Feingold calls for Presidential Censure.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politic...=1715495&page=2

 

March 12, 2006— In an exclusive interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold called on the Senate to publicly admonish President Bush for approving domestic wiretaps on American citizens without first seeking a legally required court order.

 

"This conduct is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors," said Feingold, D-Wis., a three-term senator and potential presidential contender.

 

He said President Bush had, "openly and almost thumbing his nose at the American people," continued the NSA domestic wiretap program.

 

President Bush has long asserted that the so-called 'warrantless wiretaps' are an essential tool in the war on terror.

 

But in a copy of the censure resolution obtained by ABC News, Feingold asserts the president, "repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States."

 

Feingold cites three instances over a year-long period in which Bush outlined the necessity of a court order or a judge's permission prior to a domestic wiretap of a U.S. citizen.

 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., also appearing exclusively on "This Week," defended Bush.

 

"Russ is just wrong, he is flat wrong, he is dead wrong," Frist said.

 

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll put the president's approval rating at 41 percent, nearly a career low. But that not necessarily mean Feingold's censure resolution will succeed.

 

Censure, essentially a public disapproval by the Senate as a whole, has only been applied to one president, Andrew Jackson, in a politically-charged move the Senate historian's office describes as "unprecedented and never-repeated tactic."

 

Frist called the censure attempt "political" and a "terrible, terrible signal" to enemies of the U.S. abroad. He assured Stephanopoulos that the resolution would never gain traction in the Republican-controlled Senate. Feingold, best known for his bipartisan fight for campaign finance reform with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., intends to introduce the resolution this week — insisting the move is not a political stunt.

 

"We, as a Congress, have to stand up to a president who acts like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on Sept 11, [2001]," Feingold said.

 

Video of Feingold's and Frist's full interviews will be posted at www.thisweek.abcnews.com.

 

"This Week with George Stephanopolous" airs on Sundays. Please check local listings for times.

[Gregory Pratt]

I think they're both full of s*** in their own special ways. All three of them -- Bush and the two Senators -- actually.

[Balta1701]

Frist was a wee bit harsher than that article makes him out to be..."I Was Hoping Deep Inside That Iran Was Not Listening". (Full transcript @ link)

[Balta1701]

Oh and just to chime in...I'm not sure whether or not censure would be appropriate. Why? Because the Congress still hasn't actually conducted anything remotely resembling an investigation of this matter.

 

I understand what Feingold's doing, since the White House strong-armed both Houses of Congress into party-line votes preventing any investigations...this at least keeps some focus on the wiretapping as an issue, but in terms of just the proposal on it's own merits...still not there yet...needs an investigation first.

 

Can we censor the Congress for defaulting on its oversight duties?

[kevin57]

The Dems pursue this to their own disadvantage. The country is overwhelmingly in favor of what Bush is doing, despite the legality. I'm making a political, not a ethical, evaluation of the matter.

[Rex Kickass]

I believe the law should be followed. The decision on a purely partisan level to not investigate whether or not Domestic wiretapping/eavesdropping violated the law leads me to believe that the law was violated.

[kevin57]

I also think the law was violated. I also think that our laws were/are not current with the needs/technology of this war on terror. Further, I think that Bush did not seek congressional input in trying to draw up new legislation. So, on a legal level, Bush was at fault, but most presidents in time of war have violated laws. There's general consensus that they have constitutional authority to do so; historical predecent would seem to back that up. If history is as "harsh" on Bush as it is on Roosevelt and Lincoln for their violations of law during their terms of office, I suppose that will be fair and balanced.

[Rex Kickass]

Except we aren't at war. The "war on terrorism" is a lot more like the war on drugs or the war on poverty than it is the Civil War or World War I or II. That argument just doesn't stick.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Dems pursue this to their own disadvantage.  The country is overwhelmingly in favor of what Bush is doing, despite the legality.  I'm making a political, not a ethical, evaluation of the matter.

I disgree. I have seen polls all over the board, and I don't think the public is overwhelmingly anything on this.

 

And up to now, the Bush-bashing has worked quite well for the Dems. I do agree that can only go on so long, though. There has to be more there eventually.

[kevin57]

Except we aren't at war. The "war on terrorism" is a lot more like the war on drugs or the war on poverty than it is the Civil War or World War I or II. That argument just doesn't stick.

 

Hmm...I guess that attack on the Towers in NY was nothing. Please.

[kevin57]

I disgree.  I have seen polls all over the board, and I don't think the public is overwhelmingly anything on this.

 

And up to now, the Bush-bashing has worked quite well for the Dems.  I do agree that can only go on so long, though.  There has to be more there eventually.

 

Completely wrong. The American people pretty much suppose Bush on fighting terrorism. And polls have shown overwhelming support for violating civil rights when tapping phone messages involving Al Queda.

[YASNY]

Completely wrong.  The American people pretty much suppose Bush on fighting terrorism.  And polls have shown overwhelming support for violating civil rights when tapping phone messages involving Al Queda.

 

I've been one of the main ones complaining about the Bush bashing around here and in the media. However, if you think Bush has overwhelming support of the American people on ANY issue right now, you're looking through red (as in red states) colored glasses.

[Balta1701]

Completely wrong.  The American people pretty much suppose Bush on fighting terrorism.  And polls have shown overwhelming support for violating civil rights when tapping phone messages involving Al Queda.

Yes, this is true...when you poll whether or not you support wiretapping of Al Qaeda suspects, the public overwhelmingly supports it. But see, the trick in that question is that in the way the poll is asked, you're already presuming they're Al Qaeda suspects. No one in their right mind has a problem with wiretapping Al Qaeda suspects.

 

However, when the question is asked in a way that actually looks at just the program itself, without presuming that the person being targeted is directly an Al Qaeda suspect, support decreases significantly.

[Balta1701]

Reportedly Frist is actually going to let this come to a vote today...which means that it's not just going to lose, it's going to lose badly.

[YASNY]

Bill Frist:

 

Yesterday Democrat Senator Russ Feingold called for a censure of President Bush.  The censure reads:

 

"The United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans."

 

Senator Feingold is flat wrong and irresponsible.

 

In fact, when I attempted today to bring this censure resolution to the Senate floor for a vote, the Democrats objected. Proving it is just a shameful political stunt.

 

Emphasis mine.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bill Frist:

Emphasis mine.

 

Almost alone even among the GOP, Frist goes so far as to refer to the NSA wiretaps as “a very good lawful constitutional program.” When did Billl Frist become a Constitutional scholar? Circle the wagons and protect the administration and the GOP power base at all costs, that's the only thing Frist is an expert on.

 

He is completely lacking in moral fiber. Unlike some of the GOP "moderates" who at least claimed they were going to support a Congressional investigation before they crumbled under pressure from others in the part and thinly veiled threats from the White House. But that didn't mean that these Senators wouldn't have signed on to a censure resolution after a period of informed debate.

 

And that informed debate is precisely the thing that Frist wanted to preempt by calling for a vote prematurely. Congress, particularly the Senate, is supposed to be a deliberative body that actually discusses the issues before bringing them to a vote. Alas, much in the manner the twisted GOP-worded version of the "Murtha resolution" was brought to a vote prematurely, Frist yesterday was making damn sure nobody had any time to consider it before being asked to vote.

 

Who's the one pulling the political stunt again?

[NorthSideSox72]

Almost alone even among the GOP, Frist goes so far as to refer to the NSA wiretaps as “a very good lawful constitutional program.” When did Billl Frist become a Constitutional scholar? Circle the wagons and protect the administration and the GOP power base at all costs, that's the only thing Frist is an expert on.

 

He is completely lacking in moral fiber.  Unlike some of the GOP "moderates" who at least claimed they were going to support a Congressional investigation before they crumbled under pressure from others in the part and thinly veiled threats from the White House.  But that didn't mean that these Senators wouldn't have signed on to a censure resolution after a period of informed debate.

 

And that informed debate is precisely the thing that Frist wanted to preempt by calling for a vote prematurely.  Congress, particularly the Senate, is supposed to be a deliberative body that actually discusses the issues before bringing them to a vote.  Alas, much in the manner the twisted GOP-worded version of the "Murtha resolution" was brought to a vote prematurely, Frist yesterday was making damn sure nobody had any time to consider it before being asked to vote.

 

Who's the one pulling the political stunt again?

 

That would be both of them.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That would be both of them.

If you haven't had a chance, please listen to Feingold's introduction of the resolution. It is very articulate and thought out. It lists some of the bipartisan displeasure over the spying program, chronicles several occassions the president had previously publicly stated that warrants were required to conduct domestic surveilance, and reminds us that the Founding Fathers foresaw that presidents would overstep their bounds and that it was the responsibility of the remaining branches of government to rebuke (at the very least) in such instances.

 

The pathetic lack of support the resolution is getting from the rest of the Dems indicates this is no political slam dunk. But it is, in Feingold's mind, the moral high road and his obligation. How many Dem Senators are now saying how they wished they had the courage Feingold had when he alone opposed the Patriot Act? How many of these pathetic clowns are going to say the same thing about wishing they too had stood up to censure the president a year down the line?

 

His conviction and commitment to what he believes in suggests this is not just a stunt. He stood alone to oppose the Patriot Act. He stood with a small minority in opposing the Iraq War Resolution. Now he again stands nearly alone in admonishing the president for exceeding the power granted the office.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you haven't had a chance, please listen to Feingold's introduction of the resolution.  It is very articulate and thought out.  It lists some of the bipartisan displeasure over the spying program, chronicles several occassions the president had previously publicly stated that warrants were required to conduct domestic surveilance, and reminds us that the Founding Fathers foresaw that presidents would overstep their bounds and that it was the responsibility of the remaining branches of government to rebuke (at the very least) in such instances.

 

The pathetic lack of support the resolution is getting from the rest of the Dems indicates this is no political slam dunk.  But it is, in Feingold's mind, the moral high road and his obligation.  How many Dem Senators are now saying how they wished they had the courage Feingold had when he alone opposed the Patriot Act?  How many of these pathetic clowns are going to say the same thing about wishing they too had stood up to censure the president a year down the line?

 

His conviction and commitment to what he believes in suggests this is not just a stunt.  He stood alone to oppose the Patriot Act.  He stood with a small minority in opposing the Iraq War Resolution.  Now he again stands nearly alone in admonishing the president for exceeding the power granted the office.

 

Those are all good points. And on further review, I do agree that Feingold probably does believe in this. He went against most of his own party to do it. So perhaps it was too harsh to call it a stunt. And I do happen to agree that Bush broke the law.

 

But, I am not sure a censure is warranted. That is a pretty harsh penalty. What is needed is review in a courtroom, in the judicial branch (not some B.S. Congressional thing), of the legality of a specific act. I just don't know if that will happen.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm not sure in reality how harsh a penalty it is, but it sure as hell is a rare option. I think I heard 1834 was the last sucessful presidential censure (against Andrew jackson, and later expunged). There was a failed attempt at censure of Clinton I know.

 

I think the fact that there are no real teeth in censure is probably why it is so rare. But with dwindling prospects of either congressional or judicial inquiry, it may have been the only option available.

[YASNY]

Those are all good points.  And on further review, I do agree that Feingold probably does believe in this.  He went against most of his own party to do it.  So perhaps it was too harsh to call it a stunt.  And I do happen to agree that Bush broke the law.

 

But, I am not sure a censure is warranted.  That is a pretty harsh penalty.  What is needed is review in a courtroom, in the judicial branch (not some B.S. Congressional thing), of the legality of a specific act.  I just don't know if that will happen.

 

It's a political stunt because Feingold has presidential aspirations. It's not about the Democratic party, it's about Feingold.

Edited March 14, 2006 by YASNY

[YASNY]

Almost alone even among the GOP, Frist goes so far as to refer to the NSA wiretaps as “a very good lawful constitutional program.” When did Billl Frist become a Constitutional scholar? Circle the wagons and protect the administration and the GOP power base at all costs, that's the only thing Frist is an expert on.

 

He is completely lacking in moral fiber.  Unlike some of the GOP "moderates" who at least claimed they were going to support a Congressional investigation before they crumbled under pressure from others in the part and thinly veiled threats from the White House.  But that didn't mean that these Senators wouldn't have signed on to a censure resolution after a period of informed debate.

 

And that informed debate is precisely the thing that Frist wanted to preempt by calling for a vote prematurely.  Congress, particularly the Senate, is supposed to be a deliberative body that actually discusses the issues before bringing them to a vote.  Alas, much in the manner the twisted GOP-worded version of the "Murtha resolution" was brought to a vote prematurely, Frist yesterday was making damn sure nobody had any time to consider it before being asked to vote.

 

Who's the one pulling the political stunt again?

 

Apparently, Frist wasn't the only one to want to avoid debate as the Dems aren't exactly lining up to supposrt Feingold. As for your first paragraph, there is a distinct difference of opinion as to whether the actions of the administration was legal or not. It's been strictly based on party lines and neither side has the distinction of 'being right'. You have your opinion on this, and are totally entitled to have it. Others feel differently.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's a political stunt because Feingold has presidential aspirations.  It's not about the Democratic party, it's about Feingold.

Oh I have no doubt that it is about Feingold and not the party. And yeah, that may be selfish. But I also do see indications here that he is trying to make a statement, and that is not an entirely bad thing - even if it is related to his Presidential aspirations. It is not as if he is flip-flopping for that purpose; he has been against this all along, as far as I know.

[YASNY]

Oh I have no doubt that it is about Feingold and not the party.  And yeah, that may be selfish.  But I also do see indications here that he is trying to make a statement, and that is not an entirely bad thing - even if it is related to his Presidential aspirations.  It is not as if he is flip-flopping for that purpose; he has been against this all along, as far as I know.

 

It's grandstanding. Nothing more. The only relevance that should be taken into consideration is the fact that he did it only to advance his own agenda, as he knew it was going nowhere.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's grandstanding.  Nothing more.  The only relevance that should be taken into consideration is the fact that he did it only to advance his own agenda, as he knew it was going nowhere.

Honestly, if a person has a strong belief in an issue that he/she knows won't go anywhere... I am OK with a little grandstanding on their part. Such a move only bothers me if it is counter to that person's real agenda, which then makes them dishonest.

 

And before anyone else says it, yes, I realize that "dishonest" is a relative term when referring to members of Congress.