Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
All Adults - 3/15/06
Favor - 46%
Oppose - 44%
Undecided - 10%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.
Already, a plurality support the Censure Resolution, and that's with just one person -- Russ Feingold -- advocating it, and Democrats running away from it. Think of what those numbers will be if Democrats stand united, with some Republicans, and forcefully explain why we cannot allow the President to break the law with impunity.
I have said more times than I can count that Americans have deeply instilled within them the value that nobody is above the law, including the President, and that it is hubristic, arrogant and intolerable for anyone to claim the right to break the law, no matter the intentions. Every poll has shown considerable opposition to this law-breaking despite very little leadership on this issue. What more do Democrats want than this poll? Go forth and censure.
If Dems had stood right up and supported it, that number would be 56. Still not too late!
ReplyDeleteIn response to the poll numbers, the DNC issued the following statement:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, but is it politically safe to push for censure? Won't the GOP hate us if we push too hard? Quick, somebody call Bob Schrum and James Carville! They'll know what to do."
Seems the Dems are no more interested in public opinion than the administration.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Marshall posts an incisive comment on The Hill today http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/031606.html on why impeachment is not appropriate before congress has attempted to exercise oversight without success. I think the concept applies equally to censure. These actions (impeachment and censure) have no legal or rational basis without congressional attempt at action and rejection of that action by the president. If congress won't do it's job then it is congress that must be censured by the voters.
ReplyDeleteOkay - Citizens - here is your opportunity to be Heard on this issue:
ReplyDeleteVia Thomas Nephew (Newsrack) is this link to sign on as a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the S. Res. 398 to Censure George W. Bush.
Go and SIGN ON now!
:-D
anon-
ReplyDeleteBush has admitted to breaking the law. He's all but pled guilty and is hiding behind theories of unitary executive powers and a war resolution that the Senate specifically worded to avoid giving him such powers as he executed.
A censure is warranted. It is not a verdict. It is a formal rebuke.
I have a post over at My Left Nutmeg calling for Connecticut's senators to join the American people and support the censure of the president.
One of the things that the Democrats have to learn from the Republicans is that part of what makes things sound reasonable is the repetition.
ReplyDelete"It doesn't matter why he broke the law; his job is to uphold it."
"If he needs more resources, he should ask for them, not break the law."
"If the process needs to be streamlined, he should have streamlined it, not broken the law."
"The law doesn't prevent spying; he could have spied without breaking the law."
You need enough people saying enough reasonable things so that the idea sets in the popular consciouness.
And sure, the Republicans are really good at planting sound bites to oppose them. So, what, are the Democrats going to get better at fighting that tactic without practicing? Maybe they'll flub this, but if they don't do anything, well, it'll be flubbed by default. The key is, they have to try.
This country deserves better than a President who thinks he can violate the law with impunity.
Letters to the editor will help generate support and buzz. Under 200 words, broad and inclusive language... Letters received today and tomorrow by papers have a good shot at making the Sunday paper.
ReplyDeleteGo to it!
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, have you gotten a reasonable response as to why the party will not fight? I've seen alot of the bogus reasons that you've have posted and Digby knocked down what appeared to be on their face some reasonable arguments as to why democrats will not fight but were quickly shown to be specious.
I don't understand it, beltway consultant insider bull notwithstanding, everything that we see in objective reality land says this is the moment to start stomping on your opponents and they are not taking the opportunity. Bring it on indeed.
But, what REAL reason do the national democrats have for not fighting. Do they really think by being quiet that they'll get what they want?
For those writing letters to the editor, and those just thinking about the subject, please read an excellent post by Katherine at Obsidian Wings on the executive power grab that runs through the torture scandal, the Gonzales and Alito confirmations, and the NSA spying.
ReplyDeleteCensure is a means to get real oversight, not an alternative. Marshall's point might apply to pre-Nov 2006 impeachment, but not to censure.
After seeing the bizarre NYT article this morning, I came right over to see what you might have to say about it. Better than that, there are some first polling numbers. As usual, the public is far ahead of the nitwits they have been given the choice (sic!) to elect.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot be better for the republican rightwing to get any deeper into this. People are not reacting to the surveillance as such, but to their growing belief that Bush has systematically lied. This is the flash point, and the censure resolution is a perfect vehicle to help focus this change in opinion.
The more this non-drama unfolds, the more convinced I become that what Norquist sought, viz. Democrats becoming manageable barnyard animals, has in fact become true.
ReplyDeleteBut more than just that, BOTH sides have taken on identities that are striking in both their asininity and in their stubborn resistance to cognitive dissonance. The Democratic identity is clear: frightened and unwilling to fight no matter how low republican approval ratings go, or how many laws protecting the nature of America get broken.
But complementing this is the equally stubborn and asinine ego that the republicans have taken on. They are utterly incapable of doing anything that is morally right - either in regard to foreign policy, or at home. And beyond that - they try to do the wrong thing, and they SCREW IT UP. If the topics at hand weren't so serious, I'd say the republicans were like Dr. Evil (of Austin Powers fame).
So we have this complementary couplet - one side who sees windmills and is STILL to scared to attack, and the other who insists on doing evil, no matter how many die, are hurt, or how low their approvals go.
It's really bizarre.
Shame on the Democrats -- they are losing the greatest opportunity to re-define the party and reiterate our founding 18th century values that are based upon foreign law.
ReplyDeleteEverybody is predicting that dems will win in November -- don't count on it!
They won't -- because they are unable to think critically and explain to the American people what Glenn has been highlighting here -- which is the NSA by-pass program (and torture) made possible by the bad legal advise that Bush has followed to the point of breaking the law and threatening the Constitution is far more significant the Dubai ports deal!
Shame on Hillary, and the rest of the so-called Democrats who won't support Feingold -- what a cowards!!!
you should also take not of the fact that this question didn't even define what censuring is.
ReplyDeleteWow! You mean a poll that is over 2/3 Democrats & Independents & by the same group that had Kerry winning or later tied Bush & Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election - as late as October 30, 2004. I bet you can these numbers to the bank. How much you want to bet that the Democrats internal numbers show a different percent or why else have all of the political front-runners (Biden, Schumer, Clinton) from the left remained completely quiet?
ReplyDeleteThey aren’t cowards, they can read the political wind & in regards to this censure the only wind that is blowing is hot air from the left. All you need is another Jimmy Carter endorsement of this action & I can all but guarantee another Democratic failure to gain any political ground. Chances are they may give some up.
This is just another in a long line of political hysterics from the Democrats: Saddam will use chemical weapons on our troops, Bagdad will never fall & will cost hundreds of thousands of lives to take, Iraqi elections will never happen, American troops didn’t guard the weapons caches, Cheney or Rove leaked the undercover agent, Valerie Plame’s name, Bush lied about WMDs (even though almost all Democratic Congressional members had said differently & we now know that Saddam’s Generals believed it as well). The list goes on & on. The only thing accomplished is the left gets more shrill & comes across as being overly political.
This is where I should be posting this comment. Already posted to Glenn's Tale of Two Scandals article by A.L.
ReplyDeleteWith warrantless wiretapping, extended incarceration without charge, and all the rest of the current administration's malfeasance, the constitution is in jeopardy. My humble proposal:
INCORPORATE THE CONSTITUTION.
The problem is, none of the power entities will defend the constitution, as they have amply and consistently demonstrated. But they all have just as consistently demonstrated that they will defend the rights of multinational corporations, even when those corporations are DOING ALL THEY CAN to DESTROY AMERICA.
We all know what entities I'm talking about. The president, and all the White House staff. The House of Representatives, including, apparently, most of the Democrats therein. The Senate. The Supreme Court. The Mainstream Media. All of these will flip like a Big Mac on a hot grill once the Constitution (Inc.) has put out an IPO and been traded to investors in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. They'll be protecting it like the Religious Right protects a newly-fertilized blastocyst.
Who knows, it might even turn a profit.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThese actions (impeachment and censure) have no legal or rational basis without congressional attempt at action and rejection of that action by the president. If congress won't do it's job then it is congress that must be censured by the voters.
Huh???
The means by which Congress can curb illegal action by the maladministration is to censure or impeach. What "action" do you think they need to do? Say, "pretty please, please stop breaking the law"??? Or do you think they need to make an additional lawful request of the preznit, only to have him refuse it, so they can add contempt of Congress, in addition to illegal wiretapping, to the bill of impeachment articles?
Cheers,
Wow! You mean a poll that is over 2/3 Democrats & Independents & by the same group that had Kerry winning or later tied Bush & Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election - as late as October 30, 2004. I bet you can these numbers to the bank.
ReplyDeleteWow! It's genuinely disturbing how Bush followers will discard every fact that is unpleasant for them so that they can continue unmolested in their fantasy world. Every single poll they don't like they just dismiss away. We found no WMDs in Iraq so they must have been hidden or moved. By all appearances, there is a civil war brewing in Iraq, but that's just all media hype. Everything is actually quite peaceful and great in Iraq.
This poll has Bush's approval rating at 38%. If anything, that's HIGHER than most polls have it right now, which means it's favorable to Bush. And most polls, for some time now, have shown pluaralities and even majorities believe that Bush broke the law and oppose warrantless eavesdropping. So there is nothing surprising about this poll.
But for Bush followers, the President is a beloved figure and Americans want him to break the law and spy on them with no oversight and any facts which suggest that the contrary is true must just be wrong. This comment from Pman really is really a microcosm of how they "think."
pmain rants hysterically:
ReplyDeleteThis is just another in a long line of political hysterics from the Democrats: Saddam will use chemical weapons on our troops...
