Feingold Catches Levin In Flip-flop On Funding The Troops

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:42:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

bumblebums reports on a e-mail from Senator Russ Feingold on Carl Levin's history of "not funding the troops:"

Senator Levin went on in his op-ed to grossly mischaracterize the legislation Majority Leader Harry Reid and I have introduced as somehow cutting or "stopping funding for the troops." That is extremely disappointing as it is well known that the Feingold-Reid bill ends funding for this war after our men and women in uniform have been safely redeployed out of Iraq.
. . . After all, Senator Levin and many others now in the Senate supported using Congress's 'power of the purse' before. In October of 1993, they voted for a similar effort with regard to Somalia. At that time, 75 Senators voted for an amendment to set a deadline after which funding for the military mission in Somalia would end and our troops would be safely redeployed. That bill was passed into law.
I'm not sure why some Democrats and many Republicans have flipped on this issue in the 14 years since. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) What would Lincoln say Senator Levin?

< On Iraq: The Democratic Congress Appears Prepared To Abdicate Its Constitutional Responsibilities | A Serious Disagreement >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Feingold Catches Levin In Flip-flop On Funding The Troops | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I didn't even know (none / 0) (#1)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:52:42 PM EST

the term "safely redeployed" was in use before the Iraq mess. I think sen. Feingold misspoke.

Is your beef the word safely? (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 06:03:53 PM EST

yup (none / 0) (#5)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:21:16 AM EST

yup


: Well, I'm calling Feingold's office TODAY (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:12:45 AM EST

No more of this blatant lying. Levin only voted to cut off funding the troops in Somalia after a date certain and having them immediately redeployed, safely, unsafely, slightly dangerous, Levin obviously didn't care because he didn't use a descriptive. All he knew was the money for the Somalia mission dried up on X day and those soldiers were getting their a$$e$ out of there. Unbelieveable how Feingold thinks he can just throw adjectives all over the place mindlessly like that.

Enjoy (none / 0) (#3)
by Stewieeeee on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:55 PM EST

http://tinyurl.com/2ydqo2

Can you believe that? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:17:12 AM EST

Feingold had the nerve to not even kiss Clinton's tushy and if the troops were on a suicide mission accomplishing nothing worthwhile he voted they come home ASAP even if it sort of made Clinton look a little bad as a Commander in Chief. The nerve of that man to just use whatever adjective he feels like using and showing no party loyalty and destroying the spirit of our soldiers.


Also (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:00:55 AM EST

I didn't have to post that.

The truth is Levin did vote to restrict funding for troops in Somalia. Feingold was right. Makes Levin's little op-ed look pretty stupid. Except Feingold did vote for the 87 billion for Iraq in 2004 and his STATED REASON IS he wanted to support the troops!

But gouge away, hon.

gouge away.


You are starting to debate (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:25:39 AM EST

like a repub. Next thing you know I'll be Unpatriotic or something.


: Not (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:30:25 AM EST

"like" a repub...

the vote for the 87 billion was in 2003 (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:34:39 AM EST

And at the time, I, like Feingold, believed we had to "make the best" of the wrongheaded war.

However, Levin proclaims that he believe ENDING the war is right, now. Levin is the one with the problem, not Feingold.

You have had this point explained to you before but you continue to mislead on it.


Yes (1.00 / 2) (#14)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:52:11 AM EST

as far as the 87 billion was concerned, Feingold SCOLDED kerry and edwards for not supporting the troops!!!!!!!

i can provide links.

i'll provide the quotes.


Shame on Feingold for learning, huh, Stewie? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:53:58 AM EST

what'd he learn? (1.00 / 2) (#16)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:55:55 AM EST

that'd be for feingold to say.

and so far he hasn't said he's learned anything.

indeed, a statement from him saying "i was wrong to vote for the 87 billion," is due at this point.

wouldn't you say?


You mean, sort of like (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:01:08 AM EST

let's NOT find the Iraq occupation? Something like that, stewie?


no (1.00 / 2) (#18)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:03:46 AM EST

something more directly relevant to his vote on the 87 billion.

when feingold voted for the 87 billion was he supporting bush's war, or was he supporting the troops?

i think he was supporting the troops and still opposed the war.

what do you think edger?


Are you an idiot? (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:56:33 AM EST

Feingold was supporting CONTINUATION of the war AT THAT TIME!!

So was I. So was Kerry. Hell, so was DEAN!!

No one was for withdrawal in 2003 you dolt.


I think you should quit trolling stewie. (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:24:34 AM EST

that's a good way (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:25:30 AM EST

to avoid the question.


Your questions are dishonest (3.00 / 2) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:57:27 AM EST

Stop iot. I will delete any further trolling on your part.

And this is now trolling.


: i have not been rude (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:34:08 PM EST

I have asked a fair question.
you may delete other posts where i have been rude.
i can take screen shots of the question i am asking here and keep those screenshots for the record. and then provide them later on on other blogs if need be.
for the record, when feingold talked about his vote on the 87 billion he said he voted for it because one had to vote for it "to support the troops", and indeed the context of this quote will prove that he was saying so to admonsish kerry and edwards for NOT supporting the troops.

Yep. (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:30:54 AM EST

Considering I've already answered, how else would you describe you re-asking it except as trolling, unless you're having some comprehension difficulties now?

You'll have to play with yourself for the rest of the day, stewie.


And do yo u know why? (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:54:43 AM EST

Because they, as he, were not advocating withdrawal at the time! 2003!

Sheesh. What part of this do you not understand?

If you think the war needs to be fought - then you fund it.

If you think it should be ended and the troops withdrawn, when faced with a recalcitrant President who will not budge, you have to use the last resort, the Not spending power.

