Russ Feingold Confuses Me

I don't understand Russ Feingold.

Yesterday, he appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

With Congress expecting President Bush's veto of the Iraq funding bill, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., presented two different scenarios today for where to go from here.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," Brownback advocated a political "three state, one country federated solution in Iraq."

...Brownback warned that legislating a deadline for troop withdrawal is tantamount to legislating defeat. "A deadline -- I think the day we pass it -- al Qaeda declares victory over us and much of the world will agree," Brownback said.

I can't imagine the three state solution having any success. It would never get off the ground.

How could the factions ever reach an agreement on how to draw up the borders for the three states?

Dividing up the country won't solve the problems.

I do agree with Brownback about the deadline for troop withdrawal. It would be a disaster.

Russ Feingold disagrees.

Feingold responded that he was dismayed by what he called the Bush administration's "disregard and disrespect for the will of the American people."

"American troops are dying for no good reason at this point. They are in a situation where they are being sacrificed because people want political comfort in Washington," Feingold said.

Feingold couldn't have put it more plainly.

He believes that Americans troops in Iraq are dying in vain. Their sacrifice is meaningless.

I wonder if Feingold would say that to the loved ones of the fallen.

"You have my deepest sympathy on the death of your son. Your loss must be even more painful knowing that your son gave his life for no good reason."

It is what he thinks. He shouldn't be afraid to say it to a grieving parent or spouse.

When asked if he would try to defeat any funding bill that did not include a timeline for the withdrawal of American forces, Feingold said, "Unless there is some other binding proposal, not just benchmarks, or something else that begins to end this war and shows a real plan for ending the war, absolutely."

Feingold is insisting that he'll stand firm on a timeline for troop withdrawal. No compromises on that. It's his way or the highway.

Feingold stopped short of agreeing with the recent comment from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the war in Iraq was "lost," but suggested that the country's current prospects looked dim. Feingold said, "This war was won militarily years ago, but if we're talking about this occupation succeeding, if this situation is getting better, if our troops are there for a good reason, at this point, the answer is no."

WHAT?

Did I hear that correctly?

Feingold said, "This war was won militarily years ago."

I guess he would agree with the message of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, delivered on May 1, 2003, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

It certainly sounds like Feingold would agree.

The military mission WAS accomplished in Iraq. Feingold says we won the war years ago. He wouldn't agree with Harry "The war is lost" Reid.

According to Feingold, we won militarily, now it's time to go home.

Securing and reconstructing the fledging democracy has been difficult, just as Bush said it would be when he spoke on May 1, 2003.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq.

It really bugs me that the Dems are planning to mark the fourth anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" speech by sending a war funding bill to President Bush that he's certain to veto.

And if Feingold thinks that Iraq's current prospects look dim, then why does he want to abandon the country? Does that brighten Iraq's prospects?

Isn't this the time when Iraq needs support?