Just four days ago, on George Stepanopolous' Sunday program, This Week, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced he would be introducing a resolution calling for the censure of President George W. Bush for his deliberate violation of federal law, specifically FISA.
Senator Feingold's call for censure came in the wake of the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress' decisions NOT to investigate the President's violations of the FISA statute. Thus, to Senator Feingold, and to most of us, that was the end of Congress' actions to call the President to account for his deliberate and intentional failure to carry out his duties to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" with regard to FISA.
Senator Feingold rightly thinks that this is unacceptable and a threat to our system of government, our Constitution and our laws. To make plain Congress' disagreement with the Bush Administration's assertion that when acting as Commander in Chief, the President is unfettered by law or by the other branches of government, Senator Feingold prudently and measuredly proposed a Congressional resolution for censure of the President on this specific issue - perhaps the most important Constitutional issue faced since the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Senator Feingold's proposal is reasonable and moderate considering the high crime committed and STILL being committed by the President. Indeed, there is a very reasonable argument that censure is too weak a step, given the President's insistence in continuing his brazen acts of illegality.
Predictably, the Rubber Stamp Republicans rushed to attack Senator Feingold and reveal their hypocrisy in full glory. Such defenders of the Rule of Law like Bill Frist and John McCain, who voted to remove President Clinton from office on the eve of the Kosovo War, now defend Bush's illegal acts and argue that censure now gives aid to the "enemy." Their hypocrisy and mendacity and cravenness is in full regalia, none more so than Arlen Specter, who has wandered from a position that the President is acting illegally to his current position that FISA is unconstitutional:
SPECTER'S FISA EVOLUTION. As Josh Marshall flagged, Arlen Specter essentially made the case for FISA's unconstitutionality on the Senate floor yesterday in response to Russ Feingold's censure resolution:
Going right to the heart of the issue, the Senator from Wisconsin says in the fourth ``whereas'' clause on page 2 that the President does not have the inherent constitutional authority to act in distinction and difference from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
That is what you call a naked assertion unsupported by any statement of law, unsupported by any rationale.
The Judiciary Committee, of which the Senator from Wisconsin is a member, has held two hearings on the authority of the President to conduct electronic surveillance. And there has been a great deal of testimony from reputable sources saying that the President does have inherent authority under article II of the Constitution.
If that legal conclusion is correct, then constitutional authority trumps a statute.
The Congress cannot legislate in derogation of the President's constitutional authority.
. . . When the NSA story broke in December, Specter was of course quite blunt, saying "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate." . . .
But what of our Democratic Senators? I'll discuss them on the flip.
Glenn Greenwald provides a roundup of Democratic reaction:
Let us be[gin] with these profiles in courage from your leading Democratic Senators, showing the nation how strong and tough they are:
"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).
"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.).
"I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters
Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder.
So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.
Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. . . .
"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."
The column goes on and on like that, also naming Debbie Stabenow, Mary Landrieu, and Jeff Bingaman as Senators who virtually tripped over their own feet running away from the Feingold Resolution. There were a few -- very few -- honorable exceptions:
Dodd must not have checked with Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa). "The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.
And Reid did say: "Senator Feingold is a man of principle . . . I think that people should cool their jets and let the process takes its course." But when asked about his view on the Resolution, he would only say this: "It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait . . . ."
With the exception of the dim bulb Dodd, none said anything really harmful. "I'm going to wait" is not my answer. It is not Feingold's answer. And in a perfect world it would not be the answer given by ANY Democrat, or Senator for that matter. But that's not our world.
Now there are different ways to say "I am going to wait." The manner in which our Democratic Senators did so is an exercise in stupid politics and weakness. Here is a simple lesson for them -- Next time, excoriate the Bush Administration for their arrogance, apparent lawlessness, "JUST LIKE IN THE PORTS SCANDAL," and their inability to "come clean with the American People," but Censure is a serious matter and one not to be decided lightly. Say that you will seriously consider the Resolution from Senator Feingold, "A MAN OF PRINCIPLE," but that you are not taking a position at this time.
Senator Reid, of the undecided Dem Senators, comes closest to this. But the opportunity to criticize the President must not be passed up. Argue from strength. Not ready to take a position? Then don't. But do not act afraid. Whatever you think of the resolution and its effect on Dems' image on national security, the pathetic show of weakness by these Dem Senators has done 10 times the damage - feeding every negative Dem sterotype of weakness and lack of principle.
Now, a few words of criticism for Senator Feingold -- what he said about his colleagues was outrageous. Not because what he said was incorrect. It was not. But these are HIS colleagues. He does NOT get to criticize his fellow Dems in this manner. WE do. He does not. It was a horrendous mistake on his part and he needs to apologize to them publicly in my opinion.
And what is my point in the end? That Democrats need to understand that principle and POLITICS demands an accounting of the Bush Administration and the Rubber Stamp Republicans on this issue. We need not all read from the same hymnal, but we do need to have the same Devils in our hymnals.
The Devils here are Bush and the Republicans and their rampant illegality. The Censure Resolution must be viewed through this prism by ALL Dems.