AsWayOpens

Sen. Feingold's Bill to Censure Bush!

Sen. Feingold's Bill to Censure Bush!

Once he makes it to the floor to introduce it, call or write your representatives to back it!
Nobody should be above the law and this is the very least we can do.
44,831 views 108 replies
Reply #26 Top
Link

This will take you to the Bill.


Sorry to inform you....it isn't going to happen.


Instead of trying to block Feingold, who argues Bush broke the law by authorizing the wiretaps, Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist sought a quick vote on the resolution. Other Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, used Feingold's proposal as a rallying point.

Democrats, who had been gaining ground in polls testing perceptions of which party would deal with terrorism better, backed away from the resolution, prompting Feingold to complain that his party was ``cowering'' before the president.

``With no co-sponsors and fellow Democrats refusing to vote on Senator Feingold's fringe issue, I urge the minority to either allow us to vote or move on to addressing the real threats facing our national security,'' said Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on Monday, when Feingold's resolution was introduced, that he didn't know if he would support it. Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said on NBC's ``Today'' show he sympathized with Feingold's ``frustration'' over the eavesdropping issue while declining to endorse the resolution.

An `Unusual Measure'

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who has supported Bush on defense and security issues, called Feingold's resolution ``a very unusual measure.''

``Frankly, I'd prefer to spend our time figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law,'' Lieberman said March 13.

Senator Mark Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat, was more direct. The resolution, he said yesterday, is ``premature, and over- reaching, which often involves losing more than gaining.''

Reid and other Democratic leaders succeeded in stalling a vote on the Senate floor that would have resulted in defeat in a chamber controlled by Republicans 55-44 with one independent.
Reply #27 Top
For someone who "could care less" you certainly wrote a lot on the subject matter.


I'm can't say anything with a few words. I tend to write a lot just to get my point accross. Still I will drop it here cause there's no point in it, even others here have pointed out to you that I was right. Like I said, I don't care anymore.

#11 by AsWayOpens
Tuesday, March 14, 2006


Thank you for the link BTW. A very interesting resolution. I am however curious about what some have said here. If Bush did break the law then why is he not facing a court or charges, instead Sen. Feingold makes a resolution to get him in trouble anyways. This to me sounds morer like Bush needs to get into trouble one way or the other. I don't get it. If Feingold feels Bush broke the law, why not get him charged rather than give him a "slap on the rist" like someone said here. I just doesn't seem right that if someone breaks a law that they should just get slapped but if he didn't he shouldn't get slapped at all.
Reply #28 Top
Well, I guess it has been decided then.
Lazy, I am not. Limited on time, I am.
I also assume that others have the ability to read and see what I do, to look up issues brought up. I mean, are you all just going to go on the writer's blog or are you going to look into it for yourselfs?
I've written a few brief things that have brought about discussions, other than my blogging style.
Now, may I ask how I put this on my blog page?
Reply #29 Top
Thank you for the link BTW. A very interesting resolution. I am however curious about what some have said here. If Bush did break the law then why is he not facing a court or charges, instead Sen. Feingold makes a resolution to get him in trouble anyways. This to me sounds morer like Bush needs to get into trouble one way or the other. I don't get it. If Feingold feels Bush broke the law, why not get him charged rather than give him a "slap on the rist" like someone said here. I just doesn't seem right that if someone breaks a law that they should just get slapped but if he didn't he shouldn't get slapped at all.


It opens up investigating it. The Republicans have done everything they can to stop an open investigation.
Reply #30 Top
You seem to be missing a very valid point here. "No one" and I do mean no one has come forth and shown that what GW did was illegal.


Then why do they find it necessary to change the law?
Reply #31 Top
Well, I guess it has been decided then.
Lazy, I am not. Limited on time, I am.


I get your point, but there is always time. NOthing that can't wait a littlke while to be done. OK, I take back the lazy thing and I appologize, you gotta understand it's not the first time and you know it. But I'll keep in mind the time thing next time.


I also assume that others have the ability to read and see what I do, to look up issues brought up. I mean, are you all just going to go on the writer's blog or are you going to look into it for yourselfs?


Everyone here has the ability to research anything posted here, the trick is to know what to look for. When debating about a particular article like this one, one has to know where exactly did you get the info to come to the conclusion you did. Why should I have to search for something that you are claiming, you should be the one to provide the link since it was you who brought it up.

I've written a few brief things that have brought about discussions, other than my blogging style.
Now, may I ask how I put this on my blog page?


Exactly and they have been good ones, but they mostly have one thing in common that has been mentioned in most of them, the lack of info from the article itself. Nothing but a title and a short opinion on the matter but no one knows what exactly you are pointing to, especially when there is no link to your story.

It opens up investigating it. The Republicans have done everything they can to stop an open investigation.


It makes no difference, the word is out and an investigation will be on the way no matter what. This looks more like an act of desperation, the chance of sticking it to Bush is quickly fading and they needed something to bring it back into focus to continue to search for a way to get Bush into trouble. Kinda like loking inside a truck filled with thousands of soda cans looking for that 1 can that is messed up in order to get someone in trouble.


Then why do they find it necessary to change the law?


So that the Dems don't have an excuse to make such a big fuzz next time. It's not about changing it to make cover up Bush, it's more of so that it's much clearer next time around.
Reply #32 Top
Everyone here has the ability to research anything posted here, the trick is to know what to look for. When debating about a particular article like this one, one has to know where exactly did you get the info to come to the conclusion you did. Why should I have to search for something that you are claiming, you should be the one to provide the link since it was you who brought it up.


Did you actually read his post?

Once he makes it to the floor to introduce it, call or write your representatives to back it!
Nobody should be above the law and this is the very least we can do.


What research is required? What debate is required? He made a post urging people to contact their reps to back it. What exactly would you have him document about his statement?
Reply #33 Top
That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law.


You see that is where I differ with you and the democrats. I think he is innocent and has not skirted any laws. No evidence has been presented to show or prove he has. But since the allegations mean more than the evidence, the democrats like Feingold figure he must be guilty due to the seriousness of the charges.

You like to quote amendments. Try looking that one up. I think it is under the heading of innocent until proven guilty.
Reply #34 Top
No evidence has been presented to show or prove he has.


There has been a lot of evidence, you as well as the majority of congress (who hold all the cards to do something), just choose to ignore it.
Reply #35 Top
I accept your apology for calling me lazy.

Two more Senators have joined the call for censure!!
Reply #36 Top
"There has been a lot of evidence, you as well as the majority of congress (who hold all the cards to do something), just choose to ignore it."


When you have real evidence, you seek indictments and put people in jail. When you have rumor and twisted facts and political propaganda, you have a couple of senate hearings and try and "censure" people. If you think the Dems wouldn't slap the cuffs on anyone in the Bush administration they could get their hands on, you're nuts. If they had it, they'd use it. They don't, though, and legal experts can't even agree as to whether this is permitted.

"Two more Senators have joined the call for censure!!"


Which ones, just wasted another 10 minutes trying to find out online and can't find anything to do with it. You could at least say who they are.
Reply #37 Top
If you think the Dems wouldn't slap the cuffs on anyone in the Bush administration they could get their hands on, you're nuts. If they had it, they'd use it. They don't, though, and legal experts can't even agree as to whether this is permitted.


How exactly would the dems go about slapping cuffs on anyone? Who appointed the AG? You really think Gonzales is going to slap cuffs on Bush for anything?

Which ones, just wasted another 10 minutes trying to find out online and can't find anything to do with it. You could at least say who they are.


I know for sure Harkin is no co-sponsoring the resolution. Link I think Boxer and Chaffee have said they'll vote for it.
Reply #38 Top
lol, i love conspiracy theorist. Oddly enough we were able to commence proceedings against Clinton, haul him in and let him commit purgery based on a bj. If you think they couldn't make a stink that the justice department couldn't ignore, again, you're a loon.

"I know for sure Harkin is no co-sponsoring the resolution. Link I think Boxer and Chaffee have said they'll vote for it."


lol, these people have said they'd vote for it IF IT COMES UP to a vote. read that as exactly what it says. It's easy to say that knowing it will never come up. The big names in the party will barely even comment on it.

Ask yourself what these empty-headed twits are going to debate for weeks when legal scholars can't even decide. For every legal authority that says this was wrong there's another who says it wasn't. You guys can't get enough evidence to do anything tangible, so you'll grandstand and try to make people think it is obvious.
Reply #39 Top
Too bad no one's rushing breathlessly to back him as fast as you breathlessly ran to post this. Even Dingy Harry is treading lightly on this one.
Reply #40 Top
lol, these people have said they'd vote for it IF IT COMES UP to a vote. read that as exactly what it says


Isn't that what I said...that they'd vote for it?
Reply #41 Top
It's easy to say you'd vote for something when you know you'll never be asked to. Heck, if you can get Ted Kennedy into the 2008 election, I'll vote for him, and if I can get them to dig up Reagan you'll vote for him. Deal?
Reply #42 Top
Which ones, just wasted another 10 minutes trying to find out online and can't find anything to do with it. You could at least say who they are.


I was merely trying to help you since you said you couldn't find anything on it. No need to be a jackass.
Reply #43 Top
Well Baker, I can honestly, and with not one reservation, say that I'll never again vote Bush for President.
Reply #44 Top
But since the allegations mean more than the evidence, the democrats like Feingold figure he must be guilty due to the seriousness of the charges.

Remember, it's not about guilt or innocence -- it's the weight of the accusations!
Reply #45 Top
" Well Baker, I can honestly, and with not one reservation, say that I'll never again vote Bush for President."


Me neither. There is a 0% chance I'll ever be voting for George Bush again.
Reply #46 Top
Senators Harkin, Boxer and Chafee are coming on board and others are saying it is worth discussion.
Reply #47 Top
Which ones, just wasted another 10 minutes trying to find out online and can't find anything to do with it. You could at least say who they are.


Use loc.thomas.gov -- and you can find all bills and their recent action.

Me neither. There is a 0% chance I'll ever be voting for George Bush again.


Reply #49 Top
Tom Harkin: Why I Fully Support Bush Censure

We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises – and broken faith – with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law.

In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

Let's be clear: No American – and that must include the President – is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That's why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that's why I fully support this resolution of censure.

Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists' conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That's why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that's not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping.

We have an out-of-control President whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It's time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold's measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.

Link
Reply #50 Top
" Senators Harkin, Boxer and Chafee are coming on board and others are saying it is worth discussion."


Which is what supporters here don't understand. They want DISCUSSION. Not a vote. They want lots and lots of hours of them standing there banging their fist and talking about how bad Bush is.

You realize that REPUBLICANS tried to put this to a vote the first day it was proposed and Democrats refused, right?