home

Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:20:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: Raw Story has the full transcript. Analysis: Georgia10 at Daily Kos, Firedoglake and Glenn Greenewald. Sen. Feingold has a fact sheet up on his site detailing the illegalities of the NSA program. Crooks and Liars has the video of Frist's response.

My view: Great move by Feingold. I'm against wasting time and energy on a doomed impeachment mission. The censure motion will continue to heap bad press on Bush and his autocratical presidency. More and more Republicans will fear being aligned with him in 2006. It might even sway some voters.

*******
This morning, on "This Week with George Stephanopolous", Sen Russ Feingold announced he would introduce a censure resolution against President Bush for his warrantless NSA surveillance program. He said the program is tantamount to high crimes and misdemeanors. Crooks and Liars has the video. From the transcript:

Stephanopoulos: Tomorrow in the Senate you'll introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show it to our viewers. It says, "Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans." That is a big step-Why are you taking it now?

Feingold: It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the president can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Missouri Republicans Divided Over Stem Cell Research | To Live and Die in Iraq: One Doctor's Story >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution | 40 comments (40 topical)
    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 09:52:06 AM EST
    From the post:
    That is a big step-Why are you taking it now?
    What Fiengold should have answered. Because I am a far Left Democrat and hate George Bush.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 09:54:46 AM EST
    At the least, this resolution will get the issue back into the news, hopefully front page, were it belongs.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#3)
    by nolo on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    PPJ, Senator Feingold's motivations are probably not unlike those of Congressman John Conyers, who when asked why he had introduced a resolution on December 18 seeking investigation of the Bush Administration for purposes of possible impeachment, said,
    "To take away the excuse," he said, "that we didn't know." So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, "Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?" when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that "somehow it escaped our notice" that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.
    You can read more here.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#4)
    by aw on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    What PPJ would say to Sen. Feingold: Thanks for nothin'. I prefer to live under a Bush dictatorship because I'm a far-right winger and I love him so much.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    I hope Sen Feingold's motion passes. I want to see how Sen. Lieberman votes on the motion. He seems to vote repub.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    That is a big step-Why are you taking it now?
    What Fiengold should have answered: Because there are no Republicans with the balls to do it.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    I hope the Senators of MY State do NOT vote FOR this resolution...

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    Henry - First of all it won't get to a vote. Feingold knows that, so he can fire away knowing it is just a stunt to juice up the base. Nothing wrong with it, but let's understand what it is. nolo - Okay. What Conyer and Feingold should say is:
    Because I am a far Left Democrat and hate George Bush.


    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    From the post: That is a big step-Why are you taking it now? Thanks to Feingold for recognizing that this is a Constitutional crisis: Bush, Rove and their supporters argue that the President can do anything they want in 'a time of war.' Yet they have defined the 'War on Terror' as an endless war. Therefore, they claim the right to operate without any Constitutional checks -- to fail to follow the law, to spy on anyone they think 'might be a terrorist,' to torture anyone they want, and to lie to Congress and the American people. That is Unconstitutional. Therefore the censure that Feingold proposes. I hope that my Senators will support this initiative!

