Sen. Feingold Calls for Censuring Bush

Well, there goes any chance Feingold will get the Republican nomination for president! As for his own party, he doesn't stand a chance there, either. You can't win the presidency with a muddled "hate Bush" campaign when Bush isn't even your opponent. Even Hillary has a better chance than Feingold.

Sedition is alive and well.
If one can step back and view ask what view Al Queda would take on this issue, then is isn't hard to realize that the enemy is within. At some point we must call a spade a spade and label these views what they are: anti-american hatred.
The facts of the case are being blatantly disregarded for political "advancement". We must force these people defend the harm they cause to our country by supporting our enemy and preventing us from defending ourselves. Our families are being put at risk in the name of "privacy" and "free speech". Russ F. will not come running to the rescue when a suicide bomber blows up half of the stadium at the Final Four. He will be ready and willing to scream that we didn't "do enough" to protect ourselves. Weakness is the crack that our future killers will use to exploit us and we must fight it today. When they chant "Death to America", do you think they will spare you because your a liberal, have "good intentions", and stood up for Free Speech?

But...FISA lets the president get a warrant 72 hours after the fact. I have not yet heard one good argument why he should be excused for breaking a law that would have in no way impeded the process.

You can't just call it brainless america bashing when it's a well-reasoned argument from a strong position. Nor, to my mind, can you call every criticism of the president a narrow-minded failure to support America - this seems to me to have been a blatantly illegal act, and Feingold is taking a firm stance, which is more than the rest of the Democratic Party seems to be able to do. If this costs him the presidential nod, the party deserves what it gets.

Who's up for bets that Feingold's little bill is going to "dissappear," him along with it?

TexasRob, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have to say though, it is sad that we appear to be in the minority here on newsvine. There are many more liberals here than conservatives. Either that or the liberals are just more vocal. The empty pan rattles the most they say. I think the lyrics to a metallica song, "My friend of misery" says it all about liberals.

You just stood there screaming
Fearing no one was listening to you
They say the empty can rattles the most
The sound of your own voice must soothe you
Hearing only what you want to hear
And knowing only what you've heard
You, you're smothered in tragedy
And You're out to save the world

Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There's much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery

You still stood there screaming
No one caring about these words you tell
My friend before your voice is gone
One man's fun is another's hell
These times are sent to try men's souls
But something's wrong with all you see
You, you'll take it on all yourself
Remember, misery loves company

Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There's much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery

You just stood there screaming
My friend of misery

TexasRob you do not deserve freedom nor free speach if you are willing to forgoe them in the name of security. I will risk being blown up at the final four to protect the VERY things that have made this country the greatest in the world.

Don't lable this as "liberal" when in fact Feingold supported censoring former President Clinton. The man is about what is right and what is legal! President Bush's actions may seem "right" (that's up for debate) but they are not legal. He must answer for them.

Those that deserve free speech are those that are willing to do whats right and just. It is difficult to speak freely when you are jumping 100 floors to your death. Ask those people who exercised their free speech as called their spouses and children when they were flying into the buildings. Be careful what you wish for. You just may get that chance to be blown up. You can rest easy in your grave knowing that the phone call you made a day earlier to your buddy to get that bag of weed wasn't being listened to. Sounds like jsquires is willing to die for his right to privacy and free speech. I suggest the US Military would be happy to have you. Serving our country is a noble and just pursuit.

Exactly, TexasRob, I contend that the majority who prattle on with this nonsense have never seen a day in the military. They say they are willing to die for what they believe in, let me see them prove. The fact is, they are cowards!!

Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

From now on, I will not crouch my words in niceties. I will tell like it is and as I see it. Samuel Adams obviously didn't worry about hurting feelings. Neither will I!

Bravo!!

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

Thank God ONE Democrat is willing to be "crazy" enough to stand up for our RIGHTS ... the rest of them are pathetic and impotent ... Bless this guy and I hope he runs for President ... he's got my vote already!

crazy political move? No, that's a bold political move.

You want a crazy political move? Being vice-president of the United States, shooting a friend while quail-hunting under the influence of alcohol in his face, then not telling the white house press corp for up to 19 hours. Then have Scott justify the wait. Then Cheney not talk about it for days until he gets on FOXNEWS. That's a crazy political move.

jsquires wrote: Don't lable this as "liberal" when in fact Feingold supported censoring former President Clinton. The man is about what is right and what is legal! President Bush's actions may seem "right" (that's up for debate) but they are not legal. He must answer for them.

Ignoring for a moment your "liberal" spelling of "label," let's call your attention to the Constitution of the United States. Show me where that document gives Congress the authority to "censure" a president. Impeach, yes, convict for the crimes listed in a successful impeachment resolution, yes, but "censure" is so much hot air and Feingold surely knows it. He is pandering to the gullible. Congratulations, you took a bite.

As for Mykola Bilokonsky's question, I guess he didn't read my comment, and those of the court that oversees FISA, about FISA's constitutionality. Just because Congress passes a law doesn't mean the president is toothless. It could mean the Congress has overstepped its authority. So what is a president supposed to do about that, sue the Congress in the Supreme Court? Well, no president has ever chosen that route. The best approach is to ignore Congress and let them sue in the Supreme Court. If they don't do that, you have called their bluff, and all you have to do is wait out their insane rhetoric until the public discovers the real culprits.

Ken, the problem with your statement is that no one is losing their basic liberties. This is pure nonsense. If I can no longer make a phone call to an Al Quada member, does that mean I am less free? Stop with the nonsense.

Actually, I'm referring to TexasRob's first comment...

Okay, 72 hours isn't enough. Why not extend it to 108 hours? Why not say X hours?

Oh yeah, we shouldn't be concerned about trivilalities like the law.

And I find it absolutely hilarious that the only counter to any argument that Bush's supporters are capable of making is that if you speak you're opinion and it isn't exactly what Bush says, you're anti-American.

And if Bush is making us so much safer, then... ermm... why does he still tell us every single day to be afraid?

To be honest, I believe Feingold's efforts are in vain, if he does successfull censure Bush, does that change anything? Perhaps Bush's approval rating drops, but then hasn't that been the trend lately? All it does is distance Congress from the late string of Bushisms.

What's interesting is that this guy accuses Bush of breaking the Constitution and all these offenses that sound very serious and then he wants to censure him? How about impeachment for serious crimes?

And I find it hilarious that if you speak your mind and it just so happens to be exactly what Bush says, then you are labeled as stupid ignorant neo-con redneck.

Dreamweavr72 writes:

Mykola, mykola, you always bleat on and on, but you never say anything new or worth hearing.

I'm sorry, but didn't you just quote a Metallica song to underline your point? Perhaps Mykola simply finds your previous arguments unconvincing. That's really no reason to start in on personal insults.

TexasRob writes:

Those that deserve free speech are those that are willing to do whats right and just.

Everyone has the right to free speech. That's what a right is. It's a shame you don't get that and must use emotional heart strings to try and prove a point that goes against the basis of our country. Further, the fact that the Senator is wanting hold the President to the law is, in fact, the very opposite of sedition.

Lastly, when you with no good reason start talking about calls to get marijuana, you're going too far. jsquires made no mention of anything like that, but you took it upon yourself to imply somehow that because he disagrees with the President that he must be a pothead. That's beyond poor debate tactics; that's just low. You have every right to agree with the President if you feel he's done the right thing, but if that's all your argument comes down to, your just wasting everyone's time.

Assuring security today means far different things than it did to Ol' Ben. We sacrifice basic liberties every day for the sake of the greater good. Screaming "Fire" in a theatre is often mentioned. Also metal detectors, seat belts, insurance, movie ratings, alcohol sales to minors, anti-smoking campaigns, making death threats against the President....etc. Our lawbooks are filled with curbs to our "freedoms" and "liberties".
Every "liberty" we enjoy derives from our security. We do not live in a theoretical vacuum. The real world has no respect for our ideals. Our children must be secure. Else it is all moot.

Everyone has the right to free speech. That's what a right is.

Well said Jason... I'm glad to see that some people around here are capable of rationality.

I'd also like to point out, that when people run around saying that not everyone deserves the right to free speech or uses abrasive and abusive "debate" tactics, then yes... there is an increased chance you will be called ignorant.

Yup, because giving your political opinion... in what is mostly a political forum...

Yeaaaaah...

THAT's the real threat to America.

(If my eyes rolled any harder, they'd fall out of my head.)

Jason, your wasting everyone's time. You aren't saying anything new. We've heard your rhetoric a million times before. His point about the marijuana is that if you have nothing to hide, why are you so concerned? If you aren't talking to Al Quada no one is listening to you. And his other point is that the feds already have the authority to tap your phone if they suspect you of drug trafficking. This whole notion that we can go to war and Kill Al Quada members but we can't listen in on their phone calls is just pure ludicrous. And read my quote from Samuel Adams. His statement was pretty harsh, but well called for under the circumstances. I said that from now on I will no longer worry about hurting feelings. If you are being un American or American hating then I will call you on it.