Ummm, did they rename the CIA building from the Allan Dulles Building to the Democratic National Committee Building? 'Casue it was the CIA that came up with this analysis (that the only time that Saddam was likely to use CW was if cornered and losing; of course the analysis assumed for purposes of argumment that there were CWs to be used) IIRC....
Cheers,
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI was actually pointing out that the American Research Group hasn’t been very effective in gathering accurate poll information in the past & that they lean towards the Democratic causes. If you’d care to review their other polls in regards to elections, you are more than welcome to, but chances are you will only prove my point for me. They polled a group that would of course show people in support of the censure, which was my point. I’d trust that poll about as much as I would trust one that was in favor of the Republicans including a majority of Republicans members polled. Hell more people that the ARG polled support the censure than Democratic Members of the Senate - what does that tell you?
Curiously, what do the polls that you quote in your response to me show as to whether or not Americans support the wire-tapping in the first place? While you may not pay attention to that information, your Congressional members do.
Your statement about me & my “thinking” is total crap & unfounded. I am in favor of investigating the NSA wire-taps. I have left several posts here saying so. I just don’t presuppose guilt for political motivations only. I at least “think” about it before jumping to conclusions. Exactly who was wire-tapped again? How many times? Where did the calls originate from? Since you can’t answer any of these questions the censure & your insistence of guilt is nothing but conjecture & politically motivated tripe & definitely shows how you “think”.
Oh yeah, Glenn it is PMain.
Here's my one comment to explain why Democrats in congress are reluctant to support the censure motion.
ReplyDeleteIt's because despite the fact that polls indicate that the nation supports it, members of congress are likely looking at a sort of "electoral college" map of opinion, which I suspect is not as favorable to censure as an otherwise unbiased poll of the electorate.
That's just my suspicion.
I still think it's worth supporting the motion, for what it's worth, it's just that I've not heard any other supporters of Feingold's motion consider that this may be a likely reason for the other Democrats' reluctance to support him.
In the political sense, the poll is a marker on where people stand on the issue. In a legal sense, public opinion is irrelevant unless an advocate is vying for the risky ploy of jury nullification.
ReplyDeleteThe law must be followed and the poll suggest a signpost to elected officials on which direction to go. Amazing that lawmakers need this pointed out.
Exactly who was wire-tapped again? How many times? Where did the calls originate from?
ReplyDeleteThe Administration admits that they engaged in precisely the surveillance on Americans which FISA makes it a criminal offense to engage in without judicial approval.
Here's Gonzales admitting that:
"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires."
That couldn't be clearer. The Administration has never denied that the eavesdropping it did was outside of the scope of FISA. All it has ever claimed is that it has a legal right to violate FISA (because of the AUMF and Article II), and here, Gonazles admitted that the eavesdropping they engaged in is covered by FISA.
Therefore, while an investigation would be nice to determine the exact scope of the eavesdropping, it is plainly not needed to know that they broke the law. Their own admissions that the warrantless eavesdropping they engaged in are of the type described by FISA establishes that.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"It's because despite the fact that polls indicate that the nation supports it, members of congress are likely looking at a sort of "electoral college" map of opinion, which I suspect is not as favorable to censure as an otherwise unbiased poll of the electorate."
Now that does make sense, but the fight of flight instinct collectively seems irreparably damaged doesn't it?
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteSince you are not a partisan & totally objective in your stances, I'm sure we can count on your full support into the investigation & possible censure of Chuck Schumer & the DSCC illegal obtaining & releasing of Michael Steele's credit information? DSCC staffers have already quit over the scandal & Lauren Weiner's attorney has said that she will indeed plead guilty when charged. Since that is an admission of guilt, I'm sure you'll demand an investigation & probably write several scathing articles about her & Schumer’s guilt, demanding impeachment of the senior New York Senator. Don’t worry, I already know how you “think” & violating Federal Election laws, like the Clinton Administration’s illegal possession of FBI files on political opponents, isn’t that big of a concern for you…. not like wire-tapping unknown possible American citizens, for an unknown period of time, an unknown amount of times who were receiving or placing phones calls to & from Al Qaeda.
More from Feingold:
ReplyDeleteThe President Has Broken the Law
President Bush Must Be Held Accountable for His Illegal Domestic Spying Program
By Sen. RUSSELL FEINGOLD
Be sure to check this out, gang, when we "talk this up," it is important to present the case correctly. Feingold has done an excellent job outlining the issues.
http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold03162006.html
Bet clinton wishes he could have claimed "war powers" too -- monica could still have a mouthful...
ReplyDeleteSince you are not a partisan & totally objective in your stances, I'm sure we can count on your full support into the investigation & possible censure of Chuck Schumer & the DSCC illegal obtaining & releasing of Michael Steele's credit information?
ReplyDeleteI think anyone who breaks the law ought to be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted, including Chuck Schumer, if he broke the law. I don't know anything about the allegations you're mentioning. It goes without saying that when the President expressly claims the right to violate the law and then goes about systematically implementing policies which break the law, that is more significant than a single, isolated case of wrongdoing from a minority Senator, but if Schumer broke the law - and I have no idea if he did or didn't - of course he ought to be investigated and punished.
But what I know for sure that George Bush broke the law. He is doing so as we speak.
From Paul Craig Roberts
ReplyDeleteMarch 16, 2006
Is Another 9/11 in the Works?
by Paul Craig Roberts
If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?
Yes, you would.
Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.
First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.
Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.
Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.
Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.
Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?
That’s what Bush is doing.
Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.
The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.
In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.
In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.
It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.
Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.
Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black ops" group will orchestrate the attack.
One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.
Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?
Fantasy? Let’s hope so.
Keep this in mind as BushCo is backed further into a corner. Bolton lost yesterday at the UN, the airstrikes in Iraq today, the censure motion on tap, the collapsing poll numbers, and the increasingly shrill noises emmanating from the right-wing pundits.
Repeating myself, because I want the message to trickle up to the cowering class in the Senate:
ReplyDeleteFeingold's censure resolution isn't even about George Bush anymore. It's about us, our representatives and the essential nature of the Democratic Party. Are we appeasers who cower and calculate when our nation's essential liberties and values are under attack, or are we willing to take a stand and do battle for the principles our country represents? We know what the Republican propaganda says about us; the Senate Democrats' initial response to Feingold's motion suggests that propaganda is true. But there is still time for our leaders to redeem themselves.
Feingold has finally called The Big Question. In the Senate Democratic Caucus are Patriots who love the Nation and the Constitution that defines it, and Politicians who hoard their perquisites and their power. The two will now be separated, pols from patriots, goats from sheep. Thanks to Feingold, there is no longer a place to hide: sooner or later censure must be voted on, and on that day every Democratic senator will be weighed in the scales, his or her worth measured and recorded.
I never thought that anyone would think that Chuck Schumer was important as President George W. Bush, but I guess I was mistaken. Apparently, media-whore Chuck Schumer is now the leader of the United States and the pre-eminent voice of American values in the world.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, I think this shows the type of constant attack that the far-right excel at and that liberals fail at doing. There is no real reason that Democrats (or really anyone who thinks Richard Nixon was over the line) should not be supporting the censure of a President who has admitted to breaking the Fourth Amendment and unapologetically promises to do it any time he feels it's necessary. Republicans have no problem making a bigger deal out of a smaller issue.
When did it become such a political calculation to decide to defend rights directly enumerated by the Constitution?
Hey, Tom Harkin supports the censure:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tomharkin.com/
The poll has support censure at 46% and not support censure at 44% with a margin of error of 3%. That is the difference is statistically insignificant at the 95% level. That is, it's pretty much a dead heat. This isn't bad news for Feingold; with almost no support people are evenly divided.
ReplyDeletePmain,
ReplyDeleteI like how you deflect blatant law breaking with , "I bet you would not call to investigate Schumer!"
like you bush appologists do when you run out of excuses. Guess what, president, house and senate controlled by republicans. Of course they are going to get more scrutiny. Not that any other law breakers should not as Glenn said. Pointing their out does not excuse the pres though, K?
why impeachment is not appropriate before congress has attempted to exercise oversight without success.
ReplyDeleteThat's the last four years....
When is enough enough?
Josh Marshall SAYS he's on Drum's side, but when you read what he says substantively on the matter, it doesn't seem so.
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
I have to come here for my daily dose of sanity. I am outraged that our elected representatives in Congress and the Senate are cowards, and are refusing to stand up for our Constitutional rights. It is up to all of us to call, write and badger our elected officials until they break away from loyalty to party and do the right thing to support Senator Feingold and Rep. Conyers to hold this arrogant administration accountable for breaking the law. Call, write or fax your state officials and let them know how you feel. Remember that the tide turned on public opinion with just one dissenting voice of a bereaved soldier's mother crying for justice last summer. We can do this if the American people unite to remind all these cowardly politicians who they work for - US. Call it a netroots uprising, but I've done it; will the rest of you?
ReplyDeleteTrolls trying to make it suddenly all about Chuck Shumer? Ha! How quickly Rove's talking points make their rounds.
ReplyDeleteThis can and will peel off conservatives and moderates who think Bush's ordering of crimes needs to be answered. The Repubs know that and are worried and that's why they are pushing their toxic "Fifth Column" stew.
Glenn: I take it you dont take Paul Craig Roberts ideas about blackmail seriously????
