Russ Feingold

In Praise of 'Joe' Wilson: What's Wrong with Calling Out Lies in Congress?

dlindorff — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:55:28 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Liberals are acting all righteous and offended that a member of the Republican opposition, Rep. “Joe” Wilson of South Carolina, would deign to besmirch the “dignity of the presidency” by calling out “Liar!” in the middle of President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.

But what’s wrong with that? Whatever the veracity of Obama’s claim that his proposed health care “reform” would not pay for the health care of illegal immigrants residing in the US (and one can only hope that statement was fatuous, because at a minimum we would certainly want the government to pay for the care of an illegal immigrant in childbirth, or of an illegal immigrant who came down with a contagious disease), and even if Rep. Wilson is a racist bozo who wrongly thinks or wants to imply that Obama's plan would be out there enrolling undocumented workers in the millions at taxpayer expense, why shouldn’t members of Congress call out a president if they think he’s lying to them from the podium?

One of the big problems with American democracy is that the presidency has over the years been elevated to the level of a monarchy, with all the imperial trappings and pomposity formerly associated with royalty. Presidents surely should get no more respect than a prime minister, and look at the hoots and catcalls PMs have to endure when they address Parliament in the UK. That’s a good thing.

Anyhow, it would have been far better if, instead of clapping wildly, liberal Democrats in Congress had hooted down some of the other whoppers and stretchers told by the president in his health care address.

Among them:

1. First and foremost, Obama’s claim that he was “determined to be the last” president to have to deal with health care reform and that he didn’t want to “kick the can” down the street for a future administration to deal with. In fact, that is just what he did with his proposal, which has left the basic untenable system of employee-financed healthcare in place, and which has left the private insurance industry in control of who gets treatment and how much they will have to pay for it. It’s a sure bet that before very long—perhaps in just four more years—another president will face the same crisis. A boisterous cat-call of “Can Kicker!” here would have been in order.

2. Obama said that “nothing else even comes close” to health care expenditures in terms of causing the federal deficit. In fact, something does---the military budget—but that topic is off limits for both Republicans and Democrats. Why couldn’t Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold have yelled out, “What about military spending!”

3. Perhaps one of the biggest lies of the night was the president’s claim that while there are “arguments to be made” for single-payer systems like Canada’s, switching to single-payer in the US would require building “an entirely new system from scratch.” The truth: Medicare is already a successful single-payer system and in fact, it is bigger and older than Canada’s own nation-wide system. Expanding it to cover every American would not be starting from scratch at all. It would be expanding something already time-tested. Where were the shouts of “What about Medicare!” from Rep. John Conyers (and his dozens of cosponsors), whose bill, HR 676, to expand Medicare to all has been barred from getting even a hearing by the House leadership with encouragement from the White House?

4. The president insisted that insurance executives don’t “cherry-pick” profitable customers and push out those who are sickest, because they are “bad people.” He said they are just doing it because it’s profitable. It would have been nice if at least someone in the assembled throng of lobbiest-enthralled House and Senate members had shouted out something like “Just like bank robbers and drug dealers!” because the truth is that health insurance executives are bad people. They know that they are killing people every day through their ruthless policies, and they go right ahead and do it. Pursuit of profit does not, or at least should not, constitute a license to kill. (Just imagine a hit man, at his sentencing hearing, telling the judge, “I’m not a bad person, Your Honor. I just knock people off because it’s profitable.”)

5. The president said he was “not trying to put the insurance industry out of business,” and added, “They provide a legitimate service.” This line, not surprisingly, given the amount of money that industry has lavished on members of Congress and on the president himself, got what was probably the loudest bi-partisan applause of the night. But it surely led to a lot of groans and of coffee, tea or beer being spewed out involuntarily across carpets and upholstery in homes across America. Legitimate service? Insurance firms are nothing but vampires, or better, leeches on the health care system. They provide no service. Ask doctors, who have to fight to get permission to treat patients, and then fight to get reimbursed. Ask patients, who spend hours on the phone arguing with faceless drones, some probably in Bangalor or Manila, who are denying them coverage for needed medicines or procedures that are supposed to be covered. Listen to the testimony of whistle-blowers who have confirmed that those drones actually get paid bonuses based upon the number of claims they manage to deny. How satisfying it would have been if someone in Congress had yelled out, “Legitimate service my ass!”

