Russ Feingold and Stupidity

I know I'm late on this, but I wanted to mention a couple of things from yesterday's Meet the Press.

Presidential wannabe Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold was interviewed by David "Stretch" Gregory. He was sitting in for Tim Russert, as Feingold gave his first live interview since he called for the December 31, 2006, withdrawal date from Iraq.

(Russert hasn't been on for a couple of weeks now. Do people take vacations in August?)

Keep in mind that Feingold is running for POTUS.

Transcript

MR. GREGORY: Explain why you've taken this step at this point. Why set this target date?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, it's been a long time coming. I didn't support the war in Iraq in the first place. But once the country decided to go into Iraq, I felt it was very important that we do the best we can to success and support our troops. The problem is is that we're not getting the leadership from the administration. The president is not telling us what is the time frame, what are the benchmarks and what is the possible completion date for this mission. ...So I felt it was time to at least put on the table an idea, get the discussion going, break the taboo and say, "Look, let's see if we can remove the troops after we succeed with a series of steps by the end of December 2006. Let's see if we can have a target date that will work."

MR. GREGORY: Do you think that target date is knowable, that a success date is knowable at this point and that the president is simply holding back?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I think it's possible.

...Why wouldn't you want a vision, an idea of when we can measure success in terms of time and when the American people can know that our brave and courageous men and women can come home? It seems better than just having a stay-the-course concept, which is what the president seems to have.

MR. GREGORY: This target would be December 31 of next year of 2006, but you say it's not a deadline.

SEN. FEINGOLD: No, it's not a deadline. ...Here's the problem. If you don't have some kind of a target date, you lose the opportunity to get a number of advantages. First of all, you can lose the support of the American people. That's what I'm hearing.

I went to 17 town meetings in Wisconsin this month already in northern Wisconsin. And people said, "You know, if we don't have an idea of how long this thing's going to last, let's just cut and run."

Feingold comes out last week and proposes a deadline for troop withdrawal in Iraq. It gets him a lot of attention, so he gets booked on Meet the Press to talk about it. Then, he goes on the show to say his deadline isn't deadline.

Way to go, Russ!

I don't know where Feingold held his town meetings in Wisconsin, but it angers me that he insinuated that the people of the state support a "cut and run" strategy.

NOT TRUE!

MR. GREGORY: There's a very important political process under way, the drafting of the constitution; a deadline tomorrow. There is a violent insurgency that continues to rage. There is even the underpinnings of civil war now in Iraq. If by the end of December 31, 2006, the end of next year, these problems are not solved, the mission is not complete, do you still believe U.S. forces should come home?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I think that we have to make a tough assessment at that point...I mean, Don Rumsfeld says that would take 12 years; it might take longer. That's not a job for the American military. That's a job for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people. Our job is to provide security for a reasonable period of time. I think by the end of next year, with flexibility, if a few more things have to be accomplished, we will have done about as much as we should do.

MR. GREGORY: But you say "a tough assessment." But if the mission is not complete, if your goals, if the administration's goals are not achieved, you still believe it's time for U.S. troops to come out?

SEN. FEINGOLD: No, there could be flexibility. There could be--look what we're doing with the constitution right now.

MR. GREGORY: But what...

SEN. FEINGOLD: It wasn't achieved by a particular date, so you add a little more time. Look, let's say they have to train up a few more troops. Let's say that the administration is open and tells us exactly what's going on and says, "Look, we think we need to stay there two more months"; so be it. But without any sort of a time frame in place, we'll never even get to that point.

Feingold sounds like a blathering idiot.

MR. GREGORY: In making your announcement this week, you indicated that members of the Senate, particularly Democrats, are timid, that they are not stepping up to call for this kind of target date. Not only has the president said that any kind of deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is a mistake, but so have prominent members of your own party. From Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader: "...as far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

...Senator, why give the insurgents any kind of road map of our intentions?

SEN. FEINGOLD: 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?

...So this is a false argument. It's a phony argument that doesn't really address the reality that we are actually causing more insurgents, more terrorism and more problems from all around the world coming into Iraq because we don't have a vision for success and completion of the mission.

MR. GREGORY: But you yourself said just a couple of minutes ago that if we are not successful by the end of next year, you would agree to extend that deadline.

SEN. FEINGOLD: I said for a limited period. I don't think it's indefinite.

MR. GREGORY: How long would that period be?

SEN. FEINGOLD: It depends on the circumstance.

Does this remind you of John Kerry?

Feingold says, "I want a deadline."

Then, he attempts to do CYA and say, "No, I don't. I never said I wanted a deadline."

It's as if it just dawned on Feingold that setting such a date really might not be a good idea.

MR. GREGORY: But it still goes to the bottom line point, which is if the goals are not achieved, if there is still an insurgency, if there is continued sectarian violence, the prospect of civil war, do you then still advocate bringing troops home before their success?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Potentially. There are three different possibilities. One is the success, the very strong success, then we can come home by that date. The second is we get close to success and then we have to have a little more time. A third possibility is that the situation simply has become so inconsistent with our overall goal of fighting terrorists around the world that we may have to say, "Look, we have to come home anyway." But I think we make that assessment in time.

MR. GREGORY: Even if--even if it means effectively...

SEN. FEINGOLD: Potentially.

MR. GREGORY: ...admitting failure?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Yes, because the question here is do we succeed in the fight against al-Qaeda and the extremist elements around the world that are attacking us? That's number one. As important as the Iraqi democracy is and as wonderful as it is that we make progress in that regard, the most important thing is protecting the lives of Americans here and abroad, and if this Iraq operation is inconsistent with that, at some point, we may have to consider leaving. And that's why I'm hoping that we can create a time frame for success and then bringing home our troops.

Feingold is talking like a Vietnam era defeatist.

Moreover, he states that his "deadline" really isn't a deadline, that there would need to be flexibility. By definition, a deadline isn't flexible.

Feingold is an embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin. I've said that for years. It's not just that he is a radical Left-winger; he's incapable of presenting his Leftist views coherently.

My guess is an extremist like Feingold being on the presidential campaign trail will help Hillary. Juxtaposed with her, he'll make Hill look more moderate and intelligent, possibly making her more appealing to Red Staters.

Of course, compared to Feingold, the vast majority of Americans are more moderate and intelligent.