Feingold is soft on Bush? Let's see who wanted to censure Chimpy and who didn't

I would be very careful not to imply that Senator Russ Feingold is soft on Bush, especially if the person I defend did less than Feingold when it came to opposing W's policies during the last 8 years.

As you may remember, Senator Russ Feingold moved to censure George W. Bush for his illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
President Barack Obama opposed this resolution, saying:

"And whether we want to start applying censure motions or impeachment when there are questions about a president's authority in national security is something that you have to be judicious about."

it is evident that Pres. Obama has no intention of giving up any executive powers that Bush grabbed and Obama inherited. No one!

I am baffled by your comment, since the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton and I rarely speak about her.

while you go out of your way to attack Obama. Hell when you run out of real things to attack him for, you just make things up like your claims that you are privy to all sorts of evil and secret plans by our President.

When was the last time before this thread that I "leaped to her defense" in regard to Hillary?

How's about you give it a fucking rest?

in an thread. He can't handle the truth because when challenged, he changes the subject.

to declare victory. Don't you think that's pretty pathetic?

:headbang:

you're just funny

Everything you mentioned above does not change the fact that you started a thread trying to trash Russ Feingold because you don't like that he wants hearings. You lashed out with little to no thought involved and got called on it. Your continued belligerence doesn't change that, as I pointed out. I am indeed correct, and you know it. Calling me funny is not a rebuttal of any facts involved, and just highlights your own lack of a solid ground to stand on. If you can explain to me how I'm wrong I'll gladly read it.

So, would you like to try again? I have time.

sure I rained on some people's parades and they lashed out big time (what you so wrong headedly refer to as "called out"). Some tried wrongly to claim Russ could only start investigations now, which was proven false. Another tried to suggest that he Russ wanted to censure Bush over this matter, but that was over something different. Still another listed links to other senators and tried to give credit to Feingold. The problem is too many people, yourself included, let agenda get in the way of proper interpretation of facts or events. As for lecturing me on belligerence, I think that is pretty hypocritical of you. You are one of the nastier people I have encounter on DU. Now you will notice that there is one huge difference between my post and yours. Mine used FACTS, while you only stated opinions (with no supportering reason or evidence). Yet you PRETENDED that you had done otherwise.

Now perhaps you would like to try and offer up more than unsubstanciated (and to use your words) belligerent opinions. Care to try it, you just might like it.

The story "Feingold Plans Hearing on Obama's Detention Policy" was posted earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8427711&mesg_id=8427711

Reply #2 by you posted Sat May-23-09 01:56 PM

2. Where have those hearings been the past 8 years?

too little too late Russell.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8427711&mesg_id=8427718

You then go on to assert that Feingold is "showboating" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8427711&mesg_id=8427721) and further charge that "He did NOTHING when there was a true villian actually torturing prisoners going after the guy cleaning up that mess and restoring the constitution and rule of law reeks of show boating." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8427711&mesg_id=8427730)

To further attempt to drive your point home you started your own thread about it.

"Senator Fiengold has not and is not planning to investigate George Bush"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8427830

But that's easily proven wrong....

Appoint a Special Prosecutor: The Crimes of Bush, Cheney, and Other Top Officials Must Be Prosecuted

RUSS FEINGOLD agrees: "As President Obama and Attorney General Holder have said, nobody is above the law. There needs to be accountability for wrongdoing by the Bush Administration , including the illegal warrantless wiretapping and interrogation programs. We cannot simply sweep these assaults on the rule of law under the rug." -- Feb. 10, 2009.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12537

--

A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a long-time critic of torture, Feingold viewed investigations and, perhaps, prosecutions as a key tool to restoring America's moral standing.

"It is truly horrifying and unforgivable that anybody operating under the auspices of the United States of America had involvement in any of this," he said. "So I'm not even completely ready to cede the argument that people who devised these techniques should be off the hook. I understand the argument. I also remember when people said that they were just following orders. So that troubles me and I am thinking about it."

