Family Research Council's Perkins: Feingold's call for censure is "borderline treasonous behavior"
SUMMARY: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called Sen. Russ Feingold's introduction of a resolution to censure President Bush "borderline treasonous behavior."
On the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, asserted in a discussion with host Joe Scarborough that the resolution to censure President Bush introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) on March 13 is "borderline treasonous behavior." Feingold proposed the censure for what he said was Bush's violation of the law in authorizing warrantless domestic eavesdropping.
The Family Research Council is a conservative political organization that, according to its website, "shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family."
From the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
PERKINS: You know that Senator Feingold is out in left field when [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA] is distancing herself from him. I mean, this is -- in a time of war, this is borderline treasonous behavior. I mean, this takes politics to a new low. I mean, this literally -- what he is doing -- puts our military and our nation at greater risk by sending the message that we're divided, that we're not intent on protecting our nation against terrorists. This is a bad move on his part. And you can tell.
Same guy who made speeches to a white supremacist group, (the Council of Conservative Citizens,) and bought David Duke's mailing list?
Perkins is a total Bushbot, "liar for Jesus," racist and conservakook.
MMFA has done a good job of documenting the fact that in Scarborough Country, no one can criticize the President in a time of war (see NJ war crimes trial example). Nothing. Nada. Zip. Keep your mouth shut. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all.
Perkin's comments simply play into what Joe has already stated.
From what I've heard and read elsewhere, Feingold proposed the censure to bring our attention back to an illegal and probably unconstitutional action by the administration that has yet to be fully investigated. Sure, Feingold may have presidential aspirations, but does that make the issue any less real? I give him credit for taking on such a volatile issue.
As for the responses, I'm not sure which is worse - the predictable accusations of treason from the other side of the isle? or the cowardly let's just change the law to make the NSA program legal coming from some of his Democratic colleagues (e.g., Leiberman).
CD
Do the radical right-wingers even know the definition of this word? My gawd, they must throw out this word on a daily basis towards anyone they disagree with. Clooney is treasonous, Feingold is treasonous, Gore is treasonous, Clinton is treasonous, MMFA is treasonous, Hollywood is treasonous, Sheehan is treasonous.....man, oh man, the radical right-wingers are desperate and pathetic. No wonder the country is turning their backs on this disgusting pig filth known as the GOP.
These people are shameless. Their president is either a moron, a liar, or both, and they know it. Their only response is to call those who point out the obvious "traitors." They are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Q As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is. --- 9/26/01 White House Press briefing ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perkins is just the latest in a long line of opportunists who have taken taken to the soapbox and exploited our current national predicament to stifle the left and rid our nation of the indulgences of free speech, privacy and due process.
God forbid that Bush be censured for engaging in criminal behavior. Perkins needs Bush to spy on us, so Americans who are watching pornography and Sponge Bob can be renditioned to an undisclosed location for neutering. (That is, as soon as they are done with the press.)
Seditionists and masturbators, beware.
In what way is calling for a public rebuke (and that's all it is -- no trial or imprisonment involved) for alleged illegal and unconstitutional acts "treasonous" -- even if qualified by "borderline"? I agree with another poster here: the right throw this term out so often that it's now meaningless.
"I agree with another poster here: the right throw this term out so often that it's now meaningless."
-----
It's a concept called "inoculation." They throw the term out so much when it doesn't apply that it really does become meaningless. Ehen the GOP's own actual treasonous activity is brought to light, the averge American has heard the word "treasonous" so much by then that their reaction is, "See? Both sides do it." It's the false equivalence of pointing out that s Democrat may have taken a dollar in questionable campaign funds while the GOP can't account for over 8 billion dollars in Iraq. See? It's the same thing, both sides do it. That's how the GOP gets away with so much.
are these religious nutcases always shown with the capitol as a backdrop? They are not supposed to be political people. How about a nice steeple or a cross? Also I cannot stomach the term "in a time of war" We attacked Iraq. We created the hostility.