ReplyDeleteOT OT
ReplyDeleteAll,
I am very sorry for what I have learned -- I only just learned within the very last hours. I didn't realize how much distress I was causing you. I wanted to write to say that I am sorry for not understanding and apologize to all who I have offended or inssulted.
It is very distressing news, but I wanted you to know that I take full responsibilty for what has happened, and will work to make things right. I am so sorry for what I have done to all of you -- Click ]
pmain,
ReplyDeleteYou first.
Love,
Celo
Nuf Said,
ReplyDeleteActually my argument isn’t weak at all. I was merely pointing out that the NSA wiretappings have moved from any sense of investigating a wrong & has been hijacked & is being used solely as a political club to gain political power. If in the interests of righting wrongs or punishing the breaking of the law, Glenn & the majority of commenters here would have been up in arms about the apparent & continued abuses of Election Laws. Schumer is a part of one of the three branches of government; combined w/ the fact that the Clinton Administration clearly violated the law by having 200+ files on their political opponents, shows a clear trend of Election law violations. Since nothing is really known about the NSA program, which I do agree should be investigated by the way, all demands for Censure or Impeachment are political conjecture & nothing more. All of the author’s postings & points serve political means only.
Since it hasn’t been proven that any liberties have been violated, must less destroyed & the fact that the Congress has pulled back from formal investigations, your argument is not only weak, but one-sided. That is my argument unless you have more proof then the fact that the AG has said that the program is in effect, but that he believes it is also Constitutional or a poll from highly questionable & partisan source. You also forgot to mention that Clinton claimed the same thing about several eavesdropping programs, but he didn’t even have the legitimacy of argument by tapping calls that began w/ known foreign sources like Al Qaeda. Like Nixon, his argument & violations were purely domestic & not international in nature
Re: Schumer
ReplyDeleteLauren B. Weiner one of Schumer's staffers at the DSSC will be charged with obtaining the report without authorization, according to a letter sent to Steele by the U.S. attorney's office in the District.
Whitney C. Ellerman, Weiner's attorney, told the Washington Post that his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.
"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."
Ellerman claims Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.
That's right, according to The Conservative Voice, the misdemeanor charge against a Schumer staffer, not even Schumer, will be dismissed. And I for one hope we roast Schumer on a spit for these egregious ethical violations.
I only hope we stay consistent. While we are blaming Democrats for the errors of their subordinates, let's not forget the Republicans too! Now that Brooks is blaming Rumsfeld for the war in Iraq, let's remember the man who put him in charge of it. And now that Michael Brown and Chertoff are being blamed for the Katrina response, let's remember the man who hired them. And now that Alberto Gonzales is changing his tune to the Senate Judiciary Committee about this illegal spying program, let's remember his client.
Republicans, it's time to stop looking for the specks in Democrat's offices while you have a plank of your own in the Oval Office. First get the plank out of there. Then we'll talk.
Oops. Democrat's offices --> Democrats' offices
ReplyDeletePmain errs:
ReplyDeleteSince it hasn’t been proven that any liberties have been violated,
Yes, it has been proven. By definition, violating FISA by surveilling U.S. persons without an FIS court warrant, constitutes a violation of statutory liberties. Bush admits he is violating FISA by surveilling U.S. persons without FIS court warrants.
Hence, tho their identities remain unknown, some U.S. persons have had their liberties violated.
For the record:
ReplyDeleteSenator Mark Dayton of Minnesota has declared to the Associated Press today (see URL below or click), that a fellow Senator who publicly points out that our Constitution and laws have been openly and flagrantly violated and ignored by the President of the United States is being "irresponsible."
Furthermore, Dayton has made clear that such criticism of lawlessness in the Executive Branch of goverment by the Legislative Branch of government by way of "playing around" and "grandstanding" with a censure resolution is "dangerous territory" for our "democracy." [Despite the fact that Feingold's Resolution would simply censure such lawless behavior without actually remedying it or bringing it to justice.]
And the absolute right to privacy of EVERY U.S. person and their property in the United States, absent a warrant, that was created and is protected by the 1791 Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, may be VIOLATED AT WILL and with impunity by said lawless Executive Branch ON SENATOR MARK DAYTON'S NEGLIGENT WATCH.
Senator Mark Dayton: YOU are a TRAITOR to my country. I am withholding from this comment the curses that I am privately hurling in your direction at your demonstration of callous disregard for my rights and our government's responsibilities. You stand idly by while an out-of-control bully occupying our Office of the President spits on our Constitution and invades our private lives in absolute contravention of the framework and separation of powers that the Founders envisioned and created for this Nation. Take your money, and your PRIVILEGE and GET OUT of my Senate NOW, before you allow any more damage to be done. You despicable, irresponsible excuse for a representative of the people of Minnesota.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/16/144731/704
EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR in that chamber ought to demand a public apology from Senator Mark Dayton to Senator Feingold. Dayton's profoundly ill-considered comments demonstrate an OUTRAGEOUS abdication of his sworn duty to defend our Constitution, which he has carried yet one step further: Dayton is now publicly ATTACKING and chastising a Senator who IS UPHOLDING and performing HIS sworn duty to defend the Constitution on behalf of the American people. [I know why Feingold is doing this, Dayton. It's called PRINCIPLE. You apparently only recognize principle when it doesn't conflict with your privilege. However, I don't care, nor should you, WHY Feingold is motivated to do this, considering how vital and long overdue this defense of our Constitution is. Feingold could have done this just to get on the cover of Time Magazine, but that's IRRELEVANT because it happens to be THE RIGHT THING TO DO and HE DID IT.] FOR SHAME, Mark Dayton.
This post inspired me to call Sen. Kennedy's office. I can't say that I was too stunned by the attitude of sneering elitism that I found at the other end of the line; you don't win that many virtually uncontested elections without them taking their ossifying effect.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the Dems are satisfied just to own their own little fiefdom. I think the public would be willing to support an opposition party if they knew one existed.
All in all, it's a good reminder why I vote Libertarian every chance I get.
Exactly who was wire-tapped again? How many times? Where did the calls originate from?
ReplyDelete. . .the legitimacy of argument by tapping calls that began w/ known foreign sources like Al Qaeda
So, pmain can you answer those first questions of yours with authority, or is it just a matter of "trust"? You stated that you want an investigation. If so, why state that the calls begin from a known source? How do you know that with certainty?
I have to say this whole ordeal epitomizes what is wrong with the Democrats. All this hoopla over it won't pass - who gives a rats ass. This would be the proverbial shot across the bow.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there were two...
ReplyDeleteMaybe something CAN happen. Here's from Sen. Harkin's site. He's not mincing words. I mistook him for Glenn in the opening paragraph!
QUOTE
We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises – and broken faith – with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law.
In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Let's be clear: No American – and that must include the President – is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That's why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that's why I fully support this resolution of censure.
Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists' conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That's why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that's not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping.
We have an out-of-control President whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It's time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold's measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.
UNQUOTE
Hopefully more to come?
Hey pmain,
ReplyDeleteYou lone warrior you! Kudos to your efforts to reinforce your points.
Just so that when polls are quoted by Glenn & others from this day forward - What are the more reputable, more reliable (methodology wise), and more objective polling companies that you do believe, or trust?
I must ask because you've written:
I was actually pointing out that the American Research Group hasn’t been very effective in gathering accurate poll information in the past & that they lean towards the Democratic causes. If you’d care to review their other polls in regards to elections, you are more than welcome to, but chances are you will only prove my point for me.
Glenn cites polls regularily, and if you are kind enough to post a list of your 'approved' pollsters (I'm not familiar with any) he can at least make a point of including those results alongside any others he chooses to post about, in efforts to reinforce his points.
I guess I'm waiting for the those on the 'righter side' to dismiss the entire 'Liberal Polling Elite' when conclusions about the 'pulse of the nation' don't suit them. While it doesn't seem likely, considering that Republicans are well represented in that group, I consider it a real possibility when the 'Liberal Media' (a widely used term) so often puts forth a view favorable to the GOP, particularily within D.C. The speed at which the MSM adopted the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' title is a recent example.
Billy Bob Joe has the news: A credible threat of a constitutional convention can compel Congress to impeach the President well before the 2006 election. [ Click ]
ReplyDeletepmain said:
ReplyDelete"This is just another in a long line of political hysterics from the Democrats: Saddam will use chemical weapons on our troops, Bagdad will never fall & will cost hundreds of thousands of lives to take, Iraqi elections will never happen,"
American troops didn’t guard the weapons caches, Cheney or Rove leaked the undercover agent, Valerie Plame’s name, Bush lied about WMDs (even though almost all Democratic Congressional members had said differently & we now know that Saddam’s Generals believed it as well). The list goes on & on. The only thing accomplished is the left gets more shrill & comes across as being overly political."
IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE and HUBRIS FROM the RIGHT 2003
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer,
3/30/03)
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)
"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)
"Shouldn't the [Canadian] prime minister and all of us who thought the war was hasty and dangerous and wrongheaded admit that we were wrong? I mean, with the pictures of those Iraqis dancing in the streets, hauling down statues of Saddam Hussein and gushing their thanks to the Americans, isn't it clear that President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair were right all along?
(Washington Post's William Raspberry, 4/14/03)
"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)
"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)
"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)
"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)
And who can forget Bushes MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in 2003.
