Feingold's Fine Idea
Hello again readers. I trust that everyone is doing well.
Today's rant concerns an article I read last night.
It would seem that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is proposing a bill in the Senate that would censure George W Bush for misleading Americans about the legality of his NSA wiretapping program. According to the AP version of the story, censure is, essentially a scolding, and it has been used against a president in the past. Specifically, it was used in 1834 to reprimand Andrew Jackson for a dust up concerning the (non) withdrawal of federal monies from the Bank of The United States. (See this link for the complete Jackson story).
Now, I like the idea of telling Bush that he has done something wrong, but I don't think that censure goes far enough. After all, this is a "president" that has repeatedly ignored laws that he doesn't agree with, what makes anyone think that a censure will affect him? I would rather see something like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is working on.
Conyers is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and is pushing for legislation that would determine if grounds for the impeachment of Bush exist. I don't think that Conyers will have much trouble finding those grounds.
Out of the whole AP article, the two quotes I like the most belong to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN). The first calls the censure idea "a crazy political move that would weaken the US during wartime." The second comes from an interview Frist did on ABC's "This Week" news program. During the interview he said that he hoped that Al Qaida was not listening to the political fighting and also said "The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong."
Been drinking the Kool Aid again Bill? I have a few questions for the clueless senator from Tennessee. First, "When did the US declare war?" We have a military action going in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there has been no declaration of war by Congress, so how can this be "wartime"? I would think that as a senator, and the Senate Majority Leader at that, you would know that an authorization to use military force is NOT the same as a declaration of war (legally, politically, or semantically), and the Congress has not considered, nor passed, any articles of war. Second, "Why is it 'crazy political move' to propose that someone who has committed a crime be punished for it?" Why are you considering this a political move at all? George W Bush violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with the NSA eavesdropping program. He has already publicly admitted to bypassing the FISC and authorizing the wiretapping without warrants. That means that he violated the FISA and the 4th Amendment. Senator, those things are called "criminal acts" and, generally, they are dealt with by giving the offender some sort of punishment. No amount of political wrangling, no amount of disingenuous arguments concerning George Washington's electronic surveillance and a twisted interpretation of Article 2 will change the fact that what George W Bush did was patently illegal. Or are you proposing that the president is now, somehow, above the law? Are you now saying that conservative Republicans, who for years have supported the ideas of "law and order", are now abandoning those principals? It looks to me, Senator, that what you are truly saying is that everyone is subject to the law except for the politically powerful, the rich, and those with connections to the politically powerful. That type of thinking is what leads to dictatorships and oligarchical regimes. Or could it be, Senator, that you are nothing more that George Bush's clueless lap dog, mindlessly repeating whatever the Administration tells you to say? So, Senator, what are you willing to admit to, being a mindless follower of Bush, unable to think for yourself and acting as his Senatorial puppet, or being a legal elitist advocating a system of laws and harsh punishments for the common folk, but placing yourself (and your master, Bush) above those laws? So which is it?
As for your second quote, the infighting tells everyone exactly what you fear it tells them, that, indeed, there is no support for the commander in chief. Commander in chief, hmmmm. That's the problem! I get it now, I get why the Republicans react to criticism of Bush the way they do! If you call Bush the "president" it makes him look like just another political figure. As such he is subject to the faults of any other political leader. It also makes him subject to being questioned by the people who pay his checks. However, if you call Bush the "Commander In Chief", it makes him look strong and manly. His decisions then become orders, and as such, they are not to be questioned. Calling him the commander in chief also makes it look like anyone who tries to hold him accountable for his actions is insubordinate, one of those "How dare you question the glorious Commander!" type of things. Senator, I must congratulate you on your choice of words, "commander in chief" and "bold vision". They paint a picture of a strong decisive leader. Senator, you've studied your Goebbels! The unfortunate part of this is that, despite your best efforts to paint him a strong decisive leader, George W Bush boils down to nothing but a bumbling, tongue-tied criminal. His efforts to change this country from a democratic republic to an oligarchical dictatorship are neither "bold" nor visionary, but they are criminal. Mark my words Senator, the time is coming for you and your fellow Republicans when all of your verbiage, all of your demonization of the opposition, all of your questioning of the patriotism and loyalty of people like me, and all of your corruption will end. Then it will be time to pay the judicial piper and answer to the people for you felonious ways. I just can't wait until it does!
I am Chuck and I would compare Bush to Hitler, but as someone on the Yahoo Message Boards pointed out, it is an unfair comparison...Hitler was more militarily astute and had better oratory skills than Bush!
note: edited for typos, 14MAR06 @0255 EST
Today's rant concerns an article I read last night.
It would seem that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is proposing a bill in the Senate that would censure George W Bush for misleading Americans about the legality of his NSA wiretapping program. According to the AP version of the story, censure is, essentially a scolding, and it has been used against a president in the past. Specifically, it was used in 1834 to reprimand Andrew Jackson for a dust up concerning the (non) withdrawal of federal monies from the Bank of The United States. (See this link for the complete Jackson story).
Now, I like the idea of telling Bush that he has done something wrong, but I don't think that censure goes far enough. After all, this is a "president" that has repeatedly ignored laws that he doesn't agree with, what makes anyone think that a censure will affect him? I would rather see something like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is working on.
Conyers is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and is pushing for legislation that would determine if grounds for the impeachment of Bush exist. I don't think that Conyers will have much trouble finding those grounds.
Out of the whole AP article, the two quotes I like the most belong to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN). The first calls the censure idea "a crazy political move that would weaken the US during wartime." The second comes from an interview Frist did on ABC's "This Week" news program. During the interview he said that he hoped that Al Qaida was not listening to the political fighting and also said "The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong."
Been drinking the Kool Aid again Bill? I have a few questions for the clueless senator from Tennessee. First, "When did the US declare war?" We have a military action going in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there has been no declaration of war by Congress, so how can this be "wartime"? I would think that as a senator, and the Senate Majority Leader at that, you would know that an authorization to use military force is NOT the same as a declaration of war (legally, politically, or semantically), and the Congress has not considered, nor passed, any articles of war. Second, "Why is it 'crazy political move' to propose that someone who has committed a crime be punished for it?" Why are you considering this a political move at all? George W Bush violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with the NSA eavesdropping program. He has already publicly admitted to bypassing the FISC and authorizing the wiretapping without warrants. That means that he violated the FISA and the 4th Amendment. Senator, those things are called "criminal acts" and, generally, they are dealt with by giving the offender some sort of punishment. No amount of political wrangling, no amount of disingenuous arguments concerning George Washington's electronic surveillance and a twisted interpretation of Article 2 will change the fact that what George W Bush did was patently illegal. Or are you proposing that the president is now, somehow, above the law? Are you now saying that conservative Republicans, who for years have supported the ideas of "law and order", are now abandoning those principals? It looks to me, Senator, that what you are truly saying is that everyone is subject to the law except for the politically powerful, the rich, and those with connections to the politically powerful. That type of thinking is what leads to dictatorships and oligarchical regimes. Or could it be, Senator, that you are nothing more that George Bush's clueless lap dog, mindlessly repeating whatever the Administration tells you to say? So, Senator, what are you willing to admit to, being a mindless follower of Bush, unable to think for yourself and acting as his Senatorial puppet, or being a legal elitist advocating a system of laws and harsh punishments for the common folk, but placing yourself (and your master, Bush) above those laws? So which is it?
As for your second quote, the infighting tells everyone exactly what you fear it tells them, that, indeed, there is no support for the commander in chief. Commander in chief, hmmmm. That's the problem! I get it now, I get why the Republicans react to criticism of Bush the way they do! If you call Bush the "president" it makes him look like just another political figure. As such he is subject to the faults of any other political leader. It also makes him subject to being questioned by the people who pay his checks. However, if you call Bush the "Commander In Chief", it makes him look strong and manly. His decisions then become orders, and as such, they are not to be questioned. Calling him the commander in chief also makes it look like anyone who tries to hold him accountable for his actions is insubordinate, one of those "How dare you question the glorious Commander!" type of things. Senator, I must congratulate you on your choice of words, "commander in chief" and "bold vision". They paint a picture of a strong decisive leader. Senator, you've studied your Goebbels! The unfortunate part of this is that, despite your best efforts to paint him a strong decisive leader, George W Bush boils down to nothing but a bumbling, tongue-tied criminal. His efforts to change this country from a democratic republic to an oligarchical dictatorship are neither "bold" nor visionary, but they are criminal. Mark my words Senator, the time is coming for you and your fellow Republicans when all of your verbiage, all of your demonization of the opposition, all of your questioning of the patriotism and loyalty of people like me, and all of your corruption will end. Then it will be time to pay the judicial piper and answer to the people for you felonious ways. I just can't wait until it does!
I am Chuck and I would compare Bush to Hitler, but as someone on the Yahoo Message Boards pointed out, it is an unfair comparison...Hitler was more militarily astute and had better oratory skills than Bush!
note: edited for typos, 14MAR06 @0255 EST
posted by Chuck | 14:55
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home