They Supported Withdrawal Before They Opposed It
Senator Russ Feingold brings up a piece of recent, but still forgotten history:
The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for.
The Senator has more to say about defunding the war.
Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as I have proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.
The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for.
The Senator has more to say about defunding the war.
Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as I have proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.
posted by Management at 5:39 PM
3 Comments:
How Congress can end the war without hurting the troops
Sen. Reid and I are introducing a bill that would require President Bush to begin redeployment and effectively end our military mission in Iraq by March 31, 2008.
By Sen. Russ Feingold
Apr. 02, 2007 | Many Americans remember the tragic deaths of U.S. troops in Somalia in the early 1990s, vividly portrayed in the movie "Blackhawk Down." Those 18 service members died in a misguided, poorly defined military mission that had dragged on without an end date and without the support of the American people.
As Congress debates the war in Iraq, the congressional debate over Somalia 14 years ago has some surprising parallels. Without question, Somalia in 1993 differs in many ways from Iraq in 2007, from the scope of the mission to the reason for that mission in the first place. What hasn't changed, however, is Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission, and its ability to use that power without endangering the safety of our brave troops.
That is exactly what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and I propose to do with legislation we will introduce when the Senate reconvenes next week. Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. After March, funding for the war in Iraq would be cut off, with three narrow exceptions -- targeted counterterrorism operations, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training and equipping Iraqi forces. In other words, the current military mission in Iraq would be effectively ended. Sen. Reid has said he will work to make sure the Senate votes on our bill by the end of May.
Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when. The Feingold-Reid bill may be attacked by those who support this misguided war. But for many members of Congress, what they say and do now about Iraq flies in the face of what they said and did in 1993 regarding Somalia.
Today, some supporters of the Iraq war suggest falsely that efforts to cut funding for the war are a threat to our troops in the field. But in 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. Defenders of the Iraq war pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops, and raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. And every member of Congress should know that we can do that while at the same time ending funding for a failed military mission. That was clearly understood in October 1993, when 76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.
None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.
The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.
Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."
The debate about the Iraq war is the most important, and the most difficult, issue we face as a country. Any American, including any member of Congress, is entitled to support or oppose Congress' using its constitutional power to end our involvement in this disastrous war. But, in contrast to the 1993 debate about Somalia, today some wrongly suggest that ending funding for the Iraq war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops. That misleading argument makes it harder to have the thoughtful, responsible debate about the war that Congress and the American people so badly need.
Now is no time for phony arguments against ending funding for the Iraq war. There may be big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq, but Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops. As Congress debates Iraq -- and considers the new Feingold-Reid legislation -- we should remember Somalia, put false arguments aside, and have an open, honest debate about a war that drags on with no end in sight.
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Misguided Gregg Resolution
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-03-15 20:45. Congress
March 15, 2007
As Delivered from the Floor of the U.S. Senate
Mr. President, I spoke yesterday in favor of the resolution introduced by Senator Reid, S.J. Res. 9. By bringing the current open-ended military mission to a close and requiring redeployment of U.S. troops, the Reid resolution takes a significant, binding step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I am pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on that resolution shortly.
The Senate will also be voting on another resolution regarding Iraq, sponsored by the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately, that resolution is badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it.
My chief objection is simple -- the resolution rejects the idea of Congress using its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in a manner that can only be described as inaccurate and almost intellectually dishonest. By warning against "the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field," the resolution embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as I have proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.
How can I say this with such confidence, Mr. President? Because there is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
I recently chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War.” Without exception, every witness – those called by the majority and the minority – did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress’ authority to end a war. Lou Fisher with the Library of Congress, one of the foremost experts on separation of powers issues, pointed out that Congress does not simply have the power – it has a responsibility to exercise it when needed. He said, and I quote:
“The question to me, always remember, Congress -- is the continued use of military force and a military commitment in the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once you decide that, if you decide it is not in the national interest, you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S. troops in harm's way.”
