Feingold to call for rare presidential censure

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart . Like hell they didn't. They spent 6 years chasing one dry-hole scandal ... .

That is a bit harsh, don't you think. Think what you will of Monica but calling her a "dry hole" is just cruel.

Oh, not what you meant. Nevermind

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: RickSp That is a bit harsh, don't you think. Think what you will of Monica but calling her a "dry hole" is just cruel.

Ahh, but I said 6 years. Monica didn't come along until the 7th year.

Far be it from me to disparage a young lady.

.

[Scribbler1]

The funniest thing about all of this is that, through actions like Feingold's the Democratic Party is beginning to look exactly like what the Republicans accused Al Gore of being when he ran against Bush, which is wimpy, spineless and indecisive.

Censure is a frigging joke, and they all know it. It means nothing, makes them look weak and mean-spirited and gives the Republicans more ammo to use against them. Anyone can see the Republicans, concerned about reelection are starting to back away from Bush. If the Democrats had any balls at all they would unite (for a change) and push as hard as they could for Bush's impeachment. This would force the Republicans to make a decision to either rally around the President or support his removal. If they support Bush and his approval keeps nose-diving the Democrats can easily use that against them. If they support impeachment and the country goes for it they can always claim they acted in the best interests of the nation and the Democrats, being the minority could NEVER have done it without them. If they do NOTHING they allow the Democrats to go ahead with impeachment alone. If it looks good afterward the best they can claim is that they didn't stop it and even that could be blunted by the Democrats calling the Republicans spineless and indecisive.
But they go with censure which makes them look like the useless wimps they are.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler Censure is a frigging joke, and they all know it. It means nothing, makes them look weak and mean-spirited and gives the Republicans more ammo to use against them.

I respectfully disagree. This is only a beginning....

Censure is the MINIMUM, that should come from this. Impeachment could be the final determination, once the facts are assimilated.

As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law. --Russ Feingold, Senate Floor

It has got to go on record that george walker bush Jr. is a lying, stinking sack of steamy liquid crap.

Everybody alive knows it. But, where is it on record?

Full Feingold speech on the Senate floor (mp3 audio) or Text Transcript
Russ calls george a liar on SEVERAL occassions in the speech:
Note:
I will underline the actual lie

a) The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions b) Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program. He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people. c) We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11th. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States – something that he now admits was not the case. On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.” In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn’t being upfront with the American people. d) Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: “Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.” Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.” In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn’t telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the presidential campaign, and later over Patriot Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a systems of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration’s performance. e) After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President’s surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully. Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union address, he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise the government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all. That is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas – period. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps. f) The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. g) The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

Note:
a) through f) Lettering is mine. Also that was using just about 2/3 of the speech.

I recommend the whole speech. Russ doesnt waste any words.

Lieberman doesnt support Feingolds Censure, so thats who the media is going to as a spokesman for the Dems. ......fuckwads.

[Apeman81]

Political posturing. A waste of his time and our attention.

Democrats would do well to look to their leadership for anything but leadership. They should tell these boobs to get to work

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Apeman81 Political posturing. A waste of his time and our attention.

So the dems shouldnt chastise the president for breaking the law and lying? In your opinion the dems should all just give up and allow any criminal behavior by this retard? In your opinion they should all just go home. No need for any criticism because your pile o' shit president can do no wrong. Get your tongue out of his ...... You are sending the wrong message to Iran.

[Osborn F Enready]

I signed in support of Censure, and along with that included my goal of impeachment of every elected seat in every office at the state and federal level, based on failure to support the Constitution and the oaths they took to it upon taking office, by signing in the Patriot Act, or ALLOWING the signing in of the Patriot Act, without reading it.

Both parties should be bounced from office so hard they break-up.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel So the dems shouldnt chastise the president for breaking the law and lying? In your opinion the dems should all just give up and allow any criminal behavior by this retard? In your opinion they should all just go home. No need for any criticism because your pile o' shit president can do no wrong. Get your tongue out of his ...... You are sending the wrong message to Iran.

They should point to a law that has been broken, and then impeach him. But no law has been definitively broken so they posture and preen looking to 2006 and 2008 for political gain.

Seriously, the "Bush Lied" "Bush Broke The Law" parroting does absolutely no good for the country if the elected officials don't take action to back up the words.