Today, from the defense department:
The largest air assault of the war was launched this morning. March 16,2006
Hey Redwretch,
ReplyDeleteI don’t use polls. Since the exit poll mishap of the 2000 Presidential election, I have come to realize that pollsters can just about get any response they’d like by wording or controlling those polled. That is why I don’t resort to them as a means of argument, nor trust any politician or blogger that uses them to decide which way to vote or respond. I do however look at the questions asked, who was asked – are they registered voters or likely voters, which political party do they belong to, what age, geographical location, etc - & I will look at a pollster’s public record to see how close they are or have been in the past, like in a Presidential election. They are a tool to aide in gauging reaction, but far too many, on the left or right, are used a means to persuade or justify a political stance.
Glenn, I agree with everything and everyone (mostly) here tha Censure and Feingold's actions thereto are the right thing to do. What I do not get is this comment with which you introduced the subject:
ReplyDelete"The Censure Resolution -- which is a great political boon to Republicans, massive self-destruction by Democrats, the greatest political blunder in 100 years, and the life raft that will single-handedly save George Bush's drowning presidency"
I trust your tongue was firmly embedded, but I do not see the cues for that. Care to enlighten me? I see it true if and only if the Dems continue to mill around like headless chickens.
Hypathia,
ReplyDeleteSo were the phone calls tapped on American citizens or people simply within American borders? Or were the phone numbers bought in the US & used over seas? We don’t know, while I agree the law may have been broken, I don’t immediately assume or accept that civil rights have been violated, since we do not know the who, what, where or why yet.
What if it gets investigated & is found to be perfectly legal or to not interfere w/ FISA? I just can’t get too excited about anything that so little information is known, much support or accept grounds for impeachment or censure.
I'd just like to add that I'm a New Yorker, I read Newsday, and I hadn't heard about any recent Schumer wrongdoings until now. And surprise, it turns out to be a non-scandal.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty pathetic when you have to resort to the "Clinton/some-other-Democrat did bad stuff too!" whine. I see it constantly by people who apparently approve of Bush, but can't think of any way to defend him. It's not an argument. It's a transparent attempt to change the subject of debate.
What if it gets investigated & is found to be perfectly legal or to not interfere w/ FISA?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how Glenn and A.L. could have made it any clearer: GONZALES ADMITTED THIS PROGRAM VIOLATES FISA. HE JUST CLAIMS FISA DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT.
I believe that censure of the President should only be the beginning.
ReplyDeletethe exit poll mishap of the 2000 Presidential election
ReplyDeleteDang, I shouldn't ever leave the computer, I miss too many laughs!
Saying that the 2000 election proves polls are mistaken instead of saying that polls show the 200o election was rigged, is like saying Harry Whittington walked into Dick Cheney's shotgun blast instead of that Cheney shot Whittington.
Oh, wait...
I believe that censure of the President should only be the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThat's part of the beauty of the censure resolution: if the President is censured, and continues the warrantless surveillance program, then Congress will have little choice but to impeach.
pmain,
ReplyDeletethe issue is that FISA expressly states it is the ONLY legal way to wiretap a US citizen for any reason that requres state level secrecy. There can be no reason for wiretapping in secrecy that does not require a visit to the FISA court. Therefore bypassing the court is ipso facto illegal.
The only other way to legally wiretap is via public courts, for normal criminal investigations.
I happen to believe terrorism is a criminal activity, and there have for long been perfectly adequate laws about killing people murder) and causing massive property damage (vandalism). This administrations methodology is fatally flawed in attempting to treat Al Quaeda as a sovereign state rather than a gang of thugs.
I also happen to blelieve strongly, almost know, that properly handled crime investigations can be perfectly effective at the same time as being traqnsparent to the public, i.e. the methods can be known ti the public without degrading their efficiency. As in so many other areas - copy protection being one - relying on protection by secrecy / obfuscation is fatally flawed because it takes only one leak to break it. It is the refuge of the incompetent.
What I find most disturbing is the MSM catapulting the propaganda that the censure motion is "rallying" chimpy's base.
ReplyDeleteThey also use the wedge issues to make that same proclaimation - this provides cover for fraud at the election. I guess if the 33 percent or whatever that supports the chimperor wants to "rally," there is no reason to be concerned.
But without free, open, and verifiable elections, this provides the cover to steal elections. The repugs essentially admit that they don't have a majority, but that their people vote in higher (actually improbable or impossible) numers, and chimpy wins!
And then, he proceeds to screw the rest of the public based on his "accountability" moment -- obviously, he lied when he was talking about being a "uniter" because to win, they need the lie of the "energized base" to cover the fact that they do not represent the American people.
pmain:
ReplyDeleteHypathia,
So were the phone calls on American citizens or people simply within American borders? Or were the phone numbers bought in the US & used over seas? We don’t know
Wait just one minute. It seems that you at least suggested earlier in this thread that the sources were known. Sure, it was in the context of deriding Clinton (OT) but that's what you implied, just as your Commander in Chief has. How are you confident that at least one end of a source is undoubtedly legal without knowing -- without "trust" -- that it is who it is in fact said to target?
It is odd that you bring up something that is not really in dispute anymore (Steele -- google news search of key terms results in 2) as an argument in this case.
pmain, you seem confident of at least one end of the communications. Why is that?
I see the poll showed a tidal wave of support for Russ Feingold. He polled an average of 1.85 percent against other democrats.
ReplyDeleteRUN RUSS RUN!
2008 Democratic Presidential Primary
Likely Primary Voters SC ME NH VT MA CT RI
Bayh 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Biden 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1%
Clark 2% 5% 7% 3% 4% 3% 2%
Clinton 30% 36% 32% 34% 36% 38% 34%
Daschle - 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Edwards 15% 6% 9% 3% 4% 3% 2%
Feingold 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1%
Gore 8% 5% 5% 6% 7% 4% 6%
Kerry 4% 5% 7% 4% 10% 3% 8%
Richardson - 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Warner 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Undecided 36% 37% 31% 40% 31% 39% 42%
* Less than .5 percent
600 completed telephone interviews among likely Democratic primary voters in each state, February 2-9, 2006.
Theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, in each state.
Today must be my day to be confused, LOL. Glenn, when you wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe Censure Resolution -- which is a great political boon to Republicans, massive self-destruction by Democrats, the greatest political blunder in 100 years, and the life raft that will single-handedly save George Bush's drowning presidency
were you just being facetious? If you really think it's a political blunder and will save Bush, then why should anyone support it?
"Really? You had not heard anything at all about this? A quick Google search for "schumer staff credit report" returns 271,000 hits... Maybe you should watch a little Fox News Channel instead of getting all your info from the Democrat-wrongdoing-ignoring Liberal Media."
ReplyDeleteA number of those hits are about credit legislation; nothing to do with this incident. The rest appear to be the RW media passing the same story amongst themselves. If you change the search to Schumer staff credit steele, that drops it to 54,600 hits, almost all RW sources. Maybe you'd get some real news if you got your head out of Fox's navel.
were you just being facetious? If you really think it's a political blunder and will save Bush, then why should anyone support it?
ReplyDeleteYes, I was being facetious. I was summarizing what Democratic nay-sayers and Bush followers have been saying about the Resolution. I believe the Resolution is briliant both substantively and politically and I can't think of much that would inflict more (justifiable) political harm on the Administration than to vigorously support this Resolution in order to persuade Americans about how radical this Administration has become and how dangerous and contrary it is to all of our most fundamental principles as a country.
In the Introduction to Danny Danziger's and John Gillingham's very fine popular history 1215 The Year of Magna Carta we're told:
ReplyDelete"The Magna Carta is as famous as any document you can name in any museum or parliament. It holds its own against the American Declaration of Independence, indeed, the authors of that document professed to have read Magna Carta before they put pen to paper. There are sixty-three clauses in Magna Carta, but there are two that reverberate down the centuries, and have come to represent today a ringing expression of freedom for mankind the world over.
"To translate from the original Latin into English:
"'No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
"'To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.'
"The eloquence of those sentences, the nobility and idealism they express, has elevated this piece of legislation to eternal iconic status. In America, Magna Carta is revered as the foundation stone of modern freedom."
The Introduction ends with the following vignette (I've edited it down slightly).
"On the day we finished this book, we drove out to Runnymede to get a feel of the place where King John had met the barons and had been forced to put his seal to the Magna Carta...The [Runnymede] memorial is a rotunda, built by the American Bar Association, as 'a tribute to Magna Carta, symbol of freedom under law'. In 1971, the American Bar Association came here again and pledged their adherence to the principles of the Great Charter - and again, in July 1985, returning once more in July 2000 'to celebrate Magna Carta, foundation of the rule of law for ages past and for the new millennium...'
"It is very moving that a nation, which wasn't founded until nearly six centuries after Magna Carta was first discussed here, should invest such belief in and commitment to this ancient document."
Today that last paragraph couldn't be written. There's an innocence, a faith, a simple goodness about it that's been murdered. Savage irony - that's what would have to accompany those words today. That's how far we've travelled, what these scum have done to us and our country.
And they've done it in just three years. Danziger's and Gillingham's book was published in 2003.
The sentence that comes after the words "the rule of law for ages past and for the new millennium...belief in and commitment to this ancient document" is:
"A heavy rain was falling on the muddy, churned fields of Runnymede as we made our way back to the car..."
Heavy rain indeed. And as for making our way back...it ain't there any more folks.
tomiag said,
ReplyDeleteA quick Google search for "schumer staff credit report" returns 271,000 hits... Maybe you should watch a little Fox News Channel instead of getting all your info from the Democrat-wrongdoing-ignoring Liberal Media.
