"This quest for censure, though no doubt driven by principle, has something of a tilting-at-windmills quality that will only distract from more urgent business."
However, they even agree with Feingold that the President has broken the law:
"Feingold is correct that President Bush does appear to have violated the 1978 law that prohibits warrantless wiretapping."So, if Feingold is correct and our dear President has broken the law, how could a censure by the United States Senate be incorrect and premature? I hate to bring up the past, but the Journal Sentinel did not feel this way during the Clinton years.
I guess I've watched "All the President's Men" too many times, because I believe that the journalists in this country are the ones to point out wrongs and stand up for what is right and just. But, the Journal Sentinel has proven me wrong and that's a shame. They should be standing solidly behind Senator Feingold and calling for the censure of an American President who has broken the law.
Instead, they cry, "Election ploy" and say that the censure is wrong.
Where's Woodward and Bernstein when we need them?
God Bless
1 comment:
Feingold was right when he voted aginst the war, and he's (almost)right again.
Censure? That is the least this President deserves isn't it?
If I had a vote, I'd convict him of war crimes.
70% of the public supported the war when we were told Iraq was capable of attacking, and they would attack soon.
That wasn't possible and the administration knew it wasn't possible, but they still pumped up the threat. I believe that is a war crime.
Post a Comment