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    And the reason it won't get to a vote and the reason things are the way they are is because the republican majority has abdicated their authority and responsibilities for Congressional Oversight and been nothing but Lap Dogs for this illegitimate trash administration for over five years.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    MS - Problem is, Feingold's claims are untrue. Electronic surveillance is being used on calls from suspected terrorists from outside the US to numbers inside the US and vice versa. If you can prove me wrong in this, please do so. And this is a far cry from your:
    to fail to follow the law, to spy on anyone they think 'might be a terrorist,'
    And the Senator knows that.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#12)
    by nolo on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    PPJ, judging from the way the polls are going, it appears that a lot of Republicans are also far left Democrats who hate George Bush.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Here's what the rethuglican head of the Intel Committee says:
    Critics of the surveillance program, including some leading Republicans, have said it runs afoul of FISA. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, has said that the 1978 law "flatly prohibits any kind of electronic monitoring without a court order."
    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ March 12, 2006 01:27 PM
    MS - Problem is, Feingold's claims are untrue. Electronic surveillance is being used on calls from suspected terrorists from outside the US to numbers inside the US and vice versa.
    If you can prove me wrong in this, please do so.
    Nice try. Evidently, you're living in the wrong Country. That explains it. Clearly, there's a Police State or Military Junta or other form of Dictatorship you'd find more conducive to your distaste for freedom and dissent. Go in Peace. Ya see, you have it exactly backwards. Again. Or should I say still. Either way, you fail to grasp that - at this stage of the game - the burden is on shrub and his band of lying incompetents to prove that what they're doing is justified and is bearing fruit as there's no evidence whatsoever that anything he's said or done has done anything but made matters worse and cost a lot of money. Let's see documented evidence of results or it's time to pull the plug, pack up the tent and send his recycled band of Iran/Contra Cretins back under the rocks from which they slithered. You're gonna have to do a lot better than 'cause you and the WH says so. Neither one of you have a shred of credibility.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#15)
    by Al on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    PPJ:
    Electronic surveillance is being used on calls from suspected terrorists from outside the US to numbers inside the US and vice versa. If you can prove me wrong in this, please do so.
    Huh? Can you prove you're right? Really, PPJ, do you think the public is a bunch of morons? If all the President was doing was to monitor people there was reason to suspect are terrorists, then he wouldn't have a problem with getting a warrant to do so. We don't have to prove anything to you.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    I say if Frist really wants to be pres, bring it to the floor tomorrow morning. Make HRC, Feingold, Barrack Obama,the whole lot of them put up or shut up. To quote JFK, "BRING IT ON!" Vr, Jimbo

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    The suggestion that the set of people who hate George Bush and the set of people who consider themselves to be "far left" (or that someone else labels as "far left") are the same sets is both illogical and irrelevant to this discussion. One does not need to hate anyone to perceive their illegal actions. Neither does one have to hate people who are incompetent -- I'm sure we have all worked with plenty of incompetent people who we liked, but they were just out of their depth in the job. So whether he broke the law by accident or design, people everywhere can see the result, and they disapprove. They don't have to "hate" or be "far left" to do so. So what matters is a third set, namely those who believe that Bush has acted illegally. And polls show that plenty of people in that set are not even Democrats, and certainly not "far left" politically. The majority opinion in 35 states is It is clear that Bush broke the law. If Senators are to represent the opinions of people in their states, they have a duty to express those views in a resolution.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    et al - When the question is asked in the context of what the NSA is doing, the poll flips. Perhaps it is time for the MSM and the Demos to quit lying. charlie, Bush has stated what is being done. He doesn't have to prove it. You have to prove that the NSA is spying on "domestic to domestic" calls. Again. Show us an example. But wait. You can't. Sorry charlie.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    Bush has stated what is being done.
    Well, thats a lie, bush has stated he won't release what he has done.
    He doesn't have to prove it.
    Of course he has to prove it, he works for us.
    You have to prove that the NSA is spying on "domestic to domestic" calls.
    No, we just have to have an actual investigation, because bushco has already admitted they spy on Americans.
    Show us an example. But wait. You can't. Sorry charlie.
    Ahh, the old 'I'm a liar, but you can't prove me wrong' defense. bush admits he spied on Americans w/o a warrant. Even rethugs admit it and want it stopped. Several examples, including admin and congress statements have shown this. Why is this commenter still allowed to lie over and over?

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    sailor - Your use of the "lie" charge has become very well known. Tell me, did you go to class to learn it, or does it come naturally. And no. Bush has stated that he will not reveal details. Biggggg difference. And no. Bush doesn't "work for us." He is on a four year contract unless you can prove some high crimes and misdemeanors, which you can't. (Doesn't that just frost you?) sailor, you like to quote things out of context. Isn't that telling a fib? Most people would think so. Why do you keep doing that?