Oh boy a google fight. The choice of serious researchers and truth seekers since 1975.
George Bush eats babies - 10,800,000 hits
Fox News sells children to George Bush - 6,680,000 hits
Cheney hunts babies for Bush to eat - 482,000 hits
tomaig is an idiot - 202 hits
None of this was too difficult to foresee to any one with a rational train of thought. 'Course that leaves out most of our courageous Dem. congress critters.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteLet's take a look at your latest politorial...
Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
This entire question presupposes a lie for which you have no evidence. In a nutshell, this question assumes that Mr. Bush is tapping telephone calls between Americans in the US without court warrants.
Either provide me with evidence of this or admit that the poll you are promoting is a bald faced lie.
If you were a prosecutor drafting charges like this poll, I would be very afraid indeed...
pmain is a perfect example of the way the wingnuts try to change the subject when they have lost an argument.
ReplyDeleteSchumer's actions have nothing to do with the discussion of Bush breaking the law, but he/she is afraid to confront the issue, so tries to throw sand in your eyes.
Typical scared water-carrier for Rove.
Thanks for the reply PMain.
ReplyDeleteI must acknowledge your tenacity in sticking to your guns in this thread, despite many challenges. As Glenn has written about, and I agree, it is the participation of those with differing opinions and good reading skills that makes for a good discussion.
When I asked for polling companies that you'd support I did not expect your answer:
I don’t use polls. Since the exit poll mishap of the 2000 Presidential election, I have come to realize that pollsters can just about get any response they’d like by wording or controlling those polled.
No argument here. But just as facts can be (are) selectively (misleadingly) presented by those in the media herd, many journalists do still break through with relevant, insightful, and very accurate content, and I feel the same is true for polling.
There's a baby & bathwater cliché that fits for both, and they do serve important, even symbiotic roles: Media = Politicians activities to the masses, Pollsters = Masses' opinions to Politicians.
Another brush both could be tarred with is being too close to the polical parties, and, of course, the always (never) popular 'special interests'.
I do hope that in the next few years our institutions of higher learning lead in developing and promoting higher standards in many areas, but ethical journalism and polling are, I'm sure, due for an upgrade. Here's to hope! (CHEERS - gulp)
Again, I don't know all polling companies, but we do know how both sides in D.C. 'check the barometer before stepping outside', as it were, and that means polling. Pollsters aren't leaving, provided there's enough competition that allows for upward and downward mobility based upon performance, which I define not as getting desired results, but results that accurately represent the people's opinions. The clients, however, might disagree; the Bush administration, who have, in whirlwind fashion, made arguments for higher ethical journalism standards (like disclosure) practically fly themselves, carefully managed every photo op & rebranding effort, usually to great success. If a thin slice of the same is applied to the polling industry, as contracted by the federal government, I fear an unseemly amount of 'fixed' results whose only purpose is to misrepresent the nation's opinion towards an incalculable number of policy ideas and programs.
You went on to write:
I do however look at the questions asked, who was asked – are they registered voters or likely voters, which political party do they belong to, what age, geographical location, etc - & I will look at a pollster’s public record to see how close they are or have been in the past, like in a Presidential election.
Making a more educated judgement is wise, and I'm sure you'll agree the less professional (defensible) firms in the polling industry don't provide the extra info on participants.
What really troubles me is your statement on comparing a pollster's past accuracy on Presidential elections...I believe strongly that the 2004 election was a robbery, with or without Ohio, so I won't measure anything up against those results, and I advise that you not do so either. The revelations on Diebold's voting machines using an encryption standard that was cracked in 1997 cements it for me. Is it a guarantee of dirty tricks? Certaily not. With Presidential elections being so important, if not the most important decisions, don't you think it's downright dangerous NOT to assume someone, or some people, attempted to influence the result any way they could. Since it has been shown that the machines could be hacked, the smart money is on 'was hacked'.
Paper ballots, counted (& often recounted) in a controlled, patient manner, while monitored by set numbers of party members, is the proven method; the costs are justified.
That said, it seems Glenn won't be sighting the 'PMain approved' polling companies as I had envisioned, so he'll just have to keep linking to those that reinforce his points, which I agree with (so far).
I don't think so. I'm afraid you can no longer convince me. The Democrats are reminding me of my forlorn hope in Kerry a few years ago. I fought against everything my gut knew, and put all my hope and my voice and my vote in his run. I even wore a damn Tshirt around supporting him. I got arrested protesting the RNC.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, the Anti-Democracy gods rained down grace upon my Diebold plains and now all hope has withered in the valley.
Thank you karenmcl. We support Feingold. OK. He's asking for citizen co-sponsors of his motion. OK. Let's get millions of us to co-sponsor his motion.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Co-Sponsor. See karen's post at 2:42 for the link. You go there, you put in only your name,zipcode and email, and you press submit. That's it. Please circulate to all your friends. Moveon got almost 400,000 to sign up in favor of the Feingold motion, and many people do not like or trust moveon. Feingold can be trusted. Help co-sponsor his bill.
As for constant, I haven't followed the "incident" but I urge Glenn to ask firedoglake to allow constant to come back. He's a dreamer and dreamers have their role also. His heart is definitely in the right place, and his efforts are tireless. I visit his site every day and have benefitted(sp?) from those visits. Although I would love to see a Constitutional Convention called, I don't think it will happen, at not least in the immediate future, so I haven't participated in that venture. I've been wishing constant would lend his awesome abilities to the NSA scandal matter, and now that Feingold's censure motion has come up, constant's efforts in that cause would be very welcome. It's not a Convention, but it's a start for all who want to see government held accountable.
Constant, whatever you did, don't feel so bad. Your heart is in the right place. As a person who makes more mistakes daily than the next ten people combined, I know that mistakes can happen, and often are no indication of bad will. I don't know if you in fact made a mistake, but if you did, I hope firedoglake, a terrific, essential site, will forgive you and take you back.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI see the poll showed a tidal wave of support for Russ Feingold. He polled an average of 1.85 percent against other democrats.
RUN RUSS RUN!
Gee and here I thought all you Republicans didn't believe in polls, or is it that you only believe polls that support what you believe?
akhenaten said...
ReplyDelete"I don't think so. I'm afraid you can no longer convince me. The Democrats are reminding me of my forlorn hope in Kerry a few years ago. I fought against everything my gut knew, and put all my hope and my voice and my vote in his run. I even wore a damn Tshirt around supporting him. I got arrested protesting the RNC.
In the end, the Anti-Democracy gods rained down grace upon my Diebold plains and now all hope has withered in the valley."
So who has tried to convince you of anything?
You remind me of the guy that got a flat tire one night and discovered he didn't have a jack. He saw some lights in the distance and headed that way in hopes of finding one that he could borrow.
As he walked along he thought: "naw probably nobody has one". Then he thought: "even if they do they probably won't lend it to me". He kept walking and thinking: "it'll probably be some a**hole that will ask me why I'm such a dumbf**k and chase me away. Finally he arrived at the house where the lights were. He rang the bell. A man answered and asked him: "can I help you?" He answered: "You know what you sorry sob I didn't want to borrow your damn jack anyway", and stomped off into the night.
The moral of the story is: If you want to defeat yourself go right ahead. Just don't blame me for your self defeat.
Pmain:
ReplyDeleteSince that is an admission of guilt, I'm sure you'll demand an investigation & probably write several scathing articles about her & Schumer’s guilt, demanding impeachment of the senior New York Senator.
I'd recommend that you stop proving how clueless you are. You can't impeach a senator. They can be expelled by their fellow senators, but otherwise, elections are the only remedy.
Cheers,
It is one thing to support Feingold and his censure quest.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite another thing to actually say with a straight face that politically it would be a great move for the democrats to support it. Already it is going over as well as putting Dukakis in a tank or John Kerry wearing a bunny suit.
This is a loser topic for the Democrats. The polling is not strong enough plus all polling shows the democrats weaker than the republicans on defense. This is a toxic move by the Feingold and I can guarantee you that if this were a basketball game in March Madness, this move by Feingold would be called a momentum changer.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing to support Feingold and his censure quest.
It is quite another thing to actually say with a straight face that politically it would be a great move for the democrats to support it. Already it is going over as well as putting Dukakis in a tank or John Kerry wearing a bunny suit.
This is a loser topic for the Democrats. The polling is not strong enough plus all polling shows the democrats weaker than the republicans on defense. This is a toxic move by the Feingold and I can guarantee you that if this were a basketball game in March Madness, this move by Feingold would be called a momentum changer.
If this is such a loser topic for the Democrats then why don't you support them going for it? You do sound like a Republican so it would seem that you believe that it would be beneficial to your party.
I think establishment Democrats would focus on the fact that according to the poll Independents were not for censure.
ReplyDeleteAnd if it's true that Democrats are in a media box, then there is no way these Independents can be swayed by ant statement of the Democrats, because the media won't let that happen.
Perhaps that's the reason for their passivity. The only thing they can do is wait until the Independent overcome their fears.
You know what's funny...
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans could have ruined the Democrats if they all came out in favor of censure yesterday, while the Democrats hemmed and hawed while standing silent in the bushes.
Quick senate vote, all repubs in favor, 5 Dems in favor. Done, seeya, move along...
