy that they can't just yet. It is the equivalent to putting them in front of a firing squad -- with the firing squad being the conservative base.

With regard to that poll you cited, there is another poll that came out that said 61% of Americans want Congress to block funds for "new" troops sent to Iraq. A bold move like that might be smart. But when it comes to cutting off "all" funding for the war, people are much less supportive of that -- under 50%.

So in my view, let's not pull a McGovern and extend ourselves too far politically. Keep in mind that Bush NEEDS a scapegoat for this war. If the Democrats cut off funds without a national consensus, then EVERY conservative, even John Warner and Susan Collins, would blame Democrats for losing this war.

I am all for bold moves. But any bold move must be a smart move. Maybe I am being too cautious about this whole thing, and fear the GOP too much. But I know that the right-wing wants to blame this war on someone...and I don't want politics to go down that road.

[George]

Good points all around. I don't think they can pass such legislation anyhow so they might as well let Bush self destruct and then try to get things fixed in 2008. If they try too much right now I suppose it could cost them in 2008 which could lead to a McCain Presidency which puts us right back where we are.

The good thing about Hagel though is that he doesnt care about his proverbial ass anymore. It's about principle and he's one of the few Republicans willing to stand up and fight (for real). And by the way, Hagel pulled 83% of the vote in Nebraska if I am not mistaken so he can basically do as he pleases. Same with John Warner I believe.