Doesn't get it.
Did many Feingold-heads tune in to watch Russ Feingold this morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos?
I'm sure Feingold was hoping for a large audience. He did promote his appearance at the end of his online Listening Session on Friday.
Was the session timed to act as a commercial for his Sunday interview?
Given that Feingold is now all about shameless self-promotion, I wouldn't doubt it.
I'll be appearing on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC this Sunday, and I hope you'll be able to tune in. Thanks again for being a part of our second national online listening session.
That's not exactly an off-the-cuff statement.
During that session, Feingold commented on Ned Lamont.
Kristine_from_Pennsylvania: What is your reaction to Tuesday's election in CT, and will you be campaigning for Ned Lamont?
Russ_Feingold: I think the results in Connecticut were among the most significant election results in recent years. Ned Lamont's victory represents the American people's enormous frustration with our policy in Iraq. I support Ned, have contributed significantly to his campaign, and have offered to help out in any way he wants.
The day after Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman, Feingold rushed to benefit from all the attention that the media were heaping on the Connecticut race.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is donating five thousand dollars to Ned Lamont, the anti-war candidate who defeated three-term Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary.
Makes sense since Feingold was the first senator to call for a troop withdrawal timetable from Iraq.
Feingold's check, assuming he didn't use cash, must be what Feingold means when he says that he "contributed significantly" to Lamont's campaign.
That's some background on Feingold and Lamont. Now, back to the This Week interview--
Steph was in the ABC studio and Feingold was in Madison, with a "portraits by K-Mart" blue-starred backdrop.
Feingold was all smiles. He seems to be getting more slick and unnatural with each passing day.
An interview with Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff preceded Feingold's spot.
Steph's first question referenced one of Chertoff's comments.
Steph said, "Well, you heard Sec. Chertoff there. He says that the war in Iraq is making his job easier, making it easier to protect the homeland. What's your response?
Feingold said, "Well, that just can't be true."
OK, Feingold just called Chertoff a liar.
He claimed Iraq has distracted us and that Iraq "has sapped us of our resources."
Hey, Russ. We're not a third world country with a third rate military.
He went on to say, "I think that Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and sympathizers are absolutely thrilled that we continue to stay in iraq for an indefinite period of time as they conduct these operations and get others to conduct operations...
"We are playing into their hands by having an indefinite commitment in Iraq. It has made us weaker. It's time to recognize that and focus on the kind of thing that was uncovered this week."
Feingold said, "I want to congratulate the British and those who helped them on that success. That's what we should have been focusing on all along."
Steph caught Feingold a bit when he asked, "You congratulate the British. I assume that you're also congratulating the United States?"
He stumbled. "Of course... To the extent that the United States was involved, of course, I'm delighted with that success, and the Pakistanis and the others."
You could tell that Feingold realized that he came off as dissing the U.S.
Steph brought up Feingold's opposition to the Patriot Act. He asked if this "success" shows that measures such as "warrantless wiretapping" might be necessary.
Feingold said all he asks is that the legal system be respected.
"I support the wiretapping of terrorists. I just think it should be done within the law."
"I just want the White House to stop making up their own laws," Feingold stated.
"The White House has been too obsessed with expanding executive power and not sufficiently focused on these kinds of issues on terrorist threat around the world."
HOW THOROUGHLY LAME!
That's real MoveOn.org stuff. I'm sure the radical Lefties were lapping it up, but I don't think it plays well with Red state America.
Then, Steph turned to Lieberman and Lamont.
He played a clip of Lieberman. Steph pointed out that Lieberman thinks that "your approach will strengthen the terrorists and is a victory for terrorists."
He asked Feingold, "What's your response?"
Feingold responded, "Well, I like Joe Lieberman, but I support Ned Lamont. Because Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn't get it. He doesn't get it."
That quote has thrilled the Lefties.
I have no doubts that Feingold had prepared it and practiced it. It sounded like he was a bad actor awkwardly delivering his lines. I'm not suggesting that he's being insincere regarding his statement. I'm suggesting that it was premeditated, not spontaneous.
Feingold asserted that on 9/11 we were attacked "by al Qaeda and its affiliates and its sympathizers, not by Saddam Hussein."
"Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman has supported the Bush administration's disastrous strategic approach of getting us stuck in Iraq instead of focusing on those who've attacked us."
Feingold then looked down and read a list of the places that have been attacked by terrorists.
He asked, "What does this have to do with Iraq?"
He continued, "Ned Lamont and I believe that we should refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11 and not simply try to cover our tracks because this was such a ... , a very poor decision in terms of the overall battle against the terrorists who attacked us."
Feingold doesn't get it. None of the fringe Dems do.
They don't understand that the War on Terror is borderless. The Iraqi insurgents are on board with al Qaeda.
Remember Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Russ?
Prior to the invasion, Zarqawi was affiliated with al Qaeda and received funding from bin Laden.
Get it?
We are fighting an ideology, not a country.
