I'll tell you, this is one of the coolest things I've read in a while. Though it's a fairly extreme leap, Feingold's resolution to censure Bush is, even if unsuccessful, the kind of thing we need to start pushing to show that aside from disagreeing with the president, people are going to do something about it. Disagreement with the president isn't anything new, and in the five and a half years since he took office it's not like Bush has never run into a time where he was facing a whole lot of opposition. Opposition from the United Nations, from Congress, now and again his own people (remember Colin Powell saying he didn't think pre-war intelligence was right?), it's all old hat for this guy. However, that doesn't amount to jack when it's a president who has no problem with simply hopping around anyone in his way and doing whatever he bloody well pleases. It ends up looking like a bunch of whiners not actually trying to get anything done. Thank the lawd for Feingold, then. He even makes sure to clarify this movement in relation to the current efforts to fix up the laws. "There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases -- but the idea that the president can just make up a law, in violation of his oath of office, has to be answered." This is what I've been screaming about for forever. It isn't a fight against wiretapping, it's a fight against ILLEGAL wiretapping. You can argue all you want about the inefficiency or the problems with the laws as written, but the president simply isn't allowed to go changing any laws he doesn't like just because he wants to. It's the same argument I wrote into the Pittsburgh Post Gazette about in response to a woman who just didn't catch on. There are other people who didn't catch onto this problem, namely our good friend Bill Frist. Still proving he thinks the only purpose of government is to give a thumbs-up to whatever the president says, he had this to say: "He is flat wrong, he is dead wrong," said the Tennessee Republican --also a potential presidential candidate in 2008 -- adding that "attacking our commander in chief ... doesn't make sense." Right. Being against the president: always a bad idea. He even added that the American people are "solidly behind" the president on this issue. I guess he forgot the poll that showed that 52% of Americans favor impeachment if it turns out he spied without a court order, amongst others with similar numbers. Even the most sunny reports have those who say Bush should be allowed to do it in the low 50's. Hardly "solidly behind". Will the censure succeed? That's fairly debateable, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Let's take this in the other direction, for any right-minded folk who might be reading. Can you imagine what kind of havoc would happen if a hardcore liberal president was allowed to sidestep any laws he didn't like, and then the only consequences are that the laws are fixed to allow him to do what he already did? Mull that over, imagining what would happen, then tell me you approve of what's happening now for reasons other than just liking Bush.