I'm amazed at the fuss over the proposal to censure the president for illegal wiretaps. I'm apalled at the commentaries by the "news pundits" analyzing, over-analyzing, reading between lines, interpreting politically, and missing the right point (IMO) to the issue.
I don't think there is any doubt that the NSA wiretaps are illegal. They are also popular, so say polls. Now, here's the issue, for me. There should be some way of reconciling the popular and the illegal. Either make it legal (watching out for the precedents it might set), or find a legal aternative. In this case, there is a legal alternative, F.I.S.A.
Bush hates to let the law (ethics, brains, decency) stand in his way. His henchman, Alberto Gonzales, will rubber stamp the "legality". I'd love to see what the Supremes would do with it, as the "general court of legal opinion" has concluded that the president acted illegally.
I think censure is an honest (so foreign to politics) approach. At least, get it investigated, so that we can say the act was "legal" (God forbid) or "illegal", and slap the president's wrist. It won't lead to impeachment. WHO would want Cheney as president? Not even Cheney, I bet.
I don't quite understand why other senators, of both parties, have not ageed with the proposal, so meekly stated by Finegold. Consider it the right thing to do without the trappings of "strategy".
But, maybe the senators know something I don't know. Is it possible?
<small>[ 04-12-2006, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>