Censure Russ Feingold

Image hosting by Photobucket 

Mark Noonan at Blogs For Bush is recommending that Russ Feingold be censured for his idiotic political Leftist patronization

Given that the only possible beneficiaries of such an action are the terrorist enemeis of the United States, I believe that we should urge the Senate to censure Senator Feingold for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I would ask for his expulsion from the Senate, but as that requires a 2/3 vote its a non-starter – the Democrats, for whom political power is the be-all and end-all of existence, simply would not vote to harm one of their own. Censure, though, only takes a majority vote. There are 55 Republican Senators, and even a few Democratic Senators who haven’t driven off the anti-war cliff.

The issue is, at the time of this posting, the most emailed story at Yahoo News

A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

“The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable,” Sen. Russ Feingold, Defeatocrat-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history — against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the proposal “a crazy political move” that would weaken the U.S. during wartime.

So, like Mark stated, it is a political stunt. One that embolden’s the enemy, as so much of the Defeatocrats speeches and stunts do.

Mark has a canned letter you can use to send to your two Senate Critters, as well as Bill Frist. Go to Congress Merge to find their email addresses.

Look, you Dems can criticize Bush all you want on Domestic issues, like spending, illegal immigration, whatever. But, when it comes to fighting Islamic terrorists, maybe you should realize that all your seething festering Bush hatred ends up harming our security. If you don’t think that the enemy pays attention and plays off of what you say, then perhaps you should step back into real reality, rather then Liberal World reality.

It is not domestic spying. As John Hawkins at Right Wing News writes

First of all, if you call a terrorist in Afghanistan and you’re both yakking it up, talking about murdering infidels, your favorite explosive, or who your favorite Democratic Senator is, does your phone company consider that to be a domestic call or an international call? An international call, right? After all, you’re talking to someone in a foreign country, right? Yet, those are the type of calls that are tapped, in some cases, without warrants, and yet the media never seems to challenge the Democrats when they call them “domestic calls.”

If the Left had their way, they would have us back to Sept 10, 2001, with all means to fight taken away. You cannot trust people that take the most expedient position. Right Wing News has more on that, too.

Make sure you send your letter!


Linked to Committees of Correspondence, Pirates! Man Your Women, Don Surber, and Basil’s Picnic.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

51 Responses to “Censure Russ Feingold”

  1. Jim says:

    Look, you Reps can worship Bush for pretending to fight Islamic terrorists, but maybe you should realize that all your seething demented Bush worshiping ends up harming our security. If you don’t think that the world pays attention when our President breaks the law, spys on his own people and tortures our prisoners then perhaps you should step back into real reality, rather then Faith World reality.

    If the Right had their way, they would have us back to Sept 10, 1771, with all Constitutional rights taken away. You cannot trust people that take the most expedient position. Right Wing News has some other anti-American nonsense as well.

  2. Blimfark says:

    Perhaps someone can clear up the (seemingly axiomatic) connection between criticism of the administration’s policy and “aiding the terrorists”…?

    “If you don’t think that the enemy pays attention and plays off of what you say, then perhaps you should step back into real reality, rather then Liberal World reality.”

    As David Hume famously wrote:

    “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”

    Or, briefly, exactly *how* (i.e., by what specific mechanisms) is it that criticism of Bush produces effects that are _only_ beneficial to our enemies?

  3. William Teach says:

    I’m still waiting for the comment, either here or at another blog, that defends Feingold an/or the Defeatocrat policies. So far, it is all WAB (what about Bush.)

    Does your so called Party offer any constructive solutions?

  4. Peter says:

    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, if you are talking to a terrorist outside the USA, that call should be spied on and the information acted upon.

    Now, why can’t that be done WITH a warrant? Why did the President order it without warrants?

    The answer is “no one knows in advance which calls will be to terrorists in Afghanistan”. Therefore, the Bush administration authorized eavesdropping on EVERY call from EVERY American. You can’t ask for a warrant for 260 million people – the court would throw it out.

    They just went ahead and did the mass spying anyway. And that is illegal and unconstitutional. (Fourth amendment against “unreasonable searches”). Do the spying, just do it in a legal, targeted, focused way. With warrants.

  5. zen_less says:

    Amen! (I’m allowed to say that even though I’m not a Republican). Why you Bushentologists think you should never criticize dear Leader when he is obviously driving you right off a clilff is beyond me. “Reality” does not consist of only good news. Machievelli himself said that the Prince should never be afraid to hear criticism, because to never criticism is to invariably pursue flawed policies.

