Many have doubts on spying,
but Feingold stands alone on censure --
Why??? I'm sorry, but if there was ever a subject in collective memory for which the ENTIRE House and Senate should / could / would be on the same page about across party lines, this is it.
But nooooo.... And of course, Feingold is taking flak from the Dems for 'giving the Republicans something to form back up on' after the GOP was showing signs of stress and perhaps looking to distance themselves from McFly's White House. After the Dubai Ports debacle, and with McFly at an all time low approval rating of 33% when last I checked, I can't see rank and file Republicans finding *anything* to form up on against this (But it is the Monday before primaries...).
"While most senators recoiled last week from Sen. Russell Feingold's resolution to censure the president, many of them agreed with one of its basic premises: that the wiretapping of Americans without a warrant is against the law.
...
Moments after Feingold, D-Wis., introduced his censure resolution, Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin posed a question on the Senate floor to Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a central figure in the wiretapping debate. Did Specter agree with Frist that the wiretapping is legal?
'I neither agree nor disagree. I do not know,' said Specter...
Specter, of Pennsylvania, said Friday that he's taking a "middle ground" between those who claim the program is legal and doesn't require a change in the law or judicial review, and those, like Feingold, who claim it's flatly illegal.
...
Of Feingold's claim of illegality, Specter said there are too many unknowns about how the program works, and "I certainly think you ought not castigate the president as a criminal until you do know the answers to those questions."
Feingold, who sits on both the judiciary and intelligence committees, rejects that argument. "I don't think there will ever be any additional information that is going to make this more legal," Feingold said at a news conference last week.
I agree with Specter that Congress shouldn't censure the President when the details are uncertain. But if you can impeach the last one for lying about sexual improprieties, simply censuring this one ought to be a walk in the park. Especially since he makes the case for it every time he opens his mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment