Senate Judiciary to have hearing on Censure for Bush

[irishgrl]

Senate hearing set on move to censure Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday it would hold a hearing next week on a call by a Democratic lawmaker to censure President George W. Bush for his domestic spy program.


In a one-sentence notice, the panel said the hearing would be held next Friday by the order of its chairman, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, who has opposed censure.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin introduced a resolution last week calling for a Senate censure of the president, charging that Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program was illegal. Revelation of the once-secret program has triggered a political uproar.

Feingold, who has attracted little support from fellow Democrats for censure, said unless a hearing was held he would push for a vote by the full Senate on his resolution.

The White House and many Republicans in Congress have denounced Feingold's censure resolution as a political stunt.

"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy and the terrorist surveillance program is grounds for censuring the president," Vice President Dick Cheney told a Republican fund-raiser in Orlando, Florida, on Friday, adding, "The American people have already made their decision. They agree with the president."

The Senate has censured a president, which amounts to a formal rebuke, only once before and that was Andrew Jackson in 1834 in a banking dispute.

Bush secretly authorized warrantless electronic eavesdropping on Americans while in pursuit of suspected enemies of the United States shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sought to dismiss the censure resolution against Bush with an immediate vote last week but was blocked by some Democrats who said the resolution needed to be at least debated.

Specter has questioned the legality of Bush's surveillance program but has argued that censure is not justified.

In Senate comments last week, Specter noted that experts had disagreed about whether the president has the constitutional power to conduct the program without court warrants.

"When he (Feingold) comes to the resolve clause and speaks about censure and condemnation of President Bush, I think he is vastly excessive," Specter said.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Feingold will have an opportunity at next week's hearing to debate Specter.

The Wisconsin Democrat, traveling overseas, could not be reached for an immediate comment on Specter's decision to hold a hearing, his office said.


Hell YEAH!

[Sorcerer386]

What the F--- is WRONG with this country? A president abuses his power and does illegal acts that, for many, infringe on the rights of others. He has lied about the weapons of mass destruction, and at this point he seems to be doing nothing about anything. New Orleans is still a disaster, and he's here in Western Pennsylvania doing fund raising nonsense for that son of a biotch Santorum (as if he needs it). YET, no one feels a censuring is in order, but 8 or 9 years ago, Clinton has an affair with an intern (albeit he lied about it under oath), and gets a formal impeachment. I mean, I cannot be the only one who sees something VERY wrong here.

[strandinthewind]

You people amaze me. What don't you all get about this censure is nothing but vote getting fodder for the R's? I mean I want W gone as much as anyone. But, reality dictates this hopeless, but altruistic, venture does nothing but that

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You people amaze me. What don't you all get about this censure is nothing but vote getting fodder for the R's? I mean I want W gone as much as anyone. But, reality dictates this hopeless, but altruistic, venture does nothing but that

If it disgraces him (as he should be) thats a start! if it actually gets RID of him, thats even better. I personally think tar and feathers should be his uniform. Maybe you could explain your point a little bit better?
(is it a hangover yer feeling my dear?)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

If it disgraces him (as he should be) thats a start! if it actually gets RID of him, thats even better. I personally think tar and feathers should be his uniform. Maybe you could explain your point a little bit better?
(is it a hangover yer feeling my dear?)

Again, if he leaves, here is the list of the succession.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior (Vacant)
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

So, the question is what will this accomplish other than some paper thing that will rally the far right troops to the cause and make the D's once again look like bumblers, which most polls suggest the current effort has. The D's and apparently you want to win the victory but not the war, the war being getting the R's out of power so the equally as corrupt but more socially liberal D's can get in power.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, if he leaves, here is the list of the succession.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior (Vacant)
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

So, the question is what will this accomplish other than some paper thing that will rally the far right troops to the cause and make the D's once again look like bumblers, which most polls suggest the current effort has. The D's and apparently you want to win the victory but not the war, the war being getting the R's out of power so the equally as corrupt but more socially liberal D's can get in power.

