Feingold to seek censure of Bush for wiretapping

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    Senator Feingold has let it be known that he intends to seek a resolution of censure against President Bush for his lack of truthiness WRT domestic wiretapping. To whit:
    And yes, I realize Feingold is probably running for president, and that this is an election year and so politics and the charges of this being a 'political stunt' will be in play. But still, it would be nice to force Senators to put themselves on record now as to their position regarding being lied to by the president. Many of these same Senators were quite vociferous in their attacks on Clinton for lying, and as such will have a hard time explaining why it's OK for a Republic president to lie, but not a Democratic president.

    Also, this kind of thing can provide great political ammunition if the wiretapping scandal still happens to be in the news come November -- voters can and should be reminded which Senators either voted against a motion of censure, or worked to kill it. Those senators can be said to be 'in favor of presidential lies' or even 'in favor of protecting a president who broke the law'. Perhaps a few may even 'vote against it before they vote for it'.

    Who knows where the political landscape will be in 7 months?

    Oh and by the way, Feingold's motion deserves an up or down vote -- doesn't it?
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    is there a precedent for this? i thought the way that congress censures is for the house to impeach.
     
  3. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Actually yes there is precedent for this. Only one other president (Andrew Jackson) has been censured by the Senate, in what is now considered a partisan stunt by historians.

    Also, IIRC the whole reason for MoveOn's founding was to call for a censure of Bill Clinton for lying, and then for the country to MoveOn and get over it.

    Censure is a public rebuke by the Senate. It requires no other body to act. Absent a fillibuster, it only requires 51 votes if the motion can get to the floor -- which it really should if the GOP is as serious as they say they are about the principle of 'an up or down vote'.

    Of course, it's not likely to go anywhere, what with the Presidential Apologists in charge. But like I said, it would be good to get those apologists on record so that record can be used against them later.
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Now, here I have to disagree with you. If I understand the usage of the word, Bush's handling of this matter is a perfect example of truthiness, i.e., it only sounds like the truth.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    thanks for the info. i wonder if the house were moving to impeach, the senate (or at least parts thereof) wouldn't feel the need to censure.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    I was gonna say....

    Truthiness is the kind of stuff Bush would like to be true but isn't. It's seeing what you want to see, instead of what is.

    Anyway. This is a nice gesture, but censure really isn't good enough for me. I want Bush's @$$ on a flagpole.
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    As good as that sounds, I do believe that particular penalty is outlawed in all 50 states. I'd have to check to see the status in overseas territories.
     
  8. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    As I understand it, truthiness is something that feels true, regardless of what empirical evidence tells us. There is no way it could have felt true to tell the public that all wiretapping involved a warrant the way Bush did.

    Truthiness comes from your gut, and even Bush's gut must have known he was lying about spying on Americans.
     
  9. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    I don't. I want a political realignment, and a realization by the American people of what 'compassionate conservatism' is all about. It stands for corporate greed, environmental rollbacks, invasions of privacy ranging from illegal wiretapping to telling you that you can't have an abortion or have a feeding tube removed. It stands for a stupid foreign policy, an incompetent response to national disasters, and zero government accountability for it all.

    Regardless of Bush, I would rather Americans see the conservative movement for what it is. Bush can quack out the rest of his term for all I care.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Started on coke, finished on quack. It's a slippery slope, I tell you.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Well, as the saying goes, you can't get down from coke, but you can get down from a duck.
     
  12. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #12
    Lately my appreciation of MLK's wisdom has grown. Here is a sampling of comments made 40 years ago that remain more true than ever:

    "There are those seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. Something
    is happening and people are not gonna be silent. I speak out against this war not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart for the brotherhood of man. Above all is the passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example for the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with america. There can be no great disappointment where there is no great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead end road that can lead to national disaster. We are put in the terrible situation of having to go do battle and fight and kill colored people and poor people who are in the very same situation that we find ourselves in today.

    Now let me move on and say just two or three other things. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles will not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action. But they ask, and rightly so. They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. And I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today... our own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent. We must face the sad fact that our government sought in a real sense to sabotage the
    Geneva Accord. What strange liberators we are.

    I am deeply concerned about our own troops. I am as concerned about them as anything else. For it occurs to me it is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death. They must know after a short period that none of the things that we claim to be fighting for are really involved. And the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor."


    IMPEACH BUSH. He meets all the requisite reasons:

    The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    "We don't torture". "Wiretapping requires a warrant". "We're confident we'll get Bin Laden". "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Suddenly that last one doesn't make me as mad as it once did. The rest however, make me furious. I don't see this going anywhere, but it's should be a wake up call.

    I wonder how many more people care about this than Clinton's bj?
     

Share This Page