Feingold calls for censure

I'm still trying to figure out what to make of Senator Feingold's call for censuring the king.

Don't get me wrong; censure is, of all the options, the least innocuous; as far as I'm concerned, Bush belongs before a Nuremberg-style tribunal with all that entails.

The questions I have are more along political lines. Feingold picked, out of the entire encyclopedia of Bush's high crimes, lies, sins of omission and commission, the only one where he seems still to have a bit of public support. Finding that issue is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack - but Feingold did, with his motion on FISA wiretaps. Now, mind you, these wiretaps are obviously and transparently in violation of the FISA statute. BushBots claim otherwise, of course, but who gives a flying fuck because they're liars anyway the simple fact is that they have used up whatever credibility they had over the last few years by embracing one bald-faced, in-your-face lie after another. In other words, the legalities are clear, elaborate reinterpretations of Article II notwithstanding.

There are two issues here, and both are political. One is that censure will likely fail, since (R)s and (D)s both don't want to look (yet) into the abyss of impeachment, which lies right behind censure. The other is that the bootlicking reactionaries can't seem themselves to bring any accountability to bear on their king, which this motion is but a symbol for.

I'm reminded of the dilemma the lawyers of the Third Reich found themselves in. Hitler was accused, sometime in the late 1930s, of some shenanigans in connection with royalties from his book. The lawyers squared that circle by declaring that the Fuehrer was 'the supreme source of law' and thus, that any action he undertook was lawful.

Sound familiar?