It's just freakin' censure after all. It's not like when the Republicans actually tried Bill Clinton for impeachment while he was fighting a war in the Balkans and trying to hunt down osama bin laden (now unknown as osama bin forgotten).
Let's put things in proper perspective here.
These are the same hypocrites who wanted Bill Clinton's head on a spit because "the president is not above the law". So, they wasted two years prosecuting him for a little white lie over something that didn't even concern the government. Now that their boy is in office, the President is suddenly immune from any criticism, much less accountability to the "law". What I can't understand is how these people can make such idiotic pronouncements with a straight face.
Feingold's remarks, although they may be political considering his possible interest in the 2008 Presidency, are not borderline, or border anything resembling treasonous. That is just more of Perkins grandstanding and provoking talk show hysteria.
However, Feingold has every right to speak his mind but he should accept responsibility that his remarks do indeed feed into our enemies propoganda machine. What the ramifications of his comments are is hard to determine, but I cannot imagine them being of any help or value in our effort, during War.
Feingold's comments might not be of any help or value in the war effort, but I find them useful as a reminder that we have a right and obligation to hold our leaders accountable when they break the law. Even laws governing non-blowjob related crimes.
We have the right to free speech without being intimidated by O'Reilly, Hannity, Rove, the religious right or anbody else. And in this country, at this moment in time, we are in a position where it's either Use It or Lose It.
"..[We] have a right and obligation to hold our leaders accountable when they break the law. Even laws governing non-blowjob related crimes." --deaddogtanner
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I could not have said it any better. Perfect!
I personally think Feingold jumped the gun here. The Democrats should keep demanding an investigation to determine the facts.
The problem is that new ammendments seem to concede that the President (it is harder and harder to keep capitalizing that word) broke existing law and/or violated the Constitution.
How do you suggest the President be punished (during a time of war) for breaking the law and/or violating the Constitution assuming it happened?
Is breaking the law okay, simply if there is a war going on? What limit is there to that concept?
I think it comforts our enemies to know that we are big enough hypocrites to ignore our once-solid principles and just sweep these kinds of things under the rug and pretend they never even happened.
We are becoming more like them every day and I think they notice.
I think you answered your own question and that is there should be an investigation.........if Bush broke the law then he needs to be held accountable, I am all for that. But I am slightly skeptical of Feingold's motives as wanting to grab a headline and set himself apart from some of the other possible Democratic contenders for 2008. Maybe I am way to cynical when it comes to politicians, I will admit that.
It just seems like much of it from both sides is about posturing and manuevering after talking to advisors and political strategists, and doesn't really come from a loftier "good for the country" position, more like "good for the candidate".
In any event, Feingold is not a bad guy from my perspective and has every right to say what he thinks......I just believe in viewing all statements such as his, in the context of how does it look to those we are fighting against? There are always two sides and ramifications for free speech, that is undeniable.
I didn't really answer my own question (and neither did you). I asked:
I hope I did the html right.
I really screwed up the html.
I believe you did you answer your question, and so did I.
There should be a thorough invesigation, if after that investigation the President is convicted of breaking the law, then the appropriate channels should be followed - regardless of whether we are in War or not. I don't believe at this junture, however, any conviction has been handed down.
Except by many here.
....how can there be a complete investgation as long as the Republicans control Congress?..............
You may have a point, but even Nancy Pelosi distanced herself from Feingold's comments? And there is a more unabashed liberal critic of Bush around than her?
Why, if there is such clear evidence of Bush's wrongdoing, is she not chomping at the bit?
I meant "there isn't a more unabashed liberal.........."
You should be asking yourself why the Republicans won't allow an investigation while they are putting up ammendments to FISA that implicitly acknowledge the current administration is not following FISA as it is now written?
The Democrats are not impotent here. The whining about the Republican's being in power is a little old. If the Democrats can't get enough votes to control anything then whose fault is that? Oh right, that's Karl Rove and his lying spin machine that's the reason the Dems are in the back seat. When the Democrats start taking responsibility for their own ineptness and stop blaming everyone and everything else, we will all be better off.