I could care less if Bush is impeached today. But it is not going to happen. They don't have a credible case.

So it's left to acolytes to blithely repeat the inanities

[gr8fuldaniel]

Feingold expresses disgust with Dems on Fox news today

Think Progress Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: “I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide…too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues…[Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you’re helping the terrorists.” UPDATE: Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) accuses Feingold of “siding with terrorists.”

Actually Sen. Wayne Allard is the terrorist for trying to demonize Feingold for defending the Constitution and blowing the whistle on a criminal. Booga Booga ya goddamn republitard. Allard is Osamas best friend.

[gr8fuldaniel]

They should point to a law that has been broken, and then impeach him.

That would be the FISA law. Which does not protect the president , rather it limits executive from abusing civil rights.
Censure will set the stage for impeachment

[Osborn F Enready]

Apeman said: They don't have a credible case.

I say:
Obviously you haven't looked at actual cases of impeachment then.

A simple showing of lack of public support could be used to effectively remove a President using impeachment. Bush has provided so many valid cases it is almost easier to list what he HASN'T done that is worthy of impeachment.

Impeachment can be based on Treason and High Crimes, but it is not limited to those, though in Bushs cas it makes no difference since he can be had on any front. He has failed as a President, and is either too corrupt or too blind to see his own failure. I don't think anyone can be that blind, though Bush puts up a good act with his (understandable) public anxiety issues, probably brought about by his direct lying to the cameras that put him in the homes of all Americans tuned in.

I would classify Bush as a "Party Puppet" at BEST, but he has knowledge of his lies, and had knowledge of the lies before he said them. I wouldn't be suprised in the end to find out he helped create the lies, holding the Bush family tradition true to its ancestry through history. Corporatist authoritarian, opprotunists who have used every possible to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers, U.S. troops, and our government and Constitution in general.

[bishop]

the democrats are definitely nutless wonders... they don't even have the courage to go after bush when he blatantly breaks the law!

[Osborn F Enready]

I think it shows they have too much to lose in the battle.

I think damage control in both parties is about to shoot the major players themselves, for ousting so many little trails that have led to massive artieries of corruption for both parties.

[bishop]

the democrats reacted the same way with howard dean during the last election cycle.. he came out hitting hard against bush and they all did their waffle dance..

they didn't entirely support gore in the previous election, although it was much more than the support democratic candidates have received from their own party in recent years.

the republicans seem to have more party coherency and discipline right now, but that's all about to unravel in the upcoming weeks/months... kind of interesting (and sad) how the democrats have benefitted by a shitty president - while the republicans have benefitted by a democratic party with down syndrome.

i agree with you though, these two parties are leaking at the seams.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I respectfully disagree. This is only a beginning.... Censure is the MINIMUM, that should come from this. Impeachment could be the final determination, once the facts are assimilated. It has got to go on record that george walker bush Jr. is a lying, stinking sack of steamy liquid crap.

It can go on record during the impeachment process. There is no requirement that says you must do something useless like censure before you go for impeachment. It only telegraphs the Democrat's punches and gives the Republicans time to prepare for and possibly stop the impeachment process before it gets going. Always keep in mind the short attention span of the sheep, play around with useless trash like censure and the eventual ho-humming will get so loud they won't even HEAR the calls for impeachment.

Bottom line, it is political war so TREAT it as a war, blitzkrieg style. Throw your most powerful punch FIRST before Bush has a chance to start another war as a diversion. This is not the time for love taps. Save them for when he is scrambling to pick up the pieces and his defenses are all but shattered.

But the useless, disorganized cowards will probably start with something equally devastating, they'll sign Bush up for a bunch of magazines he never ordered and order pizzas in his name. That'll show him. First pizzas, then magazines, then bags of flaming dog poo on the White House front step and after TPing the trees THEN censure. Bush will be ripe for impeachment then, yessiree bob.

And ask yourself this, if censure is so important why didn't the Republicans do that to Clinton? I don't get it, Dan, for a guy who hates Bush so much you want to play softball with the scumbag.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 It can go on record during the impeachment process. There is no requirement that says you must do something useless like censure before you go for impeachment

Only problem with that is, even though 65% of Americas are unhappy with bushs performance, 60% of the house and senate are marching in lock-step with fascism. Impeachment will fail.

