3.17.2006
Spin, not Substance: Are the Media Scared of an Informed Electorate?
Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle cropped a quote from Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) to falsely suggest that Reid did not agree with Feingold that the warrantless domestic wiretapping is illegal. Angle omitted a portion of Reid's remarks -- made during a March 14 press conference -- in which the senator stated that "most legal scholars around the country think that what is going on [under Bush's program] is illegal," as well as an earlier remark from the same press conference, in which Reid said he personally believes the program is "illegal and unconstitutional." Angle's report marked the second consecutive day that a reporter for Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume cropped a quote from one of Feingold's Democratic colleagues to falsely suggest that Feingold is alone in having legal objections to a program that even many Senate Republicans agree violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Angle himself previously cropped a remark by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) to suggest that Kennedy did not believe the program is illegal.
I'll introduce you to a media watchdog you may be unfamilar with. Media Matters for America shows you what we are up against media-wise concerning Mr Bush and minions in general and Mr Feingold's censure motion in particular. The truth will sink Mr Bush- Fox News wants to make you think their way, not let you judge for yourself , one of the hallmarks of Democracy. This is nothing new for the "news" outlets of Rupert Murdoch:
If a TV program covers forbidden ground, we will have no choice but to delete it from our broadcast.
In the above quote he was refering to broadcasting in China; but you remember the study of Fox News and citizen misperception, don't you?
WASHINGTON -- It's official -- watching Fox News makes you ignorant.
To be precise, researchers from the Program on International Policy at the University of Maryland found that those who relied on Fox for their news were more likely than those who relied on any other news source to have what the study called "significant misperceptions" about the war in Iraq.
Pollsters asked more than 9,000 Americans about three commonly held canards: that the United States had hard evidence Saddam Hussein had been working closely with al-Qaida; that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; and that world public opinion was in favor of the U.S.-led war.
Overall, a scary 60 percent believed at least one of these fallacies. Eight percent believed all three.
The most commonly held was -- unsurprisingly -- the Iraq/al-Qaida link. Fully 48 percent of respondents believed this. The totals for the other two were in the 20 percent to 25 percent range.
But among those who get their news from Fox, 80 percent had at least one "misperception" and 45 percent -- nearly six times the overall average -- had all three.
Here's a page outlining instances of fibbery concerning the Bush illegal spy that show a great many media outlets are willfully lying to "We the People".
Inform your neighbors as well as your legisltors that you know the facts about the Bush illegal wiretapping.
3/17/2006
|
Commemorate Bush Carnage By Doing Good
The American Friends Service Committee has a webpage with utilities that will help you find nearby gatherings that will commemorate the third anniversay of the attack on Iraq.
Take heart in the fact that you are not alone; we ARE America, we are not merely a "special interest group" or disconnected serfs termed "consumers". Talk to people about the Feingold censure movement, enjoy the sunny day- seems to me the best way to commemorate the fallen, the futily killed, is to feel alive, build community and work towards ends that will keep such injustice in our names from happening again.
Senators and Congress people from both parties are responsible for the carnage in Iraq and the world made less safe, less free.
Supporting Feingold, censure as a step to impeachment, is a way they can acknowledge this, a sort of saying "sorry". Never enough, of course, but ideally, lesson learned.
Get those letters and calls out there, make your voice heard.
Seems to me that Feingold is offering "We the People" a way to break the hypnotic spell of the media, to show that we can effect change in a money run system; that the system can be salvaged. Now that will galvanize the party.
I wonder: because the majority of them are complicit in the Iraq War, are their egos so big as to not allow them to do what is right?
It is a bit disheartening to hear it talked about as just politics though- commentators seem to gloss the whole issue of Bush trampling the Constitution.
Re-read the text of Feingold's motion to censure. It makes sense.
3/17/2006
|
3.16.2006
Feingold: Correct on Substance- Weigh the Facts, Chuck the Spin
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) Are publicly supporting Senator Feingold. Have you called/written/faxed your Legislators?