If Bush broke the law, go to the people with smart, serious voices in the Democratic party and make your case. Groundswell is the way then, stop complaining.
Tommy ~
This is what people are doing all over the country, in the classrooms, in the media and here, in this forum. This is part of the groundswell: starting a dialogue, listening to divergent opinions, making a case (or cases) and a call for some kind of action.
And yet when this happens, someone from the other side of the political spectrum will call it whining or admonish those who speak up to "stop complaining."
Eventually, when that groundswell of voices becomes loud enough, they call it treason.
"If Bush broke the law, go to the people with smart, serious voices in the Democratic party and make your case." --tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would agree that the best government is divided government, but we shoulnd't have to wait for elections to have an accountable government. That is pretty sad.
I have no problem with the whining. Most people agree the Republicans are out of control. The more whining, the more people will eventually be aware of the problem. They can decide for themselves.
I would think it would be in the best interests of the Republicans to remove all doubt that they are running this government in an accountable fashion. However, as long as they can stonewall investigations they will have a true friend in you it seems.
........in Nov06, until then the Republicans control all the investigations............................................
The Democrats are not impotent here. The whining about the Republican's being in power is a little old. If the Democrats can't get enough votes to control anything then whose fault is that? Oh right, that's Karl Rove and his lying spin machine that's the reason the Dems are in the back seat. - from tommy
It's not an insignificant fact that the Democrats are not in power right now. The rules of both chambers give disproportionate power to the majority party, and that power is greatly magnified when the same party controls the White House.
That power is even further boosted when the MSM gives more press to those who attack any individual who stands against that power than they do to the individual himself. A person has to dig deeply into the news to find out what case Feingold was making, while those calling it treason, whining or playing politics get plenty of news soundbites.
Lastly, let's not pretend that the Democrats have been roundly rejected by the public. Republicans received 2.5% more of votes cast for the House than did Democrats. That slim margin translated into 7% more House seats. In 2004 Democrats received almost 5 million more votes for Senate than did Republicans. The result? Republicans gained 4 seats.
The current makeup of Congress gives a degree of power to the Republicans that is out of proportion to their popular support, and it has nothing to do with Democrat "ineptness."
Anyone who knows anthing about american government knows that the Dem's have no say in this government. no majority on any committee in house or senate and no subpoena power. can't get anything to the floor unless it doesn't have enough votes to pass. one party government is tyranny. the only chance they have is to make the very right wing network news and hope the whole story gets covered and not just the spin. when former VPS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICSES cant get coverage in the media we have no chance. our constitution is under attack and only one man so far is standing up for it.
....what does that have to do with having a Complete Investigation of Illegal Wiretaps?.................
Where Tommy is going with this. Anyone read Catch-22?
I apologize profusely for the bad html guys. Sorry. This is all my fault. Tried to get too fancy.
Facts are facts, that is where I am going with this? What about you? Has Bush or has he not been convicted of breaking the law?
Oh, but the Republican's control everything and that's why? Sounds like Catch-22 there?
I can respect that you are following facts. That is important. But you question Pelosi instead of questioning the Republicans who are actively blocking an investigation. You do not comment on the recent ammendments to FISA that suggest the administration is not working within FISA at this time.
The Republican blocking of the investigation is doing nothing to stop speculation on this. It is only feeding the fire as it should. There are repercussions for their actions.
A reasonable person may conclude the Republicans are hiding something here.
An unreasonable person may conclude the Republicans are entirely capable of investigating themselves or if they decide to block the investigation, everyone should accept the President is therefore innocent pending the results of some murky future investigation that probably won't ever happen.
You know that this is a highly classified program and letting the public in on all aspects of the investigation is not, and should not, happen. If the Republicans are blocking it for political reasons to protect Bush, that is shameful. You, nor I, know for sure.
Where did I ask for "letting the public in on all aspects of the investigation"?