Quote by: Scribbler1 It only telegraphs the Democrat's punches and gives the Republicans time to prepare for and possibly stop the impeachment process before it gets going. Always keep in mind the short attention span of the sheep, play around with useless trash like censure and the eventual ho-humming will get so loud they won't even HEAR the calls for impeachment.

I am thinking we cant just let them trample our rights like they have been without a whimper or an official complaint. They are setting precedent here and now.

Quote by: Scribbler1 Bottom line, it is political war so TREAT it as a war, blitzkrieg style. Throw your most powerful punch FIRST before Bush has a chance to start another war as a diversion. This is not the time for love taps. Save them for when he is scrambling to pick up the pieces and his defenses are all but shattered.

Under other conditions, yes. Until the dems get a majority the dems need to take advantage of bush on the ropes. If they would unite as one for the people, they could win a minor battle or 2 and have plenty left for the imminent war.

Quote by: Scribbler1 But the useless, disorganized cowards will probably start with something equally devastating, they'll sign Bush up for a bunch of magazines he never ordered and order pizzas in his name. That'll show him. First pizzas, then magazines, then bags of flaming dog poo on the White House front step and after TPing the trees THEN censure. Bush will be ripe for impeachment then, yessiree bob.

I laughed out loud at this. You make a good point. Sometimes you have to make do with what youve got. I dont consider censure a prank. It is a well deserved, bare-bottomed public spanking. Maybe the dems arent backing this censure because they want to lump it in with all the war crimes and such. I think we should do both. It cant hurt to have the investigation.

Quote by: Scribbler1 And ask yourself this, if censure is so important why didn't the Republicans do that to Clinton?

They had a majority in 2 branches.

Quote by: Scribbler1 I don't get it, Dan, for a guy who hates Bush so much you want to play softball with the scumbag.

I am trying to be realistic. We have a winning hand, lets play it. Its not the last hand. If we can draw a better hand later, a majority in the house, impeachment will be a cakewalk by 2007. The case is plenty strong against him:

President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity. http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News...s_iv_ctrl=1061

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Only problem with that is, even though 65% of Americas are unhappy with bushs performance, 60% of the house and senate are marching in lock-step with fascism. Impeachment will fail. I am thinking we cant just let them trample our rights like they have been without a whimper or an official complaint. They are setting precedent here and now.

Of course, anything is possible, but Republicans are the same as Democrats, they want to get elected and if the Democrats come out with both guns blazing and a whole slew of FACTS on their side for impeachment the Republicans will seem as if party loyalty is more important than what's good for the country. It is a risk I don't think they will take because they know as well as we do how bad Bush is and any support he has left will dissolve when the results of Bush's actions continue to inexorably and regularly pop up. They are pragmatic enough to know HE doesn't worry about being elected but THEY do.

Under other conditions, yes. Until the dems get a majority the dems need to take advantage of bush on the ropes. If they would unite as one for the people, they could win a minor battle or 2 and have plenty left for the imminent war. I laughed out loud at this. You make a good point. Sometimes you have to make do with what youve got. I dont consider censure a prank. It is a well deserved, bare-bottomed public spanking. Maybe the dems arent backing this censure because they want to lump it in with all the war crimes and such. I think we should do both. It cant hurt to have the investigation.

I wasn't really joking. This is what they look like to me and I believe to a lot of other people. They need to take heed of how the Libertarian Party does things, and do the opposite. The L.P. quietly points out how the establishment does things wrong and how they would do it differently and they are ignored. This is why the sheep would rather go to Disney World than visit a museum. They like action and noise and color. Impeachment is noise and color and action. Censure, or anything else without serious consequences is the museum of natural history. Boring, colorless and so painfully dull it makes you think the dinosaurs in it deserved to die.

They had a majority in 2 branches. I am trying to be realistic. We have a winning hand, lets play it. Its not the last hand. If we can draw a better hand later, a majority in the house, impeachment will be a cakewalk by 2007. The case is plenty strong against him:

You DO have a winning hand, given to you wrapped up in a big bow by Bush himself. But censure is pointless and with no consequences it can ruin that winning hand. And if it ISN'T a winning hand everything the Democrats do afterwards will have no impact and will seem like they just want to start shit. The people won't care. Remember, the sheep don't know much, and they don't WANT to know much, but even 60% of THEM see this man as a big enough failure to have lost confidence in him. What do you think will happen when a high-profile impeachment session blankets the news and ALL of Bush's failures are known and the sheep are literally forced to learn it all?