Strange Days
ReplyDeleteJack Balkin
So the President, as best I can tell, has repeatedly violated federal law by spying on American citizens in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Congress, controlled by his own party, responds not by demanding an investigation into the matter, but rather by asking meekly whether it might amend the statute so that whatever the President has been doing (which he won't actually tell us) could become legal. The President says, not really necessary, don't you fools realize that when I act as Commander-in-Chief I can't violate the law? And if you insist that I did, well then, your laws are just plain unconstitutional. A Democratic Senator then stands up and argues that if the President broke the law repeatedly, he should be censured, if not impeached. Everybody else makes fun of him. At this point the Republicans, who lined up almost as one to impeach the previous (Democratic) president for lying about sex to a grand jury, while making impassioned speeches about the rule of law, are now delighted by this development, using the fact that the Senator is talking about censure as an opportunity to fire up their base.
So children, here's the moral of the story: If you are the President, feel free to violate the law, early and often. Just make sure you do it when your party controls all three branches of government. Because just as blood is thicker than water, party is thicker.
DSH said...
ReplyDelete"Fox News Flash (headline): Today, for the first time in three years, 800 Iraqis joined 650 "coalition" troops in actual combat. Notably, not a single shot was fired. Even more notable: "It caught the Pentagon by surprise."
The mission was based on Iraqi intelligence too. Reminds me of when we used to fly the South Vietnamese army out to eat their picnic lunches. The VC they had intelligence on mysteriously were never there.
Drats, missed again. Pass me some more of the fish.
ckj:
ReplyDelete"So we have this complementary couplet - one side who sees windmills and is STILL to scared to attack, and the other who insists on doing evil, no matter how many die, are hurt, or how low their approvals go.
It's really bizarre."
You know, I keep thinking the same thing. Our government has become outright satirical, as though someone had written a script to make fun of the whole idea of democracy over the weekend and this is the clumsy result.
One party determined to be as a corrupt and heartless as possible; another party the very epitome of craven, cowardly politicos; a president so childishly petty and ignorant that no actual satirist would ever have to tried to pass it off as possible; a media relentless in its drive to publish political hackery as fact without research or fact-checking; and an electorate so ineffably clueless that six straight years of almost weekly crimes of escalating in severity fails to rouse them, ETC.
It is, in fact, so stupid that we should be embarrassed to even be a part of it. America is not only failing but failing with the grace and subtlety of a pratfall onto a stack of cream pies.
If you liked the CENSURE motion, you will love:
ReplyDeleteIraq & the Nuremberg Precedent
Editor's Note: As the United States approaches the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, much of the commentary is focusing on the Bush administration's "incompetence" in prosecuting the war -- the failure to commit enough troops, the decision to disband the old Iraqi army without adequate plans for training a new one, the highhandedness of the U.S. occupation.
But what about the legal and moral questions arising from the unprovoked invasion of Iraq? Should George W. Bush and his top aides be held accountable for violating the laws against aggressive war that the United States and other Western nations promulgated in punishing senior Nazis after World War II? Do the Nuremberg precedents that prohibit one nation from invading another apply to Bush and American officials -- or are they somehow immune? Put bluntly, should Bush and his inner circle face a war-crimes tribunal for the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq?
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/031506a.html
Crap. The New York Times editorial page just came out against censure. Oh sure, they want an investigation. Like that's gonna happen with Roberts and Specter in place.
ReplyDeletepmain --
ReplyDeleteEven if you are correct in saying that Feingold/Glenn/anyone here is using the censure resolution as a political club, isn't it perhaps the height of hypocrisy for Republicans and Bush supporters to be deriding ANYONE for politicizing issues? George Bush and the Republican Party took a stolen election and a tragedy that left 3,000 Americans dead and politicized it into a "permanent majority."
Redwretch,
ReplyDeleteI think that polls can serve as a useful tools, but arguments that depend upon them solely, like Glenn’s current, ring hollow & tend toward being purely subjective. You are right about the firms releasing or not releasing the information & when they do, they tend to favor one side over the other. Most politicians use private firms which generally aren’t available to the public. I’d imagine that those are more pointed & telling to the true reflection of the American sentiment.
I totally disagree about the election being stolen & acknowledge certain flaws in the Diebold system, but there are 1,000 times more hacks available for the PC you are using currently & that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is generating your opinions via your less secure computer. The Diebold machines would have to be networked or connected for someone to somehow hack into them post election. If you truly believe that they are preset to generate a number of ballots, how can you believe the paper method? Certainly it is easier to fake or preset ballots using that method. If that is the case it could be argued that Clinton or Carter’s victories were stolen or faked as well. Personally it sounds a little too paranoid to me. I do however find it curious that the left has rejected all forms of ID in regards to voting & think that by using bio-metric ID security most fraud could be avoided & would totally support that.
Pmain:
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell does identification have to do with a hacked piece of code, nested deeply inside of convoluted preprocessor directives or spaghetti code, in which one almost unnoticeable statement, perhaps placed in an almost illegible nested ternary operation, that bit shifts a vote count one place and hence changes the vote totals by a factor of 2? None of this even matters because the code for these things is considered proprietary, so even if people who knew what to look for could miraculously uncover offending code fragments amidst tens or possibly hundreds of lines, we don't have that ability.
Ensuring that the right people vote and vote once does not necessarily mean that the computer program is handling the votes with integrity. Any programmer will tell you how amazingly simple it would be to put an almost undetectable bug in there that will result in a massive distortion in the tallied results.
Oops...I think it should be obvious that I meant to say "tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of lines of code" in the post above.
ReplyDeletebart was all...
ReplyDeleteThis entire question presupposes a lie for which you have no evidence. In a nutshell, this question assumes that Mr. Bush is tapping telephone calls between Americans in the US without court warrants.
Where is YOUR evidence whereby you can state anything in that question is a "lie"?
But you do have a point. The censure motion is not for addressing wiretapping, it is for addressing lawbreaking, something this administration has admitted to openly and proudly.
Presuming the electorate does not readily go for esoteric legalistic theories regarding the citations of Article II and the AUMF as a defense for the actions of this administration, I'd wager if the poll question were worded more like;
Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for breaking the law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps?
the results would be much more in favour of censure.
AJ said...
ReplyDelete"Crap. The New York Times editorial page just came out against censure. Oh sure, they want an investigation. Like that's gonna happen with Roberts and Specter in place."
And to think, at one time the NYT was a respectable organization.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletepmain said:
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree about the election being stolen & acknowledge certain flaws in the Diebold system, but there are 1,000 times more hacks available for the PC you are using currently & that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is generating your opinions via your less secure computer. The Diebold machines would have to be networked or connected for someone to somehow hack into them post election. If you truly believe that they are preset to generate a number of ballots
Your ignorance is showing pmain. You should really stick to topics you know more about. Either that or you do know and are trying to deceive someone that you think doesn't.
It has already been demonstrated how simple it is to hack into Diebold voting machines by simply inserting an altered card. Which anyone who has access to the machines can do. No networking required. And the Sequoia machines can be thrown in with that group also.
"Black Box Voting successfully sued former Palm Beach County (FL) Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore to get the audit records for the 2004 presidential election.
After investing over $7,000 and waiting nine months for the records, Black Box Voting discovered that the voting machine logs contained approximately 100,000 errors. According to voting machine assignment logs, Palm Beach County used 4,313 machines in the Nov. 2004 election. During election day, 1,475 voting system calibrations were performed while the polls were open, providing documentation to substantiate reports from citizens indicating the wrong candidate was selected when they tried to vote.
The internal logs of at least 40 Sequoia touch-screen voting machines reveal that votes were time and date-stamped as cast two weeks before the election, sometimes in the middle of the night.
Another disturbing find was several dozen voting machines with votes for the Nov. 2, 2004 election cast on dates like Oct. 16, 15, 19, 13, 25, 28 2004 and one tape dated in 2010. These machines did not contain any votes date-stamped on Nov. 2, 2004.
As learned in the Hursti experiments, it is possible for an insider to access the machines and leave no trace, but sometimes a hasty or clumsy access (such as forgetting to enter a correct date/time value when altering a record) will leave telltale tracks.
Two of the most ardent proponents of election secrecy and paperless voting, Los Angeles County Registrar of Elections Conny McCormack and former San Bernardino Registrar Scott Konopasek, appear to be practically brother and sister-in-law, yet we can't find that they have disclosed this.
In July 2004, Konopasek admitted to BBV investigators that he has sometimes adjusted election data during elections. At the time, BBV investigators were asking if Konopasek knew of any reason that could cause vote totals to go down for a candidate in the middle of a count (which happened to Howard Dean, a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary, in March 2004 in Mohave County, AZ). Konopasek replied that this had happened under his watch in San Bernardino. He claimed that it was due to a need to "massage the data" between the tabulator and the voting machine, adding that the problem had been solved.
An Explanation?
ReplyDeleteFrom DemocraticUnderground.com
The following transcript appears to be from a recent meeting involving Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). It was found in a stinky trash heap in the bowels of the Hart Senate Office Building by a keen-eyed Democratic Underground reader. An unknown number of pages are missing from the beginning of the transcript, which is why the conversation seems to begin so abruptly.
and that's why I've got this extremely painful welt on my left ass-cheek. I told him, "This is our Senate, too, you know!" but for some reason he wouldn't listen. I just don't understand it. I was very polite.
(Silence)
SEN. FEINGOLD: (Clears throat.) So, um. I thought we were here to talk about the censure resolution.
SEN. REID: Ah, yes. The censure resolution. You have to pull it.
SEN. FEINGOLD: I'm not going to do that. The president broke the law. Everybody knows the president broke the law. You, of all people, know he broke the law. Hell, the Republicans all know he broke the law. The president practically admitted it.