UPDATE: Feingold responds to Obama's statement that he is open to prosecutions of some Bush officials:

"I am pleased that the president made clear that he has not ruled out investigations or prosecutions of those who authorized torture, or provided the legal justification for it. Horrible abuses were committed in the name of the American people, and we cannot look the other way, or just 'move on.' The final decision will be up to the attorney general and the president, but I urge the Justice Department to take this matter very seriously."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/feingold-unloads-on-peggy_n_189473.html

--

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, who has long urged Congress to get more serious about checking and balancing executive excess, is now rightly arguing that evidence of the Bush administration's complicity in torture must be addressed. "Horrible abuses were committed in the name of the American people, and we cannot look the other way or just 'move on,'" he says.

http://vineberg.blogspot.com/2009/04/we-must-investigate-bushcheney.html

--

**In a letter to George Bush himself in 2007**

“…I have vigorously opposed the program, and continue to do so. The program is of highly questionable legality, it is inconsistent with our values as a nation, and it does not make our nation any safer. In fact, I believe that it may have the effect of exposing Americans - including military and other U.S. personnel - to greater risk.”

"Like all Americans, I believe that suspected terrorists should be detained and questioned, but I must strongly oppose a program that is based on such questionable legal, moral and national security grounds."

http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_interrogations_101507.pdf

--

Hearing vowed on Bush's powers

Feingold is an outspoken critic of Bush's assertion that his wartime powers give him the authority to set aside laws. The senator has proposed censuring Bush over his domestic spying program, in which the president secretly authorized the military to wiretap Americans' phones without a warrant, bypassing a 1978 surveillance law.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/03/hearing_vowed_on_bushs_powers/

--

Leahy, Other Lawmakers Call for Investigation of Bush-Era Terrorism Policies

Democrat Russ Feingold stressed the commission would be bipartisan.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/bush_03-04.html

--

Feingold Moves to Censure Bush

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Monday asked the Senate to officially censure President Bush for breaking the law by authorizing an illegal wiretapping program, and for misleading Congress and the American people about the existence and legality of that program.

If the Wisconsin Democrat's move were to succeed, Bush would be the first president in 172 years to be so condemned by Congress.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/67969/feingold_moves_to_censure_bush

--

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said at a hearing yesterday that the documents cited by Cheney did not make a persuasive case.

"Nothing I have seen -- including the two documents to which former vice president Cheney has repeatedly referred -- indicates that the torture techniques authorized by the last administration were necessary, or that they were the best way to get information out of detainees," Feingold said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402858.html


Was Feingold showboating when he was the only one not to not to vote for the Patriot Act?
Was he show boating when he was the first to call for the troops to come home?
Was he showboating when he voted against H.J. Resolution 114?

Was his showboating what earned him this kind of recognition?

Russ has been recognized by groups such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Friends of Libraries, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the American Library Association, the Arab-American Discrimination Committee, and the Backbone Campaign for his support of civil rights and for his willingness to stand up and fight for our freedoms. He has received stellar ratings from the NAACP for his voting record ever since he was first elected in 1992. And the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda has given Senator Feingold a perfect 100% rating for his commitment to racial equality.

but I still see the glaring fact that the Senator did NOTHING to stop the torture on detention or to make it a more public issue. Complaining or suddenly acting tough after the fact, doesn't cut it in my book. As I said, it's just plain show boating.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and unable to produce a single shred of evidence showing Feingold taking action against torture or detention before Obama became president. Insults are a poor response to losing a debate. You remind me of the Republican party.

You claimed he "did nothing", I showed that he did. You moved the goalpost, dodged, and claimed victory.

And I'm sure your need for the last word in this will cause you to do so once more.

Cya in church!

by your "logic" the mere fact that he breathes (which is by definition not "nothing") wins the debate for you.

A sudden new found interest on the topic, AFTER the topic is addressed, does indicate show boating to most reasoned people.


The only goal post moving, was me putting it back, after you moved it much closer.

I've always liked him. Wish he would've considered running in 08.

but the fear of it is probably what has some attacking Senator Feingold now.

Very ironic

Maybe impeachment was too much to ask, though I think he deserved it, but censure was definitely called for.