The Democrats blew it big-time last election and they don't look much different now. But they DO have Bush on their side and they should use what they have been given, not a bad Republican president supported by a group of corrupt Senators and Congressmen, but a TERRIBLE president fronting a REALLY corrupt party.
Some years ago come people were asking "if Saddam had WMD why didn't he USE them when we invaded?" The same question could be asked about the Democrats if they don't use THEIR biggest weapon on Bush and insist on tickling him with censure.

I wonder, after all the big talk, if the Democratic Party really WANTS to impeach Bush. I'm beginning to think they don't.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I see your point.

Dont be decieved though.
There is a Resolution to Investigate (pdf)

.....drawn up just 3 months ago. (Dec 18, 2005)
Also Noteworthy: On the same day H.RES 636 (pdf) is a resolution to Censure for contempt of the House Judiciary, for failure to respond to requests :
}
There is a hitch, though. The Dems (being the minority) dont have subpoena powers. How can they even HAVE an investigation if witnesses and perps can just say, "Naw, I'm busy that day, just talk to so and so".

It behooves us to tarry.

The House Judiciary cant even hold a "hearing" without the blessing of the republitards:

truthout The term ‘hearing’ is technically not accurate in this matter, as Conyers and his fellow Representatives will be holding this forum without the blessing of the Republican Majority leader of the Judiciary Committee.

...It has to be called a forum.

Did you hear about the contempt Kenneth Blackwell (Ohio SoS) had for both the House Judiciary and the Ohio Supreme Court:

Link Meanwhile, a new precinct-by-precinct analysis in many Ohio counties indicates that Bush's margin here was likely obtained by fraud. That is the main claim of the election challenge suit now at the Ohio Supreme Court, where Ohio's GOP Supreme Court Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, has refused to recuse himself, even though allegations of vote switching – where votes cast for one candidate are assigned to another in the computerized tabulation stage – involve his own re-election campaign. Ohio's official recount was conducted by GOP Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, despite widespread protests that his role as co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign constituted an serious conflict of interest. Blackwell has refused to testify in the election challenge lawsuit alleging massive voter fraud, as have a number of GOP county election supervisors. Blackwell also refuses to explain why he has left more than 106,000 machine-rejected and provisional ballots entirely uncounted.

We do not want to wait on this domestic spying issue. Impeachment can wait. The dems have waited this long. I really believe an impeachment measure would be voted down without SERIOUS investigation.

Why waste what could be a viable case in just a while?

I will check today, to see how Conyers feels about Feingold Censure on this measure. I have a feeling it will not conflict with pending matters.


With the domestic spying issue we need to strike while the iron is hot. Or they will just go ahead with plan A, unchallenged. As it is, its perfectly fine for the to break the FISA law, justified by the executive being above the law.

We are going back in time to Nixonspeak: "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

I dont know if there is a double jeorpardy clause, to where it cant be used against him again in a future impeachment, once he has been censured (anybody?). But, we have enough on him without the FISA case.

Impeachment means little to the sheeple anymore. After the action was abused by Reps against Clinton. It resulted in what? CENSURE? It was trivialized (except in expense). That was the most expensive cleaning bill in history.

So the impeachment of bush will need to bring some real penalty. Some prison time. Or whatever they do to traitors.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Addendum

As Feingold says of Bush, "He is the president, not a king."

This quote and the above pdf snippets were gleaned from this Truthout page: Raising the Issue of Impeachment By John Nichols of The Nation

Edit to add:
There is also a Resolution to Censure Cheney (pdf) at top of page.
(H.Res 637)

[gr8fuldaniel]

Breaking

Second senator sponsors censure resolution RAW STORY Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006 Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has become the first co-sponsor to Sen. Russ Feingold’s (D-Wis.) controversial resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing an allegedly illegal domestic surveillance program, ROLL CALL reports. Excerpts: "In a brief interview, Harkin said, “I think it makes sense. ... Quite frankly, I think we ought to have a full-fledged debate on this.” "When as