Russ Feingold

Feingold Wants Us to Scream About Bush's Pardons

Bob Fertik — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:40:22 -0500

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote a good article for Salon about Bush's expected pardons:

An unpardonable use of power

If President Bush cares about his place in history, he should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.

Feingold acknowledges the problem - Bush's pardon power is broad:

The power of the pardon is close to absolute. Short of interfering with their own impeachment, presidents can pardon whomever they choose.

I'm not sure why Feingold limits the impeachment exception to the President himself because the Constitution gives President power to pardon "except in cases of impeachment," which means all impeachments - not just the President, but anyone in his Administration who might be impeached (Cheney, Libby, Addington, Gonzales, etc.)

That aside, Feingold explains why Bush's pardons would be so controversial:

At the end of his term, however, this president should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.

If President Bush were to pardon key individuals involved in the misdeeds of his administration, from warrantless wiretapping to torture to the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the courts would be unable to address criminality, or pass judgment on the legality of some of the president's worst abuses. Issuing such pardons now would be particularly egregious, since voters just issued such a strong condemnation of the Bush administration at the ballot box.

But what can we do to stop Bush's pardons?

There is nothing to prevent President Bush from using the pardon in such a short-sighted and self-serving manner -- except, perhaps, public pressure that may itself be a window on the judgment of history. Everyone who can exert that pressure, from members of Congress to the press and the public, should express their views on whether it would be appropriate for President Bush to use his pardon power in this way.

In other words, we should scream our heads off. That's fine - and we've been doing exactly that. (Our anti-pardon petition has over 45,000 signatures.)

But Congress can do more than scream. Congress can pass resolutions urging Bush not to issue corrupt pardons. And if Bush ignores those resolutions, Congress can impeach him - either before he leaves office or afterwards.

Feingold and other Democrats have avoided impeachment since 2006 to win elections. But now that those elections have been won, it's time to put impeachment back on the table, to make sure Bush's final act is not a gigantic f*** you to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the American people.

Call Your Senators To Oppose Iraq Funds and Wiretap Immunity

Bob Fertik — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:09:03 -0400

The Senate will vote this week on two disastrous bills: $163B for the continued occupation of Iraq and immunity for George Bush and the telecoms who are illegally wiretapping our calls and emails.

On Tuesday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) launched a filibuster against the "Warrantless Wiretapping Immunity Act" with an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. Dodd is supported by Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Unfortunately it takes 41 votes for a successful filibuster, and we can only count on 30, based on a similar vote on 2/12/08. These Democrats voted wrong. Call them and tell them to join the Dodd Filibuster against telecom immunity.

Max	Baucus	MT	202-224-2651
Evan	Bayh	IN	202-224-5623
Thomas	Carper	DE	202-224-2441
Robert	Casey	PA	202-224-6324
Dianne	Feinstein	CA	202-224-3841
Daniel	Inouye	HI	202-224-3934
Tim	Johnson	SD	202-224-5842
Herb	Kohl	WI	202-224-5653
Mary	Landrieu	LA	202-224-5824
Joseph	Lieberman	CT	202-224-4041
Blanche	Lincoln	AR	202-224-4843
Claire	McCaskill	MO	202-224-6154
Barbara	Mikulski	MD	202-224-4654
Ben	Nelson	NE	202-224-6551
Bill	Nelson	FL	202-224-5274
Mark	Pryor	AR	202-224-2353
Jay	Rockefeller	WV	202-224-6472
Ken	Salazar	CO	202-224-5852
James	Webb	VA	202-224-4024
Sheldon	Whitehouse	RI	202-224-2921

OR-Sen: Steve Novick releases funny new campaign ad

amgS93 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:37:09 -0500

Steve has launched his first campaign ad, produced by Eichenbaum & Associates (think Russ Feingold's campaign):

Note: Edited by Moderator to remove request for donations.

Sen. Feingold Seeks Citizen Sponsors for Censure Resolutions

Chip — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:01:01 -0400

Just in from Senator Feingold:

Over the last week, I've held Listening Sessions across Wisconsin and heard the same sort of comments that thousands of people like you have emailed my way over the last week - it's time to hold the President, and his administration, accountable.

