Former Senator Feingold Fails Again On Foreign Policy – In Boston
It’s not every day that a Wisconsin politician faces criticism for his out-of-touch national security positions by an audience in Boston, but today was that day for failed former senator Russ Feingold.
Boston Herald columnist and former delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Jeff Robbins detailed Feingold’s incoherent answers to questions about the rising global terror threat:
In Boston this fall, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was asked about his ideas for combatting the increased threat to American security posed by Iran, slated to receive $150 billion with which to acquire weapons and expand its terror operations under the recently inked nuclear deal…
…Feingold acknowledged that he had no ideas, but pivoted to a description of his recent trip to Indonesia. He had spoken to some Indonesians about Iran, he said, and he found that Indonesians were also concerned about Iran. It seemed to him, the three-term senator said, that the U.S. should think about working with Indonesia to see if it could persuade Iran to not be quite as aggressive as it had been in the past.
No one present was impolite enough to suggest to the veteran Democrat that if talking to the Indonesians about talking to the Iranians was the Democratic Party’s Plan A for dealing with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, it had better move hastily to line up Plans B, C and D. Nor did anyone say aloud that when it comes to judging national security threats, it isn’t merely that the Obama administration and its defenders have been less than confidence-inspiring. It is that what they have inspired is genuine concern.
The bad news? Former senator Feingold “acknowledged that he had no ideas.” The good news? He chatted with “some Indonesians” while on a junket and found they were “also concerned about Iran.”
To be fair to the failed former senator, it’s not as if he can fall back on his national security record given his lone vote against the Patriot Act and his three votes against a provision to prevent “lone wolf” terrorism. At least he didn’t try to argue that President Obama will be “one of our greatest” foreign policy presidents this time.