Home > The Loony Left > And we all lose

And we all lose

March 15th, 2006

The Loser Party takes on the Stupid Party:

Republicans are denouncing Senator Russ Feingold’s proposal to “censure” President Bush for his warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda, but we’d like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor. He’s had the courage to put on the table what Democrats are all but certain to do if they win either the House or Senate in November.

As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold’s censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about “illegal domestic eavesdropping,” Mr. Bush’s spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.

But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he’s doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they’re living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.

When the fever gets this hot in supposedly mainstream forums, Mr. Feingold is right to conclude that the facts behind any censure or impeachment motion won’t really matter. All that will count is the politics, which means it will come down to a question of votes in Congress. And several leading Democrats have already raised the “impeachment” card.

Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold’s public service in floating his “censure” gambit now. He’s doing voters a favor by telling them before November’s election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America’s enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he’s abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he’s been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let’s have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what’s really at stake.

The Democrats want revenge for Clinton’s impeachment and the “stolen” 2000 election, and they don’t care if the whole country goes down the toilet while they try to get it. In fact, they’d rather the whole country go down the toilet if they can’t retake power; they’ve already made it perfectly clear that they’d rather live under Islamist rule than Republican government.

No matter how bad Bush may get, you can always count on the Democrats to make him — or, say, Krusty the Klown, just to offer one of many, many possible examples — look positively statesmanlike.

Update! Mo’ bettah:

Increasing Feingold’s prominence as a spokesman for the Democrats on the War on Terror only benefits the GOP. He epitomizes the Left’s do-nothing, or at least do-the-absolute-minimum, approach to the war. He voted against the Patriot Act, and its reauthorization. He opposes the NSA program. He was against the Iraq war, and opposes using coercive interrogation against terrorists abroad. He is against almost any measure in the War on Terror that doesn’t fit neatly within the confines of the American law-enforcement system (and against even ones that do — the Patriot Act). It was telling that on the Senate floor Feingold highlighted past statements by President Bush saying that law enforcement needs a court order to get a wiretap, by way of supposedly proving the president’s deceit. But the NSA surveillance is not a law-enforcement program; it is not being used to produce evidence of crimes, but to tip off American intelligence about potential plots and the whereabouts of terrorist agents.

Russ Feingold, the face of Today’s Democrat? I like it, I really do. Come on, you spineless Dems — put your “morals” where your fat yaps are! Bush must be impeached — it’s the only way to truly assuage the pain of crippling BDS! “Mainstream” Democrats (if any) simply must heed the baying of their most rabid lunatics and give us all a good, long look at the sort of balls-out chowderheaded derangement they’re really capable of! But….oh crap, here we go again:

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they’d seen a ghost.

“I haven’t read it,” demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

“I just don’t have enough information,” protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). “I really can’t right now,” John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters — an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

“Ask her after lunch,” offered Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

Cowards. Seems like every time they’re just about ready to put on a real show for us, they pull back at the last moment. Darn. Oh well, at least Feingold seems to be Democrat enough to keep fighting the good fight of censuring/impeaching Bush for the gross crime of defending America. So hold on to those rainchecks, folks; we may get some yocks out of all this yet.

  • Share/Bookmark
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Mikey NTH
    March 15th, 2006 at 19:14 | #1
    What a fine collection of drive-bys we get. None stick around for:
    (A) a discussion of the actual topic of the post. Just reiterate the usual crap dealt with time and again.
    (B) come back on other days and actually debate the topics that are posted.
    (C) use any logic beyond 1 + 2 + 3 + ? = Something about George W. Bush.
    (D) have the faintest idea about politics in this federal republic, or about politics at all and how it works.

    Example: If a senator calls for a vote of censure, a senator who has been in office for over a dozen years (thus he and his staff understand how politics work - should, anyway) and the senator calls for a vote of censure, and his party leadership says they were not consulted and refuse to bring it to vote (or stick around to answer questions about it, when the point of censure has been on the political agenda for almost four months), then the politically savvy would say there is nothing in the charge, just grandstanding, or rather, a canny, politically astute senator understanding which way his party's base is going, and responding to it. To create buzz and get those donations flowing, but still far enough out from running for the White House that it can be ignored when the race begins in earnest.

    Primaries - run to the base; General Election - run to the middle.

    The simple fact is we are at war, with an ideology - again - that uses underground groups, fifth columns, and friendly nations (who support said groups and columns, just far enough back to be able to deny everything).

    We here want to fight both the proxies and their enablers while we hold the upper hand, diplomatically, militartily, economically. You deny that their is even a war, or refuse to take it beyond the proxies, or refuse to understand that each situation calls for a different tool in the box.

    Using proxies is not unusual. The Soviets did - seen any Red Army factions/Red Brigades around recently? By recently I mean the late 1980's? The Nazis did - the Sudeten Germans were financed by the German government. The German government also supported the German-American Bund.

    Not only do you have to go after the proxies, but their support network. Destroy T-72 and Tiger tanks, but of course, but also take out the factories.

    That the left, in the unwavering hatred for a rather moderate to liberal Republican president, is incapable of doing. They'd rather ride the tiger. I, however, know what happened to the young lady of Niger so I say, no - you first.

    And you gladly, willingly, climb on the tiger's back. Enjoy your ride. :)

  2. March 15th, 2006 at 19:18 | #2
    So, jim, Mike asks you to quote the law you claim Bush broke, and you come up with the opinions of several loser professors - the very same idiots who just got their asses handed to them 8-0 by the SC - and you think that's some kind of statute cite? Christ, but you daoubies are stupid. And to top it off, you say "Prove them wrong, or accept reality. Your choice." So not having cited any law, nor anything other that someone else's proven erroneous judgement, you think Mike needs to accept reality? Smoke crack, much?

    Try this out, duuuude: Article II, US Constitution (the Presidential powers!). The AUMF against Iraq/AQ gives the President full authority to intercept any and all types of enemy signals; so FISA doesn't apply here. If you dipshits want to claim that Bush is spying on Americans, you need to come up with at least one American he's actually, you know, spying on.

    Morons.

  3. Robert
    March 15th, 2006 at 19:19 | #3
    Sorry. I had to come back for the chuckles.

    Joe (who called me a fucking LIAR above) also is a big supporter of our current President.

    Wow, I have something in common with the President of the most powerful economic and military nation in the history of the world.

    I appreciate the flattery about me being like a President Joe, but I'm not thrilled with being likened to George w. Bush, Al Queda's top recruiter 3 years running.

    Peace!!

  4. March 15th, 2006 at 19:33 | #4
    Gee, Robert, can't refute that you're a LIAR? Because you are one, of course. So then why would we be interested in any of your other delusions?

    Peace to you too, little quisling.

Comment pages
1 2 3 6417
Comments are closed.