  6. Devil's Advocate says:


    Right on, Jim!

    I’ll add that BushCo’s abysmal incompetence in the aftermath of Katrina showed the world — including terrorists — how unprepared the country is in dealing with large-scale disasters.

    The world — including terrorists — knows that our ports, bridges, tunnels, nuclear and chemical plants are woefully unprotected, again, due to BushCo’s incompetence.

    George Bush is the poster child for terrorist recruitment. His government policies of torture, denial of due process, renditions, secret prisons, and other odious machinations, have caused the U.S. to become an international pariah.

    This said, the Bushies are cultists. Like all cultists, they are throuroughly brainwashed and trained to march in lockstep with the object of their adulation. In other words, they are zombies. That is why their lines of argument are restricted to black and white.

    That is another thing that we can thank BushCo for: the intellectual discourse in this country has reached historically pedestrian levels.

  7. Bernard HP Gilroy says:

    I’ll speak in defense of the Senator: Bravo for attempting to send the signal to the world that the United States of America retains a government of law and not of men. Bravo for standing up for the Constitution, which this President swore to uphold and then willfully violated. Bravo for the Senator for asking his peers to exercise their duty to serve as a check on the executive. Our enemies do watch what happens in America — and they undoubtedly cackle with glee with every draconian and unlawful step this Administration takes. Our allies watch, too, and weep for the transformation of a great republic into a mediocre empire.

    Here’s a thought: If the President thinks that paying attention to his illegal actions harms the security of the United States, maybe he should STOP COMMITTING them. How can the open functioning of our Constitutional system be construed as harming the United States?

    And harkening back to 9/11 doesn’t save you on this one. Absolutely NOTHING has been offered that explains why this Administration found FISA inadequate (indeed, in testimony before Congress in 2002, the Administration claimed the law was sufficient), nor has anyone suggested any intelligence that could have been gained but which would not have drawn a warrant from the FISA court. One has to wonder: With a court so pliant that it has approved over 10,000 requests and denied only FOUR, in a quarter century… with a court so eager to aid the executive in its pursuit of terrorists … what is the President so afraid of? What surveillence has he authorized that is so egregious that the FISA court would not have issued warrants — even retroactive ones — to allow?

  8. Lex says:

    As a red-state Republican for almost 30 years, I’m delighted that someone is finally trying to hold this chief executive accountable for his clearly criminal behavior.

    And when our ports are secure, then and only then can you come back and talk to me about national security. You can ignore reality all you like, but reality has a way of not ignoring you back … and it’s past time the country was governed by someone, of any party, who understands that fact.

  9. Hyscience says:

    Defending America Verses Supporting Our Enemies…

    …while Americans are fiddling around with idiotic political games, Al-Qaeda and the rest of the Islamofascists are laughing and patting themselves on the back, and wondering in amazement how their enemy can be so very stupid as to help them at every …

  10. Robert says:

    You got it hyscience.

    Meanwhile GWB has won an unprecedented Al Quadea Recruiter of the Year” Award 3 years running.

  11. Censure Russ…

    I shamelessly stole this logo from Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush after reading about his call to turn the tables on the Wisconsin Democrat:

    Dear Senator,
    I have been watching with growing dismay as various politicians have been undercutting our effor…

  12. William Teach says:

    Criticizing Bush is fine. Going completely wonkers in opposition of EVERYTHING that Bush does is not, at least when it comes to National Security issues. I disagreed with the way Sue Myrick (R-NC) handled the ports deal, as well as many a Republican, for taking the same hysterical track.

    But, do the Dems have any sort of alternatives to offer? Better plans? Anything? Or is it more of the “we’ll tell you if we are elected” garbage? I’m still waiting for those plans.

    Why would a warrant be needed to listen to electronic intercepts of international calls? And, how do you know that, when a call is coming in or going out from an American citizen that one is not being gotten? If either party is not a US citizen, they are not covered. That is the law.

  13. Bill says:

    Oh whine, bitch and moan,boo-hoo-hoo. Give me a break. The usual right pabulum when someone dares to criticize or point out the Bush crime family record,they immediately go into 9/11 mode. In essence,you can’t criticize Bush because the right wingnuts will cry “traitor” This is (for a little while at least) America and there is still a little inconveint thing that all righties hate—The US Constitution,and the 1st Amedment,which gives me the right to criticize King George,and I’ll continue to do so.

