From Tom Paine:
Feingold The Forthright
Is this man too smart to be president? When Russ Feingold talks about how national security and foreign policy intersect, you think this man might just know what he's talking about. His ideas don't sound canned or full of buzz phrases, nor do they appeal to fear. Plus, they make sense.
Speaking Monday at the National Press Club, Feingold described his vision for national security.
The senator from Wisconsin said he believes that "battling al-Qaida and associated networks" should be the nation's national security priority. Thinking about the war on terror in exclusively military terms is short-sighted and insufficient. Instead, Feingold argued, the U.S. should be focusing on safe havens of Islamist activity (like Indonesia), rescuing failed states and supporting human rights.
Put another way, Feingold seemed to be saying, where we consort with repressive leaders and ignore the human rights of their citizens, we sow the seeds of anti-American hatred. Sure, it would've been nice if he'd noted how large America's fossil fuel-dependency looms as a factor in U.S. foreign policy decisions and how the lack of a real energy plan undermines our national security (hat tip, my former colleague Patrick Doherty and Michael Klare). That aside, it was refreshing to hear a Democrat talk about national security strategies that transcend defensive, reactive postures, and are informed by principle, not polling.
On Iraq, Feingold displayed the candor and directness that makes him popular with why-don't-Dems-get-a-spine progressives. He blasted the Bush administration's decision to invade, his Democratic colleagues' decision to vote in 2002 to authorize the president's use of force ("We missed an opportunity to define a different approach to the war on terror"), and the White House's refusal to admit it's made any mistakes and thus lay the groundwork for solutions.
Feingold's own proposal relies on drawing down U.S. troops according to a "flexible timetable." When asked to counter those who claim that withdrawal of U.S. troops will plunge Iraq into further chaos, Feingold didn't flinch:
Our presence is a stimulant to terrorist activity. Reminiscent of France in Algeria and the Soviets in Afghanistan. The lesson of insurgencies is that when the occupying power leaves, it will lessen the power of the insurgency.
Feingold argued that there's nothing "weak" about saying the U.S. should redeploy troops. Alas, his colleagues don't share his view. He offered his redeployment plan as an unsuccessful amendment to the Iraq supplemental funding bill that passed the Senate last week.
The very first question from the audience concerned the president’s nomination of General Michael Hayden to be the director of the CIA. Feingold gave a measured response, neither signaling support nor an all-out fight:
It is unfortunate that the president made such a contentious choice at a time when the intelligence community, and this country, need consensus on how to move forward. General Hayden will need to convince me that he is committed to the rule of law in order to win my support.
The very last question concerned the criteria informing his decision to enter the 2008 presidential race—which he said he won't make until after the midterm elections. Feingold listed a few things—the outcome of the midterms, his family and whether he feels he's up to the job. When answering that last question, Feingold said, the answer some of his supporters offer him—"Look who we got there now!"—is not good enough.
UPDATE: AP has a good write-up of Feingold's remarks, particularly his assessment of what Dems need to do to win elections:
He said some Democrats in Congress gave in to "intimidation" by the Bush administration when they voted to authorize the war in 2002, and warned: "If we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in '06 and we will lose in '08, just like we did in '02 and '04."
--Alexandra Walker Monday, May 8, 2006 3:33 PM
Wrap...
No comments:
Post a Comment