Become A Citizen Co-Sponsor of Censure

The President and Vice President led our nation into an unwise war, under false pretenses, without adequate planning, and have mismanaged the situation that continues today. The President and Attorney General have time and time again thumbed their noses at the Constitution and the rule of law - on everything from warrantless wiretapping to undermining Congress' role to conduct adequate oversight.

If Congress stands by and does nothing to hold this administration responsible, we open the door for this President, and future presidents, to continue to undermine the very foundation of our government whenever they see fit. The President, Vice President and Attorney General must be held accountable.

Become A Citizen Co-Sponsor of Censure

The President has taken our country down the wrong path for far too long and it is up to each and every one of us to get America moving back in the right direction. As I mentioned above, thousands of you have joined our effort and signed on as Citizen Co-Sponsors of Censure. By showing your support today, Congressman Hinchey - the lead sponsor of both censure resolutions in the House - and I can show our colleagues in Congress that the American people demand accountability.

Sincerely,

Senator Russ Feingold

###

Let me be crystal clear here: I support impeachment. Do I think that censure should be in lieu of impeachment? NO. But do I think that censure may heighten the public's push for impeachment, for the constitutional restoration of our republic with its democratic traditions? Do I think it's at least a minimal effort toward our national restoration? Could be...

It's another opportunity to tell Congress that the Bush administration cabal is the anti-thesis of authentic American values and the rule of law. Please join me in signing.

Hello? Inspector Kluso? Who's Stopping Feingold?

Chip — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:39:23 -0400

Who would have thought that legislation can be held up - anonymously? What about government transparency? This just in from Senator Russ "Fearless" Feingold. If you can help, please do! Fearless writes:

A Republican Senator is trying to derail my campaign finance disclosure bill, and I need your help to figure out who it is.

My legislation, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 223), requires Senate campaigns to submit campaign finance reports electronically. Sounds simple enough doesn't it? House campaigns, political parties, Presidential campaigns, and even 527's already file their reports online – but that's not the case in the Senate.

The Senate has exempted themselves from this requirement and is only required to file paper reports. The public's ability to review these reports in a timely manner is substantially curtailed by these antiquated paper filings. Not only that, it costs taxpayers over $250,000 per year to have these reports scanned and made available online at a much later date.

When Senator Feinstein and I sought to pass this legislation by unanimous consent, an objection was voiced on the floor "on behalf of a Republican senator." Senators are within their rights to object to a bill coming to the floor of the Senate, but the objecting senator has not been named, and no one has spoken to me about any objection they may have to this legislation.

The use of these so-called "secret holds" has rightly come under attack in recent years, and I need your help to try and determine who may be delaying this common sense reform measure.

If you are represented by a Republican senator, please contact them and ask if they're holding up my Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. You can get contact info for your senators here. If you live in a state with two Democratic senators, consider forwarding this email to your friends in states that aren't so lucky.

If you learn of anything that may be useful in helping me identify the "Secret Hold Senator," email me at russ@progressivepatriotsfund.com.

I have no intention of dropping this issue and I appreciate your help in keeping the pressure on to try and identify this anonymous objector.

Feingold-Reid Bill To End War Formally Introduced

Bob Geiger — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:19:54 -0400

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), on behalf of cosponsor Harry Reid (D-NV) and many other Democratic supporters, went to the Senate floor yesterday and formally introduced the Feingold-Reid bill which, if George W. Bush vetoes the Iraq-withdrawal plan that will hit his desk in the coming weeks, will push the issue further by forcing a troop withdrawal by March of next year.

The bill would end funding specifically for the failed Iraq effort, forcing the president to redeploy American troops elsewhere where, according to Senator Feingold, they can actually begin to defend the country against terror threats.

“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”

And Feingold made clear on the Senate floor yesterday that Bush and the Republican Congress must understand that, by stranding U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely, they are expressly defying the will of the American people.

"The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress -- newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq -- to let the people's voices be heard," said Feingold on Tuesday. "And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same."

The Wisconsin Senator also spoke about how Congress using its "power of the purse" to end military deployments is hardly a precedent-setting event, as Republicans would suggest.

