FUNNY OF THE DAY

Senator Russ Feingold, in explaining why he recently brought a motion to censure the President to the floor of the Senate, said the following: "No one is arguing that the President has the right to spy against Al Qaeda, and that the terrorists should be defeated. What I am arguing is that the President is not above the law, and that his "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violates the 1978 law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Moreover, to the extent that the Vice President said that the President's being re-elected enables the President to break the law, he is wrong. The Constitution explicitly provides that a President shall be impeached and removed from office for high crimes and misdemeaors, even as it also states that a President can serve for two terms. Obviously, then, a President can be impeached for a high crime/misdemeanor committed in the second term, or in this case, illegal activity conducted in the first term about which the American public had no knowledge because it was kept secret. How can the Vice President say the American people approved of this surveillance when they didn't even know about it? The issue isn't the false choice the White House says it is - either we violate citizens' Fourth Amendment rights or don't spy on Al Qaeda at all. The issue is making sure that we conduct survelliance consistently with the principles of the Constitution.

Now, some Republicans suggest that my motion to censure indicates that I support the terrorists. This suggestion is, of course, absurd. Yeah, I really want to see the terrorists come over here and blow up American citizens en masse. In fact, I got a real kick out of watching the Twin Towers crumble. I am writhing in ecstacy as terrorists wreak havoc all across the globe. I mean, give me a break. If I supported the terrorists, I'd be supporting my own death, and therefore, I'd have less of a chance of having a platform to spout my heretical views.

These Republicans also say that I have sided with the terrorists again and again. I find this interesting. No terrorist has ever acknowledged same. I wonder why. Could it be because these terrorists 1) do not consider my goal of holding the President to the rule of law the equivalent of their goal of the destruction of the United States and Israel? Just a thought. The terrorists' interests and mine are not the same. They care nothing for the rule of law, as we have seen. I do - and my Republican friends, in all of their insults against me, have not claimed otherwise. Terrorist actions are motivated by a complete lack of respect for a rule of law. They prefer George Bush dead. I do not. They prefer that our troops in Iraq die. I prefer that they be brought home. So, how are we alike again?

What amazes me is how every time someone criticizes the President's curtailment of our civil liberties, he waives the "9/11" shirt, and calls the "attacker" either a terrorist or a terrorist supporter. What amazes me even more is how, five years after that date, this method is still so effective, and how Democrats fall for it every time. The President's approval rating is now at 33%. Why are my fellow Democrats so afraid of speaking out against this man? What could they possibly labeled that they haven't been labeled already?"

Shortly after Feingold gave this speech and submitted the motion, Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado delivered an intellectually stinging rebuke to Feingold's censure and the logic behind same, noting, with piercing argumentative force, that Feingold's actions constituted Feingold "siding with the terrorists."

(Note: in the Senate Chamber, right before Allard said this, a bell rang, and Allard began to salivate).