Press release from Senator Feingold, Waves the white flag

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ
April 2, 2007
Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy (surrender)our troops from Iraq.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.


There is just so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Well, lets start at the beginning. In a nutshell, everything hinges on "subsection (d)."

(1) targeted, limited ops vs Al Qaeda: Hhhmmm. If you are attacking A Q and others, how does one differentiate between violent domestic insurgents and AQ until after the battle? And since all of the insurgents are AQ allies, doesn't this contradict itself? And why should ops vs AQ be limited? I could go on for pages....
(2) provide security for US personnell and infrastructure: Isn't that what we do now? And if the bad guys attack but are not AQ insurgents, do we fight back?
(3) train and equip Iraqi sec forces: This contradicts (a) since this puts our forces in combat against non AQ personell. The only way to do this is to lead Iraqi troops in combat.

Senators Reid and Fiengold are idiots. I would question their patriotism but, with this, I don't have to question anything. These shortsighted, greedy, pieces of you know what are playing politics with the lives of my fellow service members just so they can make Bush look bad. Sure, the campaign has been handled badly. But they would rather surrender in the face of the enemy than support our President to win this war. This is the key campaign in the War on Terror. If they do this, no enemy will fear us; no ally will trust us.

Contact your representative now to derail this. Any Congressional member that supports this should be defeated, if not brought up for recall.