  14. Renne P. says:

    Ya, Noonon is his usual intellectually barren self. The terrrorists are afraid of our Marines, not some dude sitting in the White House. The notion that the war on terror would simply end should Bush be criticized or held accountable for his actions would be laughable if it weren’t a sign of desperation by the Right. Considering Bush’s current poll numbers and tragic mistake of trying to turn Iraq into a front in the War on Terror, terrorists probably do hate Russ for this. Terrorists no doubt want to keep Bush in power so they can continue to thrive. God Forbid we get a democrat in power to run the War on Terror effectively.

  15. William Teach says:

    “God Forbid we get a democrat in power to run the War on Terror effectively.”

    And the plans to do that are……..? Still waiting.

    “A litany of complaints is not a plan.” That was true during the debates, and it is just as true today.

  16. eddie says:

    It’s wonderful listening to bluster: after a while it reminds one that the beach is a much nicer place than the blogosphere.

    Just a couple of questions:

    Please show, in concrete terms, how censuring our president for breaking the law abets the enemy. This is an assumption that is proved by merely stating that it is so.

    Secondly, where does anyone get enough information to state blindly that this is not about domestic surveillance. The problem is that no one really knows the extent of the surveillance.

    More likely than the benign explanations of the administration that only know al-Qaeda members are always involved this surveillance is a big net affair. All communications are “intercepted” and slowly a filtration occurs.

    But why should I trust those who already have violated the law.

  17. eddie says:

    So the logical extension of this, the Constitution of the United States is aiding and abetting our enemies by requiring that a new president replace King George.

    Do you guys ever speak you drivel out loud to determine whether it passes the smell test . . . Cuz I’m smellin a whole lotta BS.

  18. William Teach says:

    See, the problem here is, edie, that it is up to Fiengold and the other Dems to provide the proof, following the great American concept of “innocent till proven guilty.” You know, that whole Bill of Rights thing. Feelings do not count as proof..

  19. Eric says:

    I’m not going to let some two bit terrorist in a cave scare me into giving up my rights.

    Please show me some evidence that the Preident’s people were only listening to calls outside the US.

    How would you feel if a Democratic president was found to be eavesdropping on the phone conversations of Americans without a warrant?

    I’ll defend the Constitution to the end. I don’t care about the president. He is just another sleazy politician. America was founded on the revolutionary priciple that the people’s liberties and pursuit of happiness were more important than the goverment.

  20. liberalpercy says:

    What is it about you wingnuts that makes you so paranoid about the “message we are sending”? You give control to the terrorists if you let fear of what they might think strip us of our freedoms.

    Bush supposedly took us to war to promote freedom and democracy (that’s reason # 22 after his lies about WMDs or al Qaeda). Yet you want someone who expresses his own freedom thrown out of the Senate! Is it hypocricy or stupidity? Or both?

    You seem to think we are so weak that the least little dissent will cause us to fail. You forget that you control the House, you control the Senate, you control the Military, you control FEMA, you control EVERYTHING, yet you’re afraid of what one Senator thinks?

    I’d say, you and your incompetent, corrupt party are about to fall so far out of favor that it will be a generation before you can hoodwink enough voters to win again.

  21. Devil's Advocate says:

    “You seem to think we are so weak that the least little dissent will cause us to fail. You forget that you control the House, you control the Senate, you control the Military, you control FEMA, you control EVERYTHING, yet you’re afraid of what one Senator thinks?”

    Yeah, and they also control HALF of the Supreme Court. One really does wonder why they soil their diapers at the slightest peep of dissent, does one?

  22. drindl says:

    For a pirate, this guy sure is a wimp. Why are the wingers so freaking terrified of criticism? If Bush is half a man [which I actually doubt] why would he care what people say? And why on earth are wingers stupid enough to believe that all this spying — we know of thousands of intercepts — is international only?

    What makes them think that their pornography viewing habits aren’t already being sniggered at by dozens of low-level employees at the DOJ?

  23. Sum Guy says:

    Frist’s response seems to ignore the issue: Was the warrantless wiretapping against the law.

    If no… then there’s no problem. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case and nobody seems to be making that argument anymore.

    If yes… then the next question is: What are you going to do about it?

    Some people want to ignore it, while simultaneously legalizing the behavior. Legalizing it is fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that the law has already been broken.

    Others want to do hold someone accountable over the fact that the law has been broken.

    Raise your hand if you want to ignore the consequences of breaking the law.

  24. William Teach says:

    Great illustration of what y’all are saying “Please show me some evidence that the Preident’s people were only listening to calls outside the US.”