6. Turning to the pathetically circumscribed and downsized “public option” in his “reform” plan, Obama declared that “a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option.” Well that may be true, but it's not the whole truth. It would have been a great moment for Kucinich or Conyers or some other progressive member of Congress to shout out: “A majority also favors a single-payer plan!”

7. And where the defenders of women’s rights, when Obama vowed that under his plan, “no federal funds would be used to fund abortions?” Couldn’t someone have shouted out, “Women have rights too!” Is the president really saying that if a woman is raped, or a child gets pregnant through incest, or if a woman’s life is at risk because of a pregnancy, that his public plan will not pay for her to obtain an abortion? Cries of “For shame!” should have been ringing through the hall!

8. Finally the president said that one reason the nation has such record deficits is that during the prior administration, so many initiatives, “including the Iraq War,” were set in motion but “not paid for,” and he vowed, “I will not make that same mistake with health care.” But he is doing the same thing with supplemental war funding requests for his war in Afghanistan, and with the continued war and occupation in Iraq, and someone should have called him on that. Besides, there’s no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit and he should have the courage to admit it, or to call for more taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. A lusty “Tax the rich!” cry in unison from the progressive caucus would have been appreciated by viewers.

Whack-job or not, Rep. Wilson did the cause of democracy and honest discourse a favor when, faced with a statement he felt was clearly false, he found he couldn’t repress the urge to call the president a “liar.” In doing so, he put a much-needed ding in the wholly inappropriate and dangerous imperial aura of “respect” that has grown like lichens around the office of President. No more than anyone else in this nation, a president should have to earn the respect not just of the members of Congress, but of the broader public. He or she is another citizen, no more and no less, and when a president, like President Obama in this instance, dissembles, exaggerates or attempts to deceive or mislead, it is healthy for democracy if he is called out on it immediately and publicly.

We need more honesty in Washington, not more civility.
_________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Feingold Wrongly Urges Obama to Delay Prosecution

Bob Fertik — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:59:44 -0400

Senator Russ Feingold just wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to delay prosecution:

I urge your administration to wait to consider the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's review of the program, and the Department of Justice's investigation, before making any decisions related to prosecutions of any persons involved in these interrogations.

Feingold's letter implies DoJ would not prosecute anyone based on the evidence currently available. Feingold implies the evidence for prosecution would be significantly stronger after SSIC completes its work.

As a member of SSIC, Feingold certainly knows secrets the rest of us don't know, and presumably intends to make them part of the SSIC report.

But delaying the start of prosecution until the end of 2009 would be grossly counterproductive, as David Swanson discusses.

One key reason is the imminent expiration of the statutes of limitations on key crimes. Also, there is a real danger that the Senate will mistakenly grant immunity to witnesses who really should be prosecuted. Moreover, the victims of torture - including the honest CIA agents and soldiers who objected and suffered the career and psychological consequences - deserve closure sooner rather than later. Finally, these highly-charged issues should be resolved long before the start of the 2010 campaign.

There is already more than enough information in the public domain for a Special Prosecutor to begin a criminal investigation, thanks to the work of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the declassification of several DoJ torture memos, lawsuits by torture victims and excellent investigative reporting. Even Dick Cheney is now pushing to declassify important evidence.

Moreover, two key investigations are nearly complete: Special Prosecutor John Durham's investigation of the destruction of CIA torture tapes, and the Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation of the authors of the torture memos.

The most efficient way to proceed would be to appoint John Durham as Special Prosecutor for torture, expanding on the non-criminal investigation he has largely completed.

