So, the American Research Group polled on this issue, and found Americans actually favoring Censure for Bush on this issue by a narrow margin within the 95% confidence Interval margin of error.  Interestingly, in polling just independents, more independents support impeachment of this president than support censure.

Hang the f***er! Besides, all today was (Iraqi offensive) was to shore up poll numbers. Just ask the media. I've heard it three times today now on the radio.

Edited March 17, 200620 yr by kapkomet

So, the American Research Group polled on this issue, and found Americans actually favoring Censure for Bush on this issue by a narrow margin within the 95% confidence Interval margin of error.  Interestingly, in polling just independents, more independents support impeachment of this president than support censure.

 

the poll you quote is so bulls***ty i just s*** my pants and puked at the same time.

I hope this does hit the floor for open debate and discussion.

I hope this does hit the floor for open debate and discussion.

In a way, so do I, but both sides are going to politicize it so bad that the stench from the s***storm will be felt all over the world.

 

Of course, to some, the Democrats are just doing the "morally conscionable" thing here. GMAFB. It's politcal grandstanding. On both sides.

If by the Democrats you mean 4 of them. Feingold strikes me as a man of principle - kinda like Wellstone was. Although he may have a bit more flair for the dramatic than Wellstone did, my gut feeling is that he's doing this out of genuine concern rather than pure grandstanding.

 

But then again, I used to think the same thing about McCain and it turns out I was wrong about him...

If by the Democrats you mean 4 of them. Feingold strikes me as a man of principle - kinda like Wellstone was. Although he may have a bit more flair for the dramatic than Wellstone did, my gut feeling is that he's doing this out of genuine concern rather than pure grandstanding.

 

But then again, I used to think the same thing about McCain and it turns out I was wrong about him...

McCain's fame is just about done, I think.

McCain's fame is just about done, I think.

Which begs this question for me: who, aside from McCain, can the GOP put up in 2008 who isn't part of this recent socially-conservative, fiscally reckless movement in that party? Who would they put on the ballot that might be considered at least somewhat moderate, or somewhat in the small government mold of the Republicans of old?

Well, I don't know that I would even put McCain in that camp anymore. The last two weeks he's been carrying so much water for the administration it's going to be hard to keep the "I'm independent moniker."

Which begs this question for me: who, aside from McCain, can the GOP put up in 2008 who isn't part of this recent socially-conservative, fiscally reckless movement in that party?  Who would they put on the ballot that might be considered at least somewhat moderate, or somewhat in the small government mold of the Republicans of old?

Depends on who runs. Guys like Frist, Allen...they seem to have really bought into the Bush-worshipping. Gingrich, who's still sort of a dark-horse right now, might have a legit shot at it (He finished 3rd in that SCLC straw poll) and he's certainly managed to stay away from some of the Bush-worshipping. Guiliani might have a shot just based on his name, but then some other part of the party would have to outgun the socially conservative side (Rudy = not anti-gay enough and pro choice IIRC).

Rudy won't run. He'll suddenly stop being popular when people actually hear what he has to say. If he had been up for reelection on September 10, 2001 he probably wouldn't have won.

What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL!

What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL!

 

He breathes. That's illegal enough.

What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL!

I respectfully disagree.

What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL!

 

A serious question, YAS.

 

You were one of the people who were on record as being as incensed as anybody over the original allegations when they broke. You reasonably decided you would wait for some more facts before passing final judgement.

 

You seem to have concluded that the spying was not illegal, so what specific facts emeregd to bring you to that conclusion? Are you satisfued that any power for the Executive to do this derives from the September 18 AUMF, even when there has been a strong bipartisan voice from Congress stating that no such authorization was implied? Or have you become fairly convinced that this is within the power of the Executive during wartime - even to the degree that existing FISA mechanisms be ignored (not fixed or legally challenged, simply ignored)?

 

Are you comfortable with the Atty General's calm admission that the White House defense of the NSA program is an "evolving defense", rather than an established one they feel they have any secure legal footing with?

 

These are sincere questions, not an attempt to start a fight. Your outrage at the alleged domestic spying has been sufficiently addressed to the point where you believe "NOTHING ILLEGAL" was done. What substantive evidence for the program's legality has made you so confident?

 

DeWine, Snowe, et al, have done such a good job making sure the legally of the program was never really scrutinized yet you seem to still have been able to conclude no illegality on the part of the administration or NSA. What have you seen that I have not?

Edited March 21, 200620 yr by FlaSoxxJim

A serious question, YAS.

 

You were one of the people who were on record as being as incensed as anybody over the original allegations when they broke.  You reasonably decided you would wait for some more facts before passing final judgement.

 

You seem to have concluded that the spying was not illegal, so what specific facts emeregd to bring you to that conclusion?  Are you satisfued that any power for the Executive to do this derives from the September 18 AUMF, even when there has been a strong bipartisan voice from Congress stating that no such authorization was implied?  Or have you become fairly convinced that this is within the power of the Executive during wartime - even to the degree that existing FISA mechanisms be ignored (not fixed or legally challenged, simply ignored)?

