Petty Politics In Time Of War
It seems that Senator Russ Feingold has changed his position on the question of whether to go to war.
The Wisconsin Democrat has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq from the outset, but anyone who aspires to lead the nation’s military as Commander-In-Chief – as Senator Feingold does – needs to be able to demonstrate to the American people that he has the intestinal fortitude to take on the enemy when it becomes necessary. Thus he has done. Of course, in his case, the enemy is George Bush.
Leave aside, for the moment, the irony of the fact that Senator Feingold – one of the principal sponsors of the McCain-Feingold bill that effectively placed limits on free speech so as to protect incumbent politicos – is suddenly concerned about our constitutional system of laws. In only the latest demonstration of the fact that his party is the party of trivial politics in very un-trivial times, Mr. Feingold has introduced a resolution into the United States Senate calling for the censure of President Bush for his implementation of the terrorist-surveillance program.
That this is a case of trivial politics is evidenced by the actions of Mr. Feingold himself. In introducing the resolution and subsequently defending it, the senator has unambiguously accused the president of willfully breaking the law, despite the lack of evidence that would make such a public accusation justified. Yet, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for an immediate vote on the resolution – essentially calling Feingold’s bluff – Democrat leaders, obviously recognizing the embarrassing result such a vote would produce, would not permit the vote to take place, and Feingold himself excoriated Frist for “trying to hold a vote ten minutes after it was introduced.”
But it seems that Senator Feingold wants it both ways. The resolution is based on the presumption that President Bush has broken the law, a presumption that the facts that have been revealed so far contradict. Yet if it is so obvious to the senator that this is the case, how much time is needed to decide on whether or not to support the resolution?
Additionally, in the unlikely event that revealed facts were to demonstrate that President Bush did break the law, the opportunity would still be available to censure, or even impeach, him at whatever time those facts were to be revealed. Yet the resolution has been introduced, and is now in search of evidence to support its passage, thus putting the cart before the horse. It’s a pity that the senator didn’t look for that evidence before introducing the resolution.
How ironic it is, indeed, that the senator would decide to take on the president in the area of National Security in such a public way. One would think that, given the perils facing the nation from its terrorist enemies, a presidential aspirant would not be so hyper-critical of a program whose very purpose is to protect America from further attacks from those enemies. Unless, of course, the aspirant in question doesn’t really believe the peril is all that great anyway.
The introduction of the resolution by Senator Feingold only serves as further evidence to the American people that his party doesn’t take the issue of National Security seriously, and that getting back into power is more important to them than protecting the homeland. In defending the resolution following the attempt to hold a vote on it, the senator stated, “I don’t introduce a censure resolution lightly.”
On the contrary, the facts, as well as his and his party’s actions surrounding the resolution suggests that introducing a censure resolution “lightly” is exactly what he has done. Thus, the oft-stated truth is still true: It is not yet safe to entrust the security of the nation to a party that engages in such petty politics during time of war.
The Wisconsin Democrat has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq from the outset, but anyone who aspires to lead the nation’s military as Commander-In-Chief – as Senator Feingold does – needs to be able to demonstrate to the American people that he has the intestinal fortitude to take on the enemy when it becomes necessary. Thus he has done. Of course, in his case, the enemy is George Bush.
Leave aside, for the moment, the irony of the fact that Senator Feingold – one of the principal sponsors of the McCain-Feingold bill that effectively placed limits on free speech so as to protect incumbent politicos – is suddenly concerned about our constitutional system of laws. In only the latest demonstration of the fact that his party is the party of trivial politics in very un-trivial times, Mr. Feingold has introduced a resolution into the United States Senate calling for the censure of President Bush for his implementation of the terrorist-surveillance program.
That this is a case of trivial politics is evidenced by the actions of Mr. Feingold himself. In introducing the resolution and subsequently defending it, the senator has unambiguously accused the president of willfully breaking the law, despite the lack of evidence that would make such a public accusation justified. Yet, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for an immediate vote on the resolution – essentially calling Feingold’s bluff – Democrat leaders, obviously recognizing the embarrassing result such a vote would produce, would not permit the vote to take place, and Feingold himself excoriated Frist for “trying to hold a vote ten minutes after it was introduced.”
But it seems that Senator Feingold wants it both ways. The resolution is based on the presumption that President Bush has broken the law, a presumption that the facts that have been revealed so far contradict. Yet if it is so obvious to the senator that this is the case, how much time is needed to decide on whether or not to support the resolution?
Additionally, in the unlikely event that revealed facts were to demonstrate that President Bush did break the law, the opportunity would still be available to censure, or even impeach, him at whatever time those facts were to be revealed. Yet the resolution has been introduced, and is now in search of evidence to support its passage, thus putting the cart before the horse. It’s a pity that the senator didn’t look for that evidence before introducing the resolution.
How ironic it is, indeed, that the senator would decide to take on the president in the area of National Security in such a public way. One would think that, given the perils facing the nation from its terrorist enemies, a presidential aspirant would not be so hyper-critical of a program whose very purpose is to protect America from further attacks from those enemies. Unless, of course, the aspirant in question doesn’t really believe the peril is all that great anyway.
The introduction of the resolution by Senator Feingold only serves as further evidence to the American people that his party doesn’t take the issue of National Security seriously, and that getting back into power is more important to them than protecting the homeland. In defending the resolution following the attempt to hold a vote on it, the senator stated, “I don’t introduce a censure resolution lightly.”
On the contrary, the facts, as well as his and his party’s actions surrounding the resolution suggests that introducing a censure resolution “lightly” is exactly what he has done. Thus, the oft-stated truth is still true: It is not yet safe to entrust the security of the nation to a party that engages in such petty politics during time of war.
posted by JeffreyH | 8:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home