    No, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. It is up to you Defeatacrats to provide said proof of wrong-doing. Maybe you should read the Constitution you proclaim to defend for once.

    And, as far as criticism goes, that is all we have had to deal with since 2001 from the Left. It is also all that the left has to offer. No plans, no agenda, no thoughts. Just criticism. Let me know when that changes. I’ve asked numerous times: do the Dems have a better solution? No? Wow.

  25. jim says:

    Bush swore he would uphold the Constitution, and the laws of the US.

    Bush said specifically that they were following FISA.

    Bush’s actions did not follow FISA – or FISA would not require the GOP-led Senate to ‘modify’ FISA to allow them to continue.

    If if did not follow FISA,then it did not follow the Constitution.

    Our fathers did not need to break the law in order to protect this country. Not even when they faced the possibility of Soviet aggression that could result in the destruction of the entire planet.

    For us to be too frightened of a bunch of terrorists to hold the President accountable to his promises, then we show ourselves to be unworthy of all our fathers fought for and left in our hands.

  26. Devil's Advocate says:


    Bush publicly admitted that wiretapping was done without seeking warrants. He thus publicly admitted that he broke the law. Hence, the burden of proof is not on the “defeatacrats”. The cat is already out of the bag.

    In any events, FISA allows for wiretapping as long as a warrant is obrained within 72 hours of the wiretapping. 72 hours = three full days. What is so constraining about it?

    Moreover, FISA has extremely rarely refused a warrant. That tells me that the FISA standards for “probable cause” are quite low. Not much constraint from there either…

    So, why did Bush authorize warantless wiretapping?

    Because that gave him and his goons the latitude of spying on just anybody, not just suspected terrorists.

    As far as I am concerned, Bush can order all the wiretapping that he wants as long as warrants are obtained.

  27. Renne P. says:

    Sorry William. Too many legal scholars say Bush broke the law. Conservatives simply let him get away with it, because he has an (R) after his name. They’re more insterested in power than the Constitution, which their actions (or inactions) convey over and over again.

  28. Craig says:

    Look, you on the right need to make a choice:

    You’re with the rule of law or you are against the rule of law.

    If you are going to respond to law-breaking with the argument that the president can ignore the law when he likes in the name of doing what he wants under the banner of national security, then say so, and stop the mealy-mouthed excuses trying to get that policy without admitting it.

    If you are not willing to do that, and want to claim that you do support the rule of law, then you are not allowed to defend law-breaking with the defense that it was with a motive of protecting security.

    You either have a president above the rule of law or you do not.

    Make up your minds and take a position one way or the other.

  29. Devil's Advocate says:


    When was the last time that the right-wingers did NOT try to have their cake and eat it too?

  30. Wendell Bell says:

    Look, the President could have done this legally, or he could have gotten the law changed (most of the Patriot Act WAS changes to FISA) or he could violate the law, repeatedly, concertedly and going forward. He chose the third course. Therefore, censure is in order.

    No President is above the law. No President has the constitutional right to blow off laws, duly enacted, that he finds inconvenient.

    I, for one, would be just as fervently for this censure if the name of the offending President was Bill…or Hilary–and I think some reflexive Bush supporters should think about whether they would still be arguing for some of the propositions that they are now urging if the President was a Democrat.

  31. andy phx says:

    yes the critics are to blame. not the bad policy or lack of policy. so its the folks pointing out the bad policy that makes us less safe not the lack of or crappy policies. you are correct in that our enemies are paying attention. they are paying attention to the fact that we have a dumbass for a president who has done everything to play into the hands of osama bin laden. you must think these folks are really stupid. (mis) underestimating your enemy is very dangerous. while you are sticking with your blame everyone else except for derleader, folks are finally allowing themselves to believe what their eyes tell them and not karl roves empty talking points. folks arent blinded anymore by bushs carefully crafted ‘folksiness’ (hey if bush can make up words so can i) that allowed trusting americans to put their trust and the security of this country into the blood soaked hands of this president. dismiss the critics as haters. thats exactly what karl wants. good americans dont believe what they see. good and patriotic americans believe what karl tells them to believe. right? you criticize people that make up their own minds based on what he does. its unbelievable that you dont see the chasm between what they say and what they ACTUALLY do. i totally disagree with you. but respectfully so. look the world has all the sean hannitys it can stomach. why not be yourself? anyone can parrot hannity. real pirates didnt do what others told them to say and do. they did and thought as they wanted. they especially had contempt for the rich and arrogant upper crust. they didnt have a problem robbing the people that got wealthy robbing others. youve got the pirate thing all wrong. real pirates would think bush, rove, cheney, rush, hannity, prager and savage are all giant pussies!! not a one served on the battlefield nor in the military. and please dont bring up bushs pussy guard non-service. remember he served in the champagne unit where all of the other wealthy pussies put their children. most of whom profit the most from war in the first place. we know prescott bush grew up poor and made them the wealthy family they are by fueling the nazi war machine. those are the facts. cant change history. god have mercy on america for what bush is doing. who would jesus bomb? who would jesus kill? would jesus use the military of the US to secure oil in other countries to the detriment of their own people so that already insanely wealthy people can make more $$? would jesus work harder to condemn gay folks or to help the least among us? would he work harder to point the finger at moral wrong-doers or the finger pointers? i think if you read your bible the answers are very clear. thanks for listening to a liberal. even if, well, even though you probably disagree. isnt america great?!! we can respectfully disagree with going to blows. that we can have a free exchange of ideas without worry about bombs in our backyards. god bless you and america!!