I guess that was to much to ask for, too.;-)

Inexcusable. Why is Obama catering to these guys? We're past the point of calling it statesmanship. Its just WRONG!!

or some such asinine bullshit.

This little stamping his feet OP may be his high point.

Especially in light of the earlier slime attack on Sen Feingold.
I wish we had 99 more just like him.
:patriot:

Contrary to, say, the man who President Obama picked to be our Vice-President.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2

The difference between the two is VP Biden has apologized for his IWR vote and learned his lesson well enough not to vote for Kyl-Lieberman as well, unlike the former junior senator from NY. The good news is President Obama was against the Iraq War blank check, too, and he is leading the country now.

As you can see, Feingold's opposition to Bush here is being criticized despite the fact that he had better judgment and courage than not only the President, but officials with less judgment than Feingold, both of whom the President deemed great picks for his cabinet.

But since I'm off to a Memorial Day weekend party, we'll have to pick this up later.

another one of those PRESENT votes.

If you're talking about Kyl-Lieberman, you need to get your facts straight before continuing to make baseless rhetorical attacks on our President: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8264043&mesg_id=8266604

that he had shown the degree of spine during the Bush years that he has shown in demanding a hearing on Obama. Pretty ballsy to do that with your own President. Wish he had been that ballsy during the Bush years (and no, requesting a motion to write a stern letter is not exactly a profile in courage).

Which is not to say I disagree with it. If Obama's legal rationale is valid, then the hearings will go well for him. If it isn't, then the hearings deserve to go badly for him.

MC=Military Commissions. I wasn't going to have enough spece to type the whole thing.

You speak as if opposing the Iraq war was something common among Democrats, which it wasn't. Most Democrats gave Bush a blank check.
It required spine, as well as calling for the censure of Bush. At that time we were 1 year removed from the 9-11 attacks which made many Democrats chickens.

And let me add that Feingold in general terms likes the job Obama is doing as a President, as reflected by the good grade he gave Obama in a recent "report card" he made.

Between the House and the Senate, 101 Congressional Democrats voted for the IWR. 156 Congressional Democrats voted against it. While it is admirable to do so, it does not take great courage to vote with the majority of your party. The motion to censure Bush was utterly toothless; it does not take a great deal of courage to request the Congress write a letter expressing anger at an unpopular President from the other party. Attacking Bush was the bread-and-butter of the 2006 Democratic effort to retake the Congress, and (again) while his actions were admirable, they were not particularly courageous.

Calling for an investigative hearing on a popular President from your own party requires a great deal of political courage. While I appreciate his efforts during the Bush years, I wish he had then shown the degree of spine he now possesses.

Which is not to say I do not approve of the measure for the hearing. Your statement on Feingold's general opinion isn't really necessary; I approve of Feingold, I trust his intentions, and I think fair oversight is always a good thing in a healthy democracy. I simply wish that Democrats had the courage to push for so much oversight when Bush was fucking everything up.

You included House members so as to rig the stats to make Feingold seem less courageous than he was.
Most Dem. Senators voted for it.

And did you know that only 3 Senators (I believe) supported Feingold's censure move? That's pretty damn courageous if you ask me.

You also don't mention that Feingold told Obama in the letter about the hearing that he (Feingold) thinks he (Obama) is acting in good faith about the whole detention situation.

people concentrate on fewer issues when electing their representatives, and representatives are up for election every two years rather than every six--and the vote was held less than a month before the 2002 election, meaning every single representative would answer for his or her vote within a month's time, while only a third of Senators would do so.

But if you want the Senate figures, it was 26-23. That's only a two-vote swing from being the majority position. I'm not terribly impressed with either vote on a split-party vote in one chamber, especially if that vote is the position of the majority of the party in Congress. Which is not to say it isn't admirable, but it's not particularly courageous.