SEN. REID: Don't waste my time with this "he broke the law" bullcrap. You and I both know he did.
SEN. FEINGOLD: So, what are we going to do about it?
SEN. REID: Just hold your horses. We'll do something about it, I promise. But we can't just go off half-cocked. We've got to think strategically.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Strategically. OK. So what do you suggest?
SEN. REID: I've got an idea, but I don't think you'll like it.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Really? Try me.
SEN. REID: We don't do anything.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Um.
SEN. REID: It's what they'll least expect. And that, my friend, is what makes it so brilliant. (Smiles, raises eyebrows, and taps index finger against side of forehead as if to say "I'm always thinkin'.")
SEN. FEINGOLD: With all due respect, I think they might actually expect that. Since that has been our strategy on almost every issue for the last year or so.
SEN. REID: And? (Reaches into inside jacket pocket. Pulls out a crumpled printout from the Internet with the headline, "Bush approval rating lowest ever," waves it over his head, and then slaps it onto the table.) Read it and weep, cheese boy! (Does little victory dance and pantomimes receiving high-fives from senators Lieberman, Clinton, others.)
SEN. FEINGOLD: Please don't call me that.
SEN. REID: Hold on a second, I'm getting high-fived.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Right.
SEN. REID: (Accepts imaginary behind-the-back high-five from Senator Nelson of Nebraska. Turns attention back to Sen. Feingold.) Have you ever read Sun Tzu?
SEN. FEINGOLD: As a matter of fact, I have.
SEN. REID: The Art of War. "It is said that you should never attack your opponent when he's caught breaking the law, because his own lawbreaking will be his undoing. You can just sit back and accept the congratulations of your compatriots for your good fortune when he crashes and burns."
SEN. FEINGOLD: Sun Tzu never said that.
SEN. REID: Ah, yes. But he could have said it. Which is why it sounds so true. I, myself, have never actually read the book. But I heard Newt Gingrich lecture about it a few years back. That guy was something else.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Sun Tzu or Newt Gingrich?
SEN. REID: What? Look, politics is much too important to be left to a bunch of well-meaning-but-misguided liberals from the Northeast and West Coast.
SEN. FEINGOLD: I'm from Wisconsin. It's closer to the middle of the country than Nevada.
SEN. REID: Wisconsin! Bah! Wisconsin is just Vermont with cows and cheese.
SEN. FEINGOLD: I'm pretty sure Vermont has cows and cheese, too. But we're getting off topic here. Are we going to go after the president or not?
SEN. REID: We will. But we can't do it now. His poll numbers are too low. We'd look mean for kicking a man when he's down.
SEN. FEINGOLD: So, can we go after him when his poll numbers come back up?
SEN. REID: Certainly not! It would be suicide to attack a popular president. Are you insane? You have to think one step ahead here. Always anticipate the response. If it's bad, then you keep your powder dry.
SEN. FEINGOLD: So, when can we attack the president? The man has fucked everything up. For cryin' out loud -- name an issue, and I guarantee he's fucked it up. Surely there has got to be some issue we can use to attack him.
SEN. REID: Sadly, there isn't. If we attack him on the Iraq war, terrorism, or national security, we look weak. If we attack him on civil liberties, the environment, or education, we look liberal.
SEN. FEINGOLD: So, what's left?
SEN. REID: Nothing. We're still waiting, Zen-like, for the perfect issue. Patience, my son. We have all the time in the world. Eventually, everything will just come together, and we shall achieve political Nirvana. (Closes eyes and assumes a sort-of lotus position.)
SEN. FEINGOLD: That seems like a long time. I think I'm going to go ahead with the censure resolution. (Begins to leave.)
SEN. REID: (Calls over his shoulder.) That's what Frist wants you to do!
SEN. FEINGOLD: Is that so? How do you know?
SEN. REID: Because he says so.
(Feingold shakes head, leaves.)
I've been on the phone with representitives of both my Senators (Clinton, Schumer)everyday all week. No comment. First Schumer sinks Hackett. Then Hillary makes referances to Congress resembling a slave plantation. If this Democrat Debacle doesn't highlight whose running what like a Plantation, I don't know what does.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone READ the poll question? [my emphasis]
ReplyDelete"Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?"
Is everyone incredibly stupid? Take out the reference to censuring the President and you have a 100% question:
"Do you favor or oppose authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?"
This is a perfect example of slanting a polling question to get the result you want to get. Throw in that you BDS folks will "favor" anything that is anti-Bush and one can conclude that this "poll" is meaningless.
That is why aides to the Democratic Sentators (who are sophisticated in how to use polls) advised not paying this poll too much mind.
Feingold is my senator. I am ashamed.
ReplyDeleteGlenn
ReplyDeleteI think you must have hit a nerve. Seems that the troll count has increased significantly the last couple of days. :)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Feingold is my senator. I am ashamed."
As well you should be. Just not for the reasons you think.
Eyes wide open said:
ReplyDeleteYou can guess what Colin Powell did with that letter when it landed on his desk.
I have nothing but contempt for pieces of shit like Colin Powell, sadistic pervert, souless monster and war criminal, deceiver of the UN and a major perpetrator of the lies which "justified" our invasion of Iraq, and all others of his ilk, of whom there apparently are many, then and now.
You should be more careful about your facts:
Colin Powell's Vietnam Fog
by DAVID CORN
Powell has never been implicated in any of the wrongdoing involving My Lai. No evidence ties him to the attempted cover-up.
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/
20010514/corn20010502
Powell was not at the Americal division until 1969. Mai Lai occured in Mar of 68.
"Then, to the north, at the Americal headquarters in Chu Lai, division commander Maj. Gen. Charles Gettys saw a favorable mention of Powell in the Army Times. Gettys plucked Powell from Duc Pho and installed him on the general's own staff at Chu Lai."
And if you check Mai Lai by googling you will also find that no Gen Charles Gettys appears in the chain of command at Americal during the time of the Mai Lai massacre.
I don't condone what happened at Mai Lai even though I understand it, but I also don't believe in blaming those that were not responsible
Hello again PMain!
ReplyDeleteIn response you wrote:
Most politicians use private firms which generally aren’t available to the public. I’d imagine that those are more pointed & telling to the true reflection of the American sentiment.
If a pol (or adviser) wanted their private pollster to ask more pointed, or specific questions, it is likely they'd get that wish. I doubt very much, however, that for the most part an honest private poll would show many differences when compared to an honest public one.
You also wrote:
I totally disagree about the election being stolen & acknowledge certain flaws in the Diebold system, but there are 1,000 times more hacks available for the PC you are using currently & that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is generating your opinions via your less secure computer.
I believe you have missed my point; Presidential elections in the USA seem to be the most important decisions made in any given four year period. The winner controls, literally, hundreds of billions in spending each year, let alone setting social, foreign, montetary, military, and science policies that shape the actions of the federal government. If those machines could be hacked (and many were wide open thanks to Diebold), there is no shortage of people with enough money to hire a tech who could do it.
The contents of my pc are worthless in comparison to the prize that is the Presidency, and so represent a 'target' that isn't noticed, even if it were placed directly in front of the White House. I believe your comment is somewhat disingenuous for making that comparison, as I had already acknowledged clearly that I hold no proof that the 2004 Presidential vote was tampered with. It does make sense that if something valuable can be stolen, people will try, and perhaps some will succeed.
I heavily fault the MSM for ignoring the voting machine standards & certification fights that are ongoing in nearly every state. What could be more valuable than the proper counting of citizens' votes? Maybe if voting machines were blonde girls it would get the attention it deserves.
Paper ballots are undeniably the safer method to accurately count votes, and you couldn't be more wrong on this point. They are counted in front of all parties, and as for your suggestion that 'preset' votes allow for a great deal of fraud - proper management can limit and highlight discrepancies. It's been done for decades, and since I've participated in counting votes, I've seen it first hand. It is a more verifiable (recountable) method than a machine, so it is more reliable.
Want a link to GOP cheaters? I'm sure they're all well intentioned individuals who believe that the ends justifies the means, but subverting a person's constitutional right to vote is way too big a crime to ignore.
http://billionairesforbush.com/cards.php
Do you have a list of Democratic dirty tricksters? How about from this decade? I'd love to see it. Either way they can't possibly compare to RoveCo and the outright violation of the USA's founding principals enshrined in its constitution.
Peace.
girs lobo, I didn't say nor did the article that Colin was involved in My Lai. In fact, the excerpt which I pasted says that it happened before his involvement. That wasn't the point of the article. The events of My Lai were representative of what was consistently going on there, and he knew about it and said nothing. Could I ask you to read the entire series covering his career on The Consortium? It's really hard not to hate him after reading that. However, that is just one series of articles. That alone would not make me form an opinion. But since there are so many other examinations of his role in the war and in American politics that I have read over the years, that just fleshed it out a bit and made me particularly angry.
ReplyDeleteI really advise you to read that. One thing we do know, from his own words, and the facts behind it from words of his senior aids, is that he lied out of cowardice to the UN about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and perhaps no single individual was more responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
He calls that a "painful blot" on his record or something like that.
How about all the innocent civilians who are dead? They don't have the luxury of sitting around looking back on their careers and letting themselves off so lightly.
I think Colin Powell represents one of the more dangerous types of careerists in this world. Blessed with all the outer trappings that inspire admiration, he used those gifts instead to deceive, and pursued personal glory at the expense of morality, and at the cost of the deaths of innocent others.