  32. masaccio says:

    The issue underlying Feingold’s censure resolution is simple: people should be held accountable for their failures and their crimes. This I know because I followed the Clinton impeachment extravaganza. I am accountable for my failures and so is everyone else posting here. This is standard American practice.

    So, before you knock Feingold, you have to tell us your idea for holding anyone in this administration accountable for their failures, such as Katrina, leaving the Feydayeen in Iraq instead of killing them like the ground commanders wanted to do (see recent NY Times articles for this particular screw-up), the failure to kill Al-Zarqawi in Kurdistan at the outset of the Iraq adventure or before, the staggering debt, the reckless financial decisions and so on. and on. and on.

  33. Coop says:


  34. beets says:

    The enemies best friend is idiot strategy, not idiot naysayers. What the hell kind of strategy is booing the booing?

  35. bob lewis says:

    Teach sez: “See, the problem here is, edie, that it is up to Fiengold and the other Dems to provide the proof, following the great American concept of “innocent till proven guilty.” You know, that whole Bill of Rights thing. Feelings do not count as proof..”

    Exactly! And that’s why the articles of impeachment should be drawn up as quickly as possible – because then a trial may be had, and the Senate may judge whether or not the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors by purposefully violating a Federal law.

    50 USC 36, § 1809 sez: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
    (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute [i.e. with a warrant] . . . and [each] offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    Nowhere does the Code say anything about “anyone but the President”. When the law was passed by Congress, the legislative intent was clear – this law was to govern ALL electronic surveillance. Furthermore, when the law was signed into law by the President, the President made a signing statement that said the law “clarified” the general protections of the Constitution by specifcally making warrantless wiretaps illegal. How much clearer does it need to be for you scummy villains to understand?

    Oh, and Georgie’s approval is at 36%, so apparently 64 of the country agree that Bush sucks.

  36. Fiskhus Jim says:

    Glory be to Russ Feingold for having the courage to speak out on a true American concern.

    Dissent is always the first duty of every citizen of the Republic – those who disagree are more suited to being the subjects of a King than citizens of the Republic.

  37. Duncan says:

    So. Lame. To begin with, the president pushed through the Patriot Act, which ostensibly provided for all the ‘extreme’ measures that a war-time president would require. Then he violated his own Patriot Act- as well as the 30 year old FISA statute.

    Continuing- the opponents to this law-breaking are not saying we shouldn’t fight terrorism. We’re just saying that we should fight it legally. Following the law in no way prevents law enforcement from obtaining wire-taps; it just means that they have to do so in a way that includes oversight.

    Why is following the law so unappealing to today’s Republicans? Whatever happened to the ‘verify’ part of “trust but verify”? How can this administration claim to spread the ideal of the democratic rule of law when they violate that same ideal?

  38. Robert says:


    The administration was trying to fool the rubes.
    I feel bad for ANYONE who listens to these guys and doesn’t see how their actions are the opposite of what they say.

    That’s right. I said it. I feel bad for the blind.

  39. Is there no one on the left who can say that they support Feingold? I have yet to see anyone type it. Hell, even the Defeatocrat Senators backed down.

  40. Brian says:

    I support him. And I know a lot of other people who do too. Just look at the poll numbers if you want a sense of where the mood is on this. But let’s put Fiengold’s couragous measure aside for a minute. Answer me this- why are we in Iraq, and when are we getting out?

  41. Robert says:

    I’m on the Left and I support Feingold too.

    As an American citizen how couldn’t I?

