3/13/2006

Censure Bush

Sen. Russ Feingold' has introduced a resolution calling for Bush to be censured for his domestic wiretapping program. I support it and urge you all to call your senators.

The wiretapping program is not the least and not the most egregious of Bush's infractions. It's somewhere between Bush's misconduct before and during the war in Iraq, editing EPA reports on the envronmental safety of NYC post 9.11, journalistic payola, distributing video press releases that look like news - without disclaimers, his painful war on science, letting Haliburton gorge at the trough while troops go ill-equipped to war, his total abdication of responsibility and leadership during Katrina...oh, I could go on and on.

But the wiretapping case is indisputably, clearly, illegal.

Recently, Sandra Day O’Connor gave a candid interview on NPR, in which she lambasted partisan interference in the judiciary.

"Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

President Bush's phony power grab cuts at the roots of the American Republic. We are not stronger, or more safe, because we relinquish our right to privacy to this bozo.

His argument for doing so, his only argument, mind you, is "Trust me, I know what's best." Based on his track record, should we? No way. The senate should tell him in no uncertain terms that the buck stops with the law.

8 Comments:

At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"His argument for doing so, his only argument, mind you, is "Trust me, I know what's best."

Huh, how odd it is to see the left-wing's secret password used in a negative context on a lefty blog!

Does this mean that you have seen the light? Are you beginning to see that when you abrogate your responsibilities to the government, your rights soon follow?

As Mobious said: "Welcome to the world of the real".

 
At 4:39 PM, Blogger Chris Dykstra said...

Swiftee!

Are you just now figuring out that it is the left that has consistently advocated personal freedoms in lieu of government oversight?

 
At 6:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's news to me..but then again, until recently I lived in Saint Paul where the new city council majority is passing ordinances left and right while proclaiming their "progressiveness".

You should contact Dave Thune and give him the news.

 
At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like Russ didn't get the meme-o. The criticism of international terrorist monitoring fell flat. Now its all about (SHAKES MAGIC 8 BALL) ensuring free choice by not letting state legislatures decide issues reserved for the states.

-Censored

PS even your boy Harry caved on this one.

 
At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the NSA military intelligence gathering is in violation of FISA or other laws there is an easy way to find out congress can kick the casse over to the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. The executive branch has clearly defined why they believe the program is illegal and out of the reach of congress. The most telling aspect of this so called controversy is that the case has not been pushed to the Supreme Court. Several DEMOCRATIC leaders have been well informed on the NSA program from it's inception and did not find fault with the program.

If Finegold is so right why have the rest of the democrats abanded him so quickly? The republicans where ready to vote asap on the measure but even Finegold left the senate to avoid debate or a vote.

Can't you see you are being played by the so called leaders of the opposition to the president.

Dave

 
At 3:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave,

This issue can't go to the courts. Even if it did, it wouldn't start at the SCOTUS.

The reason it can't go to the courts at all is simple. In order to sue, you have to have standing. Legal standing is the ability of a person to show a sufficient legal interest in a matter to allow him or her to bring a case to court.

There's no one with standing to bring suit.

-Censored

 
At 9:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure that someone with standing could be found if the opposition really wanted to make this case. Instead they will only demogogue the issue to death and nothing will change, other than the targets of the survailence will be informed and changes thier tactics to render the program useless and makes us ALL less safe.

Dave

 
At 3:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even our wacky senator Dayton feels that Fiengold was way of base on this issue as well and is grandstanding for his own political advancement.

Dave

 

Post a Comment

<< Home