I don't understand why you say the censure is the worst mistake in 100 years and will save Bush.
ReplyDeleteYou are a busy man and I don't expect a reply, but I'm confused. Were you being sarcastic or what? Were you quoting someone else? As a rule I am not a totally dense person but in this case I must be missing the point.
spark said...
ReplyDeletebart:This entire question presupposes a lie for which you have no evidence. In a nutshell, this question assumes that Mr. Bush is tapping telephone calls between Americans in the US without court warrants.
Where is YOUR evidence whereby you can state anything in that question is a "lie"?
This is not the USSR. The President does not have to prove a negative to prove his innocence from a politically motivated criminal charge.
I am tired of seeing charges of serious crimes being offered here without a shred of evidence to back them up.
If the President was a private citizen rather than a public figure, you would be legally liable for these frivolous and unfounded slanders.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteYesterday, I posted...
This entire question presupposes a lie for which you have no evidence. In a nutshell, this question assumes that Mr. Bush is tapping telephone calls between Americans in the US without court warrants.
Either provide me with evidence of this or admit that the poll you are promoting is a bald faced lie.
Given that you have never provided the evidence to back up this assertion, I will take your silence a tacit admission that you are promoting a slanderous lie.
so, essentially, jay rockafeller is in that 10% of fucktards who can't decide.
ReplyDeletelike rege said, those numbers are essentially the same. Until you can get a difference between those numbers which is greater than 2 times the statistical error, you wont have a plurality either way. Don't get me wrong, I really dont like this fellow and I would love for the censure resolution to go forward.
ReplyDeleteEyes wide open said:
ReplyDeleteThe events of My Lai were representative of what was consistently going on there, and he knew about it and said nothing.
Sorry but I disagree. I did three tours in Viet Nam. The vast majority of people who served there served with both honor and distinction in a difficult combat situation that was complicated by factors there and at home in the U.S.
I resent having all who served in Viet Nam painted with the same brush as those that were involved in the atrocities at Mai Lai. Just as I would resent anyone saying that everyone who serves in Iraq is a monster because of what happened at Abu Ghraib.
I will look at what you suggested reading, but I won't promise to read it all. Having served there myself I am not at all tolerant when I find something written that I know for a fact is a distortion or a lie. (not saying what you suggested to read is ) don't know yet. Do you have a link to it? is it a book? Where can I find it?
If you want to read a book that is actually excellent on what happened in Viet Nam I would suggest you read "A Bright Shining Lie" It's an older book and can easily be found in the used book stores.
As for Colin Powell's testimony before the U.N. His aide that was interviewed on the Discovery channel tells a different story. He says that Colin Powell questioned George Tenet for three days about the evidence that he was to present. According to his aide he asked George Tenet for the last time the day before his testimony if he was 100% sure that the information and evidence to be presented was correct. George Tenet was said to have said yes. Colin Powell reportedly said I hope so, because you are going to be sitting right behind me when I present it.
As of now until presented evidence to the contrary believe that Colin Powell was the only "adult" serving in the Bush admin. I also give him credit as the commander during the first gulf war with advising George Bush senior to not go to Baghdad and unseat Saddam Hussein, for reasons that have become abundantly clear in the light of what is happening there now.
The ones I that I do blame for what is happening now are the Neo-cons. Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, George (it's a slam dunk)Tenet,a few others I can't remember the names of right now and of course George Bush junior.
MMa
Gris Lobo,
ReplyDeleteI am familiar w/ the hacks necessary to change the votes in the Diebold systems & opposed the use of machines that didn’t generate a paper trail in relation to the vote being cast. I am assuming you are referring to either the Thompson or Hursti hacks (the 2 most popular examples used & cited by those opposed to computerized voting machines) & admit that w/ any in-field, first generation release of technology that there are faults inherently bound to show themselves. Regardless of the faults or possible vulnerabilities then, the 2 famously abused as examples hacks or problems I mentioned, have been resolved & that doesn’t necessarily mean that the machines themselves are any less safe than paper ballots now.
Forgive my “ignorance” but since the majority of hacks I have read about & experienced are no longer valid & the court case you refer to have no real bearing on what is currently available & generally no longer in use, I can see where I might be considered “ignorant.” If you’d like to argue the merits of machines that are over 2 years old go ahead, but I am guessing you aren’t & personally it would bore me. I’m sure w/ your expertise you could create the card necessary to hack into the systems in place today, much less the ones used over 2 years ago. I guessing by the smugness of tone in your writing, you can’t because you didn’t refer to the problems raised w/ the Die-Bold machines directly or imply the current questions regarding today’s machines in use & cited a case over 2 years old & totally irrelevant by today’s technology.
As far as what is used in Florida, I could not tell you & we were not arguing regional machine uses, though I seem to remember there being problems there w/ punching holes into ballots or people not being able to read the ballot themselves – which begs the question is it possibly the users themselves? I can you tell specifically what is used in San Diego County – where I have had first hand experience w/ the machines in place & have used in 2 election cycles now. While there may have been issues w/ the data storage including a 4% consistent shift in data, favoring Democrats in most cases (in 2004 & resolved now), the Die-Bold optical scan equipment w/ a paper trail is by far safer than paper ballots alone.
Redwretch,
ReplyDeleteI could care less about a link to Republican abuses or cheaters & could easily provide links of election abuses by the other side & find that sort of arguing delves into nothing more than a side vs. side fight. There is no dialog or anything to be gained in saying “well look at what the other side has done!” to either justify one’s position or make a point. It then becomes meaningless banter, which I can sometimes fall into myself, I must honestly admit. I don’t think that the election in 2000 or 2004 was stolen or any more dirty play was in place than what has gone on in the past. If there was, then all elections are then suspect or illegal - except maybe 1984 where no disputes would seem valid because such a large majority of voters & states went one way. Personally it comes across as sour apples & somewhat childish. I’d rather discuss changes that need to be made that could help insure that abuses aren’t as prevalent, on or for each side & the pros & cons of those changes. I can’t see where anything is to be gained by rehashing something that is so very close to being a conspiracy theory. The election is over, 2 years have passed & it is time to move on.
pmain said:
ReplyDelete"The Diebold machines would have to be networked or connected for someone to somehow hack into them post election."
Those are your own words and untrue as has already been proven by the card hack done by Hursti that you mentioned.
Therefore your statement was indeed misleading either by lack of knowledge or by design. That is of course unless you have factual evidence beyond your own word that in fact the problem has been corrected and the machines are no longer hackable by that method.
Past PMain Summary: "What? Bush broke the law and disobeyed the Constituion, you say? *shrug* Sounds like partisan politics to me, since I don't hear you liberals denouncing Chuck Schumer!
ReplyDeleteToday's PMain: "There is no dialog or anything to be gained in saying 'well look at what the other side has done!'"
Clearly he's just f-ing with you or else tragically blind to his own hypocrisy. Either way, I have to ask--why do you guys debate these obvious cranks in the first place?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteClearly he's just f-ing with you or else tragically blind to his own hypocrisy. Either way, I have to ask--why do you guys debate these obvious cranks in the first place?
I usually ty to avoid it unless I find a statement or statements that are factually false or misleading.
Such as in todays case. I don't want casual browsers that may read his posts to think that the current electronic voting machines are a safe and secure way to vote when in fact I don't believe they are.
In fact I believe we should have paper ballots and U.N. supervised elections with neutral observers after the abuses that have occured during the last two major election cycles. :)
Gris Lobo,
ReplyDeleteHow else does one program multiple machines that need to be configured in the same manner. The best way to program or re-program the firmware sued by the voting machines is by networking them together & reducing the overall time. Why else would the Die-Bold machines have a standard RJ45 jack on them?
My point regarding Schumer was to show that the movement for impeachment, the use of polls & the Censure statements from Feingold were solely politically motivated. If you & some anonymous troll are going to quote me or paraphrase, at least be kind enough to use the context.
Great valid counter points by the way you sure have proven me wrong.
bart was all...
ReplyDeleteThe President does not have to prove a negative to prove his innocence from a politically motivated criminal charge.
An esoteric, abstract and permissive theoretical interpretation of Article II (which was rejected and curtailed once already by Congress) and the AUMF does not constitute a defense against lawbreaking. Proving ones innocence is exactly what (in this case proudly) guilty people do, particularly when that lawbreaking all but heralds infringments on the Bill of Rights. With the past proven and repeated abuses by former Presidents of both affiliations with regard to surveillance, "trust me" doesn't even begin to cut it.
Everybody on your side and too many on the other never trusted the Clintons with charges surrounding the industrial scale fish-trawling expedition that was the Whitewater investigation, and they were innocent from start to finish. Why the hell should anyone left of McCain give Bush anything less than open, aggressive skepticism when he has all but admitted guilt?
You say the US is not the USSR, but frankly your blithe support of oversightless electronic surveillance is perfectly lockstep with such a police state.
Keep it up and you'll have your wish, comrade bartovich.
You know, the more I read about this the more I'm really not sure the President is violating FISA.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the only evidence we have is Bush's and Abu Gonzales' say-so, and you can't exactly take that to the bank...
If you happened to listen to "Wait, wait... Don't Tell Me!", the NPR news quiz show, this last weekend you may have heard a couple of very funny quips from the show's host, Peter Sagal. Perhaps the best was that, "after Feingold introduced his resolution, the only thing behind him was a Ted Kennedy shaped hole in the wall"
ReplyDelete