FEINGOLD DOES IT AGAIN!

When I heard that the Senate approved a policy bill authorizing $150 billion in war funding by a 92-3 vote, I knew right away. I didn't doubt it for a minute.

Five senators didn't cast a vote.

All five are presidential candidates-- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain, and Obama.

Three senators voted against the bill-- Byrd, Coburn, and, of course, Russ Feingold.

Surprised?

Roll call

WASHINGTON -- Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Feingold wasn't satisfied with that delayed gratification. He refused to support the defense authorization bill. While it's a shameful vote, at least Feingold is being more upfront than his Dem colleagues.

The other Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the bill would help repair the U.S. military "where our commander in chief has so badly mismanaged them."

"As President Bush's flawed Iraq strategy stretches our military to its breaking point, we are addressing troop-readiness problems and ensuring our troops and National Guard members have the equipment and training they need to do their jobs," the Nevada Democrat said.

Reid is touting Dem support for the bill as an indication of their commitment to provide troops with the equipment and training they need at the same time that he brags about "the next dogfight."

So, for now the overwhelming majority of Dems voted for the bill, but they're hoping later to vote against it.

That's so John Kerry.

...In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House has said Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, is unnecessary.

This AP account clearly is biased, saying Kennedy's amendment would assist states in prosecuting attacks on gays.

While it says that the White House considers it unnecessary, it doesn't say why. The proposal would make "federal crimes out of acts that already are against the law and might violate the Constitution."

"I have trouble believing the president would veto a defense bill over hate crimes," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "I can't even fathom that."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, has said the measure jeopardizes the entire bill, despite the popular programs it contains.

No U.S. president has ever vetoed a defense authorization bill.

The Dems are hoping to force President Bush to veto a defense bill.

It's political gamesmanship at its worst. In other words, it's typical Democrat stuff.

I wonder how the troops fighting in Iraq will react when they learn that a bill to authorize funds to protect them is being used by the Dems as a political football.

If I had a loved one serving in the military, I wouldn't appreciate any effort that might delay funding to help keep that loved one safe and jeopardize the mission.

And what about the gay community?

Are they OK with the Dems exploiting them to do political damage to President Bush, and at the expense of our troops?

How does the gay community feel about Feingold's vote?

Is he against Kennedy's amendment?

Bottom line: With the exception of Feingold and Byrd, the Dems want to appear to support the troops by providing them with funds for the equipment they need; but they don't intend to deliver.

Feingold and Byrd don't even pretend to be supplying the troops with necessaryfunding.