We have investigated many classified programs over the years without compromising the programs themselves. Why should this one be any different? The Republicans aren't allowing any investigations here. Let alone one that would be open to the public. For the record, I would be against that, but I think it is a red-herring. Call me crazy.
Be honest, if there was an investigation and the progress or results were withheld from the public everybody looking for Bush's head would be saying "Stonewall, coverup!!!". You know that would be the case, it doesn't satsify you now and it wouldn't satisy you then. So to call for an investigation and then say "Oh well, the public doesn't need to be in the loop of all aspects" is disingenuous.
That's the red herring.
"...if there was an investigation and the progress or results were withheld from the public..." --tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let them run the investigation first. Then you can criticize me for any future criticism I may have for an investigation that will never happen. Huh?
Just because an investigation is about a touchy subject should not prevent it from ever being investigated using the highest standards.
....the American Public has not been in the loop since George W. "Won" in 2000................
Be honest, if there was an investigation and the progress or results were withheld from the public everybody looking for Bush's head would be saying "Stonewall, coverup!!!". - from tommy
A true investigation would have to be bipartisan. If the Democrat members came out of the investigation satisfied as to its scope and depth then no, few here would assert a coverup.
It looks a lot to me as though you're making excuses to not conduct an investigation.
Actually, that would be criminal. In addition to being shameful.
Tommy, are you aware that Democratic Congress People are also cleared for Classified Information?
How can there be a complete and HONEST investigation as long as Democrats in Congress are determined to do anything in their power to undermine the President for political gain? I am at least glad to see that not even the most left leaning liberals in the Senate (Reid, Pelosi, etc.) wanted any part of Fiengold's censure BS. Their problem is that they know the program is important to national security, but they still really want to get GWB. That's got to be frustrating.
Your naivety is showing:
"How can there be a complete and HONEST investigation as long as Democrats in Congress are determined to do anything in their power to undermine the President for political gain?" --CB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are right. What is the point of any investigations when we can just rely on Bill Frist or other Republicans assurances that everything is hunky-dory? Why on earth would Republicans lie about such things?
The daily call for investigations into any and everything still presents nothing for the American voter to rally behind. Criticism, in and of itself, is not a message, an idea or a direction that is easily followed. Here’s an idea: get off the hate Bush diatribe, figure out what your party actually stands for and present it to the people. This may be tough since the Democratic Party seems to be having a hard time figuring that out themselves. The inability to form a consensus on the party’s ideas and beliefs is at the heart of the problem for Democrats. The daily whining and complaining followed by no ideas or alternatives is a symptom of a larger problem within the party.
How about Bush stop ignoring the law and lying more than a crack addict with delusions of granduer. I am sure it would be good for YOU if people just stopped pointing out the fact that Bush lies, ignores the law and is incompetent on a spectacular scale. I am not convinced it would be so good for America.
The good ideas just keep on coming from you folks. One thing is for sure, continuing the same failed approach will produce the same failed result time and time again. The only reason I even bother posting my opinion out here is because I'm in favor of a strong two party (at least) system. This should insure a steady stream of competing IDEAS that will keep the country moving in the right direction. I'm trying to point out that the democrats are not holding up their end of the bargain with the constant drone of attacks followed by no ideas or solutions. It seems that the democratic leaders can’t even reach a consensus on what their ideas or beliefs really are and are now satisfied with the secondary result of bringing down the President at any cost.
"The good ideas just keep on coming from you folks"
Damn straight. Somebody's got to do it. We all know the cons won't.
"One thing is for sure, continuing the same failed approach will produce the same failed result time and time again."
Yep. Bush is a prime example of this. He's confused stubborness with resilience.
"The only reason I even bother posting my opinion out here is because I'm in favor of a strong two party (at least) system. "
Thank you oh lord for gracing us with your presence. We are not worthy.
"I'm trying to point out that the democrats are not holding up their end of the bargain with the constant drone of attacks followed by no ideas or solutions. "
Trying being the optimal word. The Dems can do little until they regain power, which will happen after the November elections. The first step in the solution is to sack the fellows who are driving the country in a ditch and we're working on that.
