Feingold Wants Pointless Censure of President

Nothing makes a politician look quite as silly as picking a fight that is pointless, investing political capital to win it, and then, having to face the fact that nothing has changed. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) called for the “censure” of President Bush for his Iraq-Namese policy. Under the American constitution, the Congress may vote on anything it wishes, but censure has no legal standing. If passed, the president would immediately ignore it. This is a pointless exercise to shame a shameless administration.

More often than not, Senator Feingold has been with the owls rather than the dodoes (a more sensible bifurcation than hawks and doves) over Iraq-Nam. He even voted against the war in the first place, which proves he is at least a one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind known as Capitol Hill. Here, though, his strategy is flawed and his tactics will not suffice.

In a statement, the senator said, “Congress needs to formally condemn the president and members of the administration for misconduct before and during the Iraq war, and for undermining the rule of law at home.” He added on “Meet the Press” yesterday that “This administration has assaulted the Constitution, adding “I think we need to do something serious in terms of accountability. And that’s why I will be shortly introducing a censure resolution of the president and the administration.”

The trouble is, if Mr. Feingold is correct, censure is inadequate. Impeachment is a more appropriate action. He even agrees; also on “Meet the Press” he said, “there’s a lot of sentiment in the country...for actually impeaching the President and the Vice President. I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program. What I am proposing is a moderate course, not tying up the Senate and the House with an impeachment trial, but simply passing resolutions that make sure that the historical record shows the way they have weakened our country, weakened our country militarily and against al Qaeda, and weakened our country's fundamental document, the Constitution.”

In the case of censure, he is going to face a sufficient number of GOP Senators who will prevent a final vote by filibuster. He certainly won’t have the 67 votes to convict in an impeachment trial in the Senate. So, censure is both inadequate and unachievable – the very definition of a bad idea. Impeachment is merely unachievable —the definition of pointless. Instead, he and his fellows should be preparing the groundwork for a pull out after the Petraeus Report in September, making sure that whatever the general says is used not as a reason to extend the adventure (as the Busheviks will do) but to leave this sorry war behind.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home