I can think of no better reason to impeach that freak than the fact that he doesn't follow the Constitution.
And the Democrats better get on that train before it runs them over, because when people start really figuring out what the hell bush has done, well, it ain't gonna be pretty.
And they aren't going to find out from the press either, it's up to people like you and me and Mr and Ms Word of Mouth to do it.
Posted by Duckman GR at March 26, 2006 01:12 PMThe concept of bundling the NSA spying program issue with the unchecked executive power issue seems like a great one to me. But can a censure resolution address more than one issue? Or, would there have to be two separate censure resolutions?
Posted by credjam at March 26, 2006 01:57 PMThe concept of bundling the NSA spying program issue with the unchecked executive power issue seems like a great one to me. But can a censure resolution address more than one issue?
Sure, but it doesn't matter. They are the same issue. If Congress had authorized extra-FISA surveillance, I would be deeply upset with Congress, but I wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if I criticized Bush for exercising that authority.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 26, 2006 03:24 PMExcellent idea!
Broadening the complaint to overall unchecked executive power counters the suggestion that "we need more information" before judging the spying program. Fact is, Bush won't give anyone the information. Congress can't find anything out, because the administration is continually lying, signing bills that didn't pass both Houses of Congress, and thumbing its nose at the suggestion that its power is limited.
In my opinion, the warrantless spying program is so obviously and clearly unconstitutional, that the burden is now on the administration to provide exculpatory evidence. But for those in Congress who still need more info to really make that determination, well, you don't need more info to know that the administration has no respect for Constitutional checks and balances.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at March 26, 2006 03:42 PMCongress isn't going to find out anything because it won't be looking: real information won't be forthcoming until the dems have subpoena power.
Posted by Brian Boru at March 26, 2006 04:46 PM... Dems have subpoena power ...
That won't happen. They were too enthusiastic about donating to this project.
Posted by pessimist at March 26, 2006 05:02 PMThey mistook democrat balls for mouse balls? How did that happen?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 26, 2006 05:40 PMPlease, Russ, go for it!
Just another nail in the Progressive Movement's coffin.
Posted by Bagley at March 26, 2006 05:51 PMAdd to the censure all the violations of existing and long established international treaties and law. Article 5 of the Geneva Convention should by any reasonable reading (such as a soldier might make) cover all the detainees being held or sent overseas via rendition. UN Declaration of Human rights is not being properly observed--which we pushed on the world after WWII. Nor are we in compliance with the UN Convention on Torture, which we signed--but for some reason haven't bothered to ratify since it came up for ratification during Reagan's era.
Posted by at March 26, 2006 06:35 PMBush does not care because his father( CIA, president) has protect him all his life from criminal action that you and me would do years in jail for.
Why do some venerate a man who can not even speak, or read his speech wrote by others, and became the biggest joke all over the world! What really pisses me off is when he starts to go as this great leaders talking to his flocks that are too stupid to understand. His tone are so sickening especially when he does mention that been President is hard work! From a man who did not even know where Afghanistan was on the maps! The corporate Media put him in office with the help of the Supreme Court, how sick this is. We monitor all others nations for stolen elections but sleep when our have gone wrong.
This was on Democracy last week.
Attorney Thomas Nelson discusses his lawsuit against the National Security Agency and his evidence that the Bush administration's secret domestic surveillance is much broader than reported and may include secret physical searches.
Move on reached 83% of our 3rd NEW goal of 500,000 signers! (416,161) for censuring of bush! This is in support of Feingold censure. (It is not enough.) Calling to their office can get throw away and will not get the effects that records could achieves
The more people sign to it the more their own senator and representative get an E-mail telling them our discontents of their jobs. We cannot be doing any good if we separate into 2000 different organization. That will destroy our purpose to remove bush, and we have to do it!!!!!!!! For our country.
As noted elsewhere in the b'shpere, the "because it deals with an issue for which the jury is still out (the NSA spying issue)" talking point is a just that--atalking point with no meat behind it. There are actually two NSA spying issues, 1) the legality and 2) the extent. While there is need for much investigation on the second question, no one (including Specter) seriously questions the fact that the spying was illegal. Even the Bush administration implicitly admits this.
See, for example, this post by Gleen Greenwald that covers the salient points.
--MarkusQ
Posted by MarkusQ at March 26, 2006 07:06 PMThey mistook democrat balls for mouse balls? How did that happen?
They looked the same under the microscope. Impossible to tell apart.
Posted by pessimist at March 26, 2006 07:06 PMWell it seems that no matter what Feingold does, little will be accomplished by the Dems., unless they actually gain back control of the Senate (which even then I wonder if they'll get off their collective asses and make a worthy fight out of it).
In the meantime, Reid could make yet another argument to shut down the Senate entirely AGAIN and demand my Senator Roberts actually get on the ball and finish his part II SSCI report. Especially when more lovely news about Bush's own personal pre-war assessment and talks of deception to get Saddam to strike poor in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=b6593aee0e01d384&hp=&ex=1143435600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Iraq is truly the gift that continues to fall right into the laps of the Dems. The trouble is, will they ever realize just how big of a gem they have on their legs?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at March 26, 2006 10:01 PM"poor in"?
poor, pour, ah hell it's late.....
Posted by MisterOpus1 at March 26, 2006 10:03 PMFeingold's censure means Bush's tactics on NSA stay above the fold. The exposure the censure provides is as important as the censure resolution itself. Bush's power grabs are a given and by simply remaining reactive to his actions the Dems will not only lose traction themselves but the structural integrity of the govt will continue to flatten out. Thus, Steve's idea aims the focus on Bush's power source itself not just the consequences. Otherwise, we just keep chasing after issue after issue.
Posted by mainsailset at March 27, 2006 06:52 AM
arlen specter has a gambit he opens with every time a democratic initiative shows up in his purview.
he says, demands, or requests
that the democrats not act
or should not act
because?
because he has a plan, bill, solution that the white house and right-wing republiocans will listen to.
they'll never listen to your (democratic) proposal he implies.
with the feingold resolution
old arlen is playing arlen's gambit again.
will democrats be taken in?
probably.
but just once
i'd like to see democrats challenge the sob and make him take a public stand - in this case with respect to feingold's censure proposal.
i suspect if pushed into the public spotlight and with that spotlight steadily trained on him
the sob might suddenly become more amenable to democratic proposals.
Posted by orionATL at March 27, 2006 08:12 AMSpecter will try and fail to pass a requirement that the FISA court provide oversight of Bush’s illegalities here,
you mean, something like the FISA that already exists? yeah, let's have a new law so bush can ignore athat one, as well.
Posted by benjoya at March 27, 2006 12:01 PMI'm convinced that Senator Anal Sphincter will live up to his good name.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 27, 2006 05:13 PM