LONELY RUSS

It's a gang of four.

Only three Dems have signed on to support Russ Feingold's move to censure President Bush for the TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM.

A grand total of four senators have stated that they think it's appropriate to censure the President. In addition to Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Tom Harkin have stated their support for a censure resolution.

The newest member of the exclusive club -- Patrick Leahy.

It should be noted that he did give himself some wiggle room. Leahy said that he's "inclined to believe" that censure is an appropriate sanction for President Bush.

Could he weasel his way out of supporting to censure the President?

I suppose. It depends on what the meaning of the word "inclined" is.




Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy

Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee Hearing On "An Examination Of The Call To Censure The President"

(Excerpt)

[W]e know that the Administration has secretly spied on Americans without attempting to comply with FISA. And we know that the legal justifications it has offered for doing so, which have admittedly “evolved” over time are patently flimsy. I therefore have no hesitation in condemning the President for secretly and systematically violating the law. I have no doubt that such a conclusion will be history’s verdict.

History will evaluate how diligently the Republican-controlled Congress performed the oversight duties envisaged by the Founders. As of this moment, history’s judgment of the diligence and resolve of the Republican-Controlled Congress is unlikely to be kind.

Our witnesses today will address whether censure is an appropriate sanction for those violations. I am inclined to believe that it is. If oversight were to reveal that when the President launched the program, he had been formally advised by the Department of Justice that it would be lawful, that kind of bad advice would not make his actions lawful, but might at least provide something of an excuse.

If, on the other hand, he knowingly chose to flout the law and then commissioned a spurious legal rationalization years later after he was found out, he should bear full personal responsibility.

What can you say?

It's just more of the typical radical Left "Bush is a criminal" drivel.

This is kind of funny.

From the Boston Globe:

Senator Russell Feingold was a lonely man yesterday.

Of his seven Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, only two showed up for the committee's hearing on Feingold's call for a censure of President Bush. One of them -- Feingold's fellow Wisconsin Democrat, Herb Kohl -- ducked out early
without uttering a word.

Kohl didn't have the courage to say one word?

How embarrassing!

So Feingold sat amid a sea of empty chairs in the hearing room, withstanding a withering Republican barrage. GOP lawmakers took turns branding Feingold's resolution "irresponsible," "inappropriate," "excessive," "perverse," "false," "surreal," "beyond the pale," and "destructive."

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

All those brands apply.

"I can only hope that this constitutionally suspect and, I believe, inflammatory attempt to punish the president for leading this war on terror will not weaken his ability to do so," declared Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah.

Of course, Feingold isn't really concerned about Bush's ability to lead the war on terror. That's not the point of this.
He's concerned about his campaign for president. He can't be bothered with little details like national security when he's trying to win the approval of the fringe Left.

What better way to appeal to the aging baby boomers that populate the extremist wing of the Democratic Party than to drag out John Dean, a whistle blower's whistle blower?

Dean made his first congressional testimony since Watergate a memorable one. He endorsed Feingold's call for a formal admonishment of Bush, which was something less than a surprise; Dean wrote the 2004 book, "Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush."

Well, I guess Dean deserves credit for seizing on a novel way to make some money.

The guy has been milking his Watergate role for over thirty years.

I wonder if Dean had flashbacks while testifying.

"I have probably more experience firsthand than anybody might want in what can go wrong, and how a president can get on the other side of the law," Dean told committee members. "Had a censure resolution been issued about some of Nixon's conduct long before it erupted to the degree and the problem that came, it would have been a godsend."

The Watergate reference opened the door to the day's testiest exchange.

Senator Lindsey O. Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Bush endorsed a debatable legal theory when he authorized the secret wiretaps. But Nixon and Dean, Graham said, were involved in patently illegal acts for which there were no legal justifications.

"Nobody read the Constitution to say that Richard Nixon and you could break into somebody's private offices," Graham told Dean. "Isn't there a big difference between knowingly breaking the law -- burglarizing somebody's office -- and having a real debate about where authority begins and ends?"

Dean: "Nixon didn't authorize the break-in."

Graham: "Did he cover up a crime that he knew to be a crime?"

Dean shot back: "He covered it up for national security reasons."

"Give me a break," Graham snapped. "He covered it up to save his hide."

All in all, it was worth it to pull Dean out of mothballs to hear him say that Nixon covered up the Watergate break-in for "national security reasons."

Funny!

...Feingold said he saw "no significance" in the large number of Democratic no-shows at yesterday's hearing, noting that senators often skip Friday meetings to return to their home states.

He said he took heart in the fact that the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said yesterday that he is "inclined to believe" that censure is appropriate. Feingold said he still wants the censure motion brought before the full Senate.

"The assertions that are being made by the White House here would
probably have made the Nixon White House blush," he said. "This matter can be alive for a very long time."

Feingold put the best spin he could on the dismal proceedings.

The reality is the hearing was a farce, and so is his resolution.

I never realized that Feingold was capable of being such a Pollyanna. I think he's being overly optimistic about the future of his lame resolution.

It didn't take a lot of guts for Leahy to jump on board with Feingold.

According to AP, "Democratic committees in at least half of [Vermont's] 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment."

Leahy didn't exactly go out on a limb by supporting Feingold.

This censure stuff is a joke.

If Feingold was smart, he'd be encouraging the House bunch that is opting for the impeachment of the President and rounding up votes in the Senate.

Why settle for censure when you can go for impeachment?