Comments on: SUPPORT CENSURE (BUT DON’T STOP SPYING ON TERRORISTS IN AMERICA)

By: The Absurd Report

The Absurd Report — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:17:16 +0000

SUPPORT CENSURE (BUT DONâ€™T STOP SPYING ON TERRORISTS IN AMERICA)

Is Censure Legal? There is a debate among Constitutionalist whether the Senate has the authority to censure a President. I for one do not think itâ€™s legal. The sole remedy/power that the Senate has to check the President is de-fund the program.

…

By: SShiell

SShiell — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:37:24 +0000

Rick:
Even more telling is the fact that while Left leaning folks like Feingold and such would like to censure the President because he â€œknowingly broke the lawâ€, there has been exactly zero move to stop the NSA’s so-called lawbreaking actions. I would think that if laws were being broken there would be some action taken to stop it? Go Figure!

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:41:39 +0000

Hmmmm…there you go again!

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?

I think I would have answered yes to that question.

The problem is, that the question is loaded because only half the conversation we are talking about is taking place in the United States. Plus, most of those being “wiretapped” (a term that does NOT describe what the intercept program was doing) are being scanned becaused the person on the other end of the line has some connection - however remote - with al Qaeda or another terrorist group.

Gee..I wonder why those facts weren’t mentionin in that question?

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:33:51 +0000

Hmmm? Maybe this Censure things has legs. Americans support it:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

By: Todd Christian

Todd Christian — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:16:46 +0000

Of course nothing is going to deter the Democrats from trying to gain revenge for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, especially as long as they are led by their “progressive” wing. The real interesting question is this: How long are the voters going to continue to put up with the partisan stalemate on every major decision Congress needs to make until they start to clean house? And that means not just electing partisan Democrats to replace partisan Republicans - that means looking for politicians who attempt to move forward, if only incrementally, by working together in areas of agreement.

I realize that this begs the question of whether Congress “needs” to make any decisions.

By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Why don’t Senate Democrats support Feingold’s resolution?

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:33:46 +0000

[...] They actually believe that Bush has done the right thing (but weren’t above making him squirm) (see also here). [...]

By: The Glittering Eye

The Glittering Eye — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:33:44 +0000

Why don’t Senate Democrats support Feingold’s resolution?

I’m searching for a reason.Â Here are some I’ve heard advanced:

They’re cowards.
It doesn’t move the ball forward (see also here).
They actually believe that Bush has done the right thing (but weren’t above making him sq…

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:27:03 +0000

When the Dems get subpeona power after November, there will be no move for impeachment but there will be hearings on a lot of things that have been hidden from sight over the last four years. Now if everything is as represented by the administration, than they have nothing to be worried about, but if some blatant law breaking is unearthed. Well then, it’s a whole other game. Too bad Johnny Cochran’s dead, Rumsfield and others may need him.