Senator Feingold, when you posted The Question of Impeachment on July 17th, I gave you hell, politely I hope. And when you posted Demanding Accountability on July 22nd, I gave you more hell.
I WAS WRONG. Senator, I owe you a sincere apology for ever doubting the necessity of censuring BushCo and for not understanding why censure is so important. You are, after all, a constitutional scholar and I am not. I regret that I presumed to know more than you do on constitutional matters. You considered our responses in The Question of Impeachment to hold this administration accountable and then came back to talk to us about your censure motions. You listened to us, but I did not listen to you. In what I thought was my informed mind, all I wanted to hear was IMPEACHMENT. Senator, I'm enlightened now and I have an open mind, too. If you follow me down under, I'll explain.
Published on Monday, July 23, 2007 by The Nation
Censure & Impeachment
by John Nichols
There is every reason to be enthusiastic about U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold’s decision to ask the Senate to consider a pair of censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and other administration officials for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law. Indeed, as the movement to impeach Bush and Cheney attracts more support with each passing day, Feingold’s resolutions should be seen as evidence that the essential American principle of presidential accountability is finally being put back on the table by responsible members of Congress.
Senator, in the heat of the argument and my own insistence that IMPEACHMENT was the only answer to a runaway, corrupt presidency, I couldn't see the forest for the trees in your diary Demanding Accountability. I totally missed the very important point that "the essential American principle of presidential accountability is finally being put back on the table by responsible members of Congress." It's a very important first step and I understand now that it will also aid in engaging the publics' interest in the concept of 'presidential accountability.' I also allowed my passion to interfere with my knowledge that you, sir, are one of the most responsible members of Congress and for that I am truly sorry.
John Nichols helped drive home for me what my closed mind refused to listen to in Demanding Accountability. When I let my mind finally open up, Nichols helped me understand why you want to introduce 2 censure motions and what each censure motion would accomplish:
One resolution would censure the president, vice president and their aides for all the wrongs related to the Iraq war. This includes overstating the case of WMD, misleading the country about the relationship between Al Qaeda and 9/11, lack of planning to deal with the insurgency and humanitarian problems that were predicted by the intelligence community, requiring prolonged deployments of our armed forces and distorting the situation on the ground in Iraq in order to justify military involvement there.
The other resolution would censure the administration for its illegal NSA wiretapping and for promoting extreme methods of torture and policies dealing with the Geneva Conventions and 'enemy combatants' detained at Guantanamo. Last of all but not least, this resolution addresses this administration's refusal to allow the Congress to exercise its congressional oversight into the questionable firings of USA attorneys.
Nichols also reminded me why the House was given the authority to impeach the executive branch and not the Senate. As Nichols points out, drafters of the Constitution believed the House was more in touch with "popular sentiment" because they were elected by districts. "The House was the more populist chamber." But Nichols also reminded me of this
That said, they did not intend for senators to sit idly by while high crimes and misdemeanors were committed.
Feingold is right to describe his censure motions as "a relatively modest response." But they are precisely the response that a senator can and should propose.
{snip}
Censure is not the cure. Impeachment is. But censuring Bush and Cheney ought not be seen as a compromise, or an insufficient response to the crisis. It is a senatorial compliment to the burgeoning movement for impeachment — a movement that today delivered petitions with more than 1,000,000 signatures to Congressman John Conyers appealing to him to begin impeachment proceedings...
{snip}
Supporting Feingold’s censure resolutions should not distract from nor negate the push for impeachment. Rather, moves to get the Senate to censure Bush and Cheney ought to be seen as vital pieces of the broader struggle to hold this administration to account. (all emphasis mine)
Senator Feingold, I should have listened to you. As a Senator, you are doing what you are constitutionally able to do to hold this administration accountable. I understand that now and I want you to know that I will do everything within my power to help you bring your censure motions to the floor of the Senate. I will also attempt to help others understand why censure is so important in laying the groundwork to hold this administration accountable.
Feingold, a Constitutional scholar, is well aware that these misdeeds of the George Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions fall, as the senator has suggested, "right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors." He has frequently suggested that he "would not rule out any form of accountability," including an impeachment inquiry beginning with proper investigation and hearings.
All I ask is that you do everything within your power to influence House members that IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS must commence if we are ever going to hold this administration accountable for its total disregard for the rule of law and its destruction of our system of checks and balances. I thank you for your service to our country and for your tireless fight against an administration that knows no boundaries. You are everything we need in a Senator. THANK YOU!