Democrats Afraid To Embrace Russ Feingold's Call For Censure Of George W. Bush
Robert Paul Reyes
March 26, 2006
A couple of weeks ago Senator Russell D. Feingold introduced a measure in the Senate to censure President George W. Bush over the domestic eavesdropping program.
"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable", Feingold explained.
President Bush argues that he was authorized to order eavesdropping on American citizens under his wartime powers as commander-in-chief.
President Bush's ratings are in the dumpster, his foreign policy is a disaster, and he has been dissed by everyone from Hugo Chavez to Jessica Simpson. You would think that politicians would be jumping on Feingold's bandwagon, but only Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California have embraced his call for censuring Bush.
If Democrats don't have the will to censure a weak and failed president, they are not much of an opposition. They are nothing but a speed bump to a presidential bulldozer trampling our constitutional rights.
A censure resolution, does not carry any punishments, in essence it's a scolding. If anyone needs a good scolding it's George W. Bush, his arrogance and defiance of international norms deserves a severe reprimand.
Every day scores of Democratic politicians scold, lecture, reprimand and criticize President Bush for his many failings, why not make it an official scolding?
A president who is so arrogant that he imagines himself to be above the law, needs more than just a slap on the wrist. Only a censure will stifle Bush's hubris, and hold him accountable to the American public.
If President Clinton was impeached for staining Monica's blue dress, then certainly President Bush deserves to be censured for eavesdropping on American citizens and staining our international reputation.
Some dismiss Feingold's move to censure Bush as a publicity gimmick, by the Democrat who is considered a frontrunner for the 2008 presidential race. But I see Feingold's action as a profile in courage, and I will definitely remember his bravery in 2008.
"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable", Feingold explained.
President Bush argues that he was authorized to order eavesdropping on American citizens under his wartime powers as commander-in-chief.
President Bush's ratings are in the dumpster, his foreign policy is a disaster, and he has been dissed by everyone from Hugo Chavez to Jessica Simpson. You would think that politicians would be jumping on Feingold's bandwagon, but only Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California have embraced his call for censuring Bush.
If Democrats don't have the will to censure a weak and failed president, they are not much of an opposition. They are nothing but a speed bump to a presidential bulldozer trampling our constitutional rights.
A censure resolution, does not carry any punishments, in essence it's a scolding. If anyone needs a good scolding it's George W. Bush, his arrogance and defiance of international norms deserves a severe reprimand.
Every day scores of Democratic politicians scold, lecture, reprimand and criticize President Bush for his many failings, why not make it an official scolding?
A president who is so arrogant that he imagines himself to be above the law, needs more than just a slap on the wrist. Only a censure will stifle Bush's hubris, and hold him accountable to the American public.
If President Clinton was impeached for staining Monica's blue dress, then certainly President Bush deserves to be censured for eavesdropping on American citizens and staining our international reputation.
Some dismiss Feingold's move to censure Bush as a publicity gimmick, by the Democrat who is considered a frontrunner for the 2008 presidential race. But I see Feingold's action as a profile in courage, and I will definitely remember his bravery in 2008.
Print
Email