 

Are you comfortable with the Atty General's calm admission that the White House defense of the NSA program is an "evolving defense", rather than an established one they feel they have any secure legal footing with?

 

These are sincere questions, not an attempt to start a fight.  Your outrage at the alleged domestic spying has been sufficiently addressed to the point where you believe "NOTHING ILLEGAL" was done.  What substantive evidence for the program's legality has made you so confident?

 

DeWine, Snowe, et al, have done such a good job making sure the legally of the program was never really scrutinized yet you seem to still have been able to conclude no illegality on the part of the administration or NSA.  What have you seen that I have not?

 

 

Here's your answer, Jim.

 

The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.

Here's your answer, Jim. 

 

The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.

Thanks. Let me read through this and I'll let you know if I become convinced as well.

Here's your answer, Jim. 

 

The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.

Does anyone other than me see a Constitutional problem in this "Court of Review"? Essentially, Congress and the Administration have created their own kangaroo court. It flies in the face of the checks and balances between the divisions of the federal government.

 

Not only does this not make me feel better about things - it scares me even more. Judicial review has been supplanted by a Congressional/Executive joint body. This is even more clearly unconstitutional than the spying itself.

Does anyone other than me see a Constitutional problem in this "Court of Review"?  Essentially, Congress and the Administration have created their own kangaroo court.  It flies in the face of the checks and balances between the divisions of the federal government.

 

then stop blaming bush for everything. there are democrats in congress as well as republicans, and they all vote on bills, including this one.

 

and just what, pray tell, makes this legally and legislativly created court of review a "kangaroo court"?

Does anyone other than me see a Constitutional problem in this "Court of Review"?  Essentially, Congress and the Administration have created their own kangaroo court.  It flies in the face of the checks and balances between the divisions of the federal government.

 

Not only does this not make me feel better about things - it scares me even more.  Judicial review has been supplanted by a Congressional/Executive joint body.  This is even more clearly unconstitutional than the spying itself.

 

First of all, it wasn't 'the Administration" as we know it. This Court of Review provision was put in place when FISA was enacted, with the foresight that circumstances would change and issues or disagreements might need to be addressed. Also, this "Court of Review" is made up of members of the judicial branch.

then stop blaming bush for everything. there are democrats in congress as well as republicans, and they all vote on bills, including this one.

 

and just what, pray tell, makes this legally and legislativly created court of review a "kangaroo court"?

um... do you read any of my posts? I don't blame Bush for everything. But I sure as heck blame him and the Administration AND CONGRESS for this whole mess.

 

It avoids due process. It essentially clears warrants, a judicial function. This should not occur outside FISA or some other purely judicial body.

First of all, it wasn't 'the Administration" as we know it.  This Court of Review provision was put in place when FISA was enacted, with the foresight that circumstances would change and issues or disagreements might need to be addressed.  Also, this "Court of Review" is made up of members of the judicial branch.

The "Court of Review", as constituted and described in the article, has 3 judges on it, but also a whole slew of other folks. Its not a court at all.

um... do you read any of my posts?  I don't blame Bush for everything.  But I sure as heck blame him and the Administration AND CONGRESS for this whole mess.

 

It avoids due process.  It essentially clears warrants, a judicial function.  This should not occur outside FISA or some other purely judicial body.

 

If the mechanism for calling this Court of Review was legislated when FISA was enacted, how can you blame the administration for using laws passed by the legistative branch that allows the judicial branch to rule ... keeping in mind that the administration was not the administartion in office when it was enacted?

The "Court of Review", as constituted and described in the article, has 3 judges on it, but also a whole slew of other folks.  Its not a court at all.

 

What does that mean? Three judges is not enough to constitute a court?

um... do you read any of my posts?  I don't blame Bush for everything.  But I sure as heck blame him and the Administration AND CONGRESS for this whole mess.

 

It avoids due process.  It essentially clears warrants, a judicial function.  This should not occur outside FISA or some other purely judicial body.

 

reas YAS's post. this court of review is composed of judicial members. you are justifiying your calling it a kangaroo court by using buzzwords that you havent justified. "avoids due process"? HOW?? and how does it clear warrants? its pretty hard to argue with someone who wont give the actual reasons for their arguement.

If the mechanism for calling this Court of Review was legislated when FISA was enacted, how can you blame the administration for using laws passed by the legistative branch that allows the judicial branch to rule ... keeping in mind that the administration was not the administartion in office when it was enacted?

I am pretty sure that the legislative body cannot pass laws taking Constitutionally granted authorities away from other branches of government. In my view, by creating this Court of Review to supplant judicial process, they have done just that. A judicial process has been replaced by a joint committee of sorts. While that joint committee could certainly exist and provide insight, it should not be allowed to clear warrants.