Looks like the David of "We the People" confronting the Goliath of corporate media.
Consider this ending snippet from The Wall Street Journal editorial page:
Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.
Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.
The papers of note are striving to shape the censure debate, taking it from the realm of the specific, Presidential power and over reach versus our Constitution to more abstract realms.
The motion of censure is with the question: Is Mr Bush fulfilling his oath to uphold the US Constitution as he has sworn to do. As Senator Feingold stated on the Senate Floor:
The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.
All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.
It is clear to me, an average working class guy, what the issue is. Why would the Wall Street Journal spin it, and not answer Mr Feingold and "We the People" by refuting the substance of the censure issue.
It CANNOT.
There is a lot to read to keep up with issues though.
WSJ, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, are our bellwethers for if censure is the correct action to take. If they talk around the issue at hand it shows what anyone who reads deeply and thinks for themselves has figured out; these media outlets lack a factual leg to stand on and will resort to utilizing misdirection and bamboozlement to shape your opinions for you. Let the "experts" do your thinking.
We are the Government (mouthpieces), we are here to help you (think the way we'd like you to).
Helen Thomas wrote about this just the other day in a piece aptly titled "Lapdogs of the Press".
After all, two of the nation's most prestigious newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, had kept up a drumbeat for war with Iraq to bring down Dictator Saddam Hussein. They accepted almost unquestioningly the bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the dubious White House rationale that proved to be so costly on a human scale, not to mention a drain on the Treasury.
Remembering their past track records,(Judith Miller, anyone? )you can see who their reportage benefits. Judge for yourself- are they supporting a vital and lively Democracy in our United States, or, do they seem to speak for the elite in power? The corporate entities that make up their advertisers are the group I'm refering to. Not to mention the politicos who's favor they need curry to get "scoops", to get interviews in high places to keep their papers in competition with each other for the eyes of readers, which keep their advertising rates high, which keeps them succesful and solvent. They need to remain friendly to the halls of power for access. Hey, it's just business sense.
The halls of power? They are Republican. They are corporate.
"a smidgen of evidence"
We'll get back to The Times finally reporting on Bush domestic spying. I offer you up some evidence (more than a smidgen) that the Administration is aware it is shredding the Constitution.
According to the Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, refused to sign on to the continuation of the secret program in 2004 amid concerns about its legality and oversight. At the time, Comey was serving in place of then Attorney General John Ashcroft while Ashcroft was hospitalized for a medical condition. Comey’s refusal prompted senior Presidential aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to visit Ashcroft in his hospital room to grant the approval. The Times reports Ashcroft expressed reluctance to sign on to the program.
Newsweek says:
Miffed that Comey, a straitlaced, by-the-book former U.S. attorney from New York, was not a "team player" on this and other issues, President George W. Bush dubbed him with a derisive nickname, "Cuomo,".
Other issues like condoning torture. But that is another issue. The Bush Hydra...
I recommend you read "Palace Revolt: They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it. A NEWSWEEK investigation." This article is different for the one highlighted above.
The Times:Illegal Domestic Spying
The Times sat on this NSA domestic spying information for a year. (Article citeds' co-authors recieved a Goldsmith award, for journalism which promotes more ethical conduct of government today ) A Year. Until one of their writers, James Risen, was coming out with a book that mentioned it.
Here is a bit of what the book " State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" has to say:
The NSA is now tapping into the heart of the nation's telephone network through direct access to key telecommunications switches that carry many of America's daily phone calls and e-mail messages. Several government officials who know about the NSA operation have come forward to talk about it because they are deeply troubled by it, and they believe that by keeping silent they would become complicit in it. They strongly believe that the president's secret order is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches, and some of them believe that an investigation should be launched into the way the Bush administration has turned the intelligence community's most powerful tools against the American people
further on
In order to overturn the system established by FISA in 1978, and bring the NSA back into domestic wiretaps without court approval, . administration lawyers have issued a series of secret legal opinions, similar to those written in support of the harsh interrogation tactics used on detainees captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration legal opinions that supported the use of harsh interrogation techniques on al Qaeda detainees have, of course, proven controversial, drawing complaints from allies, objections from civil liberties advocates, and court challenges. The administration faced its first serious legal rebuke in June 2004 when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the administration's effort to hold "enemy combatants" without a hearing. The court warned that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president."
