- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I wish Russ Feingold would run if just to maintain focus during the upcoming election debates. True, the proposed legislation is not perfect from a progressive standpoint, but such is the art of politics and any stronger language would most likely be DOA at this point in time. The fact is that both the House and Senate bills provide more immediate support to the troops NOW than anything the Bush administration has suggested.
The analogy with Somalia is also perfect, although that situation (also foisted upon us by a Bush) was less aggregious than the current dilemma we are facing. Typically, the Republicans are completely contravening their past assertions, but when has that ever stopped them? This analogy should continued to be used in the debate and the Republicans should be forced to explain how these circumstances warrant a completely different response than what they advocated in 1992.
The U.S. cannot possibly "fix" this problem unless a complete "about-face" is made in foreign policy. That means holding a Mideast summit of ALL countries in the region and communicating to them that despite our role in this mess, the problem and solution are theirs and they will need to collaborate or suffer the consequences. That's not going to happen until 1/09 at the earliest. In the interim, all we can do is repeatedly send up legislation that forces a veto and wait until Republicans start acting out of self-interest (which has always been the only true motivating factor for them). As the continued lack of progress becomes even more obvious, they will sign onto the bill despite their rhetoric.