Saddam Hussein's regime supported the ideology that fueled 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks that Feingold cited.
Simply put, Dems like Feingold lack an understanding of the enemy. As a result, they are not capable of competently fighting the War on Terror.
Steph then asked, "Do you think Sen. Lieberman should get out of the race?"
Feingold danced around a bit with political mumbo jumbo and tried to give himself wiggle room, but the answer is YES.
"Well, you know, I think that's his own decision. It would be better for the Democratic Party. I think it would be better for the people of Connecticut. It would be better for the country if he did it... ."
We have to change course... and get away from this very mistaken policy in Iraq. So, it would be helpful if he would do it."
Steph then went on to question Feingold about a statement he made in a Playboy interview. The camera was on Steph, but he said to Feingold, "I see that smile on your face."
What was making Feingold smile? Pleasant memories of the issue that held the interview?
In the Playboy interview, Feingold had said that McCain would easily win the general election.
Steph wondered how Feingold could square that with the fact that McCain's opinion on Iraq is in direct opposition to Feingold's stance. If the public would back McCain, that means it would reject Feingold's Iraq policies.
Good question.
Feingold dodged the issue by joking, "Well, I'm going to retract every good thing I've said about John McCain right now."
He admitted that they have very different Iraq policies, but he complimented McCain for being tough on terror in general.
Steph didn't let him sidestep the question. He asked directly, "Do you still think he would win easily even if you were the Democratic candidate?"
Feingold looked down, averting his eyes, and said, "Oh, I think he'd beat me..., but..., In terms of overall, I think John would be a very strong candidate, but let's see what happens."
Isn't looking away supposed to be a sign that someone is lying?
Yes, I think it is.
I think Feingold believes he could beat McCain and anyone else on the planet.
Feingold doesn't get it.
6 comments:
I totally agree with you that this is a borderless war. That is exactly why we can't be bogged down within the Iraqi borders. We need all of our resources to take care of national security threats and track down terrorists throughout the world.
As for Al-Zarqwawi, he was killed using targeted bombings based on intelligence gained. Things like that can be done without 130,000 of our troops in Iraq.
We aren't bogged down within Iraq's borders.
It's a myth that we aren't capable of fighting a multi-front war. It's a Dem talking point. Our resources aren't sapped and Iraq is not a distraction, certainly not when one looks at the big picture.
For the past five weeks, we've been focused on Israel and Lebanon. Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton didn't neglect that matter because they were busy with Iraq.
It's just not true that Iraq means we're unable to deal with other matters as well.
We are tracking down terrorists. The Bush administration's programs are helping to keep us safe.
I do think that Iraq has to take responsibility for its governance and security. I want them to stand up as soon as possible so we can stand down, the sooner the better.
I want to see our troop levels in Iraq reduced; but setting an arbitrary, artificial timetable for troop withdrawal is irresponsible.
I think the proposed deadline by Feingold and Kerry is just a ploy to appeal to the hate-Bush, anti-war crowd.
With all due respect, that's crap.
By "we," of course I mean the U.S. I mean my country. I never suited up with the Green Bay Packers, yet I say, "We won."
Do you have a problem with this?
Russ Feingold said:
We’re losing ground in Afghanistan. We don’t have enough resources in Indonesia and Malaysia area in this regard. We have lost ground in Somalia.
Well, well, well.
Has he earned the right to say "we" when referring to the U.S. military?
Russ never served.
This one is even better.
From Hawkish Hillary, October 10, 2002:
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
I don't remember. When did Hillary Clinton serve in the military? What gives her the right to say "we"?
Another one:
Bill Clinton. He dodged the draft, but that didn't keep him from saying this on February 17, 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.
Your argument is lame.
Look, the vets I know have never freaked out when I've referred to the U.S. military and our country as "we."
It's your problem. Deal with it.
I have to stand firmly with Mary on this one (sorry, Mary, I hope you don't mind a little liberal support).
In my opinion your (repack rider's)argument is nothing more than semantics, skirting over the real issues and needed facts to make a cogent argument.
In my opinion, a valid argument would be to disagree with Mary's estimation of the ability of the armed forces to pursue a war on multiple fronts.
To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with Mary on that point. The demands on our military might even require reinstating the draft in the event of a multi-nation war.
Mary's service (or lack of service) has nothing to do with her ability to analyze the world situation, any more than Cindy Sheehan's lack of personal military experience diminishes her ability to make the same judgments in demanding the troops be brought home.
the Wizard......
Thank you for your perspective on repack rider's argument, Wizard.
Obviously, it's difficult to discuss "multi-front" war without defining the specifics of what such a war would entail.
What would the scale of such a war be?
Would a draft be necessary?
However, regarding the situation at hand, meaning the War on Terror, WE are capable of dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
Perhaps WE should do some redeploying, like getting our troops out of Bosnia.
Perhaps Russ Feingold and John Kerry should push for a withdrawal deadline from there.
Post a Comment