"It seems that the democratic leaders can’t even reach a consensus on what their ideas or beliefs really are"
That's just blatently untrue. The party has a plaform, and one that has been more consistent and upfront than the cons shifting aims.
"and are now satisfied with the secondary result of bringing down the President at any cost."
This is the worst president we've had certainly in my lifetime, and Nixon was in when I was born. Anyone not working to remove this president and prevent further damage to our country is no patriot.
1. Everything a politician says and does is political.
2. Politics is not a bad word.
Not everything every politician does is for political gain or advantage, some do it because their convictions and principles demand they do the right thing by their conscience. If they ignore those and do it only for "politics", then it is a bad word.
Not everything every politician does is for political gain or advantage, some do it because their convictions and principles demand they do the right thing by their conscience. If they ignore those and do it only for "politics", then it is a bad word. - tommy I repeat:
1. Everything a politician says or does is political 2. Politics is not a bad word
And I add:
3. A politician's convictions and principles are political 4. "Conscience" is political
Conscience is the superego. The superego is neither objective nor independent of politics. The values of the superego are derived from the social, political, cultural values of the environment one is born into.
Quit spinnin! Heru was very clear in his two points. First and foremost, everything a politician says and does is political. Tommy, you added to his statement with, "...for political gain or advantage." I didn't see that in Heru's posting.
Just like the right you blindly follow, you change what someone really said to something you WISH they had said, which in turn, is the complete opposite.
Thanks Commonsense for noticing that spin job ... these guys are sneaky!
You don't have to capitalize "the president" when you use it as a subject. The only time you capitalize such a thing is when it's a direct substitute for a proper noun. The same thing is true of mom and dad. If I use the word dad in lieu of a proper name, it's capitalized. For example, "Yesterday, Dad was not happy when I came home late." However, if it's used in the general sense it's not capitalized, "My dad likes me to make curfew." The same goes for 'president'.
Senator Feingold's comments don't even show as a blip on the radar of the enemies propaganda machine. But our behavior towards prisoners does. So does our unilateral invasion of Iraq as well as our threats to Iran.
My comments about Feingold stand. Your other examples are arguably accurate as well.
The Family Research Council clears over $9 million a year in tax deductible donations. As a nonprofit organization, it is prohibited from engaging in this type of partisan political activity. The Family Research Council has clearly overstepped its bounds and thus deserves revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of excise tax.
......not on Georgie's watch................
So Feingold's attempt to censure Bush's illegal behaviour is "treason" because we're at war, yet Bush handing over management of our ports in a time of war, is not?
Interesting double standard there. One directly puts the security of the United States at risk, and hands over management of our vulnerable ports to a country directly tied to Al Qaeda. The other (censure) simply tries to uphold established laws, yet that's the one they are up in arms about?
By the way, when are TV hosts going to stop portraying clowns like Dobson and Perkins as religious leaders? They are paid lobbyists, nothing more.
By taking on such a divisive issue, Senator Feingold has shown that he's the total opposite of an approval-seeking political stunter. He knows darn well that much of the population will criticize him harshly for demanding that the President be held accountable, and that even many in his own party will run away from such a controversy. Yet he stands up for what he thinks is right.
Thank God that somebody is putting this issue on the table. And if it gives the rest of the world the idea that America is divided, well that's because America IS divided, and George Bush should have considered that before he connived his way into this war in Iraq for the ugliest reasons possible.
Yes, America is divided, and I hope the rest of the world starts to see that more than half this country doesn't support George Bush's illegal war. That may turn out to be our salvation. Even the rank-and-file military can see that this war was a bad idea and is failing. Let the world know it, and let's do the right thing and get out of Iraq.
Did anyone call Repubs "traitors" or "treasonous" when they adamantly opposed Clinton's military involvement in Kosovo? I highly doubt it.
