|
|
HOME | SEARCH
| ARCHIVES | INTERVIEWS | MANIFESTO | RSS FEED DONATE TO THE OASIS | SHOP THE OASIS | CONTACT THE OASIS |
|
GET TRUTH GET BLOGGED GET META-BLOGGED GET ACTIVE GET COMMUNITY Institute for Global Communications GET INSIDE THE SYSTEM GET CONGRESS BACK GET LEGISLATION Or call Congress GET WONKY Center for Policy Alternatives Institute for Women's Policy Research GET A BUDGET Center on Budget and Policy Priorities GET BELTWAY BLOGGED Just Another Bump In the Beltway GET RETIREMENT SECURITY Alliance for Retired Americans Nat'l Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare GET RURAL Center for Applied Rural Innovation GET MEDIA ANALYSIS GET POLLS GET MORE BLOGGED GET LOCAL WHO NEEDS DRUDGE GET ECON BLOGGED GET BUSH GET MULTIMEDIA BLOGGED GET JUDGES GET FOREIGN POLICY American Friends Service Committee Center for Defense Information 9-11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows SUPPORT THE TROOPS GET HOMELAND SECURITY GET IRAQ BLOGGED GET IRAN BLOGGED GET ARAB BLOGGED GET FREEDOM GET GROUP BLOGGED GET LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Death Penalty Information Center National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty FIGHT CRIME National Center on Institutions & Alternatives GET BIG SHOT BLOGGED GET LIBERAL GET LEFT GET RIGHT GET GOOD GOVT GET FEMINIST BLOGGED GET ELECTION FRAUD GET STILL MORE BLOGGED GET GREEN Natural Resources Defense Council GET GREEN BLOGGED GET UNION BLOGGED GET STATEHOOD GET LAW BLOGGED GET SCIENCE BLOGGED GET HEALTH BLOGGED GET LITERARY BLOGGED GET PHILOSOPHY BLOGGED GET GUN CONTROL Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence GET LOCAL BLOGS Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog (IL) Last Sane Man in Kentucky (KY) People's Republic A Progressive on the Prairie (SD) The Rhode Island Democrat (RI) GET COLLEGE BLOGGED STOP SCREWING THE POOR National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling GET GLOBALI- GET MOM BLOGS GET MORMON BLOGGED GET EXPAT BLOGGED GET IT ALL |
LiberalOasis Interviews Sen. Russ Feingold The buzz that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) might run for President in 2008 increased after his two-day trip to New Hampshire last week. After the visit, the Senator granted LiberalOasis an exclusive interview, which was conducted by phone on Oct. 5, 2005 The Senator discussed the future of Iraq, fighting terrorism, ending genocide in the Sudan, guaranteed health care, what he expects from Harriet Miers, and what he heard from New Hampshire voters about the Democratic Party. The following is an edited transcript. LiberalOasis: What are the main goals and tactics of a Feingold foreign policy, and how would they differ from the current Bush foreign policy? Sen. Russ Feingold: Well I’m not interested in articulating a Feingold foreign policy per se. What I think we ought to do is come together as a nation and get unified again, as we were after 9/11, with a primary focus on those who attacked us on 9/11. What’s wrong with the Bush policy is that after starting off very effectively after 9/11, they became diverted into an extreme focus on Iraq. And it is my view, and I think the view of many people, that Iraq is important but it is not the be all and end all of our national security. What really points this up is that on the State Department website, two months after 9/11, Bush’s name was on a document about the Al Qaeda threat. And they listed 45 countries where Al Qaeda was operating at the time, and the Administration itself didn’t even have Iraq on the list of 45 countries. So, the idea of putting this much effort, these many resources, into the Iraqi situation, has actually weakened us in our general fight against terrorism. It has depleted our Army and our National Guard. And it has alienated peoples all around the world, including many Islamic people who were willing to be helpful to us after 9/11. That is a major source of disagreement between me, and many others, and the Bush Administration. LO: If your proposal to fully withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 was actually implemented, what, in your view, should happen in 2007? Does the US and the international community have a responsibility to provide humanitarian aid and help Iraq rebuild? Or is it Iraq’s responsibility to take care of itself without anyone’s help? RF: My proposal is a target date for the end of the ground troop military mission. It is not a proposal that we have no military relationship with Iraq. In fact, it’s just the opposite. What I would like to see us do if the Iraqi government is willing, is to have a