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#21)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    What Fiengold should have answered. Because I am a far Left Democrat and hate George Bush.
    Wow, that's a new one. Good insight, as usual, PPJ.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:49:09 PM EST
    You forgot a few more classic wingnut spasms, though: He wants to weaken our resolve to win the War on Terror. He wants to embolden our enemies. He's against family values. He's gay. He's fat! (Whoops, wrong guy.)

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#23)
    by Al on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    Wait, since PPJ wants proof that Bush committed a crime, I guess that means he wants an investigation. Is that right, PPJ? Because you understand there can't be proof without an investigation, right? So do you agree there should be an investigation? On the other hand, maybe he's being incoherent again.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 08:40:25 PM EST
    Again?

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    Bush broke the law, because his people did not get a warrant to electronically listen to an AMERICAN. We know the minions are not spying on "really bad" people, because they did not get a warrant. If an American or anyone else is talking to al Qaeda (domestic to abroad or abroad to domestic which is covered by the FISA law), they should be arrested and convicted - NOT JUST LISTENED TO. This can not be done without warrants. It is clear that Bush and his minions are listening to "their" enemies and not "ours", because with all that listening going on - there should have been some action taken. They don't want "their" enemies arrested. They just want to know what they are doing. Feingold said
    The FISA law makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order.
    This is true. Bush said in his SOTU speech
    to prevent another attack - based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute - I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America.
    This breaks the law. It is very simple. All they have to do is get a warrant from the FISA court, which is easier than the regular courts. Jim do you understand that if one end of a conversation is domestic the law states they go through the FISA court. Simple. I admit I hate Bush - big woo. He and his minions have failed miserably at running our country. My question is why in the world do you LOOOVVVEEEE him so much. No matter what he does you TRY to spin a defense for him. You never succeed.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    PPJ, who is logic-challenged: Problem is, Feingold's claims are untrue. Electronic surveillance is being used on calls from suspected terrorists from outside the US to numbers inside the US and vice versa. If so, then why would anyone in the White House object to an investigation that would show your statement to be true? Wouldn't they be eager to show in the face of polls in the basement that they are not as incompetent and corrupt as 62% of Americans believe they are? OTOH, if the president is committing illegal acts, how would you suggest we discover and correct them? Apparently the Republicans are the party without a plan, because they can't think of a way to enforce the Constitution.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    Jim, I don't care what shrub or shooter have stated. I care about what they've done. If anything, history has shown us that if they've stated they've done or plan to do something, they've done or will do something else altogether. They have no credibility whatsoever. Either do their supporters. Those are just simple matters of fact and evidence.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#28)
    by wg on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:21:44 PM EST
    Regardless where you stand politically, there is no question that accusations are serious enough to warrant full investigation. The problem is that the alleged law braking was committed by the same people who are in charge of prosecutorial apparatus. Similarly the balance of power in Congress makes it highly unlikely that they will be able to force Gonzales to nominate a special prosecutor as it was done in Clinton perjury case (Star investigation). So the only hope for sorting out this weighty issue (can presidents act outside the statues) lies with courts. Secret FISA court is by its very nature poorly suited for this. Fortunately we have a number of cases in regular courts where the legality of warrantless NSA spying on US persons is an issue. Hopefully they will be handled promptly and broadly enough to take this issue to the Supreme Court where it properly belongs. (The chances are the Supreme Court will agree that there was a violation of US statutes. The chances are also that at that time John Conyers will be chairing House Judiciary Committee so proper follow up will be possible.) --- Europeans handle these cases so much better. They have special constitutional courts where members of parliaments can bring cases when constitutional issues arise or when they suspect law braking by members of government. In their system there is no need to wait until a suitable case can be found to involve lesser courts first. Congress should give itself similar powers, say if 1/3 of membership thinks an issue exists they should be able to ask the SC to adjudicate. --- GOP-ers like to claim that since not even a single Democrat wants to terminate the program the program is legal. Here is a counterexample. Say you are caught driving w/o license. Nobody will say you shouldn't drive, we say get a license and pay the consequences of driving w/o it first. Otherwise what licenses are good for?