All criminal investigations are dynamic - they elicit new information privately and they incorporate new information that appears in the public domain. It would be perfectly fine for SSIC to begin its investigation and subpoena documents and witnesses to add to the evidence that is already public. But there's no reason to delay the appointment of a Special Prosecutor until SSIC completes its work many months from now.

Update 1: Feingold is exactly right on Judge Bybee:

The idea that one of the architects of this perversion of the law is now sitting on the federal bench is very troubling. The memos offer some of the most explicit evidence yet that Mr. Bybee and others authorized torture and they suggest that grounds for impeachment can be made. Clearly, the Justice Department has the responsibility to investigate this matter further. As a Senator, I would be a juror in any impeachment trial so I don't want to reach a conclusion until all the evidence is before me.

Amending the Feingold Amendment

Bob Fertik — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:21:43 -0500

As promised, Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a Constitutional Amendment requiring special elections to fill Senate vacancies.

SECTION 1. No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

Of course serious consideration of Constitutional Amendments occurs rarely. So if this "train" is really moving, this would be an excellent time to add some "cars." Here are some ideas:

* Direct election of Presidents; abolish the Electoral College. This has been proposed at various times in our history, most recently by President Jimmy Carter. And it fits perfectly with Feingold's language. We just need a section like this:

No person shall be a ~~Senator from a State~~ President unless such person has been elected by the people ~~thereof~~.

This section would also require language that guarantees American citizens the right to vote for President. Right now, that right is exclusively in the hands of state legislatures through the Electoral College. And this is not a technical distinction; during the 2000 recount in Florida, the Republican majority in the State Legislature actually voted to reject the results of a recount if Gore came out ahead, and to appoint 25 Electors for Bush no matter what.

* Paper ballots with definitive manual recounts for Federal Elections. After the 2000 punchcard debacle, many states made voting worse by switching to blackbox touchscreen voting. We all know how touchscreens can be rigged. By contrast, the infinite superiority of paper ballots was beautifully demonstrated in the 2008 Minnesota Senate recount between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Thanks to paper ballots, election officials were able to carefully recount all questionable ballots and apply consistent counting rules as required by Bush v. Gore. This manual recount would not have been possible on touchscreens.

* Automatic voter registration for all citizens. County governments waste a fortune maintaining voter files, which are grossly inaccurate and subject to fraud. (Of course Republicans like to scream about voter registration fraud by groups like ACORN, even though no Mickey Mouse votes were cast. )We could save a ton of money and ensure voter integrity by automatically registering every citizen. In 2005, I proposed a simple plan to use the Social Security file (without exposing Social Security numbers).

* Free TV time for Federal Candidates. The reason Congress works for The Corporations instead of The People (see Bailouts) is because candidates need vast sums of money for TV, and the easiest way to raise that money is to sell their souls to The Corporations (via PACs and bundling). If FCC licensing rules required broadcasters to give a minimum amount of free TV time to Congressional candidates, they wouldn't have to sell their souls to The Corporations.

* Full public funding for Federal Candidates. If we can slash campaign costs through free TV, we can easily cover the remaining costs through public financing. Without TV costs, a first-class House race can be run for $1 million. Take 435 races with 2 candidates and the total cost is $870 million. If we gave Senate candidates the same amount (based on the number of CD's in their state), each Senate cycle would cost $870/3= $225 million, since only 1/3 of Senate seats are up for election every 2 years. That brings the total cost to roughly $1 trillion, which is a tiny price for a clean Congress.

These are some friendly amendments I would add to the Feingold Amendment. How about you?

Update 1: Feingold's co-sponsors are John McCain, his McCain-Feingold campaign finance buddy, and freshman Mark Begich of Alaska. Begich probably signed on because Alaska's senior Senator, Lisa Murkowski, was appointed by her father Frank when he moved from the Senate to the Governor's office. That act of raw nepotism was so unpopular that Alaskan Republicans replaced Frank Murkowski with the former mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin. Palin cited this primary victory as "Exhibit A" that she was a reformer who was willing to "take on her own party."

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.