there's more
"There is nothing explicit in the Patriot Act for NSA," said one former congressional aide who was involved in the drafting of the Patriot Act, but who was unaware of the NSA operation. "Their surveillance is supposed to be directed outside the United States." It is now clear that the White House went through the motions of the public debate over the Patriot Act, all the while knowing that the intelligence community was secretly conducting a far more aggressive domestic surveillance campaign. "This goes way beyond the Patriot Act," said one former official familiar with the NSA operation. President Bush's secret order has given the NSA the freedom to employ extremely powerful computerized search programs -- originally intended to scan foreign communications -- in order to scrutinize large volumes of American communications. It is difficult to know the precise size of the NSA operation, but one indication of its large scale is the fact that administration officials say that one reason they decided not to seek court-approved search warrants for the NSA operation was that the volume of telephone calls and e-mails being monitored was so big that it would be impossible to get speedy court approval for all of them. It is certainly true that when the FISA court was created, Congress never envisioned that the NSA would be involved in a massive eavesdropping operation inside the United States. No one in the 1970s could have predicted the enormous growth of telecommunications traffic in the United States, or the degree to which Americans would become addicted to digital, electronic communications. Today, industry experts estimate that approximately 9 trillion e-mails are sent in the United States each year. Americans make nearly a billion cell phone calls and well over a billion land line calls each day. NSA's technical prowess, coupled with its long-standing relationships with the nation's major telecommunications companies, has made it easy for the agency to eavesdrop on large numbers of people in the United States without their knowledge. Following President Bush's order, U.S. intelligence officials secretly arranged with top officials of major telecommunications companies to gain access to large telecommunications switches carrying the bulk of America's phone calls. The NSA also gained access to the vast majority of American e-mail traffic that flows through the U.S. telecommunications system. The identities of the companies involved have been kept secret. Unknown to most Americans, the NSA has extremely close relationships with both the telecommunications and computer industries, according to several government officials. Only a very few top executives in each corporation are aware of such relationships or know about the willingness of the corporations to cooperate on intelligence matters.
Domestic Spying Pre-9/11?
Elsewhere Jason Leopold states:
The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups. Let's Get Back To Censure
Mr Feingold and his associates in this endeavor to bring about justice are tapping into the energy of the populace- chances are a majority of people you have spoken with have seen the Bush administration as one that has used innuendo and deceit to accomplish its aims. Anyone who reads knows there was no Iraq-9/11 link etc, etc, etc. These techniques are echoed today--
President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq. Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir." We need to act. Censure is a good beginning. Ignoring "the man behind the curtain" is costing human lives.
A letter, a call of support to your legislators; actions that take a few moments but may slow or even stop the Bush juggernaut. Censure is a start.
Happy Saint Patricks Day
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I share Yeats blood, being Irish in descent. "We the People"- the falconer. Do we have the love of country, the passion for life, the life of all, to direct the eagle of our nation to be just, to live up to our founders vision?
I think we do. Let the good, the just exercise their passion to stem the tide of Neoconservative/Bush administration hate. Let our convictions and values shine.
Let the folks in power hear you. For the good of our nation and for the innocent of the world
3/16/2006
|
3.15.2006
Consider Feingold- Call Your Legislators to Their Duty
* Today Senator Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa has signed on as a co-sponsor since this was posted this AMI’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.-- Senator Russ Feingold William Greider has this to say about Senator Feingold:
Senator Russ Feingold is an embarrassment to the US Senate, which makes him an authentic hero of the Republic. The Wisconsin senator gets up and says out loud what half of the country is thinking and talks about every day. This President broke the law and lied about it; he trashed the Constitution and hides himself in the flag. Feingold asks: Shouldn't the Senate say something about this, at least express our disapproval? He introduces a resolution of censure and calls for debate.
Well, that tore it in the august chamber of lawmakers. Democrats scurried away like scared rats. And Republicans chortled at the thought. You want to censure our warrior President, the guy who defends us every day against terrorist attacks? Let's have a vote right now, the Republican leader demanded. Yuk, yuk.
The joke is obvious to everyone in the Washington club--politics trumps principle, especially when it is about something as esoteric as the Constitution. It's a nonstory, the club agrees, not a constitutional crisis.
Politics trumps principle. Says it all, I suppose. I've re-read what senator Feingold had to say about censure a few times. I ask you, doesn't it ring true?
March 13, 2006 Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush. The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions. All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong. And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.
Impotent Elite Lickspittle Lackies dominate the Democratic party.
But they have shown us that, repeatedly, haven't they? Gore's roll-over during the first tainted Bush election. He's speaking out a bit now about the danger our democracy faces. Kerry's ... Christ Almighty, just considering what a nutless wonder he was as a candidate sickens me, breaks my heart. "Anybody But Bush"- remember that?
Like me you might have had hope against hope that there would be some spine, some grit shown by these people that are supposed to be against Mr Bush and his neoconservatively driven administration and policies. Craven politics as usual. Excuse the reference again but NUTLESS. Self serving.
The failure of the Democrats to call the President to task is shameful.
I know that all politicians in the two Houses of Congress are beholden to money, to lobbyists, that they are concerned with the costly process of getting re-elected. The key to the Legislative value system. Money. And money and career trump values and duty every time, nowadays. Mr Feingold is correct: our paid legislative representives have forgotten their oath to uphold the Constitution.
This concept of "Unitary Presidency" used to be called dictatorship.
At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right. This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged. To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.
What the "don't rock the boat" folks of both parties want you to believe is that this call to uphold the Constitution is political grandstanding. They want you to ignore the fact that Mr Bush is breaking the law. They want you to forget that they (both arms of the Uniparty) have given the constitutionally mandated power to declare war to the President. The want you to forget how they voted on the Patriot act.
They want you to forgot this inconvenient piece of reality, brought to you by Tom Daschle:
On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
Read the full Washington Post article. Lies, misdirection- think about it. Stands their argument for domestic "war authority" on it's head, quite clearly. Mr Feingold is highlighting one aspect of a multifaceted grab for power, as he is sworn to do. Upholding the Constitution.
On the left I've heard said that Feingold is leading the party to take the easy way out, Mr Bush deserves impeachment. Mr Conyers in the House is pushing for impeachment and getting some support, read the 273 page .pdf document The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception,Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War for an accurate and inclusive primer on how American policy and actions have been malformed by the current Bush administration. Yup, 273 pages .pdf- educate yourself, you're a citizen.
I'll be printing it out.
Feingold doesn't see censure as trumping impeachment, but acknowledges the action as a necessary one that could, after investigation lead to impeachment.
As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances:
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president’s actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.
This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.
That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law.
The Legislators are using smoke and mirrors to deflect their rolling belly up to the triumph of politics as usual, both partisan poltics and politics of self gain, to yet again abdicate their responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
Weigh the evidence. Think for yourself. Call them on it.
Senator Feingold is a"Senate Maverick" a man calling us to stand on principle. Many Democratic Party pols are not speaking out, are hiding from the press, claiming ignorance- waiting for poll numbers?
As Greider goes on to say in his excellent Nation article:
The real story--naturally overlooked by cynical editors--is that an honest truth-teller is loose in the fun house and disturbing the clowns. Man bites dog, senator defends Constitution.
Feingold has a reputation for such quaint deviations--a naïf who voted against the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. On principle! How naïve is that? He talks like he might run for President, yet he seems tone-deaf to the artful resonances of power politics--the cutesy games insiders play and the press cherishes. Hey, what is this Constitution thing anyway?
The senator is peculiar in this era of decaying democracy. There was a time, believe it or not, when his type was a familiar presence in the Senate. I think of Sam Ervin of North Carolina, a conservative Democrat on most matters but always a lion on the Constitution. Ervin is remembered for his heroic role in the investigation of Watergate. Old-timers remember that before Watergate, Senator Sam led courageous hearings on the illegal spying on civilians by the Army and FBI (Democratic scandals predating Nixon).
When liberalism was in flower, the Senate always included a good mix of such maverick voices. They were party loyalists but departed on principle in ways that sometimes kept the majority honest. Voted against the President's war in Vietnam and never let up. Ernest Gruening of Alaska, Wayne Morse of Oregon, Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee. Phil Hart of Michigan was his own one-man reform party. George McGovern of South Dakota was another.
We might ask why the Republican Party has not produced a similar collection of independent thinkers. We might mourn the fact that pursuing a career in the Senate no longer seems compatible with stubborn self-directed character. The media, instead of kissing off Feingold as a dumb politician, might do a little honest reporting on the substance of what he is saying.
For the moment, however, let us celebrate the man. The club will try to shove him in a closet and forget his little unpleasantness ever happened. I hope they fail and other Dems are properly embarrassed. Amid scandals in high places, Senator Feingold is fresh air. The country should rise up and sing. Links added after posting
3/15/2006
|
3.14.2006
Call Democrats/Republicans to Support Feingold
It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship--Sandra Day O'Connor
Incident upon incident of Bush administration's misrule is piling up in the public eye, to be neatly forgotten.Russ Feingold has the bull by the horns. His move to censure President Bush upholds our Constitution (read the Senators well crafted statement) and I think offers a sort of litmus test; would you like someone who lacks the backbone to hold the President to his oath and the houses of Congress to their duties as elected representitive of "We the People"?
Mr Frist deems this wrong in time of war:
I think it’s a crazy political move and I think it in part is a political move because here we are, the Republican Party, the leadership in the Congress, supporting the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, who is out there fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and the people who have sworn, have sworn to destroy Western civilization and all the families listening to us.
The ethically challenged Mr Frist shows an ignorance of history- another President was called to impeachment hearings for domestic wiretapping on a much smaller scale, during a different quagmire - excuse me - war. And think about it: Mr Bush "is not out there fighting" anyone. He has spent 365 days vacationing in Crawford Texas- all Americans should get the equivalent of a years paid time off scattered through each five. Vacationing pre 9/11. Vacationing during Katrina. Mr Frist, if anything the "War President" has been Missing In Action.
Offense being the best defense, Frist was pushing for a vote right away yesterday. Polticians need time to talk, to rally. This is a big break from the usual butt kissing, folding, converging to the Republican discipline- think Joe Lieberman, et all. A bit of time, and our phone calls may see Bush censured- a lesson of hope for all Americans- we have no King!
(If the poll watching, sinecure insecure politicos will put what is right before elite politics-as-usual. yup, I have BIG hopes) Hey, I'm Progressive. A bit cynical perhaps, but past performance, recent history have colored me that way. I have hope.
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
The above quote the title from a FindLaw Writ article by John Dean, it is very illuminating concerning the issue of warrentless spying.
Mr Bush has poll ratings consistant with those of Mr Nixon during his second term, low 30's...
Members of both parties have said that Mr Bush is working outside the law.
I've written this on the fly. This WikiPedia page can help you do your own research. I need to call some of those folks who write me constantly asking for money for the Democratic Party to ask them why they are not supporting Mr Feingold, our Constitution and the future of our nation as we know it.
Where's the grit and backbone of the "opposition" party?
title change, minor editing since posted 2 hours ago
3/14/2006
|
|
|