Well, I get it that getting rid of Bush wont solve the entire problem, but he seems to be a rallying figurehead for the sheep for some reason. Also, if some of the others in line for succession can ALSO be discredited (Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind...) we can at least whittle away the worst of the lot....

AGAIN: my point is that Monkey Boy needs to be discredited. His "Legacy" needs to be so tarnished that he will forever shine as the ultimate example of incompetence and avarice and fiscal depravity this country has ever had to endure...I know that Clinton's enemies have tried mightily to tarnish Clinton's Legacy, but the longer Bush and Co are in office, the better they make Clinton look! People will look back on the Clinton years as a Golden Age, much as people used to do with the Kennedy years...

btw: Im not sure what polls YOU'VE been looking at, every poll Ive seen shows a national dissatisfaction with Bush's policies, at home and abroad. And the "war" you're talking about? Im right there with ya, we need to get the R's OUT of power ASAP. And I know that the Democratic party IS formulating a plan (I seem to be on all the major email lists for the Dems LOL!)

[gldstwmn]

Nothing short of impeachment will do. We need to bring the human stain that has become the Republican party to it's knees and cripple it before any semblance of our representative democracy can begin to flourish again. Of course, the Democrats are so paralyzed right now, don't expect them to do much of the heavy lifting. No, it will have to come from the people themselves. The question is, can they get off the couch?

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Nothing short of impeachment will do. We need to bring the human stain that has become the Republican party to it's knees and cripple it before any semblance of our representative democracy can begin to flourish again. Of course, the Democrats are so paralyzed right now, don't expect them to do much of the heavy lifting. No, it will have to come from the people themselves. The question is, can they get off the couch?

Not while American Idol is on they cant.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Nothing short of impeachment will do. We need to bring the human stain that has become the Republican party to it's knees and cripple it before any semblance of our representative democracy can begin to flourish again. Of course, the Democrats are so paralyzed right now, don't expect them to do much of the heavy lifting. No, it will have to come from the people themselves. The question is, can they get off the couch?

Well, the current polls, which essentially are meaningless in regards to six months from now, all indicate the majority of Americans are way dissatisfied with the way the R's are running the show and pretty much all show that the public thinks the D's should be in charge, etc. -- http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

However, the elections are about six months off and I can assure you the R's will rally support because they will portray the D's as cowardly, gay loving, free for all aborntionists - and it likely will work to prevent the D's from taking the needed seats in the House and Senate. But, I do think the D's will pick up several seats.

In the end, impeachment is a red herring and the D's need to get a solid platform and stick to it. I think that will make them more palatable to the middle mindset voters, which are the votes needed to win an election. To prove my point, the D's have pretty much run on an anti-W platform with no substance anywhere else a la Kerry's lack of a coherent plan for Iraq, etc. Plus, the general public does not really care too much that the govt. spied on people making overseas calls or thereabouts. Moreover, I think the vast majority of people agree that going into Iraq the way we did was a mistake, but many of that majority could care a less because they think all Muslims should be killed and, if anything, W did not hit Iraq hard enough. This is the mindset that W knows he and the R's can play on.

[irishgrl]

I'll be flat honest with ya: my feelings about the Muslims doesnt change my opinion that we dont belong in Iraq and never did. This war is just plain wrong.

Here's an interesting article by a Canadian correspondant:

Neocon ambitions and the spectacular disaster of Iraq
BY ERIC S MARGOLIS

26 March 2006


ON THE third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, we are now able to discern the real motivation behind what Washington claimed was a pre-emptive operation to save mankind from the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

In reality, the Bush Administration went to war to attain two objectives: 1. Seizing Iraq’s vast oil reserves, and turning Iraq into a base to dominate the Middle East; 2. Destroying one of Israel’s two main enemies( Iran being the other).

Three years on, the first goal has not been reached while the second was decisively achieved. Large parts of Iraq — once one of the Arab world’s most developed nations — are in ruins, anarchy, or approaching civil war. The squabbling, US-engineered regime in Baghdad represents only the Shia majority.

US occupation forces in Iraq struggle just to defend their bases and vulnerable supply lines. Their fruitless, Vietnam-style search-and-destroy missions, like the recent ‘Operation Swarmer,’ are a sure sign of strategic failure and senior officers too stupid or arrogant to draw obvious lessons from recent guerilla wars. The US military is repeating many of the same mistakes that led to its defeat in Vietnam.

Over 2,300 American soldiers have died; 16,300 are wounded — and these figures are likely understated. At least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died; some estimates put the figure far higher. The US holds 15,000-18,000 Iraqi prisoners — more than Saddam Hussein ever did.

The stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing Washington a staggering $US 9.8 billion monthly as the US Treasury borrows billions from China and Japan just to keep the government operating. The above figure excludes hundreds of millions in secret CIA bribes to rent cooperation from tribal chiefs and politicians, or hire mercenaries called ‘contractors.’

What was to have been a jolly, self-financing little war promoted by pro-Israeli neocons to ‘liberate’ Iraq’s oil has cost over $500 billion so far. That’s $50 billion more than the Vietnam War’s total cost (in 2006 dollars). Clearly, the US armed forces are too expensive to send to a war lasting longer than a few months.

While a debacle for the US and Iraq, the war has greatly benefited Iran and Israel. Saddam Hussein, responsible for over 300,000 Iranian deaths, is in jail. Iran’s influence in Iraq grows daily. The recent remarkable public agreement by Washington to open talks over Iraq with Great Satan Iran shows even the Bush people are finally facing reality. Besides, occupying Iraq has left the US too weak to invade Iran. Now, the Bush administration, facing rising domestic opposition over the war, is desperately trying to get Iran to help it out of the bloody mess it created in Iraq.

After getting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980, and funding the ensuing eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the US now watches helplessly as Iran slowly ingests large portions of Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq has handed power to pro-Iranian Shia religious parties. Shia spiritual leader, Ali al Sistani, warned followers they would go straight to hell — and lose their wives — if they did not vote for Shia religious candidates.

Israel has been the second major beneficiary of the Iraq war. The long-term strategic goal of Israel’s Likud Party rightists — shattering unstable Arab states to leave Israel dominant in the region — has been half attained by Iraq’s fragmentation into three parts. Syria’s regime is destabilised and faces possible civil strife. Any future challenge by Iraq to Israel’s Middle East nuclear monopoly has vanished.

Meanwhile, Israel has been able to cut defence spending, intensify repression of the Palestinians, and is quietly extending its influence into the semi-independent, oil-rich Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

Ironically, the third major beneficiary of Bush’s war has been his nemesis, Osama bin Laden. The only way to drive US influence out of the Muslim world, Bin Laden has long maintained, is to tie it down in a series of small wars that bleed it financially. The nearly $10 billion a month wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are doing just that. Iraq, as even Bush admits, has become an incubator, magnet, and call to arms for anti-American jihadists across the Muslim World.

Worse than the billions poured into Iraq, and the $1.5 billion stolen from Iraq’s government during 2004-2005, the US has lost its honour in this brutal little neo-colonial war. The neoconservatives’ ambitions to plunder Iraq’s oil have become a mirage. An odour of pessimism and defeat hangs over the stalemated US military adventure in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney presidency sinks into the quick-sand of Iraq.

Eric S Margolis, a veteran media professional based in Toronto, is contributing foreign editor of The Toronto Sun. He can be reached at margolis@ foreigncorrespondent.com


Gad.

[strandinthewind]

Here is link to a related thread on the fear of the R's of the backlash in the midterm elections.

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...513#post513513

[madformac]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

AGAIN: my point is that Monkey Boy needs to be discredited. His "Legacy" needs to be so tarnished that he will forever shine as the ultimate example of incompetence and avarice and fiscal depravity this country has ever had to endure...I know that Clinton's enemies have tried mightily to tarnish Clinton's Legacy, but the longer Bush and Co are in office, the better they make Clinton look! People will look back on the Clinton years as a Golden Age, much as people used to do with the Kennedy years...

All Clinton's problem was he had a penchant for blowjobs. It's not exactly the worlds biggest crime is it? Compared to "W" anyway. I suspect if anybody wanted to give "W" a blowjob they needn't look any further than his forehead...

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by madformac

All Clinton's problem was he had a penchant for blowjobs. It's not exactly the worlds biggest crime is it? Compared to "W" anyway. I suspect if anybody wanted to give "W" a blowjob they needn't look any further than his forehead...

OUCH! Yeah, I'm guessing he's not exactly Johnny Wad.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here is link to a related thread on the fear of the R's of the backlash in the midterm elections.

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...513#post513513

from that I get a couple of things:
1) poll results show Americans are NOT happy with Bush or his policies
2) the Dems playing offense is scaring the Rethugs who got used to the "roll over and play dead" antics of the past.


I just want to say that I applaud Russ Feingold who stood virtually alone (only Barbara Boxer and one other Senator stood with him) calling for censure. If I could call him I would but I think I'll visit his website and email him. He needs to know his efforts ARE appreciated. (EDIT: here is his site: Russ Feingold)

Now: as to the Reuplican behavior today, I hear that the Rethugs were abusive and that many of the Democrats echoed the fear that this act on Feingold's part will energize the Reupublican "base"....speaking for myself, 9/10ths of the Dem party need to be spanked. Here again we have a golden opportunity to deliver a body blow and what do we do? whine about energizing the other side? I can tell you that its the actions of the Boxers, the Feingolds, the Conyers that energize ME. If he runs for office in 08, I know who IM voting for....

[irishgrl]

bump. here's an article:

ohn Dean backs bid to censure Bush

By Thomas Ferraro 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House counsel John Dean said on Friday that U.S.
President George W. Bush's domestic spying program raised more concerns about abuse of power than the Watergate scandal that toppled his boss
Richard Nixon.

Dean, who served time in prison for his role in Watergate, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a seemingly futile Democratic bid to censure Bush for the eavesdropping program that is part of his war on terrorism.

"I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious," Dean, whose testimony three decades ago help lead to Nixon's resignation in 1974, said in support of the seldom-used measure to discredit a president.

Dean is also the author of a book titled "Worse than Watergate," which slams the Bush administration as obsessed with politics and secrecy.

"This is not Watergate," countered another witness, Lee Casey, who served in earlier Republican administrations. Casey argued Bush had the power to authorize the eavesdropping program shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Republicans have dismissed the censure resolution as a political stunt, while many Democrats have distanced themselves from it as they jockey for position on the issue of national security and near the November congressional elections.

Sen. Russ Feingold, a maverick Wisconsin Democrat, offered the censure resolution this month. He charged that without getting court approval, Bush violated the law by secretly ordering the program to listen to phone conversations with suspected al Qaeda members outside the country.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, began the hearing by declaring that the resolution has no merit."But it provides a forum" for discussion, said Specter.

Like many members of the U.S. Congress, Specter has voiced concerns about the program that monitors overseas phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens while in pursuit of al Qaeda.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, made spying on American citizens in the United States illegal without the approval of a special secret court.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Yet the administration contends, with the support of much of the Republican-led Senate, that Bush has the constitutional authority to conduct the program.

Feingold again rejected that, and noted an effort by Specter to require the FISA court to review the program.

"Where we disagree, apparently, is whether the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution allows him to authorize warrantless surveillance without complying with FISA," Feingold told Specter."I do not believe he has such authority," Feingold said.

Feingold's resolution has rallied the support of liberal groups but has also galvanized conservatives backing the embattled war-time president. So far, just two of Feingold's 43 fellow Senate Democrats, have signed on as co-sponsors of the censure move. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on Friday he would also back condemning Bush for "secretly and systematically violating the law."

Dean, one of five witnesses called to testify, said, "I recall a morning ... March 21, 1973, that I tried to warn a president of the consequences of staying his course." "I failed to convince President Nixon that morning and the rest, as they say, is history," Dean said.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), a Texas Republican, rejected comparisons of Bush to Watergate, and said: "Today's hearing is our committee's first -- and hopefully last -- discussion of Senator Feingold's resolution. The panel must decide, however, whether to send it to the full Senate where it seems certain to be defeated.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan)