SEN. FEINGOLD: The Democratic Party of this country is the people of this country. And I have been all over Wisconsin, all 72 counties, to 12 different states. I can tell you, the one thing I’m sure of, Tim, is the American people have had it with this intervention. They do want a timetable for bringing home the troops. And the fact that the United States Senate doesn’t get it shouldn’t surprise you.

MR. RUSSERT: So the majority of the Democratic Senate is out of touch with the American people?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Yes, it is at this point. Those who vote against bringing the troops home don’t get it. They’re not out there enough. They’re not listening to the people. Frankly, they’re not even looking at the polls. I saw two or three polls, Tim, in the last week that showed that a majority of the American people favor a timetable. So it is to our—you know, we lost in 2000, we lost in 2002, we lost in 2004. Why don’t we try something different, like listening to the American people?

MR. RUSSERT: Back in 2002 and 2003, you voted against the war, as I said, one of a handful of senators who did. But you did say that Saddam possessed weapons that were capable of unimaginable destruction. That you believed in regime change, that he had biological, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons, that he’s a dangerous and brutal person, and you agreed with the president on that. Why were you so wrong about that description of Saddam?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I don’t think any of that was necessarily wrong. If you, if you look at the whole speech, of course, I concluded that the imminence of any threat of that kind was not there. I thought three things had to be true for us to go into Iraq, and I said it at the time. Number one:

Did he really have weapons of mass destruction? You know, I think most of us were briefed properly that there was some possibility of the chemical and biological weapons, but the case on the nuclear weapons, which was sort of the lynch pin for saying we should do it, was very weak, and you notice I didn’t indicate that. Secondly, he had to have the ability to deliver those weapons;

I thought the case on that was very weak. And the weakest of all was the third thing: Would he do it? Was that the analysis of Saddam Hussein? And almost uniformly we were told they didn’t think he would do it.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

So on all three counts, I didn’t think there was a justification for an invasion. Of course we should deal with weapons of mass destruction, but in intervening, invading, when we had this whole other issue of fighting al-Qaeda and the terrorists, it was one of the worst mistakes in American foreign policy, and I have been 100 percent consistent in opposition to the idea of intervention over there.

MR. RUSSERT: But you no longer think he possesses weapons capable of unimaginable destruction?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, he certainly doesn’t possess them now.

MR. RUSSERT: Or did he before the war?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I think there’s a possibility that he had some chemical and some biological, but there’s no way he had the capacity to deliver it, there’s no real reason to believe that he was going to be able to—that he wanted to sort of attack us at the time. And so the whole idea was, was bizarre. And, and there are many countries, Tim, that have these kinds of weapons, and some of them aren’t very friendly to us. That doesn’t mean we go around invading every country that might have such weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: You have called for the censure of President George W. Bush.

Why?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, unfortunately, when the illegal wiretapping program was revealed, instead of the president indicating that he might have gone too far, instead of giving us a statutory basis for doing this, instead of giving us some legal basis, he basically said, “You know, I know this is against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but I can do it anyway. I can just, under Article 2 of the Constitution as the commander in chief, make up whatever law I want.” Tim, that’s unacceptable. This is our system of government to have checks and balances. The Congress is supposed to make the law and the president is supposed to follow the law. I support wiretapping people we think are terrorists, but it should be done under the law. And I’m very afraid that we’re just going to have a blank page on the—in, in terms of the history of this country that when the president asserted an outrageous grab of executive power, that we did nothing. So I propose a censure resolution to simply say, “The president broke the law here and he needs to be accountable for it.”

MR. RUSSERT: You went further in GQ magazine that’s coming out this week, “Problem is, George Bush has committed a more clearly impeachable offense than Clinton or even Nixon ever did.” George Bush committed a more impeachable offense than Richard Nixon?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Oh, I think so. I mean, you could debate that if you want. But I think the claim—and although Nixon made some, some similar claims, the extreme claim that under Article 2 of the Constitution the president can make up whatever laws he wants is one of the greatest threats to our system of government. I even heard George Will describe it as monarchical at one point. So I do think it is the greatest threat to our republic.

You know, when the founders wrote the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” they weren’t particularly interested in, in break-ins at the Watergate Plaza or, or, or presidential personal misconduct. What they wanted was a different system of government than they had, had under King George III. And that’s what this is all about. The president is asserting claims that have, frankly, I don’t think ever been made in the history of this country.

MR. RUSSERT: So, logically, you’re suggesting that George Bush deserves impeachment?

SEN. FEINGOLD: No. You—the, the—I think he’s committed an impeachable offense, in other words, something that could be within that category, but that doesn’t mean we should do it, that doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing for the country to say, “It’s in the best interest of America to actually remove him from office,” I question that. That’s specifically why, Tim, I propose censure. I think it would be disruptive to America to have an impeachment proceeding. I think it would be sufficient to say, “Mr. President, you broke the law. I would hope you would take that censure resolution”—that he would say, “I did this to try to protect the American people sincerely. I got carried away, and I’m sorry. Let’s get back to work.” That’s what I want to happen. That’s a moderate approach.

MR. RUSSERT: Should we end this wiretapping program until it is approved by a court?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, how are we going to end it? I think the, the only way to, to deal with it is to have it brought within the court, and, and that’s what we should do. Of course, we...

MR. RUSSERT: It should not go forward unless it’s approved by a court?

SEN. FEINGOLD: It should be brought in front of—it should be brought before the law, before the statute. It’s very simple to do that, and that’s what the president should do. We should not have an illegal program, it should be brought within the law.

MR. RUSSERT: And if the court approved it, you’d go along with it?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I think that—surely. I mean, I am not against wiretapping terrorists, and that’s the whole point of having this foreign intelligence surveillance court. So I, I think this is a very simple thing. The president—see, he has to give up the—his goal here, which is, which is not consistent with the interests of the American people. His goal is to broaden the power of the executive beyond all reason, it’s an abuse of power. His goal should be to go after the terrorists, not to try to broaden the power of the president beyond all reason.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about your censure resolution, whether it is something that you believe is right or whether you’re using it for political advantage. And this is how the American people came down on that question: Believe it is right, 35 percent; using for political advantage, 56 percent. You, you cited the American people’s view towards the war. Do you agree with that analysis?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, of course I don’t agree that I’m doing it for political purposes. That same poll, Tim, showed that a very substantial number of Americans supported the censure resolution, regardless of what they thought my motives are.

As to my motives, Tim, I came here to Washington to stand up for the Constitution and for the Bill of Rights. I believe this is an historical affront to the Constitution. I guarantee you, that is the reason I proposed it; that is what I believe. And if somebody doesn’t to this, we’re going to have a very sad chapter that our children and grandchildren are going to look at where, where were the—where are the representatives of the American people? Where were the congressmen, where were the senators when the president of the United States made a power grab that was almost unprecedented in American history? That’s my motive, believe it or not.

CONTINUED

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print