In defense of Russ Feingold

The way I see it Republicans have two choices. They can either (1) admit that impeaching Clinton in 1999 for lying in a civil suit about sex was a farce and a disgrace, or (2) they can support Russ Feingold's efforts to censure George W. Bush for lying--and breaking the law--on an issue of national security.*

Anyone who cares to think about this fairly will see that Bush's actions are more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath. Clinton lied to protect himself, and to conceal his proclivities. Bush's actions are different. His claim of nearly unlimited executive authority jeopardizes our democraticy and civil liberties for all time.

Trying to censure Bush may be politically dangerous for the Democrats; but it's the right thing to do.

*Did he lie? Yes. ("When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," Bush declared on April 20, 2004, while doing exactly the opposite.) Did he break the law? Scholars say yes. (John Turley: "I don't consider this a close case at all. I think that this operation.. was based on a federal crime." Alan Dershowitz: " I think the President broke the law")