Feingold and I did not arrive at this point arbitrarily. HAve you not been paying attention?

Or are you not telling the truth? Or arer you stupid?


OK (none / 0) (#28)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:30:23 PM EST

You believe that when Feingold voted for the 87 billion, that was Feingold saying he believed the war needed to be fought.

I disagree.

I can't remember Feingold saying if he believed the war needed to be fought at that time, but what I have found, and provided to you is clear cut evidence that Feingold thought that anyone who didn't vote for the 87 billion, that that person was not supporting the troops.

That much is on record.


Funny how you have not looked (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:07:58 PM EST

for that you do not seek.

The iobvious truth is too hard for you to handle. you become Talex Jr. Stewie.


I don't seek specific things (none / 0) (#31)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:13:51 PM EST

and ignore them when i don't find what i want.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48708-2004Aug7.html

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) told the Capital Times in Madison on Thursday that Kerry and his running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) were "wrong" to vote for the congressional resolution authorizing the war and later against the $87 billion to fund it. His comments mark one of the few times a Democratic senator has spoken critically of the party's ticket in the general-election campaign.
They should have voted "no against an unwise war and yes to support the troops," as he did, Feingold told the newspaper.

if i went and looked it up and i found that feingold had said "i voted against it but now that we're in iraq i think we need to win," or at least just some variation thereof, ANYTHING BUT what he said above, then i would have reported that to the forum.

i am annoyed. in this thread, way back at the beginning i provided the roll call vote on levin voting against funding for the troops.

i thought you might appreciate that.

but it's obvious it's not appreciated when other FACTS OF THE MATTER are posted on this issue.

again. that is what feingold said in 2004.

i am not lying. i have no reason to lie. i have no reason to distort what he said.

i have not distorted what he said.

i provided the link.

you can read the context. you can do whatever you want.

"to support the troops" is why he voted for the 87 billion.

those are his words.

it would not be a good precedent for a blog of this stature to delete that kind of contribution to discussion, no matter how inconvenient it is.


If this is ytour honest view of the issue (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:34:15 PM EST

Then I really don't think discussion with you can be fruitful.

You simpy don;t understand the point being made.

You write "i am annoyed. in this thread, way back at the beginning i provided the roll call vote on levin voting against funding for the troops."

He voted for the Iraq Supplemental. ALL versions. He NEVER voted against funding. EVER. Except in Somalia.

Feingold voted to "support the troops" continuing their mission in Iraq, a mission that Kerry and Feingold AGREED had to be continued AT THE TIME.

Now, Levin says he agress with Feoingold that the mission should NOT be continued and yet says he will never not fund the troops on the mission.

This is the simple and obviopus point that you either do not want to address or are simply incapable of inderstanding.\

This majkes the 10th time I have pointed this out to you.

But you have chosen to behaqve like an idiot.

I will treat you as one now.

All trollish posts on this subject by you will be deleted.


The quote is the quote (none / 0) (#33)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:43:58 PM EST

I can't find anything where Feingold says "continue their mission." what i see is a dem senator criticizing the dem nominee for not supporting the troops.

people can decide for themselves.

i don't know that kerry agreed with feingold at the time:

Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, said Kerry "voted to hold [former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] accountable and continues to believe that it was the right thing to do. After witnessing the way in which the president went to war, Senator Kerry voted against the $87 billion because it was wrong to give a blank check to the president for a failed policy."

it's all on record.


Screw it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:44:25 PM EST

you want to act the idiot, you are on your own.


: posting links (none / 0) (#35)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:28:08 PM EST

and quotes.
not acting much of anything at all. just doing the research and providing information. like i said, if i did the research and came up with different results, i wouldn't try to spin them.
it is what it is. saying feingold meant something different than what he actually said. i get it. i get the point.
i never once thought for a second i wasn't on my own.

Funding the ending of the war (none / 0) (#4)
by joejoejoe on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:48:26 PM EST

I've heard mcjoan at Daily Kos and the Out-of-Iraq Caucus call Feigold-Reid "funding the ending of the war". That's about it.

Maybe Feingold should attach a dollar figure to the relevant provisions in S.1077 so that even people lie Sen. Levin who apparently can't read a 325 word bill can understand the concept that Feingold-Reid doesn't cut funding to the US military, it cuts funds to Bush's mission in Iraq.

(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. - est. $12 billion renewed annually
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel. - $38 billion with timeline
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services. - $10 billion

Total price tag: $60 billion. Estimated future expenditures for additional 3 years of terrorism ops, Iraqi equipment and training, and redeployment - another $60 billion. Cost to end the war $120 billion over 4 years.

All this talk of training the Iraqi military on an endless basis overlooks the fact that Turkey has an annual military budget of $11 billion dollars and Israel has a budget of $9 billion dollars. Iran spends less than $5 billion annually. Feingold should just attach dollar amounts to the extraction of US forces from Iraq and include it in his bill.

If even Carl Levin can't figure out that Feingold-Reid funds the deployment and would never leave the US military without resources for it's safe exit from Iraq then Feingold should spell it out for him.

I'm tired of the stupid media and stupid Democrats misrepresenting Feingold-Reid. Spell it out for them if they can't read 325 words and understand them.

Stewie (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:01:22 PM EST

If you are going to behave like Talex then you will be treated like him.

I have deleted your trollish comments, at least some of them.

I have come to the conclusion (none / 0) (#45)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:24:02 AM EST

all you just said there is edger can do whatever he wants, but i can't.

deleting this post....

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2007/6/21/174244/759/41?mode=alone;showrate=1#41

would help establish some credibility for you in the matter of deleting abusive comments.


: Actually (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 12:48:01 PM EST

I'm gonna delete the entire thread between the two of you.