Democratic Senator Argues Jordan Attacks Linked to Iraq War

Nov. 17, 2005 — -- As lawmakers and the White House trade increasingly heated accusations over the Iraq War, one Democratic senator with potential presidential aspirations is arguing last week's terrorist attacks in Jordan are at least indirectly connected to the U.S. policy in Iraq.

In an interview with ABC News, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., said the deadly attacks on hotels in Amman are "the whirlwind that we are reaping if we don't end the extreme ground involvement that we have in Iraq."

"What's happening in Iraq is that we have created the ultimate breeding ground for the terrorist network," Feingold said. "This is what the head of the CIA, Porter Goss, has said. And we just saw terrible evidence last week in what happened in Jordan. Iraqis -- who clearly were not involved with al Qaeda prior to our invasion -- were trained by Zarqawi, a Jordanian, to leave Iraq and kill allies of ours in Jordan."

Making a Name by Speaking Out on Iraq

Feingold, who is considering a presidential run in 2008, has unequivocally opposed the Iraq war, and at times taken on his fellow Democrats over the issue.

In 2004, Feingold publicly chided the Democratic presidential ticket for their votes on the Iraq war and the $87 billion to fund it. "They got the order of the votes wrong. Their other votes were correct. They just got those wrong," he told the Capital Times.

When Senate Democrats stepped up their criticism recently of the Bush administration's handling of pre-war intelligence, Feingold criticized them in a Salon magazine opinion article for paying "scant attention to how and when the U.S. should bring its primary military mission in that country to a close."

In August, he called for setting a specific target date of Dec. 31, 2006, for completing the military mission and removing all U.S. forces from Iraq.

"If you think you made a mistake before, you ought to be for getting us out of there in an honorable way, instead of letting the president lead us around by the nose by saying that we can't have a timetable," Feingold said.

His resolution received little support then, but this week, 40 senators voted for an amendment calling on Bush to outline a "campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment" of U.S. troops.

Like other critics of the war, Feingold argued the Iraq campaign would hurt the effort to go after the terrorist networks that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. He said U.S. troops in Afghanistan have told him they didn't have enough translators and other resources there after the Iraq War began.

Feingold's assessment of when the "cherry-picking" was apparent differs markedly from many in the Senate, including many in his own party.

To be sure, Feingold thinks the Bush administration was guilty of using "sketchy" intelligence. But unlike many of his colleagues who voted for the war and who are now claiming that they were duped, Feingold suggests that much of the "cherry-picking" was on display years ago.

"I made it my business," Feingold said "to go to every single" Senate Foreign Relations Committee "hearing that Chairman Biden and then-Ranking Member Lugar held on Iraq. I went to every classified briefing that I could, including the CIA briefings, and what I noticed was that there was a gap between the tone and the content of what the CIA said in the private briefings and the way the administration talked publicly."

Feingold said he would have supported military action against Iraq if he had been shown evidence "that Saddam Hussein really did have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, that he had the capacity to deliver them, and had there been serious evidence that he intended or was planning to do it."

In making the case for a timetable for withdrawal, Feingold likes to point to the recent congressional testimony of Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who testified in September that reducing the number of troops there would refute insurgents' claim that the United States is an occupying force.

Accolades From the Left

Feingold's recent vote to confirm John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court won him the ire of Ralph Neas, the head of the liberal group, People for the American Way.

But liberals whose main focus is the Iraq War see Feingold as someone who stands up for what he thinks is right -- even when it means standing alone.

After Feingold called for an Iraq timetable in August, liberal bloggers such as Chris Bowers of MyDD.com hailed the senator's "meteoric rise."

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, a group which has called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, said his group is focused on the 2006 midterm elections -- and not 2008. He says, however, that of all of the Democrats who have shown an interest in running for president in 2008, Feingold is "clearly the one who has stuck his neck out on Iraq."

Teddy Davis is an ABC News field producer and co-author of "The Note." He covers politics for the network's television, radio and Internet platforms.