The censure resolution wasn't supported because it was silly. Censures are wastes of time; even if they pass, all that happens is that a stern letter is written to the President. Most Senators didn't join him in the push because they didn't feel it was worthwhile to force a contested vote (that they would probably lose, since if only one Dem Senator--including Lieberman--voted no, it would fail) on an bill that was utterly meaningless. That doesn't mean they pressured him to give it up or anything; the Senate has tons of vanity and showboat bills and motions every session, and Senators simply let those die without recrimination or repercussion.

To compare either vote to the profoundly courageous act of opening an investigation into the actions of a popular and apparently law-abiding President from your own party is cheap equivocation. It would have been nice if Feingold had done the same to the unpopular and lawbreaking President from the opposing party, but what's done (and isn't done) is in the past.

I don't see why I would mention Feingold's letter. I've already said I approve of the hearings and that I think Feingold has good intentions. You keep trying to make it out as if I'm suggesting Feingold's acting in bad faith, or as if I think Feingold is being unfairly harsh on Obama. I don't think either. I think Feingold is doing the right thing for the right reasons. Also, I wish he had the reservoir of moral strength to have done what he's doing now back when it could have made a difference in stopping Bush's crime spree.

and they all need to now. This is how the GOP wins. They bully- and that's not OK . . . but we have had PLENTY of legitimate gripes during the Bush years and everybody played possum. I'm glad they're done hybernating on some subject but instead of investigating Obama or Pelosi or whoever the GOP twists the focus to, lets get to the heart of it. The BFEE.

However, I realize impeachment begins in the House.

being the intersection of lawmakers and the law. I'm not sure if you can derive anything from the references to impeachment other than "the Founding Fathers found it necessary to explicitly outline the process of impeachment," which makes sense given its unique nature.

someone's term in office. If bush/Cheney did not qualify, then there is no such thing.

However, that doesn't mean a whole lot. The Constitution does not mandate impeachment, and it was absolutely obvious that even if the Dems successfully impeached, they couldn't come anywhere close to a conviction in the Senate. Fuck, we fail filibusters all the time now, and to impeach in '07/'08 would have required seven more votes than overriding a filibuster takes, we'd have eight fewer Dems than we have now (and that includes Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, DiFi, etc.), and the Republicans would still have Norm Coleman. I'd be surprised if a Senate conviction vote had more than 45 Yeas, with 67 required to convict.

Spending months of time to publicly acquit George W. Bush by a wide margin does not sound like a favorable result. No prosecutor would bring a case to trial with those odds against conviction. But your mileage may vary.

..."an objective, apolitical perspective" is the only one allowed by the oath of office -- as our treaty obligations are included in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and are that which "our leaders" pledge to defend.

And the only thing that was "absolutely obvious" was the number of impeachophobes who claimed a monopoly on what was absolutely obvious -- http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">like Barak Obama. Still, they could never come up with a http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">single rationalization for their inaction that carried any weight.

But the worst of their lame excuses may well have been the claim that Senate conviction should have a place in the decision to impeach when warranted -- or that an impeachment decision is in any way comparable to that of a local criminal prosecutor. The entire purpose to the impeachment process in the Constitution is for the House to accuse/impeach, on merely valid suspicion, then allow the trial to take its course -- which on a torture charge, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502062_pf.html">may well not have been the "slam dunk" for acquittal that chronic (terminal?) impeachophobic fever forces many to continue to irrelevantly repeat.

Even a failed impeachment attempt would have placed the bushscheney criminality into stark relief. The public/electorate could have had a choice between torturers and law defenders. Pelosi would not now be defending her presumed complicity and Obama would not be twisting in the wind of the bushcheney "mess" -- http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">at risk himself of possible prosecution. Impeachophobia has consequences.

While spending months of time on Hillabamania certainly satisfied the masturbatory needs of the euphemedia and political junkie class, for some of us it was a tawdry display of historic, national irresponsibility.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

---

Cenk loves to say how Feingold has never been wrong and when i hear his history man this guy is good so i cant wait for Cenk to put in his 2cents today when TYT airs

The only one. :patriot:

the warrant less wire tapping, to the patriot less act. I will always be so grateful to support this Senator has shown this country and all of us up against Bush's illegal behavior. I might add when every one remained silent, Sen. Feingold did not.

Which is saying something. :(