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Bush broke the law. The GOP perform illegal acts and then try to scare any critic by labeling them traitors. It's sad really to have to watch this play out in what used to be a free America. The politicians have done plenty to roll back our freedoms in any way they can including intimidation. We need to stop them before they take away any more of our freedoms .
as treason. Every elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitution. As far as I'm concerned, the entire Republican component of our congress has acted in a treasonous fashion by refusing to thoroughly investigate several acts that have either possibly violated the constitution (I'm of the opinion that they HAVE violated the constitution, based on my education) or damaged our country. These actions include such things as outing a CIA operative, and violating the 4th amendment through illegal wiretaps, and not fulfilling a constitutional responsibility of oversight. A resolution calling for censure - IMO - is a half measure. I'd call the bastards out for treason. I've gone from a don't like them much but I'll wait and see in 2000, to absolute and utter disgust at what they've done to this country. I used to think that would be too extreme - I'm not so sure anymore.
It's simple: Most congressional Democrats are still afraid of their own political shadows, and of blowhards like Perkins, Bill Frist, and others who cry "treason" every time someone dares to express dissent. I congratulate Feingold for taking this stand.
You can't have it both ways. "The Democrats are not in power and are limited as to their capability" or is it "They are all spineless".
Democrats can be both out of power and cowed by the powers-that-be. No cognitive dissonance there.
You allege a lot of whining and complaining on the parts of those who have issues with the Bush administration. Then you set up paramaters for what they can and can't say when they are trying to callibrate the reasons for their party's own ineffectuality.
Name calling ("whiners") and false arguments ("can't have it both ways") don't exactly further the discourse.
Blaming and not taking responsibility hardly furthers discourse at all. If the Democrats are spineless, that hurts the country. They need to step up and hold the Republican's accountable then, and stop complaining about the process or the fact they are not in power. They are a major political power in this country with endless resources, like the New York Times, the LA Times and much of the media in their corner........use it to get your message to the people, if you believe it and are committed to seeing it through.
Tommy - You have been attacking the manner in which the Left argues it's case more than the points.
They need to step up and hold the Republican's accountable then Ummm...isn't that "blaming?"
...stop complaining about the process or the fact they are not in power... Actually, this is a general observation in these threads, usually in response to why there hasn't been any number of ongoing investigations into the numerous dubious and potentially criminal habits (for they are ongoing) of this administration.
End Italics
[Democrats] need to step up and hold the Republican's accountable then, and stop complaining about the process or the fact they are not in power. - from tommy
Let's ground this discussion in reality and take it a step at a time.
The Democrats wish there to be a bipartisan investigation into whether the President broke the law. The Republicans have the power to block such an investigation and are exercising it. Public opinion favors investigation and the Republicans are blocking it anyway.
What power do you imagine the Democrats hold that they aren't wielding?
Tommy, Bush and his Crime Family used the NY Times to sell the Iraq War, see Judith Miller. Aside from KO, Ed Schultz, and Air America, what "Liberal Media"?
the democrats have major resources like the new york times. would that be the same new york times that ran all those phony bush supporting wmd stories? and refused to say anything about the downing street memo when it came out? tommy is so convinced of this liberal media stuff, he just repeats the same cliches.
You can't have it both ways. "The Democrats are not in power and are limited as to their capability" or is it "They are all spineless". - from tommy
That's utter nonsense. It's not at all an either/or situation. It certainly is possible to be limited by being out of power and also be spineless.
I don't happen to believe that most of the Democrats in office are spineless, but I would prefer to see more assertiveness than I do.
Tommy since when did you become President G.W.Bush telling us what we can and can not do?
who the hell cares what tony perkins thinks, assuming he does? i believe that noted constitutional scholar ann coulter also made accusations, scattershotlike, of treason, and so has tony snow. in fact, i can't think of one supposed conservative big mouth who hasn't accused someone, usually a liberal/democrat, of treason in the past 5 years. i think it's part of their contracts.
proving once again the old saw: "religion and patriotism are the last refuges of the scoundrel!"
during Clinton's impeachment trial, Sen. Feinstein proposed a censure resolution . . . it had {by her estimate} support of forty of the forty-five Democrats that were then in the Senate, and at least fifteen of the majority Republicans {it was never brought to a vote, however.}
I realize at the time of Clinton's impeachment we were not at war, yet the republicans didn't seem to have much trouble with a censure resolution then . . . wonder why . . .