  42. Jim H. says:

    I notice that the attack on Feingold here, and throughout the Republican party, is of the nature of sayng he’s a traitor. He’s “objectively aiding” the terrorists. The last time I remember seeing such hysterical logic was in the ’60s, when I was debating communists.

    It’s a cut and dried legal case. If Bush found, honestly, that FISA was insufficient in these times, it would have been easy, in the immediate post-9/11 days, to get the act expanded or even thrown out, I suppose (which would have been a bad thing, to me). But he didn’t do that. Instead, he pretended to be following the FISA act, having sent lots of requests to the court all this time. He also said, numerous times, that wiretaps were only happening “with a warrant,” which he then admitted to us, was not true for years. So it was a purposeful and deliberate deception of Congress and the American people. If Congress lets this stand, they’re fools; and I would say the same for the cowardly Dems who refuse to cosign.

  43. Railroad Stone says:

    This blog is a joke.

  44. Not As Crazy As You says:

    Teach, you keep harkening back to you “Have you guys got a better idea?” line, but the whole point of this post is whether or not Feingold was right in calling for a censure of the President. The domestic spying program is definitely unconstitutional, there is definitely something shady about a President supporting warrentless spying and lying about it for years, and a censure is definitely in order. As for “burden of proof”, none is actually necessary for Congressional censure. It is a slap on the wrist, a merely symbolic way Congress has to tell the President that he’s on thin ice. The fact that our Congressmen cannot even do that shows just how craven they are.

  45. Fiskhus Jim says:

    You lie. I support Russ. I said I did before you said you couldn’t hear anyone on the left supporting him.

    Maybe if you’d use your new Medicare Plan B benefit to get some eardrops, you could remove that big ol’ plug of GOP earwax you can’t hear though.

  46. shingles says:

    Shorter Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh Pirate:

    When Americans excercise their freedom and/or try to uphold the rule of law, THE TERRORISTS WIN!

  47. Hanna Karolyn says:

    A censure of Bush is the MINIMUM we can do to set this incredibly ignorant and ineffectual “leader” on the road back to Texas. Yet all we hear from the right is that the violations of the constitutional rights of Americans is now necessary to safeguard us from what?…what’s that?…oh yes, terrorism, of course (our boogeyman now that the Soviets had the gall to dissolve themselves, leaving us temporarily without a mortal enemy).

    I challenge any of you fearful war-mongers to tell me how a well-financed terrorist organization of a couple of thousand members can threaten the nation to such an extent that an extraordinary and unprecedented consolidation of power in the executive and the violation of political rights and civil liberties (apart from the lies, corruption and abuse of power that seem to go hand-in-hand with these other actions) are necessary compared to, say, the Cold War where we faced the old Soviet Union with its sophisticated intelligence infrastructure, modern military and nuclear weapons that could (and we did come to the brink) wipe us off the map in a matter of minutes? Or how it compares to World War II where both Japan and Germany-two of the largest economies and military powers in the world at the time-were dedicated to our destruction and waged total war against us?

    This is simply a power grab under the guise of “national security,” and if you trust the Feds on this…you ain’t no conservative!

  48. Tom R says:

    Almost everyone I know supports not just the censure but the impeachment of George W. Bush, for lying to Congress and the nation and putting American soldiers in harm’s for no gain to America whatsoever.

    It’s hard to imagine someone doing a worse job on terrorism than this President. We’ve had two major terrorist attacks on the United States(*); not only didn’t we catch either of the perpetrators of these foul crimes, but we didn’t change the system that allowed them to happen, or punish even one of the officials whose dereliction of duty cost this country so much.

    Censure now, impeach later. Iraq, Katrina, 9/11, Afghanistan, torture, spying on Americans, compulsive lying: each of these alone is worth a trial. Together, the systematic pattern of fraud and incompetence makes a case that’s impossible to refute.

    (* — give up on what the second one was? Seems that everyone has forgotten the anthrax attacks of 2001 — which isn’t surprising considering that the media simply stopped talking about it when it was discovered that this was American-made, “weapons-grade” anthrax from Fort Detrick.)

  49. Tom R says:

    Oops, in the list of crimes, I forgot to mention the looting of the American Treasury by Republican companies and particularly Cheney’s Halliburton and KBR, with non-competitive, above-market contracts in New Orleans, Iraq and Afghanistant that have literally taken billions from taxpayer’s pockets and into the hands of Cheney and his associates.

  50. Brian says:

    I’m still waiting for an answer…

Bad Behavior has blocked 5400 access attempts in the last 7 days.