Feingold points out that in October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. He also made the embarrassing point that of the 76 Senators voting for that move during the Clinton administration, a large number of Republicans -- such as Senators Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, Lugar, McConnell, Specter, Stevens and Warner -- voted affirmatively and those same people are now coming forward to call a similar Congressional move something outrageous, if not unpatriotic.

"Did those eight Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia?" asked Feingold. "By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?"

Senate Majority Leader Reid has said that if Bush vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.

In other Feingold-Reid news, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), a guy who has long been known for standing up for Progressive causes and doing the right thing, agreed this week to cosponsor the war-ending legislation.

Here's our updated list of Senators on the record as saying they will ratchet the pressure up a few more notches on Bush and Congressional Republicans if Bush vetoes the supplemental bill as expected:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

"The President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end -- or even acknowledging when it might end. And, four years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission," said Feingold on Tuesday. "Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of 'Shia-on-Shia violence' or 'criminally motivated violence' in Iraq."

"Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Kerry, Feingold Push For Action On Forgotten War In Afghanistan

Bob Geiger — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:43:25 -0500

Just as the United States Senate was dominated last week with the fight to raise the Federal Minimum Wage, the next few days will see a heated battle over what sentiments -- if any -- the Senate should formally express in opposition to George W. Bush's plan to escalate the Iraq war.

While that issue will dominate the woefully single-threaded media on Capitol Hill, a Senate resolution proposed by John Kerry (D-MA) is also very relevant to America's national security and should at least get some mention as it waits in the wings.

A couple of weeks ago, Kerry introduced S. RES. 34, which calls on the White House to start focusing on something vaguely related to the attacks of September 11 and beef up "…the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan."

Cosponsored by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), the resolution warns that Taliban activity is returning full-force to the region and that continuing to place that conflict in the back seat to Iraq will cause Afghanistan to "become what it was before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a haven for those who seek to harm the United States and a source of instability that threatens the security of the United States."

“While the Administration moves forward with its escalation plans for Iraq, it has failed to address deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan.” Feingold said. “We should not be reducing our forces in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be strengthening our efforts to defeat a resurgent Taliban – the same movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that attacked our country on 9/11.”

Citing a number of statistics showing the steep decline of conditions in Afghanistan in just the last 18 months -- Taliban attacks on United States and allied forces increased from 1,558 in 2005 to 4,542 in 2006 and roadside bomb attacks more than doubled from 2005 to 2006 -- the resolution would make the following demands of Bush:

Strengthen U.S. commitment to establishing long-term stability and peace in Afghanistan.

Maintain or increase the total number of troops serving in Afghanistan and not sacrifice that effort to bolster America's failed presence in Iraq.

Partner with the International Security Assistance Force and the government of Afghanistan and increase efforts to eradicate the Taliban, terrorist organizations, and criminal networks currently operating in Afghanistan.

Increase economic assistance to Afghanistan for reconstruction, social and economic development, counter narcotics efforts and democracy promotion.

Encourage members of the international community to deliver on their financial pledges to support development and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

Kerry's measure points out that Bush's current request for United States economic assistance to Afghanistan for 2007 is only one-third of what it was for 2006, while simultaneously quoting General David Richards, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, saying that a majority of Afghans would likely switch their allegiance to resurgent Taliban militants if their lives show no visible improvements in the next 6 months.

The resolution also stresses the need for greater U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by citing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself who, on January 15, 2007, said that there were "indications that the Taliban were planning a large spring offensive" against American troops and NATO forces in that country.

And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also reinforced the importance of a secure Afghanistan late last year saying "an Afghanistan that does not complete its democratic evolution and become a stable, terrorist-fighting state is going to come back to haunt us."

My guess is that this sounds pretty convincing to everyone but Bush and his clueless crew at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and it will take a strong vote in the Senate to force them to pay attention to the original "war on terror" that they seem to have forgotten. I'm sure American troops fighting in Afghanistan also appreciate being left to fend for themselves, while Bush tries to salvage his hideous legacy in Iraq.

Fortunately, Kerry's proposal has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the Massachusetts Senator is a member and Joe Biden, one of the resolution's cosponsors, is the chairman -- so we know it will get a fair hearing in this Congress.

As he often does, Russ Feingold tied a nice bow around this whole thing by pointing out that, despite all their bluster about a "global war on terror," Team Bush has consistently avoided effective anti-terror measures worldwide in favor of a war about nothing in Iraq.

“When Afghanistan becomes a second priority or, as a senior military officer recently put it, an 'economy of force' operation, it offers a sobering example of this Administration’s misguided approach to the global fight against terrorist networks,” Feingold said. “Because of the Administration’s Iraq-centric foreign policies, we have neglected situations around the world with a direct impact on our national security, in Afghanistan, Somalia and other countries.”

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Feingold, Obama Introduce Anti-Escalation Bills

Bob Geiger — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:18:43 -0500

One is showing the leadership he has always shown in the Senate and one is displaying the vision we must require of a presidential candidate, but both Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Barack Obama (D-IL) have introduced legislation this week to fight the Bush-McCain Doctrine of escalating the Iraq war.

More importantly, both do it with legislation bearing the force of law and that will go beyond the sentiments expressed in the Levin-Warner "sense of the Senate" resolution, that will certainly pass first.

Feingold, who has been fighting the Bush administration for years on both domestic spying and the Iraq war, proposed the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007 to use Congress’s federal-funding power to force George W. Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by prohibiting funds for continued operations six months after enactment.

“By passing my legislation, Congress can respond to the will of the American people and force the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq,” Feingold said. “With the President set on pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power -- it’s because it doesn’t have the will.”

Feingold chaired hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to investigate the true power held by the Congress to head off any more disastrous moves in Iraq by the White House. The hearings featured a diverse panel of constitutional scholars who testified that Congress does indeed have the power to end a war.

"Congress can, and has, used the power of the purse to restrict presidential war power. If members of Congress are worried about American troops fighting for their lives in a futile war," wrote Louis Fisher, a specialist in Constitutional Law and a witness in Feingold's hearing on Tuesday, in his book Presidential War Power. "Those lives are not protected by voting for continued funding. The proper and responsible action is to terminate appropriations and bring the troops home.”

Refusing to accept the conventional wisdom that says politicians should fear using the power of the purse because it leaves them open to charges that they don’t support the troops, Feingold points out in introducing his legislation that there is precedent for Congress restricting funding to end military engagements in Cambodia (1970), Vietnam (1973), Somalia (1993) and Bosnia (1998).

Feingold's bill would force Bush's hand by putting the onus on the White House to withdraw troops before funding expires and requiring the president to report to Congress, within 60 days of enactment, a strategy for safely redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq within the six months prior to the fund termination date. The Wisconsin Senator's legislation also allows for specific operations to continue in Iraq beyond six months, including counter-terrorism efforts, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training of Iraqi security forces.

The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, introduced by Obama this week, would place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq, stop the planned escalation and begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops that would result in the removal of all combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008. This is consistent with the Iraq Study Group recommendations that, according to Obama, "… the President has so assiduously ignored."

"The American people have waited. The American people have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief at the tragic loss of thousands of brave young American soldiers," said Obama on the Senate floor Tuesday. "The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. The need to bring this war to an end is here."

Obama, who has announced that he is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, says that his legislation has teeth because it compels Bush to begin redeployment of troops "to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region" by May 1 of this year and restricts the number of troops in Iraq to the number there on January 10, 2007 --the day Bush announced his ill-advised escalation plan.

In a Senate speech this week, Obama also maintained that the Bush administration has no credibility left on the conduct of the Iraq war and that Congressional intervention is the only responsible way forward.

"We have been told that we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised that the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we were making progress, that the Iraqis would soon stand up, that our brave sons and daughters could soon stand down," said Obama. "We have been asked to wait, and asked to be patient, and asked to give the President and the new Iraqi government six more months, and then six more months after that, and then six more months after that."

"It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq and for our troops, is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy."

Feingold agrees and strongly conveyed the message this week that Democrats must step up to the plate and not follow in the footsteps of the do-nothing Republican Congress, that did nothing to help America's men and women serving in Iraq.

“From the beginning, this war has been a mistake, and the policies that have carried it out have been a failure,” Feingold said. “Congress must not allow the President to continue a war that has already come at such a terrible cost. We have the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to end our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11.”