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    Feingold is political granstanding in order to get the base of the left into a fervor. You can keep kicking this can all you want but this issue is dead in so much that Bush will stop doing it or there will be some sort of harm to him. The democrats have already folded on this issue and the only thing left to do is work out the details of some sort of compromise. Bush will allow some oversight through congress or the judiciary but that's it. Get a new issue because this ship has sailed.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:06:04 AM EST
    wg writes:
    Europeans handle these cases so much better.
    Ah yes, the Europeans. So brilliant they managed to kill probably 20 million of their citizens in the 20th century and perhaps that many in the prior 100 years. There is little doubt that their superior culture and political acumen deserve our close attention. BTW - I loved this comment by you.
    Congress should give itself similar powers, say if 1/3 of membership thinks an issue exists they should be able to ask the SC to adjudicate.
    WOW! Congress can not "give itself" the power to ask the SC to do anything, even if 1/3 want to. wg, you are an European who has no concept of our Constitution, or an American who has no concept. I hope it is the former. I shudder to think an American thinks Congress can do such. charlie, Bush has stated that the NSA is spying on calls to/from international locations known/suspected to be terrorist locations. The American people approve of this. He has not stated that the NSA is spying on purely domestic telephone calls/data without warrants. When asked, which is what the Left/Demos do, the American people do not approve of purely domestic spying. They then run in leftward circles screaming, "See! See!" charlie, this is exactly like someone asking if "Bob" should be allowed to rob banks. Of course they will say, "No." In the meantime, of course, "Bob" has not robbed a bank, but many people think he has, just because of the question being asked repeatedly and in every media source the Left/Demos can find. It is called "smearing." You are aware of these facts, I am aware of these facts. But sooner or later the American people will say, okay, where is the proof that the NSA tapped domestic only calls? And the answer is? Repack - The objection has been that by having an investigation we will expose our technology and thus lose the advantage that our technology brings. Technology is all we have, If we lose that edge will we either lose the war, or at some point in that war, go nuclear because our troops will be so badly outnumbered. You should remember the old phrase:
    Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
    debbiehamil - The answer to your question is simple. It is not illegal to wire tap international calls from/to the US. Al - Well, there you go again putting words in my mouth. I don't want an investigation. I see nothing wrong beyond the NYT publishing classified information. et al - I wait your proof that purely domestic calls have been listened to without a warrant. The silence is always deafening when we get to that point.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    charlie, Bush has stated that the NSA is spying on calls to/from international locations known/suspected to be terrorist locations. The American people approve of this.
    He has not stated that the NSA is spying on purely domestic telephone calls/data without warrants. When asked, which is what the Left/Demos do, the American people do not approve of purely domestic spying. They then run in leftward circles screaming, "See! See!" charlie, this is exactly like someone asking if "Bob" should be allowed to rob banks. Of course they will say, "No." In the meantime, of course, "Bob" has not robbed a bank, but many people think he has, just because of the question being asked repeatedly and in every media source the Left/Demos can find. It is called "smearing." You are aware of these facts, I am aware of these facts. But sooner or later the American people will say, okay, where is the proof that the NSA tapped domestic only calls? And the answer is?
    That it ain't evidence. "Bush has stated" is not only NOT evidence. It's a pretty good sign that just the opposite is indicated. Bush has been proved to be a serial liar at every juncture. At no time has there been any indication that he's told the truth with respect to anything concerning Iraq in particular and the so-called WOT in general. Any responsible Congressional Oversight would've brought Congressional Investigations 4 years ago and Impeachment Charges 2 years ago, but with the republicans controlling both houses of Congress, clearly, we don't have that. That's why so many are under investigation, under indictment or in jail. They're more interested in feathering their nests than the welfare of the Country, but what else is new. Republicans were never big on National Security of Defense. They just talked a good game. The fact remains that there's no evidence that any of shrub's domestic wiretapping or torture at abu ghraib or gitmo or the secret black sites or Lackawana or anything have yielded anything but noise. It's long past high time he went before a Judge and justified his sorry butt. Put up or shut up. He's not above the Law.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    The democrats have already folded on this issue and the only thing left to do is work out the details of some sort of compromise. Bush will allow some oversight through congress or the judiciary but that's it.
    Get a new issue because this ship has sailed.
    Gee, I haven't seen the paper today. Did the Reichstag burn down over the weekend? Nice try, slado. He hasn't been given dictatorial powers yet and it looks like he missed his shot. Now that ship has sailed. Always a pleasure.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    Jim, you didn't answer my question
    My question is why in the world do you LOOOVVVEEEE him so much.
    Here is a question. What do you think the FISA law covers? To eavesdrop domestically on a call from outside the US you need a FISA warrant. To eavesdrop domestically on a call going outside the US you need a FISA warrant. When one end of a call is in the US, you need a FISA warrant. That is what the FISA law is all about. As usual, you are wrong. It is illegal to wire tap international calls from/to the US without a warrant. I have heard no one saying that Bush is spying on domestic/domestic calls without warrants. When you see the words Americans - in spying on Americans without a warrant - they mean that one end of the call is in AMERICA. Use your brain.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#34)
    by Al on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    PPJ, watch me cut and paste:
    Wait, since PPJ wants proof that Bush committed a crime, I guess that means he wants an investigation. Is that right, PPJ?
    PPJ:
    Al - Well, there you go again putting words in my mouth. I don't want an investigation. I see nothing wrong beyond the NYT publishing classified information.
    See? It's easy. I didn't say you wanted an investigation (putting words in your mouth), I asked if you wanted an investigation. I didn't think you did, but I wanted to point out the logical inconsistency of your position when you demand proof and you deny the means to get it at the same time. But apart from all these logical niceties, Jim, your guy has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. He's just about as believable as Nixon was when he proclaimed "I am not a crook." If there ever is a proper investigation of this, your guy is going down in flames, PPJ, and we both know it.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#35)
    by aw on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    My question is why in the world do you LOOOVVVEEEE him so much.
    PPJ: I love him, I love him, I love him and where he goes, I'll follow, I'll follow, I'll follow I will follow himmmmmm Follow him wherever heeee may gooooo

