But Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and Vietnam War veteran, angrily argued that including language supporting war funding in a resolution that opposes the troop surge in Iraq does not make much sense. "Isn't it true that when I look one of these soldiers or Marines in the eye and say I really support you, my friend, and I know you are going in harm's way, and I do not think you are going to succeed, and I do not support your mission, but I support you, they don't buy it, they don't buy it, I would say," he said. (1)
Sen. McCain is right. Non binding conviction is more like it. Weak opposition is sickening to watch.
Senate Republicans=Executive Branch proxy. It seems they believe that proper oversight would only embolden the terrorists.
Following Republican shenanigans on the floor of the Senate tonight whereby the GOP filibustered Sen. John Warner’s (R-VA) non-binding Iraq resolution, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a conference call to discuss exactly what the hell is going on. You can listen to a three-minute audio excerpt in Windows Media format here and MP3 format here - it is an exchange I had with Feingold about the power equation at work behind all the rhetoric coming out Washington.
After the election we had on November 7th and after polls have registered the public’s deep anger at the President for trying to escalate the war, you would think Democrats would be pushing legislation with real teeth and not just non-binding nothingness, especially if the GOP was going to filibuster anyway. Well, you’d be wrong. In the audio excerpt, I asked Feingold if this is because of Ben Nelson-ism - that is, because of conservative Democrats who are willing to use a brinkmanship progressive senators rarely use. As you can hear, Feingold says it’s even deeper - he says this is a battle between Democrats’ Washington consultant class and the rest of the country - and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration, who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.