Democrats Support Censure...

...Of Bill Clinton.

I wanted to post on a great find by Digby exposing the hypocrisy of Democrats who won't support the censure of President Bush. Here is what Sen. Joe Lieberman (R D- Connecticut) is saying about Feingold's resolution-

"My own opinion, and it seems to be shared by most Democratic senators, is that it would be an unproductive use of our time. Again, it's looking backward. It would be divisive. The best thing we could do about this program is to bring it under the law and I'd prefer to spend my time and the Senate's time figuring out how we can adopt a law that allows the administration to continue this program but force them to go to court to get a warrant before they do."

More of that "let's make the President's illegal actions legal because it's easier" nonsense.

Now here's some background... There were numerous moves by his fellow Democrats to censure President Clinton for his actions in the Lewinsky case. In fact, the now infamous liberal activist site MoveOn.org was founded to encourage this action. Sen. Feinstein proposed a resolution for this which had such co-sponsors as Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and more. Sen. Lieberman supported censuring President Clinton after he had already been impeached as both further punishment and to heal the wounds (?) from the partisan impeachment battle. Here is a snippet of his lengthy comments on the matter-

"I do believe the Constitution allows for one recourse that would provide a means for us as the people's representatives to register our and their disapproval, and would, I believe, help us to bring appropriate closure to this terrible chapter in our nation's history. It is well within the Senate's constitutional prerogatives to adopt a resolution of censure expressing our contempt for the President's misconduct, both that which is charged in the articles and that which is not. Such a censure would not amount to a punishment, nor would it be intended to do so. What it would do, particularly if it united Senators across party lines and positions on removal, is fulfill our responsibility to our children and our posterity to speak to the common values the President has violated, and make clear what our expectations are for future holders of that highest office.

And what it could do, I believe, is to help us to begin healing the wounds the President's misconduct and the impeachment process's partisanship have done to the American body politic, and to the soul of the nation. I have observed that roughly two-thirds of the public consistently expresses its opposition to the President's removal. But I do not think we can leave this proceeding, especially those of us who have voted against the Articles, without also noting that roughly one-third of the American people have consistently expressed their belief that this President is unfit to lead this nation. That is a startlingly large percentage of our people who have totally lost confidence in our nation's leader."

I'll give you a minute to process all of that... [*checks watch*] .... Okay, we're back.

So let's get this straight. When a popular President has already been impeached for fairly (in historical comparison) frivolous crimes, he must still be censured as well to not only teach him a lesson, but also because a small fraction of Americans just don't like him?

However, when a later President has broken laws and otherwise committed numerous misdeeds and betrayed the nation's trust (and has never been held accountable for a single one of these things), he should not even be censured at all... even though it would set an important statement on executive overreaching and even though only 1/3 of Americans still support him?

Any angry conservative talking head who complains about how hard President Bush gets it needs to take a trip down memory lane. Bill Clinton got it worse in many ways (and still gets it to this day from the right) and his approval ratings were never this low. The media was on him since day one jumping on every scandal du jour, the Republicans turned this into a veritable crusade to take him down, and even his own party threw him under the bus. Meanwhile, the current President got a pass from the media for years until it recently became politically safe to criticize him, the Republicans have defended him at almost every turn, and the Democrats are too scared of the Rove/Mehlman noise machine to truly take him on. This is pathetic.

The President is abusing his power and warping our system of government based on his belief of his 'inherent' constitutional powers, which are apparently without limit. He has broken the law and now wants the law either changed (or declared unconstitutional all together) to dismiss this issue. This isn't just a random scandal. It cuts to the heart of what kind of country we are and our committment to the separation of powers. Censuring the President- in the end a mere symbolic gesture- is the least Congress can do (besides nothing, of course) to declare an opposition to all of this.

Can anyone in hindsight seriously say that what President Clinton did was of larger concern? Can anyone in hindsight justify the two year hysteria that surrounded that scandal and subsequent impeachment? How can Democrats lambast the President of their own party, yet limit their actions to vocal sideswipes toward a President who openly accuses them of treasonous behavior and rhetoric? Could somebody ask Joe Lieberman or any of the other Democrats listed above these questions?

Basic accountability really should not be something we have to beg for, yet that's where we are.

[PS- Sen. Feingold stands his ground:
Feingold's Censure Call Gives Him Boost]