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:07:05 PM EST
    The objection has been that by having an investigation we will expose our technology and thus lose the advantage that our technology brings. Of course it has. But only a moron would buy that from the same people who have been caught lying about...everything that could ever be checked for truth. For the hard of hearing, TERRORISTS ASSUME THAT THEIR CALLS ARE BEING LISTENED TO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. My black employees can have a conversation -- in English -- over a telephone, and you would never have a clue what they are talking about. I presume native speakers of another language can do the same. I swear, I could run the pigeon-drop on you every afternoon, and you would never catch on. I'll bet you had a "kick me" sign taped to your back every single day of high school and nevr figured it out. How many times can you be fooled in a row? You must be that guy Lincoln was talking about, some of the people all of the time.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:40:51 PM EST
    Here's what another anti-American, terrorist-hugging leftist had to say about this issue:
    The Administration says talking about this(the NSA monitoring-ed.)tips off the enemy. Now, the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its' advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar. In 1978 we passed FISA. That alerted them, if any alerting was needed, that we were indeed listening in. Passing the Patriot act alerted them what we were going to do or not do.
    George Will, 5/12/2005 on This Week with George..... edger, I just saw your greeting on that thread to me. I'm sorry I didn't respond. Thanks for thinking about me

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:33:32 PM EST
    Aw, come to think of it, I don't think Jim's had a thought since Lesley Gore had a hit. He's just a 1964 kinda guy.

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:13:12 AM EST
    Charlie, I brought some Velveeta and you no doubt have some whine for our friend at table six, and then we can sit back and have a discreet quiet laugh while the greatest poker player who's never been in the World Series of Poker natters away...............

    Re: Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:52:29 AM EST
    I don't know DA, I'm worried about our boy. The pressure's gettin' to him. That pot gets too big,..., I mean, c'mon, we are talkin' about the man voted most likely to blurt out GO FISH! under pressure 3 years runnin'.

    Feingold to Introduce Bush Censure Resolution | 40 comments (40 topical)