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Senator "Fearless" Feingold Proposes Cutting War Funding and Requiring Troops to Come Home

Chip — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:23:24 -0500

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) blogged:

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.

Feingold Proposes Timetable to Cut War Funding

CactusPat — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 03:27:57 -0500

How's this for a trial balloon? Feingold joins Dennis Kucinich in calling for de-funding the war, albeit in a slightly different manner...

Use the power of the purse By RUSS FEINGOLD Jan. 10, 2007
Keeping our brave troops in Iraq indefinitely is having a devastating impact on our national security and military readiness.

That's why I have consistently advocated that we set a timetable to redeploy our troops from Iraq. But the president refuses to set a timetable, even though the American people soundly rejected his Iraq policy in November. Instead, the president has announced he wants to send approximately 20,000 more troops. We should be redeploying our troops out of Iraq, not sending in more....

Conditions in Iraq are deteriorating, the strain on our military is increasing and the threats we face to our national security elsewhere in the world continue to grow. We can't afford to wait any longer. Congress must use its main power - the power of the purse - to put an end to our involvement in the war in Iraq.

Over the next several weeks, I am going to take a hard look at just how we should do that in my capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, both of which will be holding hearings on Iraq.

As the president made clear Wednesday night, he has no intention of redeploying our troops from Iraq. Congress cannot continue to accept this. Congress can, by restricting funding for this misguided war, do what the president refuses to do - redeploy from Iraq to refocus on defeating global terrorist networks.

Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our service men and women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger.

Congress will continue to give our troops the resources and support they need, but by, for example, specifying a time after which funding for the war would end, it can give the president the time needed to redeploy troops safely from Iraq.

Our troops in Iraq have done their job professionally and heroically. But we cannot continue to send our nation's best into a war that was started - and is still maintained - on false pretenses. An indefinite presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq will not fix that country's political problems. And sending more troops will not provide the stability that can only come from a political agreement.

Our country needs a new national security strategy that starts with a redeployment from Iraq so we can focus on the global threats to our national security that have only grown while this administration has been bogged down in that country.

We need to finish the job in Afghanistan and address threats to our security in Somalia and other weak or failed states that we have neglected for too long. We should scrap the failed diplomacy the administration has used to offend, push away and ultimately alienate so many of our friends and allies, while we also repair and infuse new capabilities and strength into our armed forces.

Keeping massive numbers of American troops in Iraq indefinitely is not the way to defeat global terrorist networks. We will continue to weaken, not strengthen, our national security by continuing to pour a disproportionate level of our military and intelligence and fiscal resources into Iraq.

In the November elections, the American people made it clear that they want our troops out of Iraq, and it is up to Congress to respond. Our top national security priority must be to defeat the global terrorist networks operating in countries around the world. With Wednesday's announcement that he seeks to escalate the Iraq war, the president made it clear that he will continue to shortchange that global fight and to ignore the will of the American people.

From the beginning, this war has been a mistake, and the policies that have carried it out have been a failure. Congress must not allow the president to continue or escalate a war that has already come at such a terrible cost.

It's time for Congress to use the power of the purse to end this devastating war and finally bring American troops out of Iraq.

Russ Feingold is a Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin.

Sen. Feingold also blogged similarly on dkos - "Time to Use the Power of the Purse" to promote this op-ed and his appaerance on Olbermann...

OLBERMANN: It is harrowing enough that the Bush administration got us into Iraq without an exit strategy. But four years later, is there really no military plan to get out? Not even one the president has in the bottom drawer of his desk, just in case?

Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN, that the charge tonight from Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who is seeking a way for Congress to not only stop the current proposed troop escalation, but to stop this war altogether.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FEINGOLD: Congress must use its main power, the power of the purse, to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war. And I‘m not talking here only about the surge or escalation. It is time to use the power of the purse to bring our troops out of Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Senator Feingold joins us tonight from Washington.

Senator, thanks for your time again.

FEINGOLD: Good to be on the show, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Your fellow Democrats, and obviously a growing number of Republicans, are against any kind of troop increase. But do you think there is a similar kind of bipartisan agreement growing on actually withdrawing from Iraq now?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, the politicians are usually behind the people. And this is a terrible example of that, of where, yes, there‘s a lot of people realizing we shouldn‘t increase the troops, and that that‘s an awful idea. But there‘s a lack of planning for what‘s really going to happen, which is, we need to redeploy these troops, and we need to redeploy them soon.

I was just in the Intelligence Committee at an open hearing, and I tried to ask some generals and intelligence people, you know, What are some of the things we should be thinking about as we bring these troops out? And they said, Well, Senator, that‘s just a hypothetical.

And my response was, Well, you didn‘t have a plan to take us into this Iraq war. You darn well better have a plan for bringing us out. And they‘re not planning, and it really does concern me.

OLBERMANN: How would stopping the money spigot work? How do you do it?

FEINGOLD: Well, that‘s what I was trying to ask their advice on. You know, it‘s been done before. When President Nixon wanted to go into Cambodia, the funding was not allowed. When it was clear that the situation in Somalia in the early ‘90s wasn‘t working, we passed, and I was in the Senate, a resolution that said, By X date, the funding will be cut off. We‘re going to leave you plenty of time to make sure the troops can come out safely.

But this kind of thing has been done before. Obviously, when you go into a war, you got to come out of a war, and there are safe ways to do it, and not safe ways to do it. We ought to be planning with legislation and working with the military and everybody else, a safe exit from Iraq, because it‘s long overdue.

OLBERMANN: According to President Bush, those, like yourself, who have issues with his plan, as he stated it last night, let me quote it, “have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.” How do you answer that?

FEINGOLD: Well, very simply. The president has been wrong on every aspect of this war. He was wrong about the premise that we went into the war on, he was wrong about the idea that there wasn‘t a civil war, he was wrong about the idea that this didn‘t help rather than hurt al Qaeda.

So I don‘t see it as my responsibility to make up for the fact that he took us into this war under false pretenses, and is keeping us there under false pretenses. The fact is, the situation now is completely unacceptable. It‘s devastating to our American national security and our military.

The burden is on them to justify continuing this awful mistake. The burden is not on us, who never thought we should go there in the first place.

OLBERMANN: And continuing a mistake, that raises the question that the president brought up last night, in the threats to Iran and Syria, as he vowed to, let me quote it again, “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” You told Secretary of State Rice today that you feel our involvement in Iraq has been catastrophic with regards to our national security, as you just said it here. What do you think about the president‘s suggestion now to expand this in some way to face Iran and Syria?

FEINGOLD: Well, the problem with all these folks, especially the president, is, they simply can‘t see this as an international challenge. They see this whole thing through the eyes of Iraq. I call it the Iraq-centric policy. They have to define it through Iraq, because they made the awful mistake of going there instead of beefing up our operation in Afghanistan.

So if he‘s talking about doing something like that with Iran, he‘s forgetting about the fact that in Afghanistan right now, a battalion is apparently going to be removed from eastern Afghanistan, where the Taliban is planning a major offensive, and the Marine commandant himself said this is a bad idea. Where is it going? It‘s going to Iraq.

So they‘ve got the priorities all wrong. We need to look at those that attacked us on 9/11, and as I remember, they were hanging out in Afghanistan. And if we don‘t get serious, they‘re going to be able to hang out in Afghanistan again pretty soon.

OLBERMANN: Is it be fair to say that the best present that President Ahmadinejad of Iran could get would be a threat from the United States? Would that not bolster his somewhat shaky hold on that country?

FEINGOLD: I‘m not sure. I mean, the fact is, yes, all options have to be on the table with regard to Iran. You can‘t take that lightly. But we need to come up with a policy that says that all of our allies and all the other countries in the world do everything they can to try to persuade Iran not to go to nuclear weapons.

The answer is not to try to take it up to the level where either he or others in the Islamic world can take advantage of this to encourage further negative action toward the United States.

OLBERMANN: Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. As always, sir, great thanks for your time, great thanks for joining us.

FEINGOLD: Thanks, Keith. Thanks so much.

While you're at it, be sure to check out Olbermann's Special Comment transcript and video - Bush's legacy: The president who cried wolf"...