Durbin: Censuring Bush over spy program premature

General Ripper has ordered his bombers to nuke Russia, starting WWIII. He's shut off communications from his base. He's sent a rambling message about protecting our precious bodily fluids from the Communist conspiracy.

The president says to his security staff that it's obvious the General Ripper is insane. One of the other generals present jumps up, and like Senator Durbin, says "Now Mr. President, let's not jump to any hasty conclusions!".

Yeah, we wouldn't want any hasty conclusions on this.

There are other posts here showing Durbin supported Feingold...and I heard Durbin give a supporting speech to Feingold when Feingold gave his Censure speech on C-Span live..

:shrug:

I'm not necessarily out to get Mr. Durbin, but the Congress needs to fear the electorate more than the press and the punditocracy.

Honestly, every so often the stuff posted here on DU makes me think this place is more counter productive then anything else.

DU'ers should get on their knees and thank the Universe for Democrats like Durbin.

It was amazing to see how sharp he is; and my husband and I both thought he did real well. Chris loves to pitch the hardballs to Democrats, but he didn't appear to gain any ground against Durbin.
:toast: :thumbsup: :dem:

He comes off sounding so professional; very articulate. Thanks for your response.

I can't get the video to play for some reason, but maybe I can figure out what's wrong with my player.
:hi:

If I remember correctly it was way before and was being put forth so as to not have the Impeachment Trial. :shrug: In fact I seem to remember some Democrats had a hand in it. I think they felt if all they got was a Censure they would be getting off lightly. They weren't concerned at all about waiting until the subject had been studied in Committee.

There were attempts to censure Clinton both before and after the impeachment trial. What has been receiving most attention this past week was the attempt by Sen. Feinstein to censure Clinton after the impeachment.

The movement to censure before impeachment was mainly in the House and an attempt to kill the move towards impeachment. After impeachment, the move to censure was in the Senate where, having voted not to convict, senators were trying to show that they, too, disagreed with Clinton's activities.

With all those Democrats voting for it, it seems like it would pass. I don't remember it though.

He can't rule it out until the "investigation" is complete. :grr: He knows damn well the GOP congress is NOT going to investigate. That's the whole point.

I really wish someone would ask exactly what investigation they are waiting on! I could agree with them that censure was "premature" if, in fact, there were a committee investigation on-going. But, although they don't seem to know it, we all know that there is no current investigation.

I believe that Feingold's resolution has been referred to committee where there is then supposed to be an investigation. If that is actually going to happen, good, but it's hard to be optimistic about the likelihood of any serious oversight in the current configuration of Congress. (Of course, even if we manage to have Dems take over one or both Houses in November, I don't expect much in the way of censure or impeachment. The beltway consultants will tell them it's too risky heading into 2008 and, if history is any guide, they will agree.)

this is the same thing Pelosi said.

Yes, dem leaders you go ahead and have your "forum" in the "basement" of the Capitol Bldg. and the media "won't come" - Because that's the only so-called "investigation" you'll be havingl

The man called the military fascists, and they are.

He stood up to the vote in Ohio, more then most anyway.

He spoke loudly against Alito, I think, still to depressed to recall.

Yes, I would love JFK to come back and would back him against Durbin.

But he is my Senator and a damn good one. Could be better, they all could.

Didn't Feingold do some thing the rabid left didn't like. Vote for Asscroft, Roberts, Alito? forget again on that one.

:hi:

stepping up to force an investigation. All I see are the Republicans stone-walling every effort. So, when exactly do you think the happy time to investigate this little faux pas of Bush will be. Soooon? Later?

Since we on the "rabid left" don't know, then maybe the "vapid middle" can fill us in.

He says the Republicans have not investigated this properly and that their needs to be pressure to get this done.

What I get from the article Durbin is saying that he doesn't know if censure or impeachment is necessary because we don't have the facts because the Repukes are blocking any real investigation.

instead of offering kneejerk reactions culled from unrelated sources. How refreshing.

Crooks & Liars has an interesting video of Durbin's exchange you may be interested in viewing:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/19.html#a7575

see for Dems who are flying off the handle and calling Dick Durbin and DINO. The corporate media is atttempting to manufacture a "Dems vs. Feingold" story in order to get Chimpy's disapproval numbers off of the front pages.

How does Sen. Durbin tolerate such corporate groveling as Wallace does in this "interview"? How does Wallace look at himself in the mirror in the morning? Doesn't he realize he and his ilk will all have their day of reckoning with God? There's no way I could have held my tongue against such a shill for this war and administration. Only towards the end does Durbin show his impatience by using the phrase, "...putting words in my mouth...". Either I need some anger management or Sen. Durbin should be nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for not screaming in the whore's face.

crime. Feingold has confused the issue by initially implying to the left blogs that censure was a step towards impeachment and then SELLING censure 2 days later to the press as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment.

He really didn't have to do that, since his censure case was strong enough without referencing impeachment at all and certainly not pre-judging the impeachment case as "bad for the country" in a time of war.

so why even say this? Our dem leaders are treating us like we're stupid and I don't likey.

wtf are he and Levin smokin these days? They keep refering to some fucking investigation that will never happen.

:banghead:

investigation and debate can continue?

how about better than nothing? He knows full well it most likely will end up languishing there for god knows how long.

as well as senate debate of wiretapping.

If YOU want immediate action and votes declared right away then you took Frist's bait whether you recognize it or not.

if you accept the Republicans' initial attempt to squash it as the final word on the matter?

The Democrats don't have the power to push an investigation on their own. Only the people do anymore. "If there is any hope, it lies with the proles." So until and unless the people insist on an investigation, the best the Democrats can do is what they are doing: try to keep it in the public arena and hope that not everyone is so quick to give up and accept that no "fucking investigation . . . will (ever) happen."

It seems that a few in our ranks are eager to take the bait.

Oasis nails it. The media wants to manufacture a Dem crisis. Ignore, Ignore, Ignore. I wish we could boycott them completly. As A speaker said at our peace rally in Chicago.

YOU EXPECT THE MEDIA TO DO ANYTHING. WHY? THEY ARE OWNED BY THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE BOMBS.

to take the Mediawhores' bait it sickens me.

journeyman. Durbin is clearly hammering the GOP.

are working for the other side?

It is like a bad 'mark' on ones permanent record. Like that means anything to President (silver)Spoonfed! It is a show of courage, something rare indeed.

so long as Republicans are in charge. What more do you need to know than that Republicans are trying to legalize the program, a prima facie admission that it is currently illegal?

Senator Durbin, where is your courage, at this late date?

Stich the fork in him, already. He's done!

What investigation?

The following reasons may apply:

Anthrax
NSA Files
Corp. Money withheld

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order . In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order. Now, we've used things like roving wiretaps on drug dealers before. Roving wiretaps mean you change your cell phone. And yet, we weren't able to use roving wiretaps on terrorists. And so what the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

President George Bush, June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio



GW Bush has admitted publicly that he and NSA have violated the law.

This needs to be investigated? Yeah, right!

We know Bush** skirted FISA warrants -- he admitted so himself. HE BROKE THE LAW. WTF is there to investigate??

Durbin is the answer to the question "what's the difference between electing a dem who sides with the repubs and electing a repub?" NOTHING.

At the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such {is} the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology...

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.

Sen. Frank Church

Or would it then be unpatriotic to censure a president during a war?

Sheesh.

If Bush doesn't have anything censurable by now, I don't want to wait around until he does.

We need Democratic LEADERS, and he has shown he is not one of them.

Are they trying to make us give up? Is that it?

While Durbin is ignoring the fact that Bush admitted publicly that he broke the FISA law, and is waiting for an "investigation" to take place, Bush is saying that censure is needless partisanship.

Gee Durbin, Bush confession not good enough for you?

Posted by sabra in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2180844

Call for censure is `needless partisanship,' Bush says
BY CRAIG GILBERT
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

WASHINGTON - In his first public comments on the subject, President Bush on Tuesday described Sen. Russ Feingold's censure resolution as "needless partisanship" and challenged congressional Democrats to run on the issue in 2006 elections.

"I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program," Bush said at a news conference Tuesday.

"You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it," Bush said. "They ought to stand up and say, `The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.' They ought to take their message to the people and say, `Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.'"

Feingold, D-Wis., who introduced the censure resolution last week, fired back in an interview, saying Bush's comments are "just plain dishonest."

"The president knows every Democrat supports wiretapping terrorists," said Feingold, who contends the wiretapping can and should be done with court approval. "So when the president says (we're) opposing wiretapping terrorists, he is being intentionally dishonest. It makes me feel even more strongly that he should be censured."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/14154075.htm