Treasonous behavior? Nope, HOWEVER one has to wonder IF Feingold is in fact already running for President.
I'm more interested to see what the Democrats will do with this. Here's their chance to take a STAND. Will they follow through or cut&run?
One other thought. Enough of this "time of war" B.S.
IF Bush deserves to be censured or even impeached should not be impeded by Iraq or "The War On Terror"...which is likely to continue throughout our lifetime.
This may very well be an opening shot at a presidential run, and I hope so. I think it's a smart move because Bush is getting more and more unpopular, and this forces people to side with a sinking ship or stand up. Most Dems will probably back off because they're worried about appearance (funny how the lessons of Republican success - sticking together and not worrying about appearance - don't sink in). It's the residual "play nice" mentality kicking it, sadly. If they can't stand up here, I can't imagine what kind of opportunity they are waiting for.
This is going to be meaningful in 2008 if Feingold is running, because he can call out any Dem who doesn't side with him as someone who's more interested in self-preservation than what's right, and someone who refused to hold Bush accountable. In this environment, where Bush has 34-37% approval ratings, people want change. If Feingold corners the market on challenging Bush, he's going to have a lot of democratic and independent friends in a couple of years!
Nezog you are so right!Feingold is right; impeachment and removal from office of Cheny- Bush is in order if we democrats win inNovember if if more evidence of them violatin FISA and approving renditions come up.Pres. Clinton has a record of accomplisment of which we all can be proud[see this week's newsletter from the CLINTON FOUNDATION and Joe Klein's THE NATURAL".] CHENEY- BUSH ranks lower thanNixons administration, because Nixon gave us EPA and the professional military.
There is a motion in the United States Senate to censure the President because he ordered the National Security Agency to listen in on the telephone conversations of Americans in violation of the law. This is illegal. When the program became widely known, the President’s response was essentially to tell Congress, “Go to hell.”
It once was widely understood that the genius of the American Constitution is its system of checks and balances. The Resolution of Censure is an attempt to breathe life into that concept. The Administration responds with a predictable accusation that the Democrats are pro-terrorists.
In general, such an insipid assertion would not be worthy of a response. However, these days, right wing blogs, cable news, and even mainstream media, give such wide circulation to the most outrageous pronouncements of criminals like Dick Cheney, that unless each example of such nonsense is rebutted, it will gain currency and eventually be accepted by many, if not the majority, of Americans.
So here’s the answer for Democrats who are having trouble articulating something more cogent than, “I’m rubber you’re glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you.”
When the President of the United States breaks the law, it creates a climate of lawlessness that pollutes the entire executive branch. Laws are enacted to protect us, and when they are violated, we are less safe. When those who are charged with the responsibility of faithfully executing the laws choose instead to break the law, the result is a boon for terrorists.
Today, we see the clear-cut evidence of that simple proposition. Because of the egregious, outrageous misconduct of government lawyers, the case against the 20th hijacker, Zacharia Moussaoui, has been eviscerated. The government will not be allowed to present evidence from airline security experts who would have testified about the measures the government would have taken to prevent 9-11 attacks. Legal experts are predicting that as a result, Moussaoui will be spared the death penalty.
It's hard to imagine a more welcome gift to Osama Bin Laden. Here is proof that the administration are law-breakers. Here is a vivid demonstration of America's impotence against al Qaeda. And who can say that Moussaoui won't recruit more al Qaeda sympathizers in prison?
The moral of the story is this: Obedience to the law is a necessity in the war on terror.
It starts with the President.
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”<?I>
The foregoing originally appeared at schapira.blogspot.com posted by BigMitch @ 9:26 AM