Censure and the Times.

• Author: Rothschild, Matthew
• Position: Editor's Note

On March 17, The New York Times ran one of its most ridiculous editorials in recent memory. Entitled "Time for Facts, Not Resolutions," it scolded Senator Russ Feingold for having the temerity to call for censuring Bush. Feingold, whose speech denouncing Bush's NSA lawlessness we ran last month, at least stepped up to the plate, which the other craven Democrats didn't do, except Senators Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer, who endorsed his idea.

But the Times, for its own peculiar reasons, found fault with Feingold.

"The censure proposal is a bad idea," said the Times. "Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now." They don't? In its first paragraph, the Times acknowledged the "lawlessness" of the Bush Administration. But instead of censure, it urged investigation into Bush's "misdeeds and failings."

I'm all for getting to the bottom of Bush's malfeasance, but how much investigation do you need when the President himself has acknowledged that he's been bypassing the FISA court and spying on Americans without a warrant?

"Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks," the Times said. But our elected officials would certainly be earning their paychecks by upholding the Constitution and calling the President to account.

I'd prefer the constitutional remedy of impeachment. And to Feingold's credit, he has said that Bush's flouting of the FISA act is "right in the strike zone of what the Founding Fathers thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors." For understandable reasons, Feingold has chosen the easier route of censure. And remember, twenty-nine Democratic Senators are on record supporting censure of the President: Bill Clinton, that is. If Clinton warranted censure for lying about a private affair, surely Bush's crimes against the Constitution warrant at...