continuing effort, as requested by the Iraqi government, to take targeted actions against terrorist cells within Iraq and nearby, as we are doing with other countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia and others. That’s the kind of military relationship we should have. So, not only am I not proposing completely severing our ties with Iraq, I am proposing the potential for a much more effective and targeted military relationship. And I am not proposing the elimination of our reconstruction efforts or our diplomatic efforts. Of course we want to continue to be engaged in helping the Iraqi people succeed. The point is, is that they need to stand on their own militarily at some point in the not-too-distant future. And that’s why I have suggested the possible target date of the end of 2006. But disengaging completely from Iraq is not at all what I have suggested. LO: Does that indicate a support for putting down permanent military bases in Iraq, and if so, what would that do to the stability of the region? RF: It’s a very difficult question, and I certainly was not by my remarks suggesting permanent bases. I have heard quite a few concerns, including recent reports from our top military people in Iraq, that they think that permanent bases would be a destabilizing influence in the region. And I’m going to listen to the experts from the region as well as military experts before taking a final position. But I am skeptical about the idea of permanent bases because I think it could create more harm than good. LO: How would you address the genocide in the Sudan differently than Bush has so far? RF: I’ve been working on this issue for many years, as the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee in the Foreign Relations Committee. And what I have proposed for some time is that we have a high-level, not a medium-level, a high-level special envoy whose purpose is specifically to deal with Darfur and the genocide in that region. Sort of, of the type we had with Ambassador [John] Danforth, former Senator Danforth, when his job was to try to help broker the agreement between the North and the South. I think that our policy should be as firm as possible, and should be even stronger than it has been. And we should push other countries around the world, including the United Nations, to create some real downside or penalties for the Sudan regime if they do not cooperate and if they do not control these militias which continue to do great violence in the Darfur region. One of the ways to do that, is to link progress on stopping the violence in Darfur with cooperation in terms of the North-South peace agreement. In other words, the two should not be separate. Some people think of them as completely unrelated, but they are not unrelated if the Khartoum government is going to continue to try to oppress the people in the West as they supposedly seek peace with the people in the South. So those are some of my differences in the approach that the Administration is taking. LO: Why do you think Bush is not being that proactive, and do you think he is too close to the Sudan government? RF: Well it’s always a concern. I mean, I do think the Administration, on occasion, has done good things in this regard. They certainly haven’t ignored the issue and in some ways have been stronger than some other countries. But I do worry about the Administration pulling back a little bit on pressuring the Khartoum government, for at least two reasons. One is, they have, of course, invested a lot in trying to have a peace agreement between the North and the South and that’s clearly one of the priorities of the Administration. The other is the Sudan government has, on balance, apparently been pretty cooperative since 9/11 in the fight against terrorism, which is a big deal given the fact that they were one of the places where terrorists were hiding out in the past, and maybe even today. So I think those are two reasons why the Administration sometimes has not been as strong as it should be with regard to Darfur. LO: You voted for John Roberts, but in doing so you were critical of “nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the Administration refuses to provide”. By voting for such a nominee, aren’t you helping to set such a standard, where blank slates like Harriet Miers are not expected to provide evidence of their judicial philosophy? RF: You know, I think it’s just the opposite. And I made that point when I commented on my vote for Roberts in the Judiciary Committee. I did point out that the failure to produce documents that were reasonably requested, and Roberts’ own unwillingness to answer some questions that he should have answered, would in most cases disqualify a candidate for me. It was only the exceptional ability and training and manner of Judge Roberts that overcame that. And I specifically said a lesser nominee would not receive deference from me on this point. And we could be in that situation here. If the Administration does not produce documents so we can learn anything about her, and if she doesn’t answer more questions than Roberts, she’s in a much more vulnerable position because she is simply not as qualified as Roberts. LO: Are there any specific issues that you want hear Miers address to earn your vote? RF: I’ll be working on that for the coming weeks, but certainly I’ll be interested in her views on executive power, especially after 9/11. I’ll be very interested in her views about precedent. I’ll be very interested in her views about things such as the death penalty, and some of the issues that I brought up with Roberts. LO: You recently paid a visit to the early presidential primary state of New Hampshire. What did you learn from that trip? RF: It was a tremendous experience to be around so many people who have a vital interest in American democracy, and in particular, in the credibility of the presidential selection process. It is really quite a laboratory for presidential politics. And I benefited a lot from hearing their comments about the kind of Democratic Party and the kind of candidate they’re looking for. It’s similar to the kind of gatherings I’ve held in Tennessee and Alabama and Pennsylvania. It’s very interesting to see some of the common themes that go way across the Red and Blue state divide. LO: Themes such as? RF: The desire to have the Democratic Party be a party that is more unified in terms of presenting a message that is challenging the Administration, especially on foreign policy, especially on Iraq. What I heard there was a very strong feeling that we need to be firm, and have the courage to question this Iraq invasion, and to talk about it as a diversion from the fight against terrorism. Also, very powerful statements about health care and the need for guaranteed health care for all Americans, which I strongly agree with, but it was exciting to hear that in a state that, you know, is certainly considered to be moderate to moderate-conservative at times. LO: Do you support a single-payer health care system? RF: I do like the idea of a single-payer health care system. But what I’ve talked to people in Wisconsin about the last couple of years, and what I mentioned in New Hampshire seems to be well-received. And that is: to have Congress pass and the President sign a bill to guarantee health care for all Americans, but give each state a fair amount of flexibility in how they achieve that. In other words, let them adapt it to their economy or their culture. And I got what seemed to me to be a good response to that in New Hampshire. |
GET AIR AMERICA GET HUMOR GET A JOB GET ART GET MUSIC GET FOOD GET TRANS FATS GET COFFEE GET A DATE GET MORE HUMOR Foundation for a Patriotic America BUY STUFF... ...OR DON'T GET OFF THE GRID GET FUNDING GET PR GET CAPITAL GAINS GET UNIONIZED GET LAID SAFELY Nat'l Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy GET REPRO CHOICE Center for Reproductive Law & Policy GET ABORTION National Network of Abortion Funds GET HAPPY ANIMALS GET GOD Center for Progressive Christianity Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy Christian Alliance For Progress Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism GET GODLESS GET SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Americans United for the Separation of Church and State GET RELIGIOUS RIGHT GET MOON Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon? GET EQUALITY American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Nat'l Conf. for Community and Justice GET MARRIED GET UNMARRIED GET JUSTICE Mexican American Legal Defense National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium GET RADIO GET AMERICAN Americans for Democratic Action GET SOMEONE ELECTED Young Democratic Candidates Network GET SOME MORE BLOGS OVER HERE Northwest Progressive Institute Off The Cuff, Off The Record, Off The Wall Project For a New Century of Freedom |
|
HOME | SEARCH
| ARCHIVES | MANIFESTO
| SOAPBOX DONATE TO THE OASIS | SHOP THE OASIS | CONTACT THE OASIS |
|
Liberal Oasis Logo Design: Ed Kim | Advice and Assistance: LuckyDave, Gina-Louise Sciarra and Maya Voskoboynikov | Special Thanks to Eric Alterman, Bartcop, Hated.com, MediaWhoresOnline and Smirking Chimp for their early cybersupport |