The argument that cutting of funding for a flawed policy would hurt the troops, and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm’s way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq. Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal:
"There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized."
Instead of allowing the president's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do in my bill, and as the Reid resolution permits, that important counterterrorism and other limited operations are still carried out.
For those who don’t believe this can be done, let me cite an example from not too long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from West Virginia cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. 76 Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?
Of course not, Mr. President. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.
That same day, several Senators – myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain on October 15, 1993, would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs/MIAs not being accounted for. 38 Senators opposed a measure to table that amendment. I was joined by many Republican Senators in supporting the amendment, including none other than the current sponsor of S.Con.Res. 20. Senator Gregg suggests in that resolution that eliminating funds for troops would undermine their safety – did he vote 14 years ago to do just that? Was Senator Gregg in 1993 committing the same egregious offense that Senator Gregg so strongly opposes in 2007?
Of course not, Mr. President. No one could believe that Senator Gregg would be cavalier about the safety of our troops, or indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. Senator Gregg knew in 1993, as did I, that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. Unfortunately, his new resolution seems to have forgotten this point.
I hope that my colleagues will think better of efforts such as that proposed by Senator Gregg today. All Senators, including the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, are entitled to their opinions. And all Senators are certainly entitled to oppose my efforts to end funding for a disastrous war. But by putting forth misleading and baseless arguments – by suggesting that ending funding for the war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops – they are making it that much harder to have the open, honest and essential debate about the Iraq war that this body, and the American people, so badly need.
Breaking Another Iraq Taboo (211 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, Russ Feingold
For the first time in the four-plus years since Congress authorized the Iraq war, Congress is having a serious debate about how we can fix the President's failed Iraq policy. Unfortunately, while there have been plenty of members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, voicing opposition to the President's plans for escalation, most of the plans being pushed will do nothing to end the catastrophe in Iraq.
Americans are not looking to Congress to pass symbolic measures, they are looking to us to stop the President's failed Iraq policy. That is why we must finally break this taboo that somehow Congress can't talk about using its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq. The Constitution makes Congress a co-equal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the brave troops whose lives are on the line, to end the war. We can and must force the President to safely redeploy our troops so that we can get back to focusing on those who attacked us on 9/11.
Tomorrow, I will be chairing a full Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." This hearing will help remind my colleagues in the Senate and the American public that Congress is not powerless - even when it acts that way. We have the power to stop the policies of a President that continue to hurt our national security. Soon after tomorrow's hearing, I will introduce legislation to do just that.
I want everyone to be clear on exactly what my proposal will do. The first and most important thing to know is that my plan does not cut funding for the troops. Our troops will continue to receive the salaries, equipment, training and protection they need. What I am proposing is ending funds for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after the enactment of the bill. This will require the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by that date. My bill does provide exceptions to allow for specific types of military missions within Iraq past the six-month deadline, such as targeted counter-terrorism efforts, the protection of American personnel and infrastructure, and a limited number of troops needed to help train Iraqi security forces. But these will be limited forces used for specific missions.
Suggestions that our troops will be left in the lurch couldn't be further from the truth. My proposal would bring the troops out of harm's way.
Congress has used this power several times before, most recently in Somalia and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I'm sure the White House and others will resort to their usual intimidation tactics to try to paint this proposal as not supporting the troops. I'd like to hear from the President exactly how sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into a civil war supports them. We must not let this administration continue to intimidate like it did in the lead-up to war.
In August 2005, I became the first Senator to propose a timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. A timetable was considered taboo in Congress then, but it's clearly the position supported by the majority of this country. Now it is time to break another taboo - that Congress can't use its constitutional power to end funding for the war and bring our troops home safely. The catastrophe in Iraq is not the fault of our brave men and women in uniform, but rather the failed policies of this administration. Our troops and our national security should no longer be the ones to suffer for this Administration's terrible mistake.
Post a Comment
<< Home