Feingold's Loss, America's Gain

The Senate sent a message to our enemies.

Russ Feingold's measure to cut off funds for the war in Iraq by March 31, 2008, was defeated.

Although Islamic terrorists, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other enemies of America rejoiced when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, they have to be disappointed that the Dems' power is limited.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding — an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.

Feingold's plan was rejected on a bipartisan vote.

NINETEEN Dems and former Dem Joe Lieberman said NO to Feingold.

That's significant.

Still, the AP attempts to spin Feingold's defeat as a win for his surrender strategy, citing that the effort has "picked up support," especially among Dem presidential candidates.

The AP considers that to be an indication of the war's growing unpopularity among voters.

I don't agree with that analysis.

Instead, I think it's an indication that the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are willing to be puppets for the radical fringe Left. They know that they need the support of the Leftiest of the Leftists to win the Democrat nomination.

The voters the AP refers to are the extremists, the primary voters, the ones wanting to see America defeated.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."

Translation: "I'm on board with the retreat and defeat Democrats. I'm just as weak and invested in defeat as they are. I'll do whatever it takes to get elected. You radicals can trust me to be as anti-American as you are."

Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."

Does Obama think that he operates in a vacuum?

He doesn't seem to realize that he's sending a "strong statement" to our enemies, that America is weak and ready to cut and run. At least I hope he doesn't realize what he's doing. If Obama knowingly is undercutting national security, that's far worse.

The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.

"We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war," said Reid, D-Nev.

Once again, Reid reveals that he's clueless. Unity? I don't think so.

Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.

"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."

In other words, Levin is saying that Feingold's measure DOES NOT support the troops.

Other Democrats agree that cutting funds sends the wrong message.

Some Dems, like Joe Biden, reluctantly voted for Feingold's proposal.

"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.

Let's cut to the chase-- Biden is crazy.

In the end, what matters is that this vote sends an important message to our enemies. Not all Americans are weak.

There are Americans unwilling to hand our enemies at home and abroad a victory.

There are Americans who get the War on Terror and understand the consequences of following a Jimmy Carter-esque policy of weakness.

In the long run, Feingold's defeat is America's gain.