Standing up for the troops when it counts

McBride's frothing over her coffee again, or maybe just foaming at the mouth:

Feingold voted NO for a resolution that read:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Russ Feingold is a disgrace. Let it be known. He's on record. He doesn't support the troops.

Oh contrary, as McBride would say in French.

Feingold not only supports the troops but did something meaningful to demonstrate it in the last two days. First, he voted for a reasonable bill from Sen. James Webb, a former Navy secretary and Vietnam hero, to give our troops some respite between repeat tours of Iraq. Republicans, who say they're for the troops, killed the bill.

Feingold also introduced an amendment to start bring the troops home soon, but it got only 28 votes. Sen. Herb Kohl voted with him on both of those bills.

McBride's outrage that anyone would question a member of the military rings more than a little hollow. As I suggested in a comment on her blog, which may or may not see the light of day, Republicans should have passed an amendment to "condemn personal attacks on the military except for John Kerry and Max Cleland, two decorated Vietnam heroes, who may be slandered at will." They should be comfortable with that.

For much more on MoveOn and the events of the last few days in the Senate, I've written a longer post on Uppity Wisconsin.

UPDATE: The Senate deadlocked 47-47 Friday on another Democratic proposal, from Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed, to begin bringing troops home within 120 days, remove most troops within nine months, and shift those remaining from combat to support roles. Kohl and Feingold both voted yes. Because of the threat of a GOP filibuster, the amendment needed 60 votes.

The unasked question

Jessica McBride thinks this should be the dominant media theme on Iraq:

Brit Hume tonight to General David Petraeus:

Would you say that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today in terms of sectarian violence in Iraq generally had not Al-Qaida been present and active there?

Petraeus: That's correct. That is correct.

Hume: Has this in an ultimate sense turned out to be more than anything else, a war with Al-Qaida?

Petraeus: Well, it is Al-Qaida and associated uh movements I think or affiliates if you will because again the insurgents, until they started flipping more and more certainly throughout the Euphrates river valley and now other areas, certainly were associated with Al-Qaida, at the very least turning a blind eye to them, and at the most in many cases aiding and abetting them.

The unasked question:

General, would Al-Qaida even be in Iraq if US troops had not invaded and occupied the country?

UPDATE: Russ Feingold asks some tough questions about US priorities in fighting terrorism, and gets no answers. Video link here.

Oh, THAT Constitution!

McBride writes:

Assaulting the Constitution

Russ Feingold wants to censure the president:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

Maybe he should just censure Congress for its "assault" against the Constitution by meddling in the commander in chief's executive powers to manage the Iraq war. I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned this many generals controlling the battlefield.

Actually, the Founding Fathers envisoned Congress making the decisions about taking this country to war.

Adam Cohen explains in today's New York Times:

...The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side...

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress...

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly...

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

Move over, Jack Bauer

Jessica, who has a thing for tough prosecutors, is ready to throw AG Alberto Gonzales under the bus. His sin? Not sticking up for US Attorney Steven Biskupic, Jessica's latest hero (replacing Jack Bauer.)

And how dare Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold question why Biskupic sent an innocent woman to prison in a politically-charged